Philippus
Philippus, a king of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great
Could not find Philippo in Logeion dictionaries.
Philippo Proper-name noun: masculine ablative singular, Proper-name noun: masculine dative singular of Philippus
- Philip, the name of several kings of Macedonia, the most celebrated of whom was the son of Amyntas, and father of Alexander the Great, Cic. Off. 1, 26, 90; Nep. Eum. 1, 4; id. Reg. 2, 1; Just. 7, 4 sq.; cf. Plaut. Aul. 4, 8, 4 (704).—
- B Transf., a gold coin struck by King Philip, a Philippe d'or, Plaut. Bacch. 4, 8, 27 (868); so id. ib. 4, 8, 38 (879); 41 (882); 78 (919) al.; Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 234; and, in gen., of other coins, Aus. Ep. 5, 19.—
- II Hence,
- A Phĭlippēus (collat. form Phĭlippĭus, Plaut. Poen. 1, 1, 38 (166)), a, um, adj., = Φιλίππειος, of or belonging to Philip, king of Macedonia, Philippian: Philippeus sanguis, i.e. Cleopatra, because the Egyptian sovereigns were descended from Philip of Macedon, Prop. 3, 9, 39 (4, 10, 40): Em tibi talentum argenti: Philippeum aes est, Plaut. Truc. 5, 1, 60 (952): Philippeus nummus, a gold coin struck by Philip, of the value of twenty drachmae, a Philippe d'or: nummi Philippei aurei, Plaut. As. 1, 3, 1 (153); Liv. 39, 7: Philippeum aurum, from which the Philippe d'or was struck, Plaut. Curc. 3, 70 (440) al.— Hence, absol.: Phĭlippēum, i, n., a gold coin struck by Philip, Varr. ap. Non. 78, 11. —And, transf., of other coins: argenteos Philippeos minutulos, Val. Imp. ap. Vop. Aur. 9.—
- B Phĭlippĭcus, a, um, adj., = Φιλιππικός, of or belonging to Philip, Philippic: Philippicum talentum argenti, Plaut. Truc. 5, 1, 60 (952): aurum, a gold-mine of Philip's in Macedonia, Plin. 37, 4, 15, § 57. —Cicero's orations against Antony were called orationes Philippicae, after those of Demosthenes against King Philip, Cic. Att. 2, 1, 3.—Also sing. collect.: Phĭlippĭca, ae, f.: divina Philippica, Juv. 10, 125.
nomen ~i utrique testimonio convenit quod dicitur climax
hic quoque commemorat metrorum comma Philippum, / quem pius aethrali ditavit gratia Christus
~us ‥ in regales, ubicumque aderant, ferventissime deseviens
Philipo Burton x li.
devotissime domine regine ~e consortis ejusdem [sc. Edwardi tertii ]
regina Phelippa peperit filium suum primogenitum apud Wodestok et vocatur Edwardus
~os, i. nummos bizanteos vel mancones, i. denarios aureos,bizantas
tartarones quippe quadratos ex cupro nummos Traces vocitant, de quibus ‥ provinciales mercimonia sua sicut ~is aut bizantiis actitant
quid prodest diviti cum inpregnaverit / philippis forulos, cum opes auxerit, / cum se pecunia suffarcinaverit, / si mortis missile marca non referit?
et forte leuca dicitur a ‘leucon’, quod in Scythica lingua interpretatur ~us ‥
Philippus, os lampadis
- 1. Philippus II, zoon v. Amyntas, vader v. Alexander de Grote, regeerde van 359 tot 336 v. Chr.; meton. (poët.) door hem geslagen gouden munt met een waarde v. 20 drachmen; — adj. Philippēus, a, um [nummus] en Philippicus, a, um [orationes de redevoeringen tegen Philippus van de Athener Demosthenes en de redevoeringen tegen Antonius van Cicero];
- 2. Philippus V, koning in 221—179 v. Chr., vader v.d. laatste Macedonische koning Perseus.
(Φίλιππος), minor historical personages.
1. A citizen of Crotona, son of Butacides. Having married the daughter of Telys, king of the rival state of Sybaris, and being obliged in consequence to leave his country, he sailed away to Cyrene; and, when Dorieus, the Spartan prince, son of Anaxandrides, set forth from the Libyan coast, on his Sicilian expedition, Philippus accompanied him with a galley, equipped and manned at his own expence, and was slain in Sicily in a battle with the Carthaginians and Egestaeans. He was the finest man of his time, and a conqueror at Olympia; by virtue of which qualifications the Egestaeans worshipped him after his death as a hero. (Hdt. 5.47; comp. above, Vol. I. p. 1066b.)
2. Son of Alexander I. of Macedonia, and brother of Perdiccas II., against whom he rebelled in conjunction with Derdas. The rebels were aided by the Athenians, in consequence of which Perdiccas instigated Potidaea, as well as the Chalcidians and Bottiaeans, to revolt from Athens. When the Athenian generals arrived, Philip acted with them in the campaign of B. C. 432. He seems to have diedbefore B. C. 429, in which ear we find his son Amyntas contesting the throne with Perdiccas, and aided in his attempt by Sitalces, king of the Odrysian Thracians. (Thuc. 1.57, &100.2.95, 100.) [See above, Vol. I. p. 154b.; and comp. Clint. F. H. vol. ii. p. 225, where a different account is given of Amyntas.]
3. A Lacedaemonian, was sent by the Peloponnesians to Aspendus, in B. C. 411, with two gallies, to take charge of the Phoenician fleet, which Tissaphernes had promised them. But Philippus sent notice front Aspendus to Mindarus, the Spartan admiral, that no confidence was to be placed in Tissaphernes ; and the Peloponnesian fleet accordingly whither Pharnabazus had invited them. (Thuc. 8.87, 99.)
4. A Theban, was one of the members of the oligarchical government established at Thebes after the seizure of the Cadmeia by Phoebidas in B. C. 382. In B. C. 379, on the night when Pelopidas and his fellow-exiles carried their enterprise for the Archias were slain by the conspirators at a banquet at the house of Phyllidas. (Xen. Hell. 5.4. §§ 2, &c.; comp. Plut. Pel. 9, &c. de Gen. Soc. 24, 26, 29, 32.) [E.E]
5. Son of Amyntas, a Macedonian officer in the service of Alexander the Great, who commanded one of the divisions of the phalanx at the battle of the Granicus. (Arr. Anab. 1.14.3.) His name does not subsequently appear in the campaigns of Alexander, at least so that it can be distinctly identified but so many officers in the army bore the name of Philip that it is frequently impossible to say who is tle particular person spoken of. Droysen conjectures (Hellenism. vol. i. p. 418. not.) that it is this Philip who was the father of Magas (Paus. 1.7.1), but there is certainly no proof of this, and the expression of Pausanias, that the latter was a man of ordinary condition and ignoble birth, is unfavorable to this supposition.
6. Son of Machatas, an officer in the service of Alexander the Great, who was appointed by him in B. C. 327 satrap of India, including the provinces westward of the Hydaspes. (Arr. Anab. 5.8. 5.) After the conquest of the Malli and Oxydracae, these tribes also were added to his government. (Id. 6.14.7.) But after the departure of Alexander from India, Philip was assassinated by a conspiracy formed among the mercenary troops under his command, B. C. 326. (Id. 6.27.3 Curt. x. 1.20.)
Droysen considers this Philip to have been the father of Antigonus, the king of Asia. (Hellenisrn. vol. i. p. 43. not.) It is certain at least that they were both of the race of the princes of Elymiotis.
7. Son of Menelaus, a Macedonian officer who held the command of the Thessalian cavalry, and that of the other Greek auxiliaries in the service of Alexander. We find him mentioned as holding this post, and rendering important services both at the battles of the Granicus and Arbela; and although the greater part of the Thessalian horse were suffered to return to Greece, he continued to accompany Alexander with the remainder, and is again mentioned during the advance into Bactria. (Arr. Anab. 1.15.4, 3.11.15, 25.6; Curt. 4.13.29, 6.6.35.)
8. Son of Balacrus, an officer in the service of Alexander who commanded one taxis or division of the phalanx at the battle of Arbela. (Diod. 17.57.) This is the only time his patronymic is mentioned; but there can be little doubt that he is the same person who held a similar command at the passage of the Granicus, three years before. (Arr. Anab. 1.14.5.) It is also not improbable that he is the same with the following.
9. Satrap of Sogdiana, to which government he was first appointed by Alexander himself in B. C. 327. He retained his post, as did most of the satraps of the more remote provinces, in the arrangements which followed the death of the king (B. C. 323); but in the subsequent partition at Triparadeisus, B. C. 321, he was assigned the government of Parthia instead. (Dexipp. apud Phot. p. 64b.; Arrian. ib. p. 71. b.; Diod. 18.3, 39.) Here he remained until 318, when Python, who was then seeking to establish his power over all the provinces of the East, made himself master of Parthia, and put Philip to death. (Diod. 19.14.)
10. A Macedonian officer, who was left by Alexander the Great in command of the garrison at near the Indus. (Arr. Anab. 4.28.10.)
11. One of the friends of Alexander the Great, who was sent by him to consult the oracle of Ammon concerning the payment of divine honours to Hephaestion. (Diod. 17.115.)
12. A brother of Lysimachus (afterwards king of Thrace) in the service of Alexander, who died of fatigue while accompanying the king in pursuit of the enemy, during the campaigns in India. (Just. 15.3.)
13. A Macedonian officer, who had served under Alexander throughout his campaigns (probably therefore identical with some one of the preceding), and who in consequence as a man of age and experience was one of the counsellors selected by Antigonus to control and assist his son Demetrius during, his first campaign, B. C. 314. (Diod. 19.69.) He is perhaps the same person who is again mentioned in B. C. 302, as holding the citadel of Sardis for Antigonus, when the rest of the city was betrayed by Phoenix into the hands of Prepelaus, the general of Cassander. (Id. 20.107.)
14. A Macedonian who commanded the right wing of the army of Eumenes in the battle at Gadamart, B. C. 316. (Diod. 19.40.) He is probably identical with some one of those above enumerated, but with which it is impossible to say.
15. Son of Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and brother of Cassander, by whom he was sent in B. C. 313, with an army to invade Aetolia. But on his arrival in Acarnania the news that Aeacides, king of Epeirus, had recovered possession of his throne, induced him to turn his arms against that monarch, whom he defeated in a pitched battle. Aeacides with the remnant of his forces having afterwards joined the Aetolians, a second action ensued, in which Philip was again victorious, and Aeacides himself fell in the battle. The Aetolians hereupon abandoned the open country, and took refuge in their mountain fastnesses. (Diod. 19.74.) According to Justin (12.14) Philip had participated with his two brothers, Cassander and lollas, in the conspiracy for the murder of Alexander.
16. Father of Antigonus, king of Asia. (Arr. Anab. 1.29.5; Just. 13.4. See No. 2.)
17. Son of Antigonus, king of Asia, was sent by his father in B. C. 310, at the head of an army, to oppose the revolt of his general Phoenix, and to recover possession of the towns on the Hellespont held by the latter. (Diod. 20.19.) He died in B. C. 306, just as Antigonus was setting out for his expedition against Egypt. (Id. 20.73, where he is called Phoenix, though it appears certain that Antigonus had only two sons, Demetrius and Philip. See Droysen, Hellenism. vol. i. p. 465, note.)
18. A son of Lysimachus, king of Thrace, who was put to death together with his elder brother Lysimachus, by the usurper Ptolemy Ceraunus, B. C. 281. (Just. 24.3.) [Lysimachus, Vol. II. p. 867a.]
19. An officer who held the citadel of Sicyon for Ptolemy, king of Egypt, but surrendered it by capitulation to Demetrius Poliorcetes, B. C. 303. (Diod. 20.102.)
20. An Epeirot, who took a leading part in negotiating the treaty of peace concluded between Philip V., king of Macedonia, and the Roman general P. Sempronius Tuditanus at Phoenice, in Epeirus, B. C. 205. (Liv. 29.12.)
21. A Macedonian officer, who commanded the garrison of Cassandreia when that place was besieged by the Roman praetor C. Marcius Figulus, together with Eumenes, king of Pergamus, in the second Macedonian war, B. C. 169. The Romans succeeded by mining in opening an entrance through the walls; but before they could take advantage of it, Philip by a sudden sally threw their troops into confusion, and made a great slaughter of them. This disaster caused the praetor to turn the siege into a blockade; and the arrival of ten Macedonian ships, which made their way into the town with a strong reinforcement of troops, soon after compelled him to abandon the enterprize altogether. (Liv. 44.11, 12.)
22. A Macedonian, sent as ambassador by Perseus to the Rhodians, shortly before the commencement of the second Macedonian war, to try to induce them to remain neutral during the impending contest. (Plb. 27.4.)
23. An Achaean, who, as belonging to the party favourable to the Romans, was one of those selected for the embassy of congratulation after the defeat of Perseus, B. C. 168. (Plb. 30.10.)
24. Son of Alexander of Megalopolis. His father's pretended descent from Alexander the Great appears to have filled him with the most puerile schemes of ambition. On the marriage of his sister Apama with Amynander, king of Athamania, Philip accompanied her, and contrived to obtain great influence over the mind of Amynander, who gave him the government of Zacynthus, and allowed him to direct in great measure the administration of affairs. When Antiochus came into Greece (B. C. 192) he gained over Philip to his interests by pretending to regard him as the rightful heir to the Macedonian throne, and even holding out to him hopes of establishing him upon it; by which means he obtained the adherence of Amynander also. Philip was afterwards chosen by Antiochus for the duty of burying the bones of the Macedonians and Greeks slain at Cynoscephalae, a measure by which he vainly hoped to conciliate popularity. He was next appointed to command the garrison at Pellinaeum, but was soon compelled to surrender to the Romans, by whom he was sent a prisoner to Rome. When first taken captive he accidentally met Philip, the king of Macedonia, who in derision greeted him with the royal title. (Liv. 35.47, 36.8, 13, 14, 31; Appian. Syr. 13, 17.)
25. A brother of Perseus, king of Macedonia, apparently a son of Philip by a subsequent marriage, as he was so much younger than his brother, that the latter adopted him as his son, and appears to have continued to regard him as the heir to his throne even after the birth of his own son Alexander. Thus we find him holding the post of honour next to the king on occasions of state; and after the fatal battle of Pydna he was the constant companion of Perseus during his flight and the period of his refuge at Samothrace, and surrendered together with him to the Roman praetor Cn. Octavius. He was led in triumph before the car of Aemilius Paulus, B. C. 167, and afterwards consigned to captivity at Alba, where he survived his adopted father but a short time. (Liv. 42.52, 44.45, 45.6; Plut. Aemil. 33, 37; Zonar. 9.24.) According to Polybius (Fr. Vat. xxxvii. p. 447) he was only eighteen years old at the time of his death.
26. A friend and officer of Antiochus the Great, who held the office of commander of the elephants (mnagister elephantorum, a title of high rank at the court of Syria) under that monarch; in which post we find him mentioned both at the battle of Raphia, between Antiochus and Ptolemy Philopator, B. C. 217 (Plb. 5.82), and again at the battle of Magnesia against the Romans, B. C. 190. (Liv. 37.41; Appian. Syr. 33.) As he is said by Polvbius to have been brought up with Antiochus he can scarcely on chronological grounds be the same with the following.
27. One of the friends and ministers of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, who was appointed by him on his deathbed (B. C. 164) to be the guardian of his son Antiochus V. He returned to Syria, bearing with him the signet ring of the deceased monarch, and assumed the government during the absence of the young king and Lysias (who had been previously appointed regent) in Judaea. But on receiving the intelligence Lysias hastened to make peace with Judas Maccabaeus, and returned to oppose Philip, whom he defeated and put to death. (J. AJ 12.9. §§ 2, 6, 7.) [E.H.B]
an architect, entitled maximus on his epitaph, which was found at Nimes. Whether he was the architect of any of the great Roman works which still adorn that city, such as the Maison carrée and the amphitheatre, is a matter of pure conjecture. (Gruter, p. dcxxiii. 5.) [P.S]
the teacher of Alexander Severus, afterwards wrote the life of this emperor. (Lamprid. Alex. Ser. 3.)
(Φίλιππος), son of HEROD the Great, king of Judaea, by his wife Cleopatra, was appointed by his father's will tetrarch of the districts of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Batanaea, the sovereignty of which was confirmed to him by the decision of Augustus. He continued to reign over the dominions thus entrusted to his charge for the space of thirty-seven years (B. C. 4 - A. D. 34), a period of uniform tranquillity, during which his mild and equitable rule made him universally beloved by his subjects. He founded the city of Caesareia, surnamed Paneas, but more commonly known as Caesareia Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan, which he named in honour of Augustus, while he bestowed the name of Julias upon the town of Bethsaida, which he had greatly enlarged and embellished. Among other edifices he erected there a magnificent monument, in which his remains were deposited after his death. As he left no children, his dominions were after his decease annexed to the Roman province of Syria. (J. AJ 17.8.1, 18.2.1, 4.6, B.J. 1.33.8, 2.6.3.) This Philip must not be confounded with Herod surnamed Philip, who was the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne [Herodes Philippus]. [E.H.B]
Roman emperor A. D. 244-249, was an Arabian by birth, a native of Trachonitis, according to Victor; of the colony of Bostra, according to Zonaras. Of his early history we know nothing, except that he is said to have been the son of a celebrated robber captain, and we are equally ignorant of the various steps in his military career. Upon the death of the excellent Misitheus [Misitheus; Gordianus III.], during the Persian campaign of the third Gordian, Philippus was at once promoted to the vacant office of praetorian praefect. The treacherous arts by which he procured the ruin of the young prince his master, and his own elevation to the throne, are detailed elsewhere [Gordianus III.]. The senate having ratified the choice of the troops, the new sovereign proclaimed his son Caesar, concluded a disgraceful peace with Sapor, founded thecityof Philippopolis, and then returned to Roine. These events took place in the early part of A.D. 244. The annals of this period, which are singularly imperfect, for the history of Herodian ends with the death of Balbinus and Pupientus, and the Augustan history here presents a blank, indicate that the emperor was employed for two or three years in prosecuting a successful war against the Carpi, a Scythian or Gothic tribe, bordering on the Lower Danube, thus gaining for himself and son the titles of Germanicus Maximus and Caspicus Maximus, which appear on coins and public monuments. In 248, rebellions, headed by Iotapinus and Marinus [Iotapinus ; Marinus], broke out simultaneously in the East and in Moesia. Both pretenders speedily perished, but Decius [Decius] having been despatched to recall the legions on the Danube to their duty, was himself forcibly invested with the purple by the troops, and compelled by them to march upon Italy. Philippus having gone forth to encounter his rival, was slain near Verona either in battle (Aur. Vict. de Caes. xxviii.; Zosim. 1.23) or by his own soldiers (Aur. Vict. Epit. xxviii. ; Eutrop. 9.3); and although it does not appear that he had rendered himself odious by any tyrannical abuse of power, yet the recollection of the foul arts by which he had accomplished the ruin of his much loved predecessor, caused his downfal to be hailed with delight. if we can trust the Alexandrian chronicle, he was only forty-five years old at the period of his death.
The great domestic event of the reign was the exhibition of the secular games, which were celebrated with even more than the ordinary degree of enthusiasm and splendour, since the imperial city had now, according to the received tradition, attained the thousandth year of her existence. The disputes and mistakes of chronologers with regard to the epoch in question can, in the present instance, be satisfactorily decided and corrected by the unquestionable testimony of medals, from which we learn that the festival was held in the third consulship of Philippus, that is, in the year A. D. 248; but unless we could ascertain the month, it is impossible to determine whether the solemnities were performed while the tenth century was yet current or after it was fully completed.
