CONDUCT OF DEMETRIUS. right was thus threatened, Philip found himself reduced to depend as it were on the patronage of his younger son, and deprived of his authority on the question of the succession to the crown. But his jealousy and resentment were much inflamed by the arrival of the Roman envoys, who not only exacted the performance of all the injunctions which he had previously received, but brought fresh requisitions. from the Senate, which he obeyed indeed, to avoid affording a pretext for war, but with the bitterer vexation, as he observed that Demetrius passed more of his time in the society of the envoys than at court. Whether Demetrius was really as innocent as he appears in Livy's pathetic narrative, must remain a secret to us; but his conduct afforded ground for suspicion, and Philip had reason to look upon a son who was a favourite with the Senate as an enemy and a traitor. His distrust of Demetrius grew with his hatred of the Romans, and both are said to have been fostered by the artifices of Perseus and the principal courtiers, who, perceiving Philip's alienation from his younger son, took part with the heir-apparent. But Demetrius at least lent a handle to their machinations by the unguarded warmth with which he defended the Romans whenever they were attacked in his preHe was now, it seems, excluded from the council in all deliberations relating to Rome, or to the negotiations which Philip was carrying on-as the Senate gave out with hostile designs against Italy— with several barbarian tribes in the north. A lustration of the army, and sham fight, in which the two princes commanded the opposite sides, led to some scenes on which Perseus founded a charge, that his brother had made an attempt against his life. Demetrius, it seems, convinced his father of his innocence on this head; but Philip sent two envoys, Philocles and Apelles, to Rome, with secret instructions to sence. 421 СНАР. LXVI. CHAP. inquire into the truth of another accusation which Perseus had brought against him, that he had disclosed his ambitious designs to Flamininus and other Romans. In the meanwhile the king made an expedition into the wilds of Thrace, professedly for the purpose of ascending the highest summit of the Balkan, which was reported to command a view reaching on the one side to the Euxine, and on the other to the Adriatic. But undoubtedly he did not undertake this laborious march, which was not altogether free from danger, merely to gratify his curiosity. It is highly probable that he really entertained the project attributed to him by the Romans, of inducing some of the northern barbarians to make an irruption into Italy, and that this journey to the Balkan was in some way connected with that plan. He took Perseus along with him, but left Demetrius behind, under the colour of parental tenderness, at Stobi, and directed Didas, the governor of Pæonia, to escort him to Macedonia. Didas had been secretly gained by Perseus, and insinuated himself into the confidencce of the young prince, to betray him. He soon after reported, whether truly or falsely we can only conjecture, that Demetrius was meditating to escape into Italy, and had solicited his aid; Philip hastened his return to investigate this matter, but remained in suspense until his envoys returned from Rome. He had chosen Philocles and Apelles for this commission, because he believed them to be impartial between the brothers. But they too were devoted to Perseus, and, among other calumnious impostures, brought a forged letter purporting to be addressed to Philip by Flamininus, so composed as to imply the reality of all that had been imputed to Demetrius, while it deprecated his father's displeasure. Herodorus, the most intimate friend of Demetrius, was put to the rack, and died under the torture, but no information could be extorted DEATH OF DEMETRIUS AND PHILIP. 423 LXVI. from him. Philip however was now convinced of his CHAP. son's guilt, and it is supposed instructed Didas secretly to despatch him. Demetrius was poisoned at a ban- Death of quet, and his dying exclamations against his mur- Demetrius, derers were stifled with brutal violence. Philip did not long survive this event, and his end was hastened by remorse and anguish at the discovery that his son had been the victim of a conspiracy, and that the pretended letter of Flamininus was a forgery. The fraud was detected, it appears, so as to leave no room for doubt, through the exertions of the king's cousin Antigonus, a nephew of Antigonus Doson. Perseus henceforth kept at a distance from the court, but having no fear of a rival was indifferent about his father's resentment. Philip, now doubly irritated, conceived the design of transferring the succession to Antigonus, and endeavoured to recommend him to the acceptance of the Macedonians. But he was over- B. C. 179. taken by death at Amphipolis, while Antigonus was Death of returning from an embassy on which he had been sent to invite the Bastarnians 1, from beyond the Danube, to invade and settle in the land of the Dardanians. The king's physician, as soon as he perceived the symptoms of his approaching agony, sent notice to Perseus, who was thus enabled to take possession of the throne without resistance: and one of the first acts of his reign was to put Antigonus to death. Philip left his kingdom in a condition to defy any power but that of Rome: with an abundant population, a well-filled treasury, an army of 30,000 foot and 5000 horse, and large magazines of arms and provisions. It remained to be seen what use would be Philip. It has been much disputed whether the Bastarnians were a Teutonic or a Celtic race. Niebuhr (Kl. Schr. p. 385) thinks it impossible to decide the question, as Polybius (xxvI. 9.) appears to be contradicted by Strabo, vII. p. 306., and Tacitus, Germ. 46. Zeuss (Die Deutschen, 128.) pronounces the evidence of Tacitus conclusive in favour of their Teutonic origin. But Diefenbach (Celtica, 11. 