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. (Joseph. Ant. xii. 9. §§ 2, 6, 7.)

[E. H. B.]

PHILIPPUS, 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. dexxiii. 5.) [P.S.] PHILIPPUS, AURELIUS, the teacher of Alexander Severus, afterwards wrote the life of this emperor. (Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 3.)

PHILIPPUS (PIATTOS), 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. (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 8. § 1, xviii. 2. § 1, 4. § 6, B. J. i. 33. § 8, ii. 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.] PHILIPPUS I., M. JULIUS, 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 the city of Philippopolis, and then returned to Rome. These events took place in the early part of A. D. 244. The annals of this period, which are sin

gularly imperfect, for the history of Herodian ends with the death of Balbinus and Pupienus, 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. i. 23) or by his own soldiers (Aur. Vict. Epit. xxviii.; Eutrop. ix. 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 cele brated 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 Caesa reia 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 pas sage 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, he bestowed no marks of favour or encouragement, beyond simple toleration, on the professors of the

that

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. ix. 3; Zosim. i. 23, iii. 32; Zonar. xii. 19; Eckhel, vol. vii. p. 323; Euseb. H. E. vi. 34, 39, 41, vii. 10; Hieron. de Viris Ill. c. 54; Chrysost. in Gent. vol. i. p. 658; Tillemont, Notes sur l'Empereur Philippe, in his Histoire des Empereurs, vol. iii. p. 494.) [W. R.]

COIN OF PHILIPPUS I., ROMAN EMPEROR.

PHILIPPUS II., M. JULIUS, 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 other authority, and is not confirmed by medals or inscriptions. (Aur. Vict. de Caes. xxviii. Epit. xxviii.; Zosim. i. 22.)

[W. R.]

PHILIPPUS I. (ATTOS), 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 Aëropus, who succeeded him. (Herod. viii. 137-139; Thuc. ii. 100; Just. vii. 2; Clint. F. H. vol. ii. p. 221.) [E. E.]

PHILIPPUS II. (PIATTOS), 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. Kápavos), 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 (xvi. 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 (xv. 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 Justin says (vii. 5), that Alexander, Philip's brostatement Plutarch agrees (Pelop. 26); while ther, 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; comp. 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 the pretender Pausanias. On the whole, the supmove his pity and obtain his protection against position 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, is sufficiently refuted by chronology (see Wesseling, ad Diod. xvi. 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

T

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 (ap. Ath. xi. p. 506, f.), 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. xvi. 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 (Alex. 3), Philip had just taken Potidaea when tidings of three prosperous events reached him at once;-1 -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 (xvi. 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 (xpîvaι) with which it abounded, and, having introduced into the place a number of new colonists, he named it Philippi after himself.

--

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 fruitless 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 fall 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, ten 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 ratifi

cation of the treaty, in which the Athenians might 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 him 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 for himself 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 anıbition 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. xvi. 69 ; Dem. in Phil. Ep. p. 153; Pseudo-Dem. de Hal. p. 84). It appears to have been in B. c. 343 that he made