Many writers have maintained that Philippus was a Christian; a position which has given rise to an animated controversy. It is evident from several passages in Eusebius, that such an opinion was prevalent in his day, but the bishop of Caesareia abstains from expressing his own sentiments with regard to its truth, except in so far as he remarks that the persecution of Decius arose from the hatred entertained by that prince towards his predecessor, and makes mention of certain letters addressed by Origen to Philippus and the empress, without calling in question their authenticity. Hieronymus again broadly asserts the fact, as do Vincentius Lirinensis and Orosius, who are followed by many later authorities. It is certain, moreover, that a report gained general credit in the following century, that this emperor was not only a true believer, but actually performed a public penance, imposed, as has been inferred from a passage in St. Chrysostom, by St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch. On the other hand, we are reminded that he bestowed the title of divus upon Gordian, that far from making any attempt to repress the rites of pagan worship, he took an active part in all the superstitious observances of the secular games, that he bestowed no marks of favour or encouragement, beyond simple toleration, on the professors of the true faith, and that a multitude of ancient writers unite in declaring that Constantine was the first Christian sovereign of Rome. The student will find all the arguments stated with great candour and all the authorities arranged with great precision in Tillemont, and we have nothing to add. except that the inquiry is a mere matter of curiosity, for it is agreed on all hands that this conversion, if real, exercised no influence on the condition of the Church, which certainly could have had little reason to be proud of such a bloodstained and compromising proselyte. (Aur. Vict. de Caes. xxviii. Epit. xxviii.; Eutrop. 9.3; Zosim. 1.23, 3.32 ; Zonlir. 12.19; Eckhel, vol. vii. p. 323; Euseb. H.E. 6.34, 39, 41, 7.10; Hieron. de Viris Ill. 100.54; Chrysost. in Gent. vol. i. p. 658; Tillemont, Notes sur v Empereur Philippe, in his Histoire des Empereurs, vol. iii. p. 494)
[W.R]
son of the foregoing, was a boy of seven at the accession (A. D. 244) of his father, by whom he was forthwith proclaimed Caesar, and three years afterwards (247) chosen consul, being at the same time admitted to share the purple with the title of Augustus. His second consulship (248) corresponds with the celebration of the secular solemnities, and in the autumn of 249 he was slain, according to Zosimus, at the battle of Verona, or murdered, according to Victor, at Rome by the praetorians, when intelligence arrived of the defeat and death of the emperor. Nothing has been recorded with regard to this youth, who perished at the age of twelve, except that he was of a singularly serious and stern temperament, so that from early childhood he could never be induced to smile, and on perceiving his father indulging in hearty merriment, called forth by some buffoonery at the games, he turned away his head with a marked expression of disgust.
His names and titles were the same with those of the elder Philip, with the addition of Severus, found upon some Pamphylian coins, and derived, it would seem, from his mother Otacilia Severa. The appellation C. Julius Saturninus, assigned to him by Victor, rests upon no oilier authority and is not confirmed by medals or inscriptions. (Aur. Vict. de Caes. xxviii. Epil. xxviii.; Zosim. 1.22.)
[W.R]
(Φίλιππος), king of Macedonia, son of Argaeus, was the sixth king, if we follow the lists of Dexippus and Eusebius, but the third, according to Herodotus and Thucydides, who, not reckoning Caranus and his two immediate successors (Coenus and Thurimas or Turimmas). look upon Perdiccas I. as the founder of the monarchy. Eusebius assigns to Philip I. a reign of 38 years, Dexippus one of 35. Neither statement appears to rest on any positive testimony; and Justin tells us that his death was an untimely one. He left a son, named Aeropus, who succeeded him. (Hdt. 8.137_139; Thuc. 2.100; Just. 7.2; Clint. F. H. vol. ii. p. 221.) [E.E]
(Φίλιππος), the 18th king of Macedonia, if we count from Caranus, was the youngest son of Amyntas II. and Eurydice, and was born in B. C. 382. According to one account, which Suidas mentions (s. v. Κάπανος), but for which there is no foundation, he and his two elder brothers, Alexander II. and Perdiccas III., were supposititious children, imposed by Eurydice on Amyntas. The fact of Philip's early residence at Thebes is too well supported to admit of doubt, though the circumstances which led to his being placed there are differently related. In Diodorus (16.2), we read that Amyntas, being overcome in war by the Illyrians, delivered Philip to them as a hostage for the payment of some stipulated tribute, and that by them he was sent to Thebes, where he sojourned in the house of the father of Epaminondas, and was educated with the latter in the Pythagorean discipline. The same author, however, tells us, in another passage (15.67), that he was one of those whom Pelopidas brought away with him as hostages for the continuance of tranquillity in Macedonia, when he had gone thither to mediate between Alexander II. and Ptolemy of Alorus, in B. C. 368; and with this statement Plutarch agrees (Pelop. 26); while Justin says (7.5), that Alexander, Philip's brother, gave him as a hostage, first to the Illyrians, and again a second time to the Thebans. Of these accounts, the last-mentioned looks like an awkward attempt to combine conflicting stories; while none of them are easily reconcileable with the statement of Aeschines (de Fals. Leg. pp. 31, 32 ; comnp. Nep. Iph. 3), that, shortly after the death of Alexander II., Philip was in Macedonia, and, together with his elder brother Perdiccas, was presented by Eurydice to Iphicrates, in order to move his pity and obtain his protection against the pretender Pausanias. On the whole, the supposition of Thirlwall is far from improbable (Greece, vol. v. p. 163), viz. that when Pelopidas, subsequently to the visit of Iphicrates to Macedonia, marched a second time into the country, and compelled Ptolemy of Alorus to enter into an engagement to keep the throne for the younger sons of Amyntas. he carried Philip back with him to Thebes, as thinking him hardly safe with his mother and her paramour. As for that part of the account of Diodorus, which represents Philip as pursuing his studies in company with Epaminondas, it is sufficiently refuted by chronology (see Wesseling, ad Diod. 16.2); nor would it seem that his attention at Thebes was directed to speculative philosophy so much as to those more practical points, the knowledge of which he afterwards found so useful for his purposes,--military tactics, the language and politics of Greece, and the characters of its people. He was still at Thebes, according to Diodorus, when his brother Perdiccas III. was slain in battle against the Illyrians, in B. C. 360; and, on hearing of that event, he made his escape and returned to Macedonia. But this statement is contradicted by the evidence of Speusippus (apud Ath. xi. p. 506f.), from whom we learn that Plato, conveying the recommendation through Euphraeus of Oreus, had induced Perdiccas to invest Philip with a principality, which he was in possession of when his brother's death placed him in the supreme government of the kingdom. On this he appears to have entered at first merely as regent and guardian to his infant nephew Amyntas [Amyntas, No. 3.]; but after no long time, probably in B. C. 359, he was enabled to set aside the claims of the young prince, and to assume for himself the title of king, -- aided doubtless by the dangers which thickened round Macedonia at that crisis, and which obviously demanded a vigorous hand to deal with them. The Illyrians, flushed with their recent victory over Perdiccas, threatened the Macedonian territory on the west,--the Paeonians were ravaging it on the north,--while Pausanias and Argaeus took advantage of the crisis to put forward their pretensions to the throne. Philip was fully equal to the emergency. By his tact and eloquence he sustained the failing spirits of the Macedonians, while at the same time he introduced among them a stricter military discipline, and organized their army on the plan of the phalanx; and he purchased by bribes and promises the forbearance of the Paeonians, as well as of Cotys, the king of Thrace, and the chief ally of Pausanias. But the claims of Argaeus to the crown were favoured by a more formidable power,--the Athenians, who, with the view of recovering Amphipolis as the price of their aid, sent a force under Mantias to support him. Under these circumstances, according to Diodorus, Philip withdrew his garrison from Amphipolis, and declared the town independent,--a measure, which, if he really resorted to it, may account for the lukewarmness of the Athenians in the cause of Argaeus. Soon after he defeated the pretender, and having made prisoners of some Athenian citizens in the battle, he not only released them, but supplied with valuable presents the losses which each had sustained ; and this conciliatory step was followed by an embassy offering to renew the alliance which had existed between Macedonia and Athens in the time of his father. The politic generosity thus displayed by Philip, produced a most favourable impression on the Athenians, and peace was concluded between the parties after midsummer of B. C. 359, no express mention, as far as appears, being made of Amphipolis in the treaty. Being thus delivered from his most powerful enemy, Philip turned his arms against the Paeonians, taking advantage of the death of their king, Agis, just at this juncture, and reduced them to subjection. He then attacked the Illyrians with a large army, and having defeated them in a decisive battle, he granted them peace on condition of their accepting the lake of Lychnus as their eastern boundary towards Macedonia. [Bardylis.]
Thus in the short period of one year, and at the age of four-and-twenty, had Philip delivered himself from his dangerous and embarrassing position, and provided for the security of his kingdom. But energy and talents such as his could not, of course, be satisfied with mere security, and henceforth his views were directed, not to defence, but to aggrandisement. The recovery of the important town of Amphipolis, which he could never have meant seriously to abandon, was his first step in this direction, and the way in which he accomplished it (B. C. 358) is one of the most striking specimens of his consummate craft. Having found pretexts for war with the Amphipolitans, his policy was to prevent interference with his proceedings on the part of Athens and of Olynthus (both of which states had an interest in resisting his attempt), and, at any rate, to keep them from uniting against him. Accordingly, in a secret negotiation with the Athenians, he led them to believe that he was willing to restore Amphipolis to them when he had taken it, and would do so on condition of their making him master of Pydna [Charidemus, No. 2]. When therefore the Olynthians sent an embassy to Athens to propose an alliance for the defence of Amphipolis, their overtures were rejected (Dem. Olynth. ii. p. 19), and while their ardour for the contest would be thus damped by the prospect of engaging in it single-handed, Philip still more effectually secured their forbearance by surrendering to them the town of Anthemus (Dem. Phil. ii. p. 70). He then pressed the siege of Amphipolis, in the course of which an embassy, under Hierax and Stratocles, was sent by the Amphipolitans to Athens, to ask for aid; but Philip rendered the application fruitless by a letter to the Athenians, in which he repeated his former assurances that he would place the city in their hands. Freed thus from the opposition of the only two parties whom he had to dread, he gained possession of Amphipolis, either by force, as Diodorus tells us, or by treachery from within, according to the statement of Demosthenes. He then proceeded at once to Pydna, which seems to have yielded to him without a struggle, and the acquisition of which, by his own arms, and not through the Athenians, gave him a pretext for declining to stand by his secret engagement with them. (Dem. Olynth. p. 11, de Halonn. p. 83, c. Aristocr. p. 659, c. Lept. p. 476; Diod. 16.8.) The hostile feeling which such conduct necessarily excited against him at Athens, made it of course still more important for him to pursue his policy of dividing those whose union might be formidable, and of detaching Olynthus from the Athenians. Accordingly, we find him next engaged in the siege of Potidaea, together with the Olynthians, to whom he delivered up the town on its capture, while at the same time he took care to treat the Athenian garrison with the most conciliatory kindness, and sent them home in safety. According to Plutarch (Plut. Alex. 3), Philip had just taken Potidaea when tidings of three prosperous events reached him at once ;--these were, a victory in a horse-race at the Olympic games, -- the defeat by Parmenion of the Illyrians, who were leagued with the Paeonians and Thracians against the Macedonian power,--and the birth of Alexander; and, if we combine Plutarch's statement with the chronology of Diodorus (16.22), we must place the capture of Potidaea in B. C. 356. Soon after this success, whenever it may have occurred, he attacked and took a settlement of the Thasians, called Crenides from the springs (Κρῆναι) with which it abounded, and, having introduced into the place a number of new colonists, he named it Philippi after himself. One great advantage of this acquisition was, that it put him in possession of the gold mines of the district, the mode of working which he so improved as to derive from them, so Diodorus tells us, a revenue of 1000 talents, or 243,750l.--a sum, however, which doubtless falls far short of what they yielded annually on the whole. (Diod. 16.8; comp. Strab. vii. p.323; Dem. Olynth. i. p. ll, Philipp. i. p. 50.) effort.
From this point there is for some time a pause in the active operations of Philip. He employed it, no doubt, in carefully watching events, the course of which, as for instance the Social war (B. C. 357-355), was of itself tending towards the accomplishment of his ambitious designs. And so well had he disguised these, that although exasperation against him had been excited at Athens, no suspicion of them, no apprehension of real danger appears to have been felt there; and even Demosthenes, in his speech against war with Persi (περὶ συμμοριῶν), delivered in B. C. 354, as also in that for the Megalopolitans (B. C. 353), makes no mention at all of the Macedonian power or projects (comp. Dem. Philipp. iii. p. 117; Clint. F. H. vol. ii. sub annis 353, 341.) In B. C. 354, the application made to Philip by Callias, the Chalcidian, for aid against Plutarchus, tyrant of Eretria, gave him an opportunity, which he did not neglect, of interposing in the affairs of Euboea, and quietly laying the foundation of a Macedonian party in the island. [Callias, No. 4.]
But there was another and a nearer object to which the views of Philip were directed,--viz. ascendancy in Thrace, and especially the mastery of the Chersonesus, which had been ceded to the Athenians by Cersobleptes, and the possession of which would be of the utmost importance to the Macedonian king in his struggle with Athens, even if we doubt whether he had yet looked beyond to a wider field of conquest in Asia. It was then perhaps in B. C. 353, that he marched as far westward as Maroneia, where Cersobleptes opened a negotiation with him for a joint invasion of the Chersonesus,--a design which was stopped only by the refusal of Amadocus to allow Philip a passage through his territory. No attempt was made to force one; and, if we are right in the conjectural date assigned to the event, Philip would naturally be unwilling to waste time in such a contest, when the circumstances of the Sacred War promised to afford him an opportunity of gaining a sure and permanent footing in the very heart of Greece. (Dem. c. Arist. p. 631.)
The capture of Methone, however, was a necessary preliminary to any movement towards the south, lying as it did between him and the Thessalian border, and serving as a shelter to his enemies, and as a station from which they could annoy him. He did not take it till after a lengthened siege, in the course of which he himself lost an eve. The inhabitants were permitted to depart with one garment, but the town was utterly destroked and the land apportioned to Macedonian colonists. (Diod. 16.31. 34; Dem. Olynth. i. p. 12, Philipp. i. p. 41, iii. p. 117; Plut. Par. 8; Luc. de Scrib. Hist. 38.) He was now able to take advantage of the invitation of the Aleuadae to aid then against Lycophron, the tyrant of Pherae, and advanced into Thessaly, B. C. 352. To support Lycophron, the Phocians sent Phayllus, with a force of 7000 men, but he was defeated and driven out of Thessaly by Philip, who followed up this success with the capture of Pagasae, the port of Pherae. Soon,however,Philip was himselfobliged to retreat into Macedonia, after two battles with Onomarchus, who had marched into Thessaly against him with a more numerous army; but his retreat was only a preliminary to a more vigorous He shortly returned with augmented forces, ostentatiously assuming the character of champion of the Delphic god and avenger of sacrilege, and making his soldiers wear crowns of laurel. One battle, in which the Phocians were defeated and Onomarchus himself was slain, gave Philip the ascendancy in Thessaly. He established at Pherae what he wished the Greeks to consider a free government, but he took and garrisoned Magnesia, and then advanced southward to Thermopylae. The pass, however, he found guarded by a strong Athenian force, and he was compelled, or at least thought it expedient to retire, a step by which indeed he had nothing to lose and much to gain, since the Greek states were unconsciously playing into his hands by a war in which they were weakening one another, and he had other plans to prosecute in the North. But while he withdrew his army from Greece, he took care that the Athenians should suffer annoyance from his fleet. With this Lemnos and Imbros were attacked, and some of the inhabitants were carried off as prisoners, several Athesnian ships with valuable cargoes were taken near Geraestus, and the Paralus was captured in the bay of Marathon. These events are mentioned by Demosthenes, in his first Philippic (p. 49, ad fin.), delivered in B. C. 352, but are referred to the period immediately following the fall of Olynthus, B. C. 347, by those who consider the latter portion of the speech in question as a distinct oration of later date [Demosthenes]. It was to the affairs of Thrace that Philip now directed his operations. As the ally of Amadocus against Cersobleptes (Theopomp. apud Harpocr. s. v. Ἀμάδοκος), he marched into the country, established his ascendancy there, and brought away one of the sons of the Thracian king as a hostage [see Vol. I. p. 674]. Meanwhile, his movements in Thessaly had opened the eyes of Demosthenes to the real danger of Athens and Greece, and his first Philippic (delivered, as we have remarked, about this time) was his earliest attempt to rouse his countrymen to energetic efforts against their enemy. But the half-century, which had elapsed since the Peloponnesian war, had worked a sad change in the Athenians, and energy was no longer their characteristic. Reports of Philip's illness and death in Thrace amused and soothed the people, and furnished them with a welcome excuse for inaction; and, though the intelligence of his having attacked Heraeum on the Propontis excited their alarm and a momentary show of vigour, still nothing effectual was done, and throughout the greater part of B. C. 351 feebleness and irresolution prevailed. At some period in the course of the two following years Philip would seem to have interposed in the affairs of Epeirus, dethroning Arymbas (if we may depend on the statement of Justin, which is in some measure borne out by Demosthenes), and transferring the crown to Alexander, the brother of Olympias (Just. 7.6, 8.6; Dem. Olynth. i. p. 13; comp. Diod. 16.72; Wess. ad loc.). About the same time also he showed at least one symptom of his designs against the Persian king, by receiving and sheltering the rebels, Artabazus and Memnon. In B. C. 349 he commenced his attacks on the Chalcidian cities. Olynthus, in alarm, applied to Athens for aid, and Demosthenes, in his three Olynthiac orations, roused the people to efforts against the common enemy, not very vigorous at first and fritless in the end. But it was not from Athens only that Philip might expect opposition. The Thessalians had for some time been murmuring at his retention of Pagasae and Magnesia, and his diversion to his own purposes of the revenues of the country arising from harbour and market dues. These complaints he had hitherto endeavoured to still by assurances and promises; but just at this crisis the recovery of Pherae by Peitholaus gave him an opportunity of marching again into Thessaly. He expelled the tyrant, and the discontent among his allies was calmed or silenced by the appearance of the necessity for his interference, and their experience of its efficacy. Returning to the north, he prosecuted the Olynthian war. Town after town fell before him, for in all of them there were traitors, and his course was marked by wholesale bribery. In B. C. 348 he laid siege to Olynthus itself, and, having taken it in the following year through the treachery of Lasthenes and Euthycrates, he razed it to the ground and sold the inhabitants for slaves. The conquest made him master of the threefold peninsula of Pallene, Sithonia, and Acta, and he celebrated his triumph at Dium with a magnificent festival and games. [Lasthenes; Archelaus.]
After the fill of Olynthus the Athenians had every reason to expect the utmost hostility from Philip, and they endeavoured, therefore, to bring about a coalition of Greek states against him. The attempt issued in failure; but the course of events in Greece, and in particular the turn which affairs in Phocis had taken, and the symptoms which Athens had given of a conciliatory policy towards Thebes, seemed to Philip to point to such a league as by no means improbable; and he took care accordingly that the Athenians should become aware of his willingness to make peace. This disposition on his part was more than they had ventured to hope for, and, on the motion of Philocrates, tell ambassadors were appointed to treat with him, Aeschines and Demosthenes being among the number. Philip received the embassy at Pella, and both then and in the subsequent negotiations employed effectually his usual craft. Thus, while he seems to have been explicit in requiring the surrender of the Athenian claim to Amphipolis and the recognition of the independence of Cardia, he kept the envoys in the dark as to his intentions with regard to the Thebans and Phocians,--a point of the highest interest to Athens, which still cast a jealous eye upon Thebes and her influence in Boeotia. Nor were his purposes with respect to these matters revealed even when the terms of peace and alliance with him were settled at Athens, as the Phocians were neither included in the treaty nor expressly shut out from it. The same course was adopted with reference to Cersobleptes, king of Thrace, and the town of Halus in Thessaly, which, acting on behalf of the Pharsalians, Philip had sent Parmenion to besiege. As for Thrace,--since the dominions of Cersobleptes formed a barrier between Macedonia and the Athenian possessions in the Chersonesus,--it was of the greatest importance to Philip to establish his power there before the final ratification of the treaty, in which the Athenians night have insisted on a guarantee for its safety. Accordingly, when the second embassy,consisting probably of the same members as the former one, arrived in Macedonia to receive the king's oath to the compact of alliance, they found that he was absent in Thrace, nor did he return to give them an audience till he had entirely conquered Cersobleptes. Even then he delayed taking the oath, unwilling clearly that the Athenian ambassadors should return home before he was quite prepared for the invasion of Phocis. Having induced them to accompany hint on his march into Thessaly, he at length swore to the treaty at Pherae, and now expressly excluded the Phocians from it. Deserted by Phalaecus, who had made conditions forhimself and his mercenaries, the Phocians offered no resistance to Philip. Their cities were destroyed, and their place in the Amphictyonic council was made over to the king of Macedonia, who was appointed also, jointly with the Thebans and Thessalians, to the presidency of the Pythian games. Ruling as he did over a barbaric nation, such a recognition of his Hellenic character was of the greatest value to him, especially as he looked forward to an invasion of the Persian empire in the name of Greece, united under him in a great national confederacy. That his own ambition should point to this was natural enough; but the "Philip" of Isocrates, which was composed at this period, and which urged the king to the enterprise in question, is perhaps one of the most striking instances of the blindness of an amiable visionary. The delusion of the rhetorician was at any rate not shared by his fellow-citizens. The Athenians, indignant at having been out-witted and at the disappointment of their hopes from the treaty, showed their resentment by omitting to send their ordinary deputation to the Pythian games, at which Philip presided, and were disposed to withhold their recognition of him as a member of the Amphictyonic league. They were dissuaded, however, by Demosthenes, in his oration "on the Peace" (B. C. 346), from an exhibition of anger so perilous at once and impotent.