1. p. 218.) shows that they were most probably a mixed race. СНАР. Character made of these preparations, and into what hands they would finally pass. Perseus, with the crown, had inherited all the motives of enmity which had subsisted between his father and the Romans, together with a large addition on his own account. He must have felt that the war which had been averted through the mediation of Demetrius was now inevitable; and his policy was entirely directed to two objects-to hold himself in readiness for the impending struggle, and to defer it as long as possible. As long as his exertions were required for no other purpose than this, he displayed a degree of energy and prudence which seemed worthy of his station. But though his character has undoubtedly been misrepresented through hostile prejudices and wilful calumny, and he was probably neither so odious nor so despicable as it suited the Senate's interest to have him described 1, he was clearly still less equal to a contest with Rome than his father; and notwithstanding the sympathy which we cannot refuse to the justice of his cause, we can feel none with the man. It is true that he seems to have been free from some of his father's vices 2; but it was perhaps because his own were of an opposite kind. He was temperate, and addicted to no licentious pleasures: so that either on this account, or because, like his ancestor Antigonus, he took some interest in the speculations of the schools, he is termed by the author who has left the most favourable description of his character, a philosopher. On the other hand, he is charged with a blind and abject love of money for its own sake; and so many glaring instances of this failing are recorded in his history, that it is impossible to consider them all as malicious inven 2 Polyb. xxvi. 5. Liv. XLII. 5. Nec ullo commendabilem merito. Appian, Mac. ix. 2. Flathe (x1, p. 534.), by a strange complication of mistakes, talks of his love for the arts and sciences, referring to the description in Livy, XLI. 20. (from Polybius, xxvI. 10.), of the extravagances of Antiochus Epiphanes. MEASURES OF PERSEUS. tions. He was apparently deficient in moral, if not in personal, courage. His dread of the Romans stimulated him to vigorous exertions so long as they were at a distance; but seems to have deprived him of his presence of mind when they came in sight. The worst acts imputed to him appear to have been the effect of this timidity. We have no reason to believe that he was inclined to wanton cruelty, or inordinately passionate or vindictive; but he was probably as unscrupulous as his father about the choice of means for the accomplishment of his designs, and never shrank from the perpetration of a safe and useful crime. Still, when compared with most of the contemporary kings, he almost rises into a hero; and his misdeeds are few and light, if weighed against the enormous guilt contracted during the same period by the Roman Senate.2 The first measures of his administration, after he had established himself on the throne, were indeed extremely judicious, and calculated to suggest the best hopes of his government. He remitted all arrears of debt due to the crown, and released all who had been thrown into prison for offences against his father; 1 Flathe labours to rescue his character from this imputation, but, beside vague arbitrary suspicions of Roman calumnies, he has no argument to produce, except his own interpretation of Liv. XLIV. 46., which (p. 561.) he chooses to consider as an admission that Perseus had spent almost the whole of his treasure. He notices indeed the reports that Perseus carried 2000 talents (Liv. XLIV. 45.), or (according to Justin, xxxIII. 2.) 10,000 talents with him to Samothrace, but omits the authentic statement of Polybius (xvi. 18.). Τῆς ἄλλης χωρὶς κατασκευῆς καὶ χορηγίας ἐν αὐτοῖς εὑρέθη τοῖς θησαυροῖς ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου πλείω τῶν ἑξακισχιλίων ταλαντῶν. 2 It may be hardly necessary, but yet it will be safer, to observe once for all, that it is not intended by this language to involve all the members of the Senate in an indiscriminate condemnation. There was, no doubt, within that body a great variety of characters, and of opinions both as to the mode of extending the power of Rome and of the use to be made of it. And we would gladly believe what Nitzsch (Polybius; see particularly 11. 5.) endeavours to show, that there was a moderate party in the Senate (represented by the Scipios, Flamininus, and Æmilius Paullus), which desired no conquests east of the Adriatic, but only wished to see Rome at the head of a system of independent states, and holding the balance between Macedonia and the Achæan League, Rhodes and Pergamus, Syria and Egypt. But we must regret that the proofs which he has adduced in support of this proposition are not commensurate with its importance. |