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. xxxviii. 35, xxxix. 6, 14, 20, 48, xl. 2, 3, 42, xlii. 37–47, xliii. 13, xliv. 1–16; Polyb. xxiv. 4, 6, 10, xxvii. 1, xxviii. 10, &c.; Plin. H. N. vii. 60 ; Cic. Brut. 20.) 4. Q. MARcius PHILIPPUs, the son of No. 3, served under his father in Macedonia, B. c. 169. (Liv. xliv. 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 Q.F. Q. N. PHILIPPUs, 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. ii. 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. iii. 1; Quintil. viii. 3. § 89 ; Val. Max. vi. 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 (Val. Max. ix. 5. § 2; Florus, iii. 17; Aur. Vict. de Vir. Ill. 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 consultum was passed, declaring all the laws of Drusus to be null and void, as having been carried against the auspices (Cic. de Proc. Cons. 9, de Leg. ii. 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 recommended 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. ii. 16.)

In B. c. 86, Philippus was censor with M. Perperma, 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. ad Att. viii. 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. i. 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 consuibus mittere.” (Cic. pro Leg. Man. 21, Phil. xi. 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; Wal. Max. vi. 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 (Epist. i. 7.46):—

“Strenuus et forti - --- di r is et lottis causisque Philippus agendis

Cicero says that Philippus was decidedly inisior as an orator to his two great contemporaries Crassus and Antonius, but was without question *xt 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 altertation he was witty and sarcastic. He was also well acquainted with Greek literature for that one (Cic. Brut. 47). He was accustomed to speak **tempore, and, when he rose to speak, he frequently did not know with what word he should

begin (Cic. de Or. ii. 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 (Warr. R. R. iii. 3. § 10; Colum. viii 16; Plin. H. N. ix. 54. s. 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 v.hose writings relating to him are collected in Orelli, Onom. Tull, vol. ii. p. 380, &c.; comp Meyer, Orator. Roman. Fragm. p. 323, &c., 2d ed.; Westermann, Gesch. der Röm. Beredtsamkeit, § 43.) 6. L. MARc1Us L. F. Q. N. PHILIpeus, the son of the preceding, seems to have been praetor in B. c. 60, since we find him propractor in Syria in B. c. 59 (Appian, 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. Octavius, the father of the emperor Augustus, Philippus 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; Well. Pat. ii. 59, 60 ; Cic. Phil. iii. 6; Appian, B.C. iii. 10, 13; Plut. Cic. 41). Ovid, indeed, says (Fast. vi. 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. B. C. i. 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. ad Att. ix. 12, 15, 16, 18, xiii. 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 (Well. Pat. ii. 60; Suet. Aug. 8; Appian, B.C. iii. 10, 13; comp. Cic. ad Att. xiv. 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 much blamed by Cicero, because, being the ambassador of the senate, he brought back to that body the shameless demands of Antony. (Cic, ad Fam. xii. 4, Phil. viii. 10, ix. 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

[ocr errors][graphic]

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. Fulvius Nobilior, consul B. c. 189, and he surrounded it with a colonnade, which is frequently mentioned under the name of Porticus Philippi. (Suet. Octav. 29 ; clari monimenta Philippi, Ov. Fast. vi. 801 ; Mart. v. 49. 9; Plin. H. N. xxxv. 10; Becker, Römisch. Alterthüm. 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 L. F. L. N. Philippus, 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. B. C. i. 6). He was praetor in B. c. 44, and is in that year called by Cicero, vir patre, aro, majoribus suis dignissimus. (Cic. Phil. iii. 10.) 8. Q. (MARcius) Philippus, proconsul in Asia, in B. c. 54, to whom Cicero sends two recommendatory letters (ad Fam. xiii. 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.

PHILIPPUS (Pixirros), 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 An

tioch, 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. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 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.]

con of Philippus, KING of SYRIA.