Philip now began to spread his snares for the establishment of his influence in the Peloponnesus, by holding himself out to the Messenians, Megalopolitans, and Argives, as their protector against Sparta. To counteract these attempts, and to awaken the states in question to the true view of Philip's character and designs, Demosthenes went into the Peloponnesus at the head of an embassy ; but his eloquence and representations met with no success, and Philip sent ambassadors to Athens to complain of the step which had been taken against him and of the accusations with which he had been assailed. These circumstances (B. C. 344) gave occasion to the second Philippic of Demosthenes, but, though the jealousy of the Athenians was fully roused, and the answer which they returned to Philip does not appear to have thoroughly satisfied him, still no infringement of the peace took place.
The same year (344) was marked also by a successful expedition of Philip into Illyria, and by his expulsion for the third time of the party of the tyrants from Pherae, a circumstance which furnished him with an excuse and an opportunity for reducing the whole of Thessaly to a more thorough dependence on himself (Diod. 16.69; Dem. in Plal. Ep. p. 153; Pseudo-Dem. de Hal. p. 84). It appears to have been in B. C. 343 that he made an ineffectual attempt to gain an ascendancy in Megara, through the traitors Ptoeodorus and Perilaus (Dem. de Cor. pp. 242, 324, dc Fals. Leg. p. 435 ; Plut. Phoc. 15); and in the same year he marched into Epeirus, and compelled three refractory towns in the Cassopian district,--Pandosia, Bucheta, and Elateia,--to submit themselves to his brother-in-law Alexander (Pseudo-Dem. de Hal. p. 84). From this quarter he meditated an attack on Ambracia and Acarnania, the success of which would have enabled him to effect an union with the Aetolians, whose favour he had secured by a promise of taking Naupactus for them from the Achaeans, and so to open a way for himself into the Peloponnesus. But the Athenians, roused to activity by Demosthenes, sent ambassadors to the Peloponnesians and Acarnanians, and succeeded in forming a strong league against Philip, who was obliged in consequence to abandon his design. (Dem. I'hil. iii. pp. 120, 129; Aesch. c. Cles. pp. 65, 67.)
It was now becoming more and more evident that actual war between the parties could not be much longer avoided, and the negotiations consequent on Philip's offer to modify the terms of the treaty of 346 served only to show the elements of discord which were smouldering. The matters in dispute related mainly : 1. to the island of Halonnesus, which the Athenians regarded as their own, and which Philip had seized after expelling from it aband of pirates; 2. to the required restitution by Philip of the property of those Athenians who were residing at Potidaea at the time of its capture by him in 356; 3. to Amphipolis; 4. to the Thracian cities which Philip had taken after the peace of 346 had been ratified at Athens; 5. to the support given by him to the Cardians in their quarrel about their boundaries with the Athenian settlers in the Chersonesus [Diopeithes]; and of these questions not one was satisfactorily adjusted, as we may see from the speech (περὶ Ἁλοννήσου) which was delivered in answer to a letter from Philip to the Athenians on the subject of their complaints. Early in B. C. 342 Philip marched into Thrace against Teres and Cersobleptes, and established colonies in the conquered territory. Hostilities ensued between the Macedonians and Diopeithes, the Athenian commander in the Chersonesus, and the remonstrance sent to Athens by Philip called forth the speech of Demosthenes (Περὶ Χερ̀ῥονήσου), in which the conduct of Diopeithes was defended, as also the third Philippic, in consequence of which the Athenians appear to have entered into a successful negotiation with the Persian king, for an alliance against Macedonia (Phil. Ep ad Ath. ap. Dem. p. 160; Diod. 16.7.; Paus. 1.29; Arr. Anab. 2.14). The operations in Euboea in B. C. 342 and 341 [Callias; CLEITARCHUS; PARMENION ; Phocion], as well as the attack of Callias, sanctioned by Athens, against the towns on the bay of Pagasae, brought matters nearer to a crisis, and Philip sent to the Athlenians a letter, yet extant, defending his own conduct and arraigning theirs. But the siege of Perinthus and Byzantium, in which he was engaged, had increased the feelings of alarm and anger at Athens, and a decree was passed, on the motion of Demosthenes, for succouring the endangered cities. Chares, to whom the armament was at first entrusted, effected nothing, or rather worse than nothing : but Phocion. who superseded him, compelled Philip to raise the siege of both the towns (B. C. 329). (With respect to Selymbria, see Newman, in the Classical Museum, vol. i. pp. 153, 154.)
This gleam, however, of Athenian prosperity was destined to be as short as it was glorious. Philip, baffled in Thrace, carried his arms against Atheas, a Scythian prince, from whom he had received insult and injury. The campaign was a successful one; but on his return from the Danube his march was opposed by the Triballi, and in a battle which he fought with them he received a severe wound. This expedition he would seem to have undertaken partly in the hope of deluding the Greeks into the belief that Grecian politics occupied his attention less than heretofore; and meanwhile Aeschines and his party were blindly or treacherously promoting his designs against the liberties of their country. For the way in which they did so, and for the events which ensued down to the fatal battle of Chaeroneia, in B. C. 338, the reader is referred to the article Demosthenes.
The effect of this last decisive victory was to lay Greece at the feet of Philip; and, if we may believe the several statements of Theopompus, Diodorus, and Plutarch, he gave vent to his exultation in a most unseemly manner, and celebrated his triumph with drunken orgies, reeling forth from the banquet to visit the field of battle, and singing derisively the commencement of the decrees of Demosthenes, falling as it does into a comic Iambic verse,-- Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένους Παιανιεὺς τάδʼ εἶπεν.
(Theopomp. apud Ath. x. p. 435; Diod. 16.87 ; Plut. Dem. 20.) Yet he extended to the Athenians treatment far more favourable than they could have hoped to have received from him. Their citizens who had been taken prisoners were sent home without ransom, due funeral rites were paid to their dead, whose bones Philip commissioned Antipater to hear to Athens; their constitution was left untouched; and their territory was even increased by the restoration of Oropus, which was taken from the Thebans. On Thebes the conqueror's vengeance fell more heavily. Besides the loss of Oropus, he deprived her of her supremacy in Boeotia, placed her government in the hands of a faction devoted to his interests, and garrisoned the Cadmeia with Macedonian troops. The weakness to which he thus reduced her made it safe for him to deal leniently with Athens, a course to which he would be inclined by his predilection for a city so rich in science and art and literature, no less than by the wish of increasing his popularity and his character for moderation throughout Greece. And now he seemed to have indeed within his reach the accomplishment of the great object of his ambition, the invasion and conquest of the Persian empire. In a congress held at Corinth, which was attended, according to his invitation, by deputies from every Grecian state with the exception of Sparta, war with Persia was determined on, and the king of Macedonia was appointed to command the forces of the national confederacy. He then advanced into the Peloponnesus, where he invaded and ravaged Laconia, and compelled the Lacedaemonians monians to surrender a portion of their territory to Argos, Tegea, Megalopolis, and Messenia; and having thus weakened and humbled Sparta and established his power through the whole of Greece, he returned home in the latter end of B. C. 338.
In the following year his marriage with Cleopatra, the daughter of Attalus, one of his generals [Cleopatra, No. 1], led to the most serious disturbances in his family. Olympias and Alexander withdrew in great indignation from Macedonia, the young prince taking refuge in Illyria, which seems in consequence to have been involved in war with Philip, while Olympias fled to Epeirus and incited her brother Alexander to take vengeance on her husband. But this danger Philip averted by prorising his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to his brother-in-law [Cleopatra, No. 2], and Olympias son and her son returned home, still however masking resentment under a show of reconciliation. The breach between Philip and Alexander appears to have been further widened by the suspicion which the latter entertained that his father meant to exclude him from the succession. This feeling was strengthened in Alexander's mind by the proposed marriage of his half-brother Arrhidaeus with the daughter of Pixodarus, the Carian satrap, to whom accordingly he sent to negotiate for the hand of the lady for himself. Philip discovered the intrigue, and. being highly exasperated, punished those who had been the chief instruments of it with imprisonment and exile. Meanwhile, his preparations for his Asiatic expedition were not neglected, and early in B. C. 336 he sent forces into Asia, under Parmenion, Amyntas, and Attalus, to draw over the Greek cities to his cause. But the great enterprise was reserved for a higher genius and a more vigorous hand. In the summer of the last-mentioned year Philip held a grand festival at Aegae, to solemnise the nuptials of his daughter with Alexander of Epeirus. It was attended by deputies from the chief states of Greece, bringing golden crowns as presents to the Macedonian king, while from the Athenians there came also a decree, declaring that any conspirator against Philip who might flee for refuge to Athens, should be delivered up. The solemnities of the second day of the festival commenced with a splendid procession, in which an image of Philip was presumptuously borne along amongst those of the twelve Olympian gods. He himself advanced in a white robe between his son and the bridegroom, having given orders to his guards to keep ata distance from him, as he had sufficient protection in the goodwill of the whole of Greece. As he drew near to the theatre, a youth of noble blood, named Pausanias, rushed forward and plunged into his side with fatal effect a Celtic sword, which he had hidden under his dress. The assassin was immediately pursued and slain by some of the royal guards. His motive for the deed is stated by Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 5.10, ed. Bekk.) to have been private resentment against Philip, to whom he had complained in vain of a gross outrage offered to him by Attalus. Olympias and Alexander, however, were suspected of being implicated in the plot, and the suspicion seems only too well-grounded as far as Olympias is concerned. The murder, it is said, had been preceded by omens and warnings. Philip had consulted the Delphic oracle about his projected expedition to Asia, and had received the ambiguous answer,-- ἔστεπται μὲν ὁ ταῦρος, ἔχει τέλος, ἔστιν ὁ θύσων.
Again, the oracle of Trophonius had desired him to beware of a chariot, in consequence of which he never entered one; but the sword with which Pausanias slew him had the figure of a chariot carved in ivory on its hilt. Lastly, at the banquet which closed the first day's festivities at Aegae, the tragedian Neoptolemus recited, at Philip's desire, a piece of lyrical poetry, which was intended to apply to the approaching downfal of the Persian king, and spoke of the vanity of human prosperity and of far-reaching hopes cut short by death. (Diod. 16.91, 92; Ael. VH 3.45; Cic. de Fat. 3 ; Paus. 8.7.)
Philip died in the forty-seventh year of his age and the twenty-fourth of his reign, leaving for his a great work indeed to do, but also a great help for its accomplishment in the condition of Greece and of Macedonia; Greece so far subject as to be incapable of impeding his enterprise,--Macedonia with an organized army and a military discipline unknown before, and with a body of nobles bound closely to the throne, chiefly through the plan introduced or extended by Philip, of gathering round the king the sons of the great families, and providing for their education at court, while he emplayed them in attendance on his person, like the pages in the feudal times. (Ael. VH 14.49 ; Arr. Anab. 4.13; Curt. 8.6, 8; V. Max. 3.3, ext. 1.)
Philip had a great number of wives and concubines. Besides Olympias and Cleopatra, we may mention, 1. his first wife Audata, an Illyrian princess, and the mother of Cynane; 2. Phila, sister of Derdas and Machatas, a princess of Elymiotis ; 3. Nicesipolis of Pherae, the mother of Thessalonica; 4. Philinna of Larissa, the mother of Arrhidaeus; 5. Meda, daughter of Cithelas, king of Thrace; 6. Arsinoe, the mother of Ptolemy I., king of Egypt, with whom she was pregnant when she married Lagus. To these numerous connections temperament as well as policy seems to have inlined him. He was strongly addicted, indeed, to sensual enjoyment of every kind, with which (not unlike Louis XI. of France, in some of the lighter parts of his character) he combined a turn for humour, not always over nice, and a sort of easy, genial good-nature, which, as it costs nothing and calls for no sacrifice, is often found in connection with the propensity to self-indulgence. Yet his passions, however strong, were always kept in subsection to his interests and ambitious views, and, in the words of bishop Thirlwall, "it was something great, that one who enjoyed the pleasures of animal existence so keenly, should have encountered so much toil and danger for glory and empire" (Greece, vol. vi. p. 86). He was fond of science and literature, in the patronage of which he appears to have been liberal; and his appreciation of great minds is shown, if not by his presumed intimacy with Plato, at any rate by his undoubted connection with Aristotle. His own physical and mental qualifications for the station which he filled and the career of conquest which he followed, were of the highest order ;--a robust frame and a noble and commanding presence; "ready eloquence, to which art only applied the cultivation requisite to satisfy the fastidious demands of a rhetorical age; quickness of observation, acuteness of discernment, presence of mind, fertility of invention, and dexterity in the mnangaement of msen and things" (Thirlwall, vol. v. p. 169). In the pursuit of his political objects he was, as we have seen, unscrupulous, and ever ready to resort to duplicity and corruption. Yet, when we consider the humanity and generous clemency which have gained for him from Cicero (de Off. 1.26) the praise of having been "always great," and which he seems to have practised quite as much from choice as from policy, we may well admit that he does not appear to disadvantage, even morally speaking, by the side of his fellowconquerors of mankind. (Demosth. Olynth., Phil., de Fals. Leg., de Cor., de Chers., de Pac.; Aesch. de Fals. Leg., c. Ctes.; Isocr. Phil., Ep. ad Phil.; Diod. xvi.; Just. vii.--ix.; Plut. Demosth., Phoc., Alex., Reg. et Imp. Apoph.; Ath. xi. p. 476, xiii. p. 557, xiv. p. 614; Strab. vii. pp. 307, 320, 323, viii. pp. 361, 374, ix. p. 437; Ael. VH 4.19, 6.1, 8.12, 15, 12.53, 54, 13.7, 11; Gel. 9.3; Cic. de Off. 2.14, 15, Tusc. Quaest. 5.14, ad Att. 1.16; Plb. 2.48, 3.6, 5.10, 8.11_13, 9.28, &100.17.14; Leland, Life of Philip ; Winiewski, Comm. Hist. et Chronol. in Dem. Orat. de Cor.; Drumann, Gesch. des Verfalls der Griechischen Staaten ; Wachsmuth, Hist. Ant. vol. ii. Eng. transl.; Weiske, de Hyperb. Errorum in Hist. Phil. Genitrice ; Thirlwall's History of Greece, vol. v. vi.)
[E.E]
(Φίλιππος), king of Macedonia. The name of Philip was bestowed by the Macedonian army upon Arrhidaeus, the bastard son of Philip II., when he was raised to the throne after the death of Alexander III., and is the only appellation which appears upon his coins. He returned to Macedonia, where he and his wife Eurydice were put to death by order of Olympias, B. C. 317. For his life and reign, see Arrhidaeus.
[E.H.B]
(Φίλιππος), king of Macedonia, was the eldest son of Cassander, whom he succeeded on the throne, B. C. 297, or, according to Clinton, early in 296. The exact period of his reign is uncertain, but it appears to have lasted only a few months, when he was carried off by a consumptive disorder, B. C. 296. No events are recorded to us of this short interval; but it appears that he maintained the friendly relations with Athens which had been established by his father, and he was probably advancing into Greece to support his partisans in that country, when his death took place at Elateia in Phocis. (Paus. 9.7.3; Just. 15.4, 16.1; Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Arm. p. 155; Dexipp. ap Syncell. p. 504, ed. Bonn; Droysen, Hellenism. vol. i. pp. 565, 566 ; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 180, 236.)
[E.H.B]
(Φίλιππος), king of Macedonia, son of Demetrius II., was one of the ablest and most eminent of the Macedonian monarchs. It appears that he was born in the year B. C. 237, and he was thus only eight years old at the death of his father Demetrius. The sovereign power was consequently assumed by his uncle Antigonus Doson, who, though he certainly ruled as king rather than merely as guardian of his nephew, was faithful to the interests of Philip, whom he regarded as his natural successor, and to whom he transferred the sovereignty at his death, in B. C. 220, to the exclusion of his own children. (Plb. 2.45, 70, 4.2; Paus. 8.8.9; Just. 28.4; Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Arm. p. 158.) He was careful however to appoint friends of his own to all the more important offices of the state; one of whom, Apelles, bore the title of guardian of the young king (Plb. 4.87), though the latter seems to have in fact assumed the administration of affairs into his own hands from the very beginning of his reign. The prudent and vigorous administration of Antigonus had greatly strengthened the Macedonian empire; but the youth of Philip, who was only seventeen years old at the time of his accession (Plb. 4.5; Justin makes him only fourteen), was regarded with contempt by his enemies, and the Aetolians seized the opportunity to commit acts of aggression and hostility in the Peloponnese. Aratus and the Achaeans immediately applied to the young king for assistance ; but Philip, though not unmindful of his allies, was at first unwilling to engage in open war with the Aetolians on account of what he regarded as mere plundering expeditions. Soon, however, the defeat of the Achaeans at Caphyae, and the daring outrage of the Aetolians in seizing and burning Cynaetha, aroused him to the necessity of immediate action, and he proceeded in person to Corinth at the head of a considerable force. He arrived too late to act against the Aetolians, who had already quitted the Peloponnese, but by advancing to Tegea he succeeded in overawing the Lacedaemonians, who were secretly disposed to favour the Aetohans, and for a time prevented them from quitting the cause of their allies. He next presided at a general assembly of the Achaeans and other allied states at Corinth, at which war was declared against the Aetolians by the common consent of all present, including besides Philip himself and the Achaeans, the Boeotians, Phocians, Epeirots, Acarnanians, and Messenians. Few of these, however, were either disposed or ready to take an active part in immediate hostilities, while the Lacedaemonians and Eleans openly espoused the cause of the Aetolians. It was evident there-fore that the chief burden of the war would devolve upon Philip and the Achaeans, and the young king returned to Macedonia to prepare for the contest. (Plb. 4.5, 9, 16, 19, 22-29, 31_36; Plut. Arat. 47). His first care was to fortify his own frontiers against the neighboring barbarians, and he was able to conclude a treaty with Scerdilaidas, king of Illyria, who undertook to assail the Aetolians by sea. Early in the ensuing spring (B. C. 219) Philip entered Epeirus with an army of 15,000 foot and 800 horse, and was quickly joined by the whole forces of the Epeirots and Acarnanians; but his successes were limited to the reduction of some forts and towns on the frontiers of Aetolia and Acarnania, and to the ravage of the adjoining country, when he was recalled to Macedonia by the news of an invasion of the Dardanians. The barbarians, indeed, retired on hearing of his return, but Philip spent the remainder of the summer and autumn in Thessaly. and it was not until the winter had already set in, and his Achaean allies had begun to despair of his arrival, that he suddenly presented himself at Corinth at the head of a small but select army. This unexpected manoeuvre was completely successful; he surprised and totally defeated a force of Aetolian and Eleian troops under Euripidas, and following up his advantage, took the strong fortress of Psophis by a sudden assault, laid waste without opposition the rich plains of Elis, and then advancing into Triphylia, made himself master of the whole of that region, though abounding in strongholds, within six days. After this brilliant campaign. he took up his quarters at Argos for the remainder of the winter. (Polyh. 4.37, 57, 61-82.)
The ensuing spring (B. C. 218) he first turned his attention to the reduction of the important island of Cephallenia, but failed in an attack on the city of Palae in consequence of the treachery and misconduct of one of his own officers, Leontius, who purposely prevented the troops under his command from carrying the breach by assault. Hereupon Philip abandoned the enterprise; but landing suddenly at the head of the Ambracian gulf, he penetrated unexpectedly into the heart of Aetolia, where he surprised the capital city of Thermus, in which all the wealth and treasures of the Aetolian leaders were deposited. The whole of these fell into the hands of the king, and were either carried off or destroyed, together with a vast quantity of arms and armour; but not content with this, Philip set fire to the sacred buildings, and destroyed all the statues and other works of art with which they were adorned. The Aetolians in vain attacked his army on his retreat, and he succeeded in carrying off the spoils in safety to his fleet. (Plb. 5.2-9, 13, 14.) Having by this sudden blow struck terror into the Aetolians themselves, he next turned his arms against their Peloponnesian allies, and returning in all haste to Corinth, assembled the Achaean forces, and invaded Laconia before the Spartans had heard of his having quitted Aetolia. Descending the valley of the Eurotas he passed close to Sparta itself, laid waste the whole country as far as Taenarus and Malea and on his return totally defeated the forces with which Lycurgus had occupied the heights near Sparta, in order to, intercept his retreat. (Id. 5.17-24.) An attempt was now made byy the Chians and Rhodians to effect a peace by their mediation; but though Philip consented to a truce for the purpose of carrying on the negotiations, these proved abortive, and the war was still continued. The operations of the next year (B. C. 217) were less brilliant, but fortune still favoured the arms of Philip and his allies; the king, who had returned to Macedonia, took the important fortress of Bylazora, in Paeonia, which was well calculated to check the inroads of the Dardanians, and afterwards invaded Thessaly, where he reduced the Phthiotic Thebes. The Achaeans, on their side, had raised large forces, and carried on the war with much success in the Peloponnese. Meanwhile, events of far greater importance had been passing in Italy, and the news of the battle of Thrasymene, which reached Philip while he was celebrating the Nemean games at Argos, determined him to listen to the overtures for peace which had been renewed by the neutral powers, the Chians, Rhodians, and Ptolemy, king of Egypt. A treaty was soon brought about, by which it was agreed that both parties should retain what they then possessed; and thus ended, after a duration of three years, the contest commonly known as the Social War. (Plb. 5.24, 29, 30, 97_105.)
During the course of these events it is certain that the character of Philip appears in the most favourable light. Throughout the military operations he displayed uncommon abilities. His daring and rapid movements disconcerted all the plans of his enemies; and the boldness of his conceptions was accompanied with a vigour and skill in the execution of them, which might have done credit to the oldest and most practised general. But his military talents were accompanied with merits of a still higher order. His policy inclined always to the side of clemency and moderation, and he had established a well-earned popularity throughout Greece, by repeated proofs of generosity and good faith. So high, indeed, was his character in these respects, that all the cities of Crete are said to have voluntarily united in placing themselvesunderhis protection and patronage (Plb. 7.12; Plut. Arat. 48). Unfortunately these favourable dispositions were not destined to last long; and the change that subsequently came over his character appears to have commenced almost immediately after the close of the Social War. It is scarcely probable, as suggested by Plutarch, that his naturally evil disposition had been hitherto restrained by fear, and that he now first began to show himself in his true colours ; Polybius more plausibly ascribes the change in his character to the influence of evil counsellors ; though these very probably did no more than accelerate the natural effects too often produced by the intoxication of success and the possession of arbitrary power at an early age. It is certain at least that the evil counsellors were not wanting. Apelies and the other officers to whom the chief posts in the administration had been confided by Antigonus Doson, had hoped to hold the uncontrolled direction of affairs, under the reign of the young king, and could ill brook to see their power supplanted by the growing influence of Aratus, who at this period chiefly swayed the counsels of Philip. Having filed in repeated attempts to undermine the power of the Achaean leader, by calumnies and intrigues, they went so far as to engage in the most treasonable schemes for frustrating all the designs of Philip himself, and thwarting the success of his military enterprizes. Their machinations were at length discovered, and Apelles himself together with Leontius and Megaleas, the partners of his guilt, were severally Put to death. (Plb. 4.76, 82-87, 5.2, 4, 14_16, 25-28; Plnt, Arat. 48.)
But the removal of these adversaries was far from giving to Aratus the increased power and influence which might have been anticipated. A more dangerous rival had already made his appearance in Demetrius of Pharos, who, after his expulsion from his own dominions by the Romans [Demetrius, p. 966a.], had taken refuge at the court of Philip, and soon acquired unbounded influence over the mind of the young king. It was the Pharian exile who first gave a new turn to the foreign policy of Philip, by directing his attention to the state of affairs beyond the Ionian sea; and pershaded him to conclude peace with the Aetolians, in order to watch the contest which was going on in Italy. (Plb. 4.66, 5.12, 101, 105; Just. 29.2, 3). The ambition of the young king was flattered by the prospect thus held out to him, but he did not deem the time yet come openly to take part in the contest, and in the meanwhile his attention was turned to the side of Illyria. Scerdilaidas, king of that country, had abandoned the alliance of the Macedonian monarch, by whom he deemed himself aggrieved; and had taken advantage of Philip's absence in Greece to occupy some towns and fortresses on the frontiers of the two countries. The recovery of these occupied Philip during the remainder of the summer of 217, and the winter was spent principally in the preparation and equipment of a fleet with which he designed to attack thecoastsof Illyria. But scarcely had be entered the Adriatic in the following summer (B. C. 216), when the rumour that a Roman fleet was coming to the assistance of Scerdilaidas inspired him with such alarm that he made a hasty retreat to Cephallenia, and afterwards withdrew to Macedonia, the younger Aratus. At length the king was without attempting anything farther (Plb. 5.108_110). But the news of the great disaster sustainted by the Roman arms at Cannae soon after decided Philip openly to espouse the cause of Carthage, and he despatched Xenophanes to Italy to conclude a treaty of alliance with Hannibal. Unfortunately the ambassador, after having successfully accomplished his mission, on his return fell into the hands of the Romans, who thus became aware of the projects of Philip, and immediately stationed a fleet at Brundusium, to prevent him from crossing into Italy; while the king himself, on the contrary? regained for a long time in ignorance of the result of his negotiations, and it was not till late in the following year (B. C. 215) that he sent a second embassy, and a treaty of alliance was detinitively concluded between him and the Carthaginian general. (Liv. 23.33, 34, 38, 39 ; Plb. 3.2, 7.9; Appian, App. Mac. 1; Justin, 29.4.)
Whether Philip really meditated at this time the invasion of Italy, or was merely desirous of establishing his power over all the countries east of the Adriatic, it is certain that his proceedings were marked by an unaccountable degree of hesitation and delay. He suffered the remainder of the season of 215 to pass away without any active measures, and though in the following year (B. C. 214), he at length appeared in the Adriatic with a fleet, with which he took the town of Oricus, and laid siege to the important city of Apollonia, his arms were soon paralysed by the arrival of a small Roman force under M. Laevnus, and he was not only compelled to raise the siege of Apollonia, but destroyed his own ships to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, and effected his retreat to Macedonia by land. (Liv. 24.40.) The folrelieve it. (Liv. 26.25, 26, 28; Plb. 9.41, lowing year (213), he was more successful, having made himself master of the strong fortress of Lissus, the capture of which was followed by the submisance sion of great part of Illyria (Plb. 8.15): but this decisive blow was not followed up; and the apparent inaction of the king during the two fol lowing years is the more remarkable, because the occupation of Tarentum by Hannibal would have seemed likely, at this juncture, to facilitate his communications with Italy.
Meanwhile, the proceedings of Philip in Greece were but too well calculated to alienate all the favourable dispositions previously entertained to wards him. In B. C. 215, he had interposed in the affairs of Messenia, in a manner that led to a fearful massacre of the oligarchical party in that state: the reproaches of Aratus on this occasion were bitter and vehement, and from henceforth all friendship was at an end between them. Philip was, however, still so far swayed by his influence as to refrain at that time from the design of seizing by treachery on the fortress of Ithome: but after his return from his unsuccessful expedition to Illyria (B. C. 214) he returned to this project, and sent Demetrius of Pharos to carry it into execution. The latter was killed in the attempt; but his death produced no change in the counsels of Philip, who now invaded Messenia himself, and laid waste the open country with fire and sword. Meanwhile, the breach between him and Aratus had become daily more complete, and was still further widened by the discovery that the king was carrying on a criminal intercourse with the wife of the younger Aratus. At length the king was induced to listen to the insidious proposal of Taurion, and to rid himself of his former friend and counsellor by means of a slow and secret poison, B. C. 213. (Plb. 7.10_14, 8.10, 14; Plut. Arat. 49-52.)
The war between Philip and the Romans had been carried on, for some time, with unaccountable slackness on both sides, when it all at once assumed a new character in consequence of the alliance entered into by the latter with the Aetolians. In the treaty concluded by the Roman praetor, M.Valerius Laevinus, with that people (before the end of B. C. 211), provision was also made for comprising in the alliance Scerdilaidas, king of Illyria, and Attalus, king of Pergamus, and the king of Macedonia thus found himself threatened on all sides by a powerful confederacy. (Liv. 26.24; Just. 29.4.) This news at length roused him from his apathy. Though it was then midwinter, he hastened to provide for the safety of his frontiers, both on the side of Illyria and that of Thrace, and then marched southwards, with an army, to the succour of the Acarnanians, who were attacked by the Aetolians, but the latter withdrew on learning the approach of Philip, and the king returned to Macedonia. hostilities were renewed in the spring (B. C. 210), and the Romans opened the campaign by the capture of Anticvra; but after this, instead of supporting their allies with vigour, they withdrew the greater part of their forces, and P. Sulpicius Galba, who had succeeded Laevinus in the command, found himself unable to effect anything more than the conquest of Aegina, while Philip succeeded in reducing the strong fortress of Echinus in Thessaly, notwithstand ing all the efforts of the Romans and Aetolians to relieve it. (Liv. 26.25, 26, 28; Plb. 9.41, 42.)
The next summer (B. C. 209) * Concerning the chronology of these events, and the error committed by Livy, who assigns this campaign to the year 208, see Schorn (Gesch. Griechenl. p. 186, not.), and Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, vol. viii. p. 268, not.). Clinton (F. H. vol. iii. p. 48) has.followed Livy without comment., the arms of Philip were directed to the support of his allies, the Achaeans, who were unable to make head against the Lacedaemonians, Messenians, and Eleans. Marching through Thessaly, he defeated the Aetolian general Pyrrhias, though supported by some Roman troops furnished him by Galba, in two successive actions, forced the pass of Thermopylae, and made his way successfully to the Peloponnese, where he celebrated the Heraean games at Argos. The Rhodians and Chians, as well as the Athenians and Ptolemy, king of Egypt, now again interposed their good offices, to bring about a peace between the contending parties, and negotiations were opened at Aegium, but these proved abortive in consequence of the arrogant demands of the Aetolians, in whom the arrival of Attalus at this juncture had excited fresh hopes. Philip now invaded Elis in conjunction with the Achaean praetor Cycliadas, but was worsted in an engagement under the walls of the city, in which, however, the king greatly distinguished himself by his personal bravery; and the inroads of the Dardanians, and other Barbarian tribes now compelled him to return to Macedonia. (Liv. 27.29_33; Just. 29.4.)
At the opening of the campaign of 208, Philip found himself assailed on all sides by the formidable confederacy now organized against him. Sulpicius with the Roman fleet, in conjunction with the king Attalus, commenced their attacks by sea, while the Illyrian princes, Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus, and the Thracian tribe of the Maedi threatened his northern frontiers, and his allies, the Achaeans, Acarnanians, and Boeotians, were clamorous for support and assistance against the Aetolians and Lacedaemonians. The energy and activity displayed by the king under these trying circumstances, is justly praised by Polybius: while he sent such support as his means enabled him to his various allies, he himself took up his post at Demetrias in Thessaly, to watch the proceedings of Sulpicius and Attalus; and though he was unable to prevent the fall of Oreus, which was betrayed into their hands [Plator], he not only saved Chalcis from a similar fate, but narrowly missed surprising Attalus himself in the neighbourhood of Opus. The king of Pergamus was soon after recalled to the defence of his own dominions against Prusias, king of Bithynia, and Sulpicius, unable to keep the sea single-handed, withdrew to Aegina. Philip was thus left at liberty to act against the Aetolians, and to support his own allies in the Peloponnese, where Machanidas, the Lacedaemonian tyrant, retired on his approach. The king was content with this success; and after taking part in the general assembly of the Achaeans at Aegium, and ravaging the coasts of Aetolia, returned once more into his own dominions. (Plb. 10.41, 42; Liv. 28.5-8; Just. 29.4.)
The events of the succeeding years of the war are very imperfectly known to us, but it is evident that matters took a turn decidedly favourable to Philip and his allies. Attalus continued in Asia, and the Romans, whose attention was directed wholly towards affairs in Spain and Africa, lent no support to their Grecian allies. Meanwhile, the Achaeans, under Philopoemen, were victorious in the Peloponnese over Machanidas, and the Aetolians, finding themselves abandoned by their allies, and unable to cope single-handed with the power of Philip, who had a second time carried his ravages into the heart of their country, and plundered their capital city of Thermus, at length consented to peace upon the conditions dictated by the conqueror. What these were we know not, but the treaty had hardly been concluded, when a Roman fleet and army, under P. Sempronius Tuditanus, arrived at Dyrrhachium. Philip hastened to oppose him, and offered him battle, but the Roman general shut himself up within the walls of Apollonia; and meanwhile the Epeirots, by their intervention, succeeded in bringing about a peace between the two parties. A preliminary treaty was concluded between Philip and Sempronius at Phoenice in Epeirus, B. C. 205, and was readily ratified by the Roman people, who were desirous to give their undivided attention to the war in Africa. (Liv. 29.12; Plb. 11.4, 7; Appian. Mac. Exc. 2.)
It is probable that both parties looked upon the peace thus concluded as little more than a suspension of hostilities. Such was clearly the view with which the Romans had accepted it, and Philip was evidently well aware of their sentiments in this respect. Hence he not only proceeded to carry out his views for his own aggrandizement and the humiliation of his rivals in Greece, without any regard to the Roman alliances in that country, but he even went so far as to send a strong body of auxiliaries to the Carthaginians in Africa, who fought at Zama under the standard of Hannibal. (Liv. 30.26, 33, 42, 31.1.) Meanwhile, his proceedings in Greece were stained by acts of the darkest perfidy and the most wanton aggression. The death of Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt (B. C. 205), and the infancy of his successor, at this time opened a new field to the ambition of Philip, who concluded a league with Antiochus against the Egyptian monarch, according to which the Cyclades, as well as the cities and islands in Ionia subject to Ptolemy, were to fall to the share of the Macedonian king. (Plb. 3.2, 15.20; Appian. Mac. Exc. 3; Just. 30.2.)
In order to carry out this scheme, it was necessary for Philip to establish his naval power firmly in the Aegaean, and to humble that of Attalus and the Rhodians, and the latter object he endeavoured to effect by the most nefarious means, for which he found ready instruments in Dicaearchus, an Aetolian pirate, and Heracleides, an exile from Tarentum, who seems at this period to have held the same place in the king's confidence previously enjoyed by Demetrius of Pharos. While Dicaearchus, with a squadron of twenty ships, cruised in the Aegaean, and made himself master of the principal islands of the Cyclades, Heracleides contrived to ingratiate himself with the Rhodians, and then took an opportunity to set fire to their arsenal, and burn great part of their fleet. (Plb. 13.4, 5, 15.20, 18.37; Diod. xxviii. Exc. Vales. pp. 572, 573; Polyaen. 5.17.2.) Meanwhile, Philip himself had reduced under his dominion the cities of Lysimachia and Chalcedon, notwithstanding they were in a state of alliance with the Aetolians, and he next proceeded to lay siege to Cius, in Bithynia. The Rhodians (who had not yet come to an open rupture with Philip, though his share in the perfidy of Heracleides could be no secret) in vain interposed their good offices in favour of Cius: their representations were treated with derision; and the king having made himself master of the place, gave it up to plunder, sold all the inhabitants as slaves, and then consigned the empty city to his ally, Prusias, king of Bithynia. On his return to Macedonia, he inflicted a similar fate on Thasos, though it had surrendered on capitulation. (Plb. 15.21_24 ; Liv. 32.33.) But these repeated injuries at length roused the Rhodians to open hostilities: they concluded a league with Attalus (B. C. 201), and equipped a powerful fleet. Philip had taken Samos, and was besieging Chios, when the combined fleets of the allies presented themselves, and a general battle ensued, in which, after a severe and long-protracted struggle, the allies were victorious, although the Rhodian admiral, Theophiliscus, was killed, and Attalus himself narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the enemy. The advantage, however, was by no means decisive, and in a second action off Lade, Philip obtained the victory. This success appears to have left him almost free scope to carry on his operations on the coasts of Asia; he took Chios, ravaged without opposition the dominions of Attalus, up to the very walls of Pergamus, and afterwards reduced the whole of the district of Peraea held by the Rhodians on the main land, including the cities of Iasus and Bargylia. But meanwhile the Rhodians and Attalus had strengthened their fleet so much that they were greatly superior at sea, and Philip was, in consequence, compelled to take up his winter-quarters in Caria. It was not till the ensuing spring (B. C. 200), that he was able to elude, by a stratagem, the vigilance of his enemies, and effect his return to Europe, where the state of affairs imperiously demanded his presence. Attalus and the Rhodians having failed in their attempt to overtake him, repaired to Aegina, where they readily induced the Athenians, already on hostile terms with Philip, to join their alliance, and openly declare war against the Macedonian king. (Plb. 16.11, 12, 24-26; Polyaen. 4.17.2; Liv. 31.14, 15.)
But a more formidable enemy was now at hand. The Romans were no sooner free from their longprotracted contest with Carthage than they began to lend a favourable ear to the complaints that poured in on all sides from the Athenians, the Rhodians, Attalus, and Ptolemy, against the Macedonian monarch; and notwithstanding some reluctance on the part of the people, war was declared against Philip, and the conduct of it assigned to the consul P. Sulpicius Galba, B. C. 200. But it was late in the season before he was able to set out for his province; and after sending a small force, under C. Claudius Centho, to the assistance of the Athenians, he took up his quarters for the winter at Apollonia. Meanwhile Attalus and the Rhodians neglected to prosecute the war, perhaps waiting for the arrival of the Roman forces. Philip, on his part, was not slow in availing himself of the respite thus granted him. While he sent Nicanor to invade Attica, he himself turned his arms towards Thrace, where he reduced in succession the important towns of Aenus and Maroneia, and then advancing to the Chersonese, laid siege to Abydus. The desperate resistance of the inhabitants prolonged the defence of this place for so long a time that it would have been easy for their allies to have relieved them, but Attalus and the Rhodians neglected to send them assistance, the remonstrances of the Roman ambassador, M. Aemilius Lepidus, were treated with derision by Philip, and the city ultimately fell into his hands, though not till almost the whole of the inhabitants had perished either by the sword of the enemy or by their own hands. (Liv. 31.2_5, 6, 14, 16_18; Plb. 16.27_34.)
Immediately after the fall of Abydos, Philip learnt the arrival of Sulpicius in Epeirus, but finding that the consul had already taken up his winterquarters, he took no farther measures to oppose him. Claudius, who had been sent to the support of the Athenians, was more enterprizing, and not content with guarding the coasts of Attica, he, by a bold stroke, surprised and plundered Chalcis. Philip, on this news, hastened to oppose him, but finding that Claudius had already quitted Chalcis, which he was not strong enough to hold, the king pushed on with great rapidity, in the hopes of surprising Athens itself, an object which, in fact, he narrowly missed. Foiled in this scheme, he avenged himself by laying waste the environs of the city, sparing in his fury neither the sepulchres of men, nor the sacred groves and temples of the gods. After this he repaired to Corinth, and took part in an assembly of the Achaeans, but failed in inducing that people to take part more openly in the war with the Romans; and having a second time ravaged the territory of Attica, returned once more into Macedonia. (Liv. 31.18, 22-26.)