PHILIPPUS (bixittos), literary and ecclesiastical. 1. ABUcARA or ABUVARA, one of the Greek scholiasts on the Enchiridion of the Greek grammarian, Hephaestion of Alexandria [HEpha Estion, No. 1], or perhaps the compiler of the Scholia, 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. (Catal. MStorum Biblioth. Regiae, No. mmdclzxiv. No. 1. vol. ii. p. 539, fol. Paris, 1740; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. xi. p. 709; Wossius, De Hist. Graec. lib. iii.)

2. Of AMphipolis, a Greek writer of unknown date, remarkable for his obscenity, of which Suidas (s. v. droauðaal) has given a sufficiently significant specimen. He wrote, according to Suidas (s. r. £ixirros):—1. "Poêtaxa BléAta 16', Rhodiaca Libris AIX., a history of Rhodes, which Suidas especially stigmatizes for the obscenity of its matter. 2. Kaavd (s. Kwiakd), BiéAía 8, Coiaca Libris duobus, a history of the island of Cos. 3. Ovruard, De Sacrificiis, or more probably eartaká, 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, c. 11), classes Philip of Amphipolis with Herodian and Iamblichus the Syrian [IAM BLICHUs, 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. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. pp. 159, 160; Vossius, De Hist. Graec. lib. iii.)

3. Apostolus. [No. 11.]

4. CAEsARIENsis SYNodi RELATor. 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, in his notes to the Canon Paschalis of Victorius of Aquitania, fol. Antwerp, 1634, as the work of one Philippus; the editor being apparently misled by an error in the MS. used by him. (Fabric. Bill. Graec. 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 (Alea. Mag. Vita, c. 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. Chollid EUs, or Chollide Nsis (XoAtôets, more correctly XoAXiàeūs), mentioned in Plato's will, given by Diogenes Laërtius (iii. 41), as the owner of land adjoining a farm or estate which Plato bequeathed to his son Adeimantius. Fabricius (Bibl. Grace. 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 CoM1c WRITER, of whom scarcely anything is known, 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 Kw8wviaatas, 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. 358, f), 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 'OAvvtiakós, 0nthiacus; but Grotius 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 Yeawtoroids +tAirmos, “the laughter-exciting Philip" of Maximus Tyrius (Dissert. xxi. vol. i. P. 402, ed. Reiske), and the pixirros kwuwötöágKawos of Themistius (Paraphras. Aristotelis Lib. I. * Anima, c. 3, sub fin. p. 68, b. ed. Aldus, Venice, 1533, or c. 19, in the Latin version of Hermolaus Barbarus), who cites a saying of Daedalus, one of his characters. (Suidas, l.c.; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. i. pp. 728,743, 747, 748, vol. ii. p. 480.)

9. Diacosus, the DeAcon. [No. 11.]

10. EpigramMAticus. 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 Thessa. lonica (see below]. There are two others: a Philip whom Fabricius styles Junior, and assigns to the fifth or sixth century after Christ, of whom there is extant an Epigramma in Amores sibi arri* Constantinopoli, which is assigned to Philip of Thessalonica, among whose epigrams it is No. lii, in the editions of Brunck, vol. ii. p. 227, and Jacobs, vol. ii. p. 211; and a Philip called Byzantimus, whose Epigramma in Herculem is given in the Mythologiae of Natalis Comes, lib. vii. pp. 691, "'', ed. Sine loci not. 1653, and assigned to Philip of Thessalonica (No. li.) in the Anthologia of onck, vol. ii. pp. 225, 226, and Jacobs, vol. ii. P. 209. (Fabric. Bill. Grace. vol. iv. p. 491.)

ll. EvasGelista, the Evangelist. Among

the spurious gospels which were produced in the WOL., iii.