The consul, Sulpicius, was now, at length, ready to take the field, B. C. 199. He had already gained some slight successes through his lieutenant, L. Apustius, and had been joined by the Illyrian prince Pleuratus, Amynander, king of Athamania, and the Dardanian, Bato. The Aetolians, on the contrary, though strongly solicited both by Philip and the Romans, as yet declined to take part in the war. Sulpicius advanced through Dassaretia. where Philip met him with his main army, and several unimportant actions ensued, in one of which, near Octolophus, the Romans gained the victory; and this advantage, though of little consequence in itself, had the effect of deciding the Aetolians to espouse the Roman cause, and they joined with Amynander in an inroad into Thessaly. At the same time the Dardanians invaded Macedonia from the north, and Philip found it necessary to make head against these new enemies. He accordingly quitted his strong position near the camp of Sulpicius, and having eluded the vigilance of the Roman general, effected his retreat unmolested into Macedonia, from whence he sent Athenagoras against the Dardanians, while he himself hastened to attack the Aetolians, who were still in Thessaly, intent only upon plunder. Philip fell upon them by surprise, put many of them to the sword, and totally defeated their army, which would have been utterly destroyed, had it not been for their ally, Amynander. The Roman general meanwhile, after pushing on into Eordaea and Orestis, where he took the city of Celetrus, had fallen back again into Epeirus, without effecting anything of importance: the Dardanians had been repulsed and defeated by Athenagoras, and thus, on the whole, the result of the campaign had been certainly not unfavorable to Philip. (Liv. 31.27-43.)
It was apparently late in the season before the new consul, P. Villius Tappulus, arrived in Epeirus to succeed Sulpicius, and a mutiny that broke out in his own army prevented him from undertaking any hostile operations. Philip meanwhile had followed up his victory over the Aetolians by laying siege to Thaumaci, in Thessaly, but the courageous defence of the garrison protracted this siege until so late a period of the year, that Philip was compelled to abandon the enterprise, and return to Macedonia for the winter. (Id. 32.3, 4.) After spending this period of repose in the most active preparations for renewing the contest, he took the field again with the first approach of spring, B. C. 198, and established his camp in a strong position near the pass of Antigoneia, where it completely commanded the direct route into Macedonia, Viilius advanced to a position near that of the king, but was wholly unable to force the pass; and while he was still deliberating what to do, his successor Flamininus arrived and took the command of the army. (Id. ib. 5, 6, 9.) The events of the war from this period till its termination have been already fully given under Flamininus.
By the peace finally granted to Philip (B. C. 196), the king was compelled to abandon all his conquests, both in Europe and Asia, withdraw his garrisons from all Greek cities, surrender his whole fleet to the Romans, and limit his standing army to 5000 men, besides paying a sum of 1000 talents. Among the hostages given for the fulfilmeant of these hard conditions, was his son Demetrius. (Plb. 18.27; Liv. 33.30.) Whatever resentment and enmity he might still entertain against his conquerors, Philip was now effectually humbled, and it is certain that his conduct towards Rome at this time is characterised by every appearance of good faith and of a sincere desire to cultivate the friendship of the all-powerful republic. At the suggestion of the Roman deputy, Cn. Cornelius, he sent an embassy to Rome, to request that the treaty of peace might be converted into one of alliance (Plb. 18.31); and in the following year (195), he sent a strong body of auxiliaries to the assistance of Flamininus against Nabis. (Liv. 34.26.) At a subsequent period he resisted all the efforts of the Aetolian envoy, Nicander, to induce him once more to take up arms in concert with Antiochus, as well as the tempting offers of that monarch himself, who spared no promises in order to gain him over to his alliance. (Id. 35.12, 39.28.) At the commencement of B. C. 191, he sent ambassadors to Rome, with offers of support and assistance against Antiochus, who was then already in Greece. The Syriann king had the imprudence at this time to give personal offence to Philip, who immediately engaged in measures of more active hostility, lent all the assistance in his power to the Roman praetor, Baebius, and co-operated with the Romans in the siege of Limnaea, while he took the opportunity to expel Amynander from Athamania, and make himself master of that province. (Id. 36.4, 8, 13, 14.) Though he took no part in the decisive battle at Thermopylae, he joined the consul Aciiius Galabrio shortly after, and it was arranged between them that Philip should besiege Lamia at the same time that Glabrio carried on the siege of Heracleia, but the latter city having fallen first, the king was ordered to desist from the siege of Lamia, which thereupon surrendered to the Romans. Philip was indignant at being thus balked of his prize, but he nevertheless obtained permission from the consul, while the latter was occupied in the siege of Naupactus, to turn his arms against some of the cities which had taken part with the Aetolians ; and not only made himself master of Demetrias, and other places in Thessaly, but overran the whole of Perrhaebia, Aperantia, and Dolopia. (Id. 36.25, 33, 34, 39.23.) The Romans, at this period, evinced their satisfaction with the conduct of Philip by restoring to him his son Demetrius and the other hostages, and remitting all the arrears of tribute, which remained yet unpaid (Pol. 20.13, 21.9; Liv. 36.35): the king, in return, rendered them still more important services, by providing every thing necessary for the march of their army through Macedonia and Thrace, when advancing to the attack of Antiochus in Asia; and securing its passage, without obstruction, as far as the Hellespont. (Liv. 37.7; Appian. Mac. Exc. 7.3.) But the seeds of fresh disputes were already sown, and Polybius has justly remarked that the real causes of the second war of the Romans with Macedonia arose before the death of Philip, though it did not break out till a later period. So long as the Romans were engaged in the contest with Antiochus, and stood in need of the support of the Macedonian king, he had been allowed to retain possession of the conquests he had made during that war; and though Athamania had been again wrested from him by Amynander and the Aetolians, he still held many towns in Perrhaebia and Thessaly, which he had captured from the Aetolians, with the express permission of Acilius Glabrio. But after the fall of Antiochus, deputies from those states appeared at Rome (B. C. 185), to demand the restitution of the cities in question, and at the same time Eumenes warned the senate of the increasing power of Philip, who was diligently employed in strengthening hisinternal resources, while he was secretly enlarging his frontiers on the side of Thrace, and had made himself master of the important cities of Aenus and Maroneia. This was enough to arouse the jealousy of the senate. After the usual form of sending deputies to inquire into the matters on the spot, it was decreed that Philip should surrender all his conquests in Perrhaebia and Thessaly, withdraw his garrisons from the cities of Thrace, and confine himself within the ancient limits of Macedonia. (Liv. 39.23_29, 33; Polvb. 23.4, 6, 11, 13. 14.)
The indignation of the king was vehemently excited by these commands, but he was not yet prepared to resist the power of Rome, and accordingly complied, but, before he withdrew his troops from Maroneia, made a barbarous massacre of many of the unhappy citizens. At the same time he sent his younger son, Demetrius, to Rome, to answer the complaints which were now pouring in from all sides against him : and the young prince was received with so much favour by the senate. that they arreed to pardon all the past grounds of offence against Philip, out of consideration for his son, B. C. 183. (Plb. 23.13, 14, 24.1_3 : Liv. 39.34, 35, 46, 47.) Unhappily the partiality thus displayed by the Romans towards Demetrius had the effect of arousing the jealousy both of Philip himself and of his eldest son, Perseus ; and from henceforth the disputes between the two brothers embittered the declining years of the king [Demetrius, p. 966]. Many other causes combined to the same effect; and the intrigues which the Romans were perpetually carrying on among his subjects and followers naturally aggravated the suspicious and jealous turn which his temper had by this time assumed. He was conscious of having alienated the affections of his own subjects by many acts of injustice and cruelty, and he now sought to diminish the number of the disaffected by the barbarous expedient of putting to death the children of all those whom he had previously sacrificed to his vengeance or suspicions (Liv. 39.53, 40.3-5). But while he was thus rendering himself the object of universal hatred at home, he was unremitting in his preparations for the renewal of the war with Rome. By way of disguising the real object of his levies and armaments, which was, however, no secret for the Romans, he undertook an expedition against the barbarian tribes of Paeonia and Maedica, and advanced as far as the highest ridge of Mount Haemus. It was during this expedition that Perseus succeeded in effecting the object for which he had been so long intriguing, and having by means of forged letters convinced the king of the guilt of Demetrius, induced him to consent to the execution of the unhappy prince. But Philip was unable to stifle the feelings of grief and remorse occasioned by this deed, and these passions broke forth with renewed violence when he afterwards discovered the deceit that had been practised upon him, and learnt that his son had been unjustly sacrificed to the jealousy of his elder brother. He believed himself to be haunted by the avenging spirit of Demetrius, and was meditating the punishment of Perseus for his perfidy, by excluding him from the throne in favour of his cousin Antigonus, the son of Echecrates, when he himself fell sick at Amphipolis, more from the effects of grief and remorse than any bodily ailment, and died shortly after, imprecating curses in his last moments upon the head of Perseus. His death took place before the end of B. C. 179, in the 59th year of his age, after a reign of nearly 42 years (Liv. 40.6, 16, 21_24, 54_56; Plb. 24.7, 8; Euseb Arm. p. 158; Dexippus ap. Syncell. p. 508; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. p. 243).
The character of Philip may be summed up in the remark of the impartial Polybius (10.26) that there are few monarchs of whom more good or more evil could justly be said. His naturally good qualities were gradually eclipsed and overgrown by evil tendencies, and he is a striking, though by no means a solitary, example of a youth full of hopeful promise degenerating by degrees into a gloomy and suspicious tyrant. Of his military and political abilities the history of his reign affords sufficient proof, notwithstanding occasional intervals of apparent apathy and inaction for which it is difficult to account. He was also a fluent and ready speaker, and possessed a power of repartee which he loved to indulge in a manner not always consistent with kingly dignity (Plb. 17.4; Liv. 32.34, 36.14). In addition to the darker stains of perfidy and cruelty, his private character was disgraced by the most unbridled licentiousness, as well as by habitual excesses in drinking. (Plb. 10.26, 26.5; Liv. 27.30.)
Besides his two sons already mentioned, he left a third son, named Philip (but whether legitimate or not we are not informed), who could have been born but a few years before the death of his father. [Philippus, No. 25.] (In addition to the ancient authorities cited in the course of the above narrative, the reign and character of Philip will be found fully discussed and examined by Schorn, Gesch. Griechenlands, Bonn, 1833; Flathe, Gesch. Macedoniens, vol. ii.; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. viii. chap. 63-66; and Brandstätter, Gesch. des Aetolischen Bundes, Berlin, 1844.)
[E.H.B]
?. Q. Marcius Philippus, Q. F. Q. N., consul B. C. 281, with L. Aemilius Barbula, had to carry on war with the Etruscans, and had a triumph on the 1st of April on account of his victory over them. In B. C. 263 he was maingister equitum to the dictator Cn. Fulvius Maximus Centumalus (Fasti Capit.).
2. L. MARCIUS Q. F. PHILIPPUS, the father of No. 3, formed a hospitable connection with Philip V., king of Macedonia (Liv. 42.38), though on what occasion is not mentioned. This fact is alluided to in the annexed coin of the Marcia gens, which bears on the obverse the head of the Macedonian monarch, and on the reverse L. PHILIPPVS, with a horseman galloping, probably in reference to the name.
One is disposed to think that this L. Marcius was the first person of the gens who obtained the surname of Philippus in consequence of his connection with the king of Macedonia, and that the Fasti erroneously give this cognomen to the consul of B. C. 281.
3. Q. Marcius Philippus, L. F. Q. N., son of No. 2, was praetor B. C. 188, and obtained Sicily as his province. Two years afterwards, B. C. 186, he was consul with Sp. Postunmius Albinus. These consuls were commanded by the senate to conduct the celebrated inquiry into the worship of Bacchus, which had been secretly introduced into Italy and been the occasion of much immorality and profanity. We accordingly find the name of Philippus in the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, which has come down to us. After Philippus had finished his share in these investigations, he set out for Liguria, where he and his colleague had to carry on war. Here, however, he was unsuccessful. In the country of the Apuani, he was surprised by the enemy in a narrow pass, and lost 4000 of his men. The recollection of his defeat was preserved by the name of the saltus Marcius, which was given to the spot from this time. In B. C. 183, Philippus was sent as ambassador into Macedonia, with orders to watch likewise the Roman interests in Southern Greece; and although he compelled Philippus to withdraw his garrisons from various places, yet the report which he presented to the senate was unfavourable to the Macedonian monarch. In B. C. 180. Philippus was chosen a decemvir sacrorum. Some years afterwards, B. C. 171, Philippus was again sent with several others as ambassador into Greece to counteract the designs and influence of Perseus. he and Atilius were ordered first to visit Epeirus, Aetolia, and Thessaly, next to proceed to Boeotia and Euboea, and from thence to cross over to Peloponnesus, where they were to join their other colleagues. In Thessaly Philippus received an embassy from Perseus, praying for a conference, and grounding his plea on the hospitable connection which had been established between his father and the father of the Roman ambassador. With this request Philippus complied, and the conference took place on the banks of the river Peneus. The Roman ambassador persuaded the king to send ambassadors to Rome, and for this purpose a suspension of hostilities was agreed upon; and thus Philippus completely accomplished the object he had in view, as the Romans were not yet prepared to carry on the war. Philippus next went to Boeotia, where he was also successful in carrying out the Roman views, and he then returned to Rome. In the report of the embassy which he gave to the senate, he dwelt with pride upon the way in which he had deceived Perseus; and although the senators of the old school denounced such conduct as unworthy of their ancestors, the majority of the body viewed it with so much approbation as to send Philippus again into Greece, with unlimited power to do whatever he might think most for the interest of the state.
These services did not go unrewarded, and in B. C. 169 Philippus was a second time chosen consul, and had as his colleague Cn. Servilius Caepio. The conduct of the Macedonian war fell to Philippus. This war had already lasted two campaigns, during which Perseus had maintained his ground against two consular armies. Philippus lost no time in crossing over into Greece, where he arrived early in the spring of B. C. 169, and received in Thessaly the army of the consul of the preceding year, A. Hostilius Mancinus. Here he did not remain long, but resolved to cross over the mountain ridge of Olympus and thus descend into Macedonia near Heracleium. Perseus was stationed with the main body of his forces near Dium, and had taken possession of the mountain passes which led into the plain. If Perseus had remained firm, he might have cut off the Roman army, or compelled it to retrace its steps across the mountains with great loss; but, at the approach of the consul, he lost courage, forfeited the advantages of his position, and retreated to Pydna. Philippus followed him, but was unable to accomplish any thing worthy of mention, and in the following year handed over the army to his successor L. Aemilius Paulus, who brought the war to a close. We learn from Livy that Philippus was at this time more than sixty years of age. In B. C. 164, Philippus was censor with L. Aemilius Paulus, and in his censorship he set up in the city a new sun dial. (Liv. 38.35, 39.6, 14, 20, 48, 40.2, 3, 42, 42.37-47, 43.13, 44.1_16; Plb. 24.4, 6, 10, 27.1, 28.10, &c.; Plin. Nat. 7.60; Cic. Brut. 20.
4. Q. Marcius Philippus, the son of No. 3, served under his father in Macedonia, B. C. 169. (Liv. 44.3.) This is the only time he is mentioned, unless, perchance, he is the same as the Q. Philippus, of whom Cicero says (pro Balb. 11) that he had been condemned, and lived as an exile at Nuceria, of which state he was made a citizen.
5. L. Marcius Philippus, Q. F. Q. N., failed in obtaining the military tribuneship, but nevertheless acquired afterwards all the high offices of state (Cic. pro Planc. 21). He was tribune of the plebs, B. C. 104, in which year he brought forward an agrarian law, of the details of which we are not informed, but which is chiefly memorable for the statement he made in recommending the measure, that there were not two thousand men in the state who possessed property (Cic. de Off 2.21). He seems to have brought forward this measure chiefly with the view of acquiring popularity, and he quietly dropped it when he found there was no hope of carrying it. In B. C. 100, he was one of the distinguished men in the state who took up arms against Saturninus and his crew (Cic. pro C. Rabir. 7). He was a candidate for the consulship B. C. 93, but was defeated in the comitia by Herennius; but two years afterwards he carried his election, and was consul in B. C. 91, with Sex. Julius Caesar. This was a very important year in the internal history of Rome, though the events of it are very difficult clearly to understand. It was the year in which M. Livius Drusus, who was then tribune of the plebs, brought forward the various important laws, the object and tendency of which have been discussed elsewhere [Drusus, No. 6]. It is sufficient to state here that Drusus at first enjoyed the full confidence of the senate, and endeavoured by his measures to reconcile the people to the senatorial party. Philippus was a personal enemy of Drusus, and as he belonged to the popular party, he offered a vigorous opposition to the tribune, and thus came into open conflict with the senate. The exasperation of parties rose to the greatest height, and even the senate itself was disgraced by scenes of turbulence and indecorum. On one occasion Philippus declared in the senate that he could no longer carry on the government with such a body, and that there was need of a new senate. This roused the great orator L. Licinius Crassus, who asserted in the course of his speech, in which he is said to have surpassed his usual eloquence, that that man could not be his consul who refused to recognise him as senator (Cic. de Orat. 3.1; Quint. Inst. 8.3.89; V. Max. 6.2.2). In the forum scenes of still greater violence occurred. There Philippus strained every nerve to prevent Drusus from carrying his laws. On one occasion he interrupted the tribune while he was haranguing the people; whereupon Drusus ordered one of his clients to drag Philippus to prison: and the order was executed with such violence that the blood started from the nostrils of the consul, as he was dragged away by the throat (V. Max. 9.5.2; Florus, 3.17; Aur. Vict. de Vir. 3.66). The opposition of the consul was, however, in vain; and the laws of the tribune were carried. But a reaction followed almost immediately: all parties in the state who had just before united in favour of Drusus, now began to look upon him with mistrust and suspicion. In this state of affairs, Philippus became reconciled to the senate, and to the leading members of that body, with whom he had hitherto been at deadly feud; and accordingly, on the proposition of the consul, who was also an augur, a senatus consultuim was passed, declaring all the laws of Drusus to be null and void, as having been carried against the auspices (Cic. de Prov. Cons. 9, de Leg. 2.12, Fragm. vol. iv. p. 449, ed. Orelli; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 68). Nothing else is recorded of the consulship of Philippus, except that he reconmended the senate to lay claim to Egypt, in consequence of its having been left to them by the will of Alexander. (Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.16.)
In B. C. 86, Philippus was censor with M. Perperna, and it is recorded of him that he expelled his own uncle App. Claudius from the senate. (Cic. pro Dom. 32.)
In the civil wars between Marius and Sulla, Philippus took no part. His original predilections might have led him to join Marius; but the experience he had had of the Roman mob in his consulship, together with his reconciliation to the senate, led him probably to desire the success of Sulla, Cicero speaks of him as belonging to the party of the latter; but as he continued at Rome during Cinna's usurpation, and was suffered to remain unmolested, he must have been regarded as neutral in the strife (Cic. Att. 8.3). On Sulla's death, he deprecated any immediate change, and accordingly resisted the attempts of Lepidus, B. C. 78, to alter the constitution that had been recently established (Sall. Hist. 1.18, 19). But Philippus was no friend to the aristocracy in heart, and accordingly gave his support to Pompey, by whose means the people eventually regained most of their former political power. Thus he was one of those who advocated sending Pompey to conduct the war in Spain against Sertorius, and is reported on that occasion to have said "Non se Pompeium sua sententia pro consule, sed pro consulibus mittere." (Cic. pro Leg. Man. 21, Phil. 11.8; Plut. Pomp. 17.) He appears, likewise, to have been a personal friend of Pompey, for he had defended him previously in B. C. 86, when he was accused of having appropriated to his own use the booty taken at Asculum in the Marsic war, B. C. 89. (Cic. Brut. 64; V. Max. 6.2.8; Plut. Pomp. 4.) It would seem that Philippus did not live to see the return of Pompey from Spain.
Philippus was one of the most distinguished orators of his time. His reputation continued even to the Augustan age, whence we read in Horace (Hor. Ep. 1.7.46):--
"Strenuus et fortis causisque Philippus agendis Clarus."
Cicero says that Philippus was decidedly inferior as an orator to his two great contemporaries Crassus and Antonius, but was without question next to them. In speaking he possessed much freedom and wit; he was fertile in invention, and clear in the development of his ideas; and in altercation he was witty and sarcastic. He was also well acquainted with Greek literature for that time (Cic. Brut. 47). He was accustomed to speak extempore, and, when he rose to speak, he frequently did not know with what word he should begin (Cic. de Or. 2.78): hence in his old age it was with both contempt and anger that he used to listen to the studied periods of Hortensius (Cic. Brut. 95). Philippus was a man of luxurious habits, which his wealth enabled him to gratify: his fish-ponds were particularly celebrated for their magnificence and extent, and are mentioned by the ancients along with those of Lucullus and Hortensius (Varr. R. R. 3.3.10; Colum. viii 16; Plin. Nat. 9.54.80). Besides his son, L. Philippus, who is spoken of below [No. 6], he had a step-son Gellius Publicola [Publicola]. (Our knowledge respecting Philippus is chiefly derived from Cicero, the various passages in whose writings relating to him are collected in Orelli, Onom. Tull vol. ii. p. 380, &c.; comp Meyer, Orator. Roman. Frtagm. p. 323, &c., 2d ed.; Westermann, Cesch. der Rlm. Beredtsamkeit, § 42,.)
6. L. Marcius Philippus, L. F. Q. N., the son of the preceding, seems to have been praetor in B. C. 60, since we find him propraetor in Syria in B. C. 59 (Appian, App. Syr. 51). He was consul in B. C. 56, with Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus. Philippus was closely connected with Caesar's family. Upon the death of C. Octavims, the father of the emperor Augustus, Philippas married his widow Atia, who was the daughter of Julia, the sister of the dictator, and he thus became the step-father of Augustus (Suet. Octav. 8; Vell. 2.59, 60 ; Cic. Phil. iii. 6; Appian, App. BC 3.10, 13; Plut. Cic. 41). Ovid, indeed, says (Fast. 6.809), that he married the sister of the mother (matertera) of Augustus, and hence it has been conjectured that Philippus may have married both sisters in succession, for that he was the step-father of Augustus cannot admit of dispute. (The question is discussed by Orelli, Onom. Tull. vol. ii. p. 382.)
Notwithstanding his close connection with Caesar's family, Philippus remained neutral in the civil wars. He was at Rome when the senate took open measures against Caesar at the beginning of B. C. 49; and in the division of the provinces among the leading members of the senate, he was purposely passed over (Caes. Civ. 1.6). He subsequently obtained permission from Caesar to take no part in the struggle, and remained quietly in Italy during the whole of the war. Caesar, however, with his usual magnanimity, did not resent this lukewarmness in his cause, but continued to show him marks of friendship and esteem. Philippus was also on good terms with Cicero, who mentions him not unfrequently, and calls him in joke Amyntae filius, in allusion to his name Philippus (Cic. Att. 9.12, 15, 16, 18, 13.52).
Philippus was a timid man. After the assassination of Caesar, he endeavoured to dissuade his step-son, the young Octavius, from accepting the inheritance which the dictator had left him (Vell. 2.60; Suet. Aug. 8; Appian, App. BC 3.10, 13; comp. Cic. Att. 14.12). When Antony and the senate came to an open rupture, Philippus was one of the ambassadors sent to the former at Mutina by the senate, and was nuch blamed by Cicero, because, being the ambassador of the senate, he brought back to that body the shameless demands of Antony. (Cic. ad Fam. 12.4, Phil. 8.10, 9.1.)
Philippus must have attained a good old age. He lived till his step-son had acquired the supremacy of the Roman world. for we find him mentioned as one of the Roman nobles, who ornamented the city with public buildings at the request of the emperor. He built the temple of Hercules and the Muses, which had been first erected by M. Fulvins Nobilior, consul B. C. 189, and he surrounded it with a colonnade, which is frequently mentioned under the name of Porticus Philippi. (Suet. Ocltv. 29 ; clari monimenta Philippi, Ov. Fast. 6.801; Mart. 5.49. 9; Plin. Nat. 35.10; Becker, Römisch. Alterthum. vol. i. p. 613.)
Philippus left two children, a son [No. 7], and a daughter, Marcia, who was the second wife of Cato Uticensis. [MARCIA, No. 4.]
7. L. Marcius Philippus, L. F. L. N., the son of the preceding, was tribune of the plebs, B. C. 49. when he put his veto upon one of the appointments which the senate wished to make (Caes. Civ. 1.6). He was praetor in B. C. 44, and is in that year called by Cicero, vir ptre, avo, majoribus suis dignissimus. (Cic. Phil. 3.10.)
8. Q. Marcius Philippus, proconsul in Asia, in B. C. 54, to whom Cicero sends two recommendatory letters (ad Fam. 13.73, 74). The connection of this Philippus with the other members of the family is not known.
One of the coins belonging to the Philippi has been given above. The following one, which was also struck by some member of the family, refers to the two greatest distinctions of the Marcia gens. The obverse represents the head of Ancus Marcius, the fourth king of Rome, from whom the gens claimed descent [Marcia Gens]; the reverse gives a representation of an aqueduct, with the letters AQVA MR (i. e. Aqua Marcia) between the arches, supporting an equestrian statue. This Aqua Marcia was one of the most important of the Roman aqueducts, and was built by the praetor Q. Marcius Rex in B. C. 145.
(Φίλιππος), king of SYRIA, was a son of Antiochus VIII., and twin-brother of Antiochus XI. After the defeat and death of their elder brother Seleucus VI., Philip and Antiochus united their arms against Antiochus X., who then occupied the throne of Syria; but they were defeated in a decisive battle, in which Antiochus XI. perished. Philip nevertheless assumed the royal title, and was able to maintain himself in the possession of a part of Syria. The fourth brother, Demetrius III., was now set up as king at Damascus by Ptolemy Lathurus, and made common cause with Philip against Antiochus X. The fate of the latter is uncertain, but it is clear that Philip and Demetrius succeeded in making themselves masters of the whole of Syria, which they appear to have divided between them. Their concord, however, did not last long; Demetrius was the first to turn his arms against Philip, but the latter was supported not only by Straton tyrant of Beraea, but by a large Parthian army under a general named Mithridates, who blockaded Demetrius in his camp, and ultimately took him prisoner. After this Philippus made himself master of Antioch, and became for a short time sole ruler of Syria, probably in the year B. C. 88. But the civil war was soon renewed by his remaining brother Antiochus XII., who made himself master of Damascus and Coele-Syria, of which Philip was unable to dispossess him. (J. AJ 13.13.4, 14.3, 15.1; Euseb. Arm. p. 169.) The subsequent fortunes of the latter are wholly unknown but it seems certain that he was dethroned, and probably also put to death by Tigranes, king of Armenia, when that monarch established himself on the throne of Syria, B. C. 83. (Trog. Pomp. Prol. xl.; Euseb. Arm. p. 170; Eckhel. vol. iii. p. 244; Froelich. Ann. Syr. p. 114 ; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 339
[E.H.B]
(Φίλιππος), literary and ecclesiastical.
1. Abucara or Abuvara. Work on the Enchiridion of the Greek grammarian, Hephaestion of Alexandria
He was one of the Greek scholiasts on the Enchiridion of the Greek grammarian, Hephaestion of Alexandria [Hephaestion, No. 1], or perhaps the compiler of the Scholia. Editions
These are usually published in the various editions of Hephaestion. The Scholia are ascribed to our Philip in a MS. in the King's Library at Paris. Further Information
Catal. 1MStorum Biblioth. Regiae, No. nmmdclxxiv. No. 1. vol. ii. p. 539, fol. Paris, 1740; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 709; Vossius, De Hist. Graec. lib. iii.
2. Of Amphipolis, a Greek writer of unknown date, remarkable for his obscenity, of which Suidas (s. v. ἀποσιμῶσαι) has given a sufficiently significant specimen. He wrote, according to Suidas (s. r. Φίλιππος) :--1. Ρ̓οδιακὰ βιβλία iq, Rhodiaca Libris XIX., a history of Rhodes, which Suidas especially stigmatizes for the obscenity of its matter. 2. κωανὰ (s. Κωιακἂ, βιβλία βʼ, Coiaca Libris dvolams, a history of the island of Cos. 3. Θυσιακά, De Sacrificiis, or more probably Θασιακά, Thasiaca, a history of Thasos, also in two books. He wrote some other works not enumerated by Suidas. Theodorus Priscianus, an ancient medical writer (Logicus, 100.11), classes Philip of Amphipolis with Herodian and lamblichus the Syrian [Iamblichus, No. 1], as a pleasant writer of amatory tales, whose works tended to allure the mind to the pursuit of pleasure. All his works appear to be lost. (Suidas ll. cc. ; Theodor. Priscian. l.c.; Fabric. BBL. Graec. vol. viii. pp. 159, 160; Vossius, De Hist. Graec. lib. iii.)
3. Apostolus. [No. 11.]
4. Caesariensis Synodi Relator. Works account of the council of Caesareia
The account of the council of Caesareia, held A. D. 196, which (if indeed it be genuine) was written by Theophilus of Caesareia, who lived about that time [Theophilus], was published by the Jesuit Bucherius, as the work of one Philippus; the editor being apparently misled by an error in the MS. used by him. Editions
The Jesuit Bucherius published this work in his notes to the Canon Paschalis of Victories of Aquitania, fol. Antwerp, 1634. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gracec. vol. vii. p. 107; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 192, vol. i. p. 87, ed. Oxford, 1740-1743.
5. Caricarum Rerum Scriptor. [No. 30.]
6. Of Chalcis, a Greek historian mentioned by Plutarch (Alex. Mag. Vita, 100.46) as one of the writers who regarded the story of the visit of the queen of the Amazons to Alexander the Great, as a fable.
7. Chollideus, or Chollidensis (Χολιδεὺς, more correctly Χολλιδεὺς), mentioned in Plato's will, given by Diogenes Laertius (3.41), as the owner of land adjoining a farm or estate which Plato bequeathed to his son Adeimantius. Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 181) notices this occurrence of the name of Philippus: and the compiler of the index to Fabricius has unwittingly converted the Attic landowner into a Platonic philosopher.
8. Comicus, the Comic Writer Works Comedies
Scarcely anything is known of him, except it be the title of some of his comedies, and even with respect to these there is considerable difficulty. Suidas (s. v.), on the authority of Athenaeus, ascribes to him a comedy entitled κωδωνιασταί, but no such title is found in the present text of Athenaeus; and it is doubtful if that writer has mentioned Philip at all. His name occurs, indeed, in one place (viii. p. 358f.), according to the older editions, but the correct reading is Ephippus. Philip is among the comic poets from whom passages are given in the several collections of the Poetae Gnomici Graeci ; but only one citation appears to be ascribed to him, said by Grotius to be from a comedy entitled Ὀλυνθιακός, Olynthiacus ; but Grotins assigns the play not to Philippus, but to Philippides. There is consequently not one known drama to which the title of Philip is clear and indisputable. Philip is probably the γελωτοποιὸς Φίλιππος, "the laughter-exciting Philip" of Maximus Tyrius (Dissert. xxi. vol. i. p. 402, ed. Reiske), and the Φίλιππος κωμῳδιδάς καλος of Themistius (Paraphras. Aristotelis Lib. I. de Anima, 100.3, sub fin. p. 68b. ed. Aldus, Venice, 1533, or 100.19, in the Latin version of Hermolaus Barbarus), who cites a saying of Daedalus, one of his characters. Further Information
Suidas, l.c. c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp. 728, 743, 747, 748, vol. ii. p. 480.
9. Diaconus, the Deacon. [No. 11.]
10. Epigrammaticus. Confusion among various epigrammatists named Philip
Among the writers whose Epigrammata are inserted in the various editions of the Anthologia Graeca, or in other works, are several who bear the name of Philip; as Philip the Macedonian [No. 15], and Philip of Thessalonica [see below].
There are two others: a Philip whom Fabricius styles Junior, and assigns to the fifth or sixth century after Christ. Works Epigramma in Amores sibi arridentes Constantinopoli
There is extant an Epigramma in Amores sibi arridentes Constantinopoli, which is assigned to Philip of Thessalonica. Editions
Among his epigrams it is No. lvii., in the editions of Brunck, vol. ii. p. 227, and Jacobs, vol. ii. p. 211. Epigramma in Herculem
There is a Philip called Byzantinus who composed an Epigramma in Herculem. Editions
This is given in the Mythologiae of Natalis Comes, lib. vii. pp. 691, 692, ed. sine loci not. 1653, and assigned to Philip of Thessalonica (No. li.) in the Anthologia of Brunck, vol. ii. pp. 225, 226, and Jacobs, vol. ii. p. 209. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 491.
11. Evangelista, the Evangelist. Works Gospel
Among the spurious gospels which were produced in the early ages of the Church, was one to which some of the Gnostic sects appealed (Epiphan. Haeres. 26.13), and which they ascribed to Philip, whether to the Apostle Philip or the deacon Philip, who in one passage in the New Testament (Acts, 21.8) is called the Evangelist, is not clear. A passage from this apocryphal gospel is cited by Epiphanius (ibid.) Timotheus, the presbyter of Constantinople (apud Meursium, Varia Divina, p. 117), and Leontius of Byzantium (De Sectis, act. s. lect. iii.) mention Τὸ κατὰ Φίλιππον Εὐαγγέλιον, Evangelium secundnum Philippum, as among the spurious books used by the Manichaeans. Whether this was the same book with that used by the Gnostics, is not determined. Further Information
Fabric. Cod. Apocryph. N. T. vol. i. p. 376, &c.
12. Of Gortyna, a Christian writer of the second century. He was bishop of the Church at Gortyna in Crete, and was spoken of in the highest terms by Dionysius of Corinth [Dionysius, literary, No. 22], in a letter to the Church at Gortyna and the other Churches in Crete (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.23), as having inspired his flock with manly courage, apparently during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius. Works Against Marcion
Philip wrote a book against Marcion [Marcion], which was highly esteemed by the ancients, but is now lost: Trithemius speaks of it as extant in his day, but his exactness as to whether books were in existence or not is not great. He also states that Philip wrote Ad Diversos Epistolae and Varii Tractatus, but these are not mentioned by the ancients. Further Information
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.21, 23, 25; Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 30; Trithem. De Scriptorib. Eccles. 100.19; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 172, vol. i. p. 74, ed. Oxford, 1740-1743.
13. Grammaticus S. RHETOR S. Sophista.
Nothing is known of the works or the writer, who must have lived at a later period than Herodian [Herodianus Aelius], who belongs to the age of the Antonines. Works on the aspirates, Περὶ πνευμάτων, De Spiritibus
Suidas (s. v. *Fi/lippos sofisth/s) ascribes to this writer a work on the aspirates, Περὶ πνευμάτων, De Spiritibus, taken from Herodian, and arranged in alphabetical order. Περὶ πνευμάτων, συναλοιφῆς, De Synaloepha.
Also a work Περὶ πνευμάτων, συναλοιφῆς, De Synaloepha.
14. Isangelus (ὁ εἰσαγγελεύς), a writer cited by Plutarch (Alex. Mag. Vita, 100.46) as one of those who affirmed that the account of the visit of the queen of the Amazons to Alexander was a fiction. It has been conjectured (vide Reiske, Not. ad Plutarch. l.c.) that ὁ εἰσαγγελεύς is a corrupt reading, and that it should be ὁ Θεαγ γελεύς. [No. 30.]
15. Macedo, the Macedonian.
Fabricius supposed him to have been a different person from Philip of Thessalonica (see below), and to have lived in the reign of Caligula, whose bridge at Puteoli has been thought to be referred to. But Jacobs (Animadvers. in loc.) considers the reference to be to the Portus Julius formed by Agrippa in Lake Lucrinus near Baiae, and places the Epigramma among those of Philip of Thessalonica. Works Epigram
An Epigramma in the Anthologia Graeca (lib. 4. c.11, vol. ii. p. 232, ed. Brunck, vol. ii. p. 216, No. lxxiv. ed. Jacobs) is ascribed by Fabricius to a Philippus Macedo, Philip the Macedonian.
16. Medmaeus (ὁ Μεδμαῖος), an astronomer of Medama or Medma in Magna Graecia (about 25 miles N. N. E. of Rhegium), and a disciple of Plato, under whose direction he turned his attention to the mathematical sciences. His observations, which were made in the Peloponnesus and in Locris, were used by the astronomers Hipparchus, Geminus the Rhodian, and Ptolemy.
In the Latin version of Proclus, by Franc. Ba?ocius (lib. 2. c.4), Philip is called Mendaeus, which is doubtless an error either of the printer or translator, or perhaps of the MS. which he used. Mende was in Macedonia, in the peninsula of Pallene. Works
He is mentioned by several ancient writers, as Vitruvius (Architect. 9.7, s. ut alii 4), Pliny the elder (H. N. 18.31. s. 74), Plutarch (Quod non possit suaviter vivi second. Epicur Opera, vel x. p. 500, ed. Reiske), who states that he demonstrated the figure of the moon; Proclus (In I. Euclid. Element. Lib. Commentar.), and Alexander Aphrodisiensis. Treatise on the Winds
He is said by Stephanus of Byzantium (De Urbibus s. v. Medme) to have written a treatise on the winds. Treatise on the mathematical passages in Plato
Fabricius also states that "Philippus Mendaeus extracted and explained all the mathematical passages which he had noticed in the works of his instructor Plato ;" but he does not give his authority for the statement. Mendaeus is here, too, an evident error for Medmaeus. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 10, vol. vi. p. 243.
17. Megaricus (ὁ Μεγαρικός), i. e. the Megaric Philosopher [comp. Eucleides of Megara]. Works
Diogenes Laertius (2.113) has given an extract from a work of this Philip, containing some account of Stilpo of Megara [Stilpo], who lived during the struggles of the successors of Alexander the Great.
18. Mendaeus. [No. 16.]
19. Of Opus. Suidas (s. v. Φιλόσοφος) has this remarkable passage: "--, a philosopher who divided the Leges (s. De Legibus) of Plato into twelve books (for he is said to have added the thirteenth himself), and was a hearer of Socrates and of Plato himself; devoting himself to the contemplation of the heavens (σχολάσας τοῖς μετεώ ροις). He lived in the days of Philip of Macedon." Suidas then gives a long list of works written by Philip. It is evident that the passage as it stands in Suidas is imperfect, and that the name of the author of the numerous works which he mentions has been lost from the commencement of the passage. It appears, however, from the extract occupying its proper place in the Lexicon according to its present heading, that the defect existed in the source from which Suidas borrowed. Kuster, the editor of Suidas (not. in loc.), after long investigation, was enabled to supply the omission by comparing a passage in Diogenes Laertius (3.37), and to identify "the philosopher" of Suidas with Philip of the Locrian town of Opus, near the channel which separates Euboea from the main land. The passage in Laertius is as follows: "Some say that Philip the Opuntian transcribed his (Plato's) work, De Legibus, which was written in wax (i. e. on wooden tablets covered with a coat of wax). They say also that the Ἐπινομις, Epinomis (the thirteenth book of the De Legibus) is his," i. e. Philip's. The Epinomis, whether written by Philip or by Plato, is usually included amon, the works of the latter. [Plato.] Diogenes Laertius elsewhere (3.46) enumerates Philip among the disciples of Plato. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 104.)
20. Ori Apollinis Interpres Further Information
Voss. De Historicis Graecis, lib. iii.. [Horapollo.]
21. Parodus, the Parodist. Works Parodies
In a fragment of the Parodist. Matron [Matron]. quoted by Athenaeus, in which apparently there is an enumeration of Parodists who had lived long before Matron, two or more writers of the name of Philip are mentioned, with the laudatory epithet "eminent" (δῖοί τε Φίλιπποι, "nobiles Philippi") ; but of their country, works, or age, except that they lived long before (πάρος, "olim") Matron himself, who cannot be placed later than the time of Philip king of Macedon, nothing is known.