'early ages of the Church, was one to which some of the Gnostic sects appealed (Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 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, xxi. 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 Dirina, p. 117), and Leontius of Byzantium (De Sectis, act. s. lect. iii.) mention Tó kata pixiirirov EijayyéAtov, Erangelium secundum 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. (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. H. E. iv. 23), as having inspired his flock with manly courage, apparently during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius. 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. (Euseb. H. E. iv. 21, 23, 25 ; Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 30; Trithem. De Scriptorib. Eccles. c. 19 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 172, vol. i. p. 74, ed. Oxford, 1740–1743.) 13. GRAMMATICUs s. RHETof s. Sophist A. Suidas (s. v. PíAutros oopiotis) ascribes to this writer a work on the aspirates, IIepl rvevudrav, De Spiritibus, taken from Herodian, and arranged in alphabetical order: also a work IIepl avvaxolopsis, De Synaloepha. Nothing more 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. 14. Isa NGELUs (deloayyeaeos), a writer cited by Plutarch (Aler. Mag. Vita, c. 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 d eigayyeaeijs is a corrupt reading, and that it should be d 0ea)TeXews. [No. 30.] 15. MACEdo, the MAcedoniaN. An Epigramma in the Anthologia Graeca (lib. iv. 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, supposed by 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. 16. MEDMAEUs (6 Meðualos), 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 U

in Locris, were used by the astronomers Hipparchus, Geminus the Rhodian, and Ptolemy. He is said by Stephanus of Byzantium (De Urbibus s. v. Medme) to have written a treatise on the winds. He is mentioned by several ancient writers, as Vitruvius (Architect. ix. 7, s. ut alii 4), Pliny the elder (H. N. xviii. 31. s. 74), Plutarch (Quod non possit suaviter viri secund. Epicur. Opera, vol. 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. In the Latin version of Proclus, by Franc. Barocius (lib. ii. 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. 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. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 10, vol. vi. p. 243.) 17. MEGARicus (6 Meyapukás), i.e. the MEGAR1c Philosopher [comp. Eucleides of MEGARA]. Diogenes Laërtius (ii. 113) has given an extract from a work of this Philip, containing some account of Stilpo of Megara [Stilpol, who lived during the struggles of the successors of Alexander the Great. 18. MENDAEUs. 19. Of Opus. Suidas (s. v. Pixéropos) 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 (axoMágas toss ueredpois). 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 Laërtius (iii. 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 Laërtius 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 'Emivous, 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 among the works of the latter. [PLATO.] Diogenes Laërtius elsewhere (iii. 46) enumerates Philip among the disciples of Plato. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 104.) 20. OR1 Apollinis INTERPREs (Voss. De Historicis Graecis, lib. iii.). [Hor Apollo.] 21. PARod Us, the PARodist. In a fragment of the Parodist, Matron [MATRoN], quoted by

[ocr errors]

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” (Öloí Te Piximirol, “nobiles Philippi"); but of their country, works, or age, except that they lived long before (rùpos, “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. c. 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; MARc1ANUs.] He wrote, 1. Commentarius in Jobum ; 2. Familiares Epistolae, of which Gennadius, who had read them, speaks highly. These Epistolae have perished ; but 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. Wallarsius 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. Wallars.), 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 Wallarsi agree in ascribing the work to Philip, though Wallarsi is not so decided in his opinion as the other two. (Gennad. l.c.; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 440, vol. i. p. 434; Oudin, De Scriptorib. Eccles. vol. i. col. 1 165; Wallarsi, Opera Hieron. vol. iii. col. 825, &c., vol. xi. col. 565, 566; Fabric. Biblioth. Med. et Infim. Latin. vol. v. p. 295, ed. Mansi.) 23. Of PRUsA (6 IIpovoleiss), 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. Athenaeus (iii.) mentions a Philippus, without any distinctive epithet, as the author of a work on Agriculture, either entitled Tewpyuków, 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 (6 Xi8/rms, or d >18&rms, or 5 drö Xi8ms), 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 historian, and was in

« 前へ次へ »