22. Presbyter.
Gennadius (De Viris Illustrib. 100.62) states that Philip the Presbyter was a disciple of Jerome, and that he died in the reign of Marcian and Avitus over the Eastern and Western Empires respectively, i.e. A. D. 456. [Avitus ; Marcianus.] Works
He wrote, 1. Commentarius in Jobum 2. Familiares Epistolae Of these, Genadius, who had read them, speaks highly. These Epistolae have perished. Commentarius in Jobum Editions
A Commentarius in Jobum addressed to Nectarius has been several times printed, sometimes separately under the name of Philip (two editions, fol. and 4to. Basel, 1527), and sometimes under the name and among the works of Venerable Bede and of Jerome. Vallarsius and the Benedictine editors of Jerome give the Commentarius in their editions of that father (vol. v. p. 678, &c. ed. Benedict., vol. xi. col. 565, &c. ed. Vallars.), but not as his. The Prologus or Praefatio ad Nectarium are omitted, and the text differs very widely from that given in the Cologne edition of Bede (vol. iv. p. 447, &c.) fol. 1612, in which the work is given as Bede's, without any intimation of its doubtful authorship. Cave, Oudin, and Vallarsi agree in ascribing the work to Philip, though Vallarsi is not so decided in his opinion as the other two. Further Information
Gennad. l.c. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 440, vol. i. p. 434; Oudin, De Scriptorib. Eccles. vol. i. col. 1165; Vallarsi, Opera Hieron. vol. iii. col. 825, &c., vol. xi. col. 565, 566; Fabric. Biblioth. Med. et Infim. Latiz. vol. v. p. 295, ed. Mansi.
23. Of Prusa (ὁ Προυσιεύς), a stoic philosopher, contemporary with Plutarch, who has introduced him as one of the speakers in his Sympos. (vii. quaest. 7.)
24. Rhetor. [No. 13.]
25. Scriptor De Agricultura. Works On Agriculture
Athenaeus (iii.) mentions a Philippus, without any distinctive epithet, as the author of a work on Agriculture, either entitled Γεωργικόν, Georgicum, or similar to the work of Androtion, another writer on agriculture [Androtion], which bore that title. Nothing more is known of this Philip.
26. Of Side (ὁ Σιδίτης, or Σιδέτης, or ὁ ἀπὸ Σίδης), a Christian writer of the first half of the fifth century. His birth must be placed in the latter part of the fourth century, but its exact date is not known. He was a native of Side in Pamphylia, and according to his own account in the fragment published by Dodwell (see below), when Rhodon, who succeeded Didymus in the charge of the Catechetical school of Alexandria, transferred that school to Side, Philip became one of his pupils. If we suppose Didymus to have retained the charge of the school till his death, A. D. 396 [Didymus, No. 4], at the advanced age of 86, the removal of the school cannot have taken place long before the close of the century, and we may infer that Philip's birth could scarcely have been earlier than A. D. 380. He was a kinsman of Troilus of Side, the rhetorician, who was tutor to Socrates the ecclesiastical historic, and was indeed so eminent that Philip regarded his relationship to him as a subject of exultation (Socrates, H. E. 7.27). Having entered the church, he was ordained deacon, and had much intercourse with Chrysostom; in the titles of some MSS. he is styled his Syncellns, or personal attendant, which makes it probable that he was, from the early part of his ecclesiastical career, connected with the church at Constantinople. Liberatus (Breviar. 100.7) says he was ordained deacon by Chrysostom; but Socrates, when speaking of his intimacy with that eminent man, does not say he was ordained by him. Philip devoted himself to literary pursuits, and collected a large library. He cultivated the Asiatic or diffuse style of composition, and became a voluminous writer. At what period of his life his different works were produced is not known. His Ecclesiastical History was, as we shall see, written after his disappointment in obtaining the patriarchate : but as his being a candidate for that high office seems to imply some previous celebrity, it may be inferred that his work or works in reply to the emperor Julian's attacks on Christianity were written at an earlier period. On the death of Atticus patriarch of Constantinople A. D. 425 [Atticus] Philip, then a presbyter, apparently of the great church of Constantinople, and Proclus, another presbyter, were proposed, each by his own partizans, as candidates for the vacant see; but the whole people were bent upon the election of Sisinnius, also a presbyter, though not of Constantinople, but of a church in Elaea, one of the suburbs. (Socrates, H. E. 7.26.) The statement of Socrates as to the unanimity of the popular wish leads to the inference that the supporters of Philip and Proclus were among the clergy. Sisinnius was the successful candidate; and Philip, mortified at his defeat, made in his Ecclesiastical History such severe strictures on the election of his more fortunate rival, that Socrates could not venture to transcribe his remarks; and has expressed his strong disapproval of his headstrong temper. On the death of Sisinnius (A. D. 428) the supporters of Philip were again desirous of his appointment, but the emperor, to prevent disturbances, determined that no ecclesiastic of Constantinople should succeed to the vacancy; and the ill-fated heresiarch Nestorius [Nestorius], from Antioch, was consequently chosen. After the deposition of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), Philip was a third time candidate for the patriarchate, but was again unsuccessful. Nothing is known of him after this. It has been conjectured that he was dead before the next vacancy in the patriarchate A. D. 434, when his old competitor Proclus was chosen. Certainly there is no notice that Philip was again a candidate : but the prompt decision of the emperor Theodosius in Proclus' favour prevented all competition, so that no inference can be drawn from Philip's quiescence. Works
Philip wrote, 1. Multa volumina contra Imperatorem Julianum Apostam.
(Liberatus, Breviar. 100.7; comp. Socrat. H. E. 7.27.) It is not clear from the expression of Liberatus, which we have given as the title, whether Philip wrote many works, or, as is more likely, one work in many parts, in reply to Julian. 2. Ἱστορία Χριστιανική, Historia Christiana.
The work was very large, consisting of thirty-six Βίβλοι or Βιβλία. Libri, each subdivided into twenty-four τόμοι or λόγοι, i. e. sections. This voluminous work appears to have comprehended both sacred and ecclesiastical history, beginning from the Creation, and coming down to Philip's own day, as appears by his record of the election of Sisinnius, already noticed. It appears to have been finished not very long after that event. Theophanes places its completion in A. M. 5922, Alex. era=A. D. 430; which, according to him, was the year before the death of Sisinnius. That the work was completed before the death of Sisinnius is probable from the apparent silence of Philip as to his subsequent disappointments in obtaining the patriarchate : but as Sisinnius, according to a more exact chronology, died A. D. 428, we may conclude that the work was finished in or before that year, and, consequently, that the date assigned by Theophanes is rather too late. The style was verbose and wearisome, neither polished nor agreeable; and the matter such as to display ostentatiously the knowledge of the writer, rather than to conduce to the improvement of the reader. It was, in fact, crammed with matter of every kind, relevant and irrelevant : questions of geometry, astronomy. arithmetic and music; descriptions of islands, mountains and trees, rendered it cumbersome and unreadable. Chronological arrangement was disregarded. Editions
The work is lost, with the exception of three fragments. One of these, De Scholae Catechetice Alexandrinae Successione, on the succession of teachers in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, was published from a MS. in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, by Dodwell, with his Dissertationes in Irenaeum, 8vo Oxford, 1689, and has been repeatedly reprinted It is given in the ninth volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, p. 401.
Another fragment in the same MS., De Constantino, Maximiano, et Licinio Augustis. was prepared for publication by Crusius, but has never, we believe, been actually published. The third fragment, Τὰ γενόμενα ἐν Περσίδι μεταξὺ Χριστιανῶν Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων Acta Disputationis de Christo, in Perside, inter Christianos, Gentiles, et Judaeos habitae, is (or was) in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Philip was present at the disputation. Further Information
Socrates, H. E. 7.26, 27, 29, 35; Liberatus, l.c.; Phot. Bibl. cod. 35; Theophan. Chronog. p. 75, ed. Paris, p. 60, ed. Venice, vol. i. p. 135, ed. Bonn; Tillemont. Hist. des Empereurs, vol. vi. p. 130; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 418, vol. i. p. 395; Oudin. De Scriptorib. Eccles. vol. i. col. 997; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. pp. 739, 747, 749, vol. vii. p. 418, vol. x. p. 691; Galland, Biblioth. Patrum, vol. ix. Prol. 100.11; Lamnbecius, Commentar. de Biblioth. Cae saraea, lib. s. vol. v. col. 289, vol. vi. pars ii. col. 406, ed. Kollar.
27. Solitarius. The title Solitarius is given by bibliographers to a Greek monk of the time of the emperor Alexius I. Comnenus, of whom nothing further seems to be known than what may be gleaned from the titles and introductions of his extant works. Works
He wrote :-- 1. Διόπτρα, Dioptra
Dioptra, s. Amussis Fideil et Vitae Christianae, written in the kind of measure called "versus politici," * These "versus politici" are thus described by the Jesuit Goar : In versibus politicis, numerus syllabarum ad cantum non ad exactae poetices prosodiam observatur. Octava syllaba, ubi caesura est. medium versus tenet, reliquae septem perficiunt. His recentiores ὁμοιοτελεῦτα, pariter cadentium exitum, quem rhythmum (rhyme) dicimus, addidere. Politicos vocatos arbitror quod vulgo Constantinopoli per compita canerentur. Quoted in Lambec. Commentar. de Biblioth. Caesar. vol. s. lib. iv. col. 397, note 2, ed. Kollar. The measure is retained in English as a ballad measure, and may be illustrated by the old ditty of "The Unfortunate Miss Bayley," the first two lines of which closely resemble in their cadence those cited in the text :-- A captain bold of Halifax, who lived in country quarters, Seduced a maid who hung herself one morning in her garters, amp;c. and in the form of a dialogue between the soul and the body. It is addressed to another monk, Callinicus ; and begins with these two lines :-- πῶς κάθῃ; πῶς ἀμεριμνεῖς; πῶς ἀμελωῖς, ψυχή μου ; ὁ χρόνος σου πεπλήρωται · ἔξελθε τοῦ σαρκίου.
The work, in its complete state, consisted of five books; but most of the MSS. are mutilated or otherwise defective, and want the first book. Some of them have been interpolated by a later hand. Michael Psellus, not the older writer of that name, who died about A. D. 1078, but one of later date, wrote a preface and notes to the Dioptra of Philip. Editions
A Latin prose translation of the Dioptra by the Jesuit Jacobus Pontanus, with notes, by another Jesuit, Jacobus Gretserus, was published, 4to. Ingoldstadt, 1604; but it was made from a mutilated copy, and consisted of only four books, and these, as the translator admits in his Praefatio ad Lectorem, interpolated and transposed ad libitum. Philip wrote also :-- 2. Τῷ κατὰ πνεῦμα υἱῷ καὶ ἱερεῖ Κωνσταντίνῳ περὶ πρεσβείας καὶ προστασίας ἀπόλογους, Epistola Apologetica ad Constantianum Filium Spiritualem et Sacerdotem, de Differantia inter Intercessionem et Auxilium Sanctorum.
3. Versus Politiciin the beginning of which he states with great exactness the time of his finishing the Dioptra, 12th May, A. M. 6603, era Constantinop. in the third indiction, in the tenth year of the lunar Cycle=A. D. 1095, not 1105, as has been incorrectly stated. Other works
Cave has, without sufficient authority, ascribed to our Philip two other works, which are indeed given in a Vienna MS. (Codex 213, apud Lambec.) as Appendices to the Dioptra. One of these works (Appendix secunda), Ὅτι οὐκ ἔφαγε τὸ νομικὸν πάσχα ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀληθινόν, Demonstratio quod Christus in Sacra Coena non legale sed verum comederit Pascha, may have been written by Philip. Its arguments are derived from Scripture and St. Epiphanius. The other work, consisting of five chapters, De Fide et Caeremoniis Armeniorum, Jacobitarum, Chatzitzariorum et Romanorum seu Francorum, was published, with a Latin version, but without an author's name, in the Auctarium Novum of Combéfis, fol. Paris, 1648, vol. ii. col. 261, &c., but was, on the authority of MSS., assigned by Combéfis, in a note, to Demetrius of Cyzicus [Demetrius, No. 17], to whom it appears rightly to belong (comp. Cave, Hist. Litt. Dissertatio I. p. 6; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. 11.414). The Chatzitzarii (Χατζιτζάριοι) were a sect who paid religious homage to the image of the Cross, but employed no other images in their worship. Confusion with Demetrius
The work of Demetrius appears under the name of Philip in the fourteenth (posthumous) volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland ; but the editors, in their Prolegomena to the volume, 100.15, observe that they knew not on what authority Galland had assigned it to Philip. Among the pieces given as Appendices to the Dioptra, are some verses in praise of the work and its author, by one Constantine, perhaps the person addressed in No. 2, and by Bestus or Vestus, a grammarian, Στίχοι κυροῦ Κωνσταντίνου καὶ Βέστου τοῦ γραμματικοῦ, Versus Domini Constantini et Vesti Grammatici. Further Information
Lambecius, Commentar. de Biblioth. Caesarea. lib. s. vol. v. col. 76-97, and 141, codd. 213, 214, 215, and 232, ed Kollar; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 1095, vol. ii. p. 163; Oudin, De Scriptorib. Eccles. vol. ii. col. 851.
28. Sophista. [No. 13.]
29. Studita. In the notice of the Adversaria Gerardi Langbaini contained in the Catalogus MStorum Angliae et Hiberniae, vol. i. p. 269. the eighth volume of Langbaine's collection is said to contain a notice, De Philippi Studitae Historia Graeca. Of the historian or his work there is, we believe, no notice in any extant writer; and as the preceding article in Langbaine's book is described as Scholae Alexandrinae Paedagogorum Successio, and is probably the fragment of the work of Philip of Side, already noticed [No. 26], we suspect that "Studitae" is an error for "Sidetae," and that the Historia Graeca is no other than his Historia Christiana, which is termed Graeca, not because it treats of Grecian affairs, but is written in the Greek language. Further Information
Catal. MStorum Angliae, &c. l.c. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 709.
30. Of Theangela (ὁ Θεαγγελεύς), a writer cited by Athenaeus, (vi. p. 271b) and by Strabo (xiv. p.662). Theangela, from which Philip received his designation, apparently as being a native of it, was a city on the most eastern promontory of Caria, not far from Halicarnassus. Of the age of Philip nothing is known, except that he was earlier than Strabo; but if there is any reason for identifying him with Philip Isangelus (ὁ Εἰσαγγελεύς), mentioned by Plutarch (No. 14), he must be placed after the time of Alexander the Great. Works History of Caria
He wrote a history of Caria, the title or description of which is thus given by Athenaeus (l.c.), Περὶ Καρῶν καὶ Λελέγων σύγγραμμα ; and by Strabo more briefly, Καρικά. The work is lost. Further Information
Vossius, De Hist. Graec. lib. iii.
31. Theopompi Epitomator. (Comp. Photius, Biblioth. cod. 176.)
32. Of Thessalonica. [See below.] [J.C.M]
of Thessalonica, an epigrammatic poet, who, besides composing a large number of epigrams himself, compiled one of the ancient Greek Anthologies. Works Epigrams
The whole number of epigrams ascribed to him in the Greek Anthology is nearly ninety; but of these, six (Nos. 36-41) ought to be ascribed to Lucillius, and a few others are manifestly borrowed from earlier poets, while others are mere imitations. [Comp. above, Phlippus, literary, Nos. 10 and 15.] They include nearly all the different classes of subjects treated of in the Greek epigrammatic poetry. The Anthology of Philip
The Anthology (Ἀντηολογψ) of Philip, in imitation of that of Meleager, and as a sort of supplement to it, contains chiefly the epigrams of poets who lived in, or shortly before, the time of Philip. These poets were the following : Antipater of Thessalonica, Crinagoras, Antiphilus, Tullius, Philodemus, Parmenion, Antiphanes, Automedon Zonas, Bianor, Antigonus, Diodorus, Evenus, and some others whose names he does not mention. The earliest of these poets seems to be Philodemus, the contemporary of Cicero, and the latest Automedon, who probably flourished under Nerva. Hence it is inferred that Philip flourished in the time of Trajan. Various allusions in his own epigrams prove that he lived after the time of Augustus. Further Information
Jacobs, Anth. Graec. vol. xiii. pp. 934-936. [P.S]
(Φίλιππος), the name of several physicians.
1. A native of Acarnania, the friend and physician of Alexander the Great, of whom a wellknown story is told by several ancient authors. He was the means of saving the king's life, when he had been seized with a severe attack of fever, brought on by bathing in the cold waters of the river Cydnus in Cilicia, after being violently heated, B. C. 333. Parmenion sent to warn Alexander that Philippus had been bribed by Dareius to poison him; the king, however, would not believe the information, nor doubt the fidelity of his physician, but. while he drank off the draught prepared for him, he put into his hands the letter he had just received, fixing his eyes at the same time steadily on his countenance. A well-known modern picture represents this incident; and the king's speedy recovery fully justified his confidence in the skill and honesty of his physician. (Q. Curt. 3.6 ; Valer. Max. 3.8, in fine; Plut. Vit. Alex. 100.19 ; Arrian, 2.4; Justin, 11.8; Diod. 17.31.)
2. A native of Epeirus at the court of Antigonus, king of Asia, B. C. 328-301. Celsus tells an anecdote (De Med. 3.21, p. 56) that, when another physician said that one of the king's friends, who was suffering from dropsy caused by his intemperate habits, was incurable, Philippus undertook to restore him to health; upon which the other replied that he had not been thinking so much of the nature of the disease, as of the character of the patient, when he denied the possibility of his recovery. The result justified his prognosis.
3. A contemporary of Juvenal at Rome, about the beginning of the second century after Christ. (Sat. 13.125.)
4. A contemporary of Galen, about the middle of the second century after Christ, who belonged to the sect of the Empirici, and held a disputation for two days with Pelops (probably at Smyrna), in defence of their doctrines (Galen. De Libris Propr. 100.2, vol. xix. p. 16). It does not seem possible to decide with certainty whether this is the same person who is frequently mentioned in different parts of Galen's writings; who wrote on marasmus (De Differ. Febr. 1.10, vol. vii. p. 315, De Marc. cc. 5, 6, 7, 9, vol. vii. pp. 685, 689, 694, 701, De Caus. Pul. 4.10, vol. ix. p. 176, De Meth. Med. 7.6, 10.10, vol. x. pp. 495, 706), on materia medica (De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. 7.1, vol. xiii. p. 14, De Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. 2.5, 3.9, vol. xiii. pp. 502, 642), and on catalepsy (Cael. Aurel. De Morb. Acut. 2.10, p. 96 ; conf. Gal. Comment. in Hippocr. "Prorrhet. I." 2.90, vol. xvi. p. 684). Several of his medical formulae are preserved, from one of which it appears that he practised at Caesareia (Galen, de Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. 4.8, 7.4, 5, 9.5, vol. xii. p. 735, vol. xiii. pp. 88, 105, 304; Paul. Aegin. 7.12, p. 663; Aet. 3.1. 48, p. 503; Nicol. Myr. De Compos. Medicare. 41.14, 21, p. 785). He is also mentioned by Galen, De Febr. Differ. 2.6, vol. vii. p. 347, De Plenit. 100.4, vol. vii. p. 530. It is uncertain whether the Philippus of Macedonia, one of whose antidotes is quoted by Galen (De Antid. 2.8, vol. xiv. p. 149), is the same person.
A sophist of this name is said by Aetius (1.4. 96, p. 186) to have promised immortality to those persons who would engage to follow his directions, but it is not specified that he was a physician ; neither is it known whether the father of the celebrated physician, Archigenes, whose name was Philippus (Suid. s. v. Ἀρχιγένης), was himself a member of the medical profession. [W.A.G]
- , Φίλιππος, a king of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great, C., N.—A gold coin struck by King Philip, H.
-
…quidem tempore cum esset non nemo in senatu qui diceret non oportere mitti hominem privatum pro consule, L. Philippus dixisse dicitur non se illum sua sententia pro consule sed pro consulibus mittere. tanta in eo rei publicae bene…
Cicero, pro Lege Manilia
-
…. aliter Thrasybulus et fortasse melius. sed est certa quaedam illa Muci ratio atque sententia, est illa etiam Philippi, et cum sit necesse servire tempori et non amittere tempus cum sit datum. sed in hoc ipso habent…
Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum
-
…itaque ornavit et inlustravit doctrinam illam omnem rerumque cognitionem cum orationis exercitatione coniunxit. Neque vero hoc fugit sapientissimum regem Philippum, qui hunc Alexandro filio doctorem accierit, a quo eodem ille et agendi acciperet praecepta et eloquendi. Nunc…
Cicero, de Oratore
-
…quos ille diutissime commoretur. qua re si propter socios nulla ipsi iniuria lacessiti maiores nostri cum Antiocho, cum Philippo, cum Aetolis, cum Poenis bella gesserunt, quanto vos studiosius convenit iniuriis provocatos sociorum salutem una cum imperi…
Cicero, pro Lege Manilia
-
…, rem publicam capessivit, et Aristodemum, tragicum item actorem, maximis de rebus pacis et belli legatum ad Philippum Athenienses saepe miserunt. Liber Quintus August. C. D. ., Non. M Ennius Moribus antiquis…
M. Tullius Cicero, De Republica
-
…plebis turbulenti tulerunt. nam Sertorianum bellum a senatu privato datum est, quia consules recusabant, cum L. Philippus pro consulibus eum se mittere dixit, non pro consule. quae igitur haec comitia, aut quam ambitionem constantissimus…
Cicero, Philippicae
-
…, nulla habeo et descripta attulit illa e via misi ad te ante ; e quibus mandata intellegi posse. Philippus Neapoli est, Lentulus Puteolis. de Domitio, ut facis, sciscitare ubi sit, quid cogitet. quod…
Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum
-
…. adiungit agros Bithyniae regios quibus nunc publicani fruuntur ; deinde Attalicos agros in Cherroneso, in Macedonia qui regis Philippi sive Persae fuerunt, qui item a censoribus locati sunt et certissimum vectigal ; adferunt ;. ascribit…
Cicero, de Lege Agraria
-
…dicendi laus a nostris hominibus concessa est, auctoritatem Graecis anteponam. Cum igitur vehementius inveheretur in causam principum consul Philippus Drusique tribunatus pro senatus auctoritate susceptus infringi iam debilitarique videretur, dici mihi memini ludorum Romanorum diebus L. Crassum…
Cicero, de Oratore
-
…minus mecum esses, quod nunc etiam impedit. mihi nihil adhuc aptius fuit hac solitudine ; quam vereor ne Philippus tollat. heri enim vesperi venerat. me scriptio et litterae non leniunt sed obturbant. Scr. Asturae iv…
Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum
(Φίλιππος). I. Minor Historical Persons. (1) The son of Alexander I. of Macedonia, and brother of Perdiccas II., against whom he rebelled in conjunction with Derdas. The rebels were aided by the Athenians, B.C. 432.
(2) The son of Herod the Great, king of Iudea, by his wife Cleopatra , was appointed by his father's will tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, the sovereignty of which was confirmed to him by the decision of Augustus. He continued to reign over the dominions thus intrusted to his charge for thirty-seven years (B.C. 4-A.D. 34). He founded the city of Caesarea, surnamed Paneas, but more commonly known as Caesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan, which he named in honour of Augustus.
(3) A son of Herod the Great, by Mariamné, whose proper name was Herodes Philippus. He must not be confounded with the preceding Philip. He was the first husband of Herodias, who afterwards divorced him, contrary to the Jewish law, and married his half-brother, Herod Antipas. It is Herod Philip, and not the preceding, who is meant by the Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 3; Mark, vi. 17; Luke, iii. 19), when they speak of Philip, the brother of
II. Kings of Macedonia. (1) Philippus I., son of Argaeus, was the third king, according to Herodotus and Thucydides, who, not reckoning Caranus and his two immediate successors (Coenus and Thurimas or Turimmas), look upon Perdiccas I. as the founder of the monarchy. Philip left a son, named Aëropus, who succeeded him.
(2) Philippus II., the youngest son of Amyntas II. and Eurydicé, reigned B.C. 359-336. He was born in 382, and was brought up at Thebes, whither he had been carried as a hostage by Pelopidas, and where he received a most careful education. Upon the death of his brother Perdiccas III., who was slain in battle against the Illyrians, Philip obtained the government of Macedonia, at first merely as regent and guardian to his infant nephew Amyntas; but at the end of a few months he was enabled to set aside the claims of the young prince, and to assume for himself the title of king. Macedonia was beset by dangers on every side. Its territory was ravaged by the Illyrians on the west, and the Paeonians on the north, while Pausanias and Argaeus took advantage of the crisis to put forward their pretensions to the throne. Philip was fully equal to the emergency. By his tact and eloquence he sustained the failing spirits of the Macedonians, while at the same time he introduced among them a stricter military discipline, and organized their army on the plan of the phalanx. He first turned his army against Argaeus, the most formidable of the pretenders, since he was supported by the Athenians. He defeated Argaeus in battle, and then concluded a peace with the Athenians. He next attacked the Paeonians, whom he reduced to subjection, and immediately afterwards defeated the Illyrians in a decisive battle, and compelled them to accept a peace, by which they lost a portion of their territory. Thus in the short period of one year, and at the age of twenty-four, had Philip delivered himself from his dangerous position, and provided for the security of his kingdom. But energy and talents such as his were not satisfied with mere security, and henceforth his views were directed not to defence, but to aggrandizement. His first efforts were directed to obtain possession of the various Greek cities upon the Macedonian coast. Soon after his accession he had withdrawn his garrison from Amphipolis, and had declared it a free city, because the Athenians had supported Argaeus with the hope of recovering Amphipolis, and his continuing to hold the place would have interposed difficulties in the way of a peace with Athens, which was at that time an object of great importance to him. But he had never meant seriously to abandon this important town; and accordingly, having obtained pretexts for war with the Amphipolitans, he laid siege to the town and gained possession of it in 358. The Athenians had sent no assistance to Amphipolis, because Philip, in a secret negotiation with the Athenians, led them to believe that he was willing to restore the city to them when he had taken it, and would do so on condition of their making him master of Pydna. After the capture of Amphipolis, he proceeded at once to Pydna, which seems to have yielded to him without a struggle, and the acquisition of which, by his own arms, and not through the Athenians, gave him a pretext for declining to stand by his secret engagement with them. The hostile feeling which such conduct necessarily excited against him at Athens made it most important for him to secure the good will of the powerful town of Olynthus, and to detach the Olynthians from the Athenians. Accordingly, he gave to the Olynthians the town of Potidaea, which he took from the Athenians in 356. Soon after this he attacked and took a settlement of the Thacians, called Crenides, and, having introduced into the place a number of new colonists, he named it Philippi after himself. One great advantage of this acquisition was, that it put him in possession of the gold mines of the district. From this point there is for some time a pause in the active operations of Philip. In 352 he took Methoné after a lengthened siege, in the course of which he himself lost an eye. The capture of this place was a necessary preliminary in any movement toward the south, lying as it did between him and the Thessalian border. He now marched into Thessaly to aid the Aleuadae against Lycophron, the tyrant of Pherae. The Phocians sent a force to support Lycophron, but they were defeated by Philip, and their general Onomarchus slain. This victory gave Philip the ascendency in Thessaly. He established at Pherae what he wished the Greeks to consider a free government, and then advanced southward to Thermopylae. The pass, however, he found guarded by a strong Athenian force, and he was compelled, or at least thought it expedient, to retire. He now turned his arms against Thrace, and succeeded in establishing his ascendency in that country also. Meanwhile Philip's movements in Thessaly had opened the eyes of Demosthenes to the real danger of Athens and Greece, and his first Philippic (delivered in 352) was his earliest attempt to rouse his countrymen to energetic efforts against their enemy; but he did not produce much effect upon the Athenians. In 349 Philip commenced his attacks on the Chalcidian cities. Olynthus, in alarm, applied to Athens for aid, and Demosthenes, in his three Olynthiac orations, roused the people to efforts against the common enemy, not very vigorous at first, and fruitless in the end. In the course of three years Philip gained possession of all the Chalcidian cities, and the war was brought to a conclusion by the capture of Olynthus itself in 347. In the following year (346) he concluded peace with the Athenians, and straightway marched into Phocis, and brought the Phocian War to an end. The Phocian cities were destroyed, and their place in the Amphictyonic council was made over to the king of Macedonia, who was appointed also, jointly with the Thebans and Thessalians, to the presidency of the Pythian Games. Ruling as he did over a barbaric nation, such a recognition of his Hellenic character was of the greatest value to him, especially as he looked forward to an invasion of the Persian empire in the name of Greece, united under him in a great national confederacy. During the next few years Philip steadily pursued his ambitious projects. From 342 to 340 he was engaged in an expedition in Thrace, and attempted to bring under his power all the Greek cities in that country. In the last of these years he laid siege to Perinthus and Byzantium; but the Athenians, who had long viewed Philip's aggrandizement with fear and alarm, now resolved to send assistance to these cities. Phocion was appointed to the command of the armament destined for this service, and succeeded in compelling Philip to raise the siege of both the cities (339). Philip now proceeded to carry on war against his northern neighbours, and seemed to give himself no further concern about the affairs of Greece. But meanwhile his hirelings were treacherously promoting his designs against the liberties of Greece. In 339 the Amphictyons declared war against the Locrians of Amphissa for having taken possession of a district of the sacred land; but as the general they had appointed to the command of the Amphictyonic army was unable to effect any thing against the enemy, the Amphictyons, at their next meeting in 337, conferred upon Philip the command of their army. Philip straightway marched through Thermopylae and seized Elatea. The Athenians heard of his approach with alarm; they succeeded, mainly through the influence of Demosthenes, in forming an alliance with the Thebans; but their united army was defeated by Philip in the month of August, 338, in the decisive battle of Chaeronea, which put an end to the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dear for her resistance, but Athens was treated with more favor than she could have expected. Philip now seemed to have within his reach the accomplishment of the great object of his ambition, the invasion and conquest of the Persian Empire. In a congress held at Corinth, which was attended by deputies from every Grecian State with the exception of Sparta, war with Persia was determined on, and the king of Macedonia was appointed to command the forces of the national confederacy. In 337, Philip's marriage with Cleopatra , the daughter of Attalus, one of his generals, led to the most serious disturbances in his family. Olympias and Alexander withdrew in great indignation from Macedonia; and though they returned home soon afterwards, they continued to be on hostile terms with Philip. Meanwhile, his preparations for his Asiatic expedition were not neglected, and early in 336 he sent forces into Asia, under Parmenion, to draw over the Greek cities to his cause. But in the summer of this year he was murdered at a grand festival which he held at Aegae, to solemnize the nuptials of his daughter with Alexander of Epirus. His murderer was a youth of noble blood, named Pausanias, who stabbed him as he was walking in the procession. The assassin was immediately pursued and slain by some of the royal guards. His motive for the deed is stated by Aristotle to have been private resentment against Philip, to whom he had complained in vain of a gross outrage offered to him by Attalus. Olympias and Alexander, however, were suspected of being implicated in the plot. (See Olympias.) Philip died in the forty-seventh year of his age and the twenty-fourth of his reign, and was succeeded by Alexander the Great. Philip had a great number of wives and concubines. Besides Olympias and Cleopatra , we may mention— (a) His first wife Audata, an Illyrian princess, and the mother of Cynané; (b) Phila, sister of Derdas and Machatas, a princess of Elymiotis; (c) Nicesipolis of Pherae, the mother of Thessalonica; (d) Philinna of Larissa, the mother of Arrhidaeus; (e) Meda, daughter of Cithelas, king of Thrace; (f) Arsinoë, the mother of Ptolemy I., king of Egypt, with whom she was pregnant when she married Lagus. To these numerous connections temperament as well as policy seems to have inclined him. He was strongly addicted, indeed, to sensual enjoyment of every kind; but his passions, however strong, were always kept in subjection to his interests and ambitious views. He was fond of science and literature, in the patronage of which he appears to have been liberal; and his appreciation of great minds is shown by his connection with Aristotle. In the pursuit of his political objects he was, as we have seen, unscrupulous, and ever ready to resort to duplicity and corruption; but when we consider his humanity and generous clemency, we may admit that he does not appear to disadvantage, even morally speaking, by the side of his fellow conquerors of mankind. See Curteis, Rise of the Macedonian Empire (New York, 1878).
(3) The name of Philip was bestowed by the Macedonian army upon Arrhidaeus, the bastard son of Philip II., when he was raised to the throne after the death of Alexander the Great. He accordingly appears in the list of Macedonian kings as Philip III. For his life and reign see Arrhidaeus.
(4) Eldest son of Cassander, whom he succeeded on the throne, B.C. 296. He reigned only a few months, and was carried off by a consumptive disorder.
(5) Son of Demetrius II., reigned B.C. 220-178. He was only eight years old at the death of his father Demetrius (229); and the sovereign power was consequently assumed by his uncle Antigonus Doson, who, though he certainly ruled as king rather than merely as guardian of his nephew, was faithful to the interests of Philip, to whom he transferred the sovereignty at his death in 220, to the exclusion of his own children. Philip was only seventeen years old at the time of his accession, but he soon showed that he possessed ability and wisdom superior to his years. In consequence of the defeat of the Achaeans and Aratus by the Aetolians, the former applied for aid to Philip. This was granted; and for the next three years Philip conducted with distinguished success the war against the Aetolians. This war, usually called the Social War, was brought to a conclusion in 217, and at once gained for Philip a distinguished reputation throughout Greece, while his clemency and moderation secured him an equal measure of popularity. But a change came over his character soon after the close of the Social War. He became suspicious and cruel; and having become jealous of his former friend and counsellor Aratus, he caused him to be removed by a slow and secret poison in 213. Meantime he had become engaged in war with the Romans. In 215 he concluded an alliance with Hannibal; but he did not prosecute the war with any activity against the Romans, who on their part were too much engaged with their formidable adversary in Italy to send any powerful armament against the Macedonian king. In 211 the war assumed a new character in consequence of the alliance entered into by the Romans with the Aetolians. It was now carried on with greater vigour and alternate success; but as Philip gained several advantages over the Aetolians, the latter people made peace with Philip in 205. In the course of the same year the Romans likewise concluded a peace with Philip, as they were desirous to give their undivided attention to the war in Africa. It is probable that both parties looked upon this peace as little more than a suspension of hostilities. Such was clearly the view with which the Romans had accepted it; and Philip not only proceeded to carry out his views for his own aggrandizement in Greece, without any regard to the Roman alliances in that country, but he even sent a body of auxiliaries to the Carthaginians in Africa, who fought at Zama under Hannibal. As soon as the Romans had brought the Second Punic War to an end, they again declared war against Philip, in 200. This war lasted between three and four years, and was brought to an end by the defeat of Philip by the consul Flamininus at the battle of Cynoscephalae in the autumn of 197. (See Flamininus.) By the peace finally granted to Philip (196), the king was compelled to abandon all his conquests, both in Europe and Asia, surrender his whole fleet to the Romans, and limit his standing army to 5000 men, besides paying a sum of 1000 talents. Philip was now effectually humbled, and endeavoured to cultivate the friendship of the all-powerful Republic. But towards the end of his reign he determined to try once more the fortune of war, and began to make active preparations for this purpose. His declining years were embittered by disputes between his sons Perseus and Demetrius; and the former, by forged letters, persuaded the king that Demetrius was plotting against his life, and induced him to order his execution. Philip afterwards learned of the trick that had been played upon him and was struck with such remorse as probably led to his death, which took place in B.C. 179 (Livy , xl. 6, 21, 54; Polyb. xxiv. 7, 8).
III. Roman Citizens. (1) Q. Marcius Philippus, praetor B.C. 188, with Sicily as his province, and consul 186, when he carried on war in Liguria with his colleague Sp. Postumius Albinus. He was defeated by the enemy in the country of the Apuani, and the recollection of his defeat was preserved by the name of the Saltus Marcius. In 169 Philippus was consul a second time, and carried on the war in Macedonia against Perseus, but accomplished nothing of importance. (See Perseus.) In 164 Philippus was censor with L. Aemilius Paulus, and in his censorship he set up in the city a new sun-dial. (See horologium.)
(2) L. Marcius Philippus was a tribune of the plebs 104, when he brought forward an agrarian law, and was consul in 91 with Sex. Iulius Caesar. In this year Philippus, who belonged to the popular party, opposed with the greatest vigour the measures of the tribune Drusus, who at first enjoyed the full confidence of the Senate. But his opposition was all in vain; the laws of the tribune were carried. Soon afterwards Drusus began to be regarded with mistrust and suspicion; Philippus became reconciled to the Senate, and on his proposition a senatus consultum was passed, declaring all the laws of Drusus to be null and void, as having been carried against the auspices. (See Drusus.) In the Civil Wars between Marius and Sulla , Philippus took no part. He survived the death of Sulla ; and he is mentioned afterwards as one of those who advocated sending Pompey to conduct the war in Spain against Sertorius. Philippus was one of the most distinguished orators of his time ( Epist. i. 7, 46). As an orator he was reckoned inferior only to Crassus and Antonius. He was a man of luxurious habits, which his wealth enabled him to gratify: his fish-ponds were particularly celebrated for their magnificence and extent, and are mentioned by the ancients along with those of Lucullus and Hortensius. Besides his son, L. Philippus, who is spoken of below, he had a step-son, Gellius Publicola. (See Publicola.)
(3) L. Marcius Philippus, son of the preceding, was consul in 56. Upon the death of C. Octavius, the father of Augustus, Philippus married his widow Atia, and thus became the step-father of Augustus. Philippus was a timid man. Notwithstanding his close connection with Caesar's family, he remained neutral in the Civil Wars; and after the assassination of Caesar, he endeavoured to dissuade his step-son, the young Octavianus, from accepting the inheritance which the dictator had left him. He lived till his step-son had acquired the supremacy of the Roman world. He restored the temple of Hercules and the Muses, and surrounded it with a colonnade, which is frequently mentioned under the name of Porticus Philippi (Ovid, Fasti, vi. 801).
IV. Roman Emperors. (1) M. Iulius Philippus I., Roman emperor A.D. 244-249, was an Arabian by birth, and entered the Roman army, in which he rose to high rank. He accompanied Gordianus III. in his expedition against the Persians; and upon the death of the excellent Misitheus (see Misitheus), he was promoted to the vacant office of praetorian praefect. He availed himself of the influence of his high office to excite discontent among the soldiers, who at length assassinated Gordian, and proclaimed Philippus emperor, 244. Philippus proclaimed his son Caesar, concluded a disgraceful peace with Sapor, founded the city of Philippopolis, and then returned to Rome. In 245 he was engaged in prosecuting a successful war against the Carpi on the Danube. In 248, rebellions, headed by Iotapinus and Marinus, broke out simultaneously in the East and in Moesia. Both pretenders speedily perished, but Decius, having been dispatched to recall the legions on the Danube to their duty, was himself forcibly invested with the purple by the troops, and compelled by them to march upon Italy. Philippus, having gone forth to encounter his rival, was slain near Verona either in battle or by his own soldiers. The great domestic event of the reign of Philippus was the exhibition of the Secular Games, which were celebrated with even more than the ordinary degree of splendour, since Rome had now, according to the received tradition, attained the thousandth year of her existence (A.D. 248).
(2) M. Iulius Philippus II., son of the foregoing, was a boy of seven at the accession (244) of his father, by whom he was proclaimed Caesar, and three years afterwards (247) received the title of Augustus. In 249 he was slain, according to Zosimus, at the battle of Verona, or murdered, according to Victor, at Rome by the Praetorians, when intelligence arrived of the defeat and death of the emperor.
V. Writers. (1) Of Medma, in the south of Italy, a Greek astronomer, and a disciple of Plato. His observations, which were made in the Peloponnesus and in Locris, were used by the astronomers Hipparchus, Geminus the Rhodian, and Ptolemy.
(2) Of Thessalonica, an epigrammatic poet, who, besides composing a large number of epigrams himself, compiled one of the ancient Greek Anthologies. The whole number of epigrams ascribed to him in the Greek Anthology is nearly ninety; but of these, six (xxxvi.-xli.) ought to be ascribed to Lucillius, and a few others are manifestly borrowed from earlier poets, while others are mere imitations. He probably wrote in the reign of Trajan.