PHILLIMOKE PHILLIPS. 



197 



Jair, and as preceding the Ammonite oppression of 

 eighteen years, from which Jephthah delivered Israel. 

 (See ISRAEL.) This second Philistine oppression is 

 probably that of the times of Samson ; the traditional 

 opinion, which identifies the times of Samson with 

 those of Eli, is not well grounded. In regard to this 

 oppression not much is told us apart from the personal 

 exploits of .Samson, but we are informed that in Sam- 

 son's youth the Philistines were recognized as lords of 

 Judah (Jud. xv. 1 1), coming up into the country on 

 slight provocation, while toward the close of Samson's 

 life, after he had been twenty years judge, the Philis- 

 tines seem to have found it necessary to entrap him 

 across the border in order to attempt anything against 

 him (Jud. xvi.). It therefore seems that Sauison 

 actually accomplished a deliverance for Israel, as it 

 had been promised he should (Jud. xiii. 5). 



The third Philistine oppression was that of the times 

 of Eli. The rescue from this under Samuel was com- 

 plete, and lasted for many years (1 Sam. vii. 10-14). 

 The fourth Philistine oppression began in the reign of 

 Saul, utter Saul had been so long on the throne that 

 his son Jonathan had grown to Jae a warrior (1 Sam. 

 xiii. 3 seq.). At first the Philistine success was com- 

 plete, but later Saul maintained himself against them 

 with greater or less success until the overwhelming 

 defeat at Gilboa, where he met his death. 



The statement that " Philistia was never a part of 

 the land of Israel" is hardly consistent with 2 Sam. 

 yiii. 1, 12 ; 1 Kings iv. 21, and many other statements 

 in tin: record. The account in the Bible seems to be 

 that the Philistines became tributary to David, and 

 remained under tribute to his descendants till the 

 times of Jchoshapbat and Jehoram (2 Chron. xvii. 1 1 ; 

 xxi. 10). Alter the division they naturally belonged 

 to the southern kingdom, as their territory was a part 

 of that of the tribe of Judah. The fact that we have 

 two accounts of sieges of Gibbethon by the kings of 

 northern Israel does not at all justify the inference 

 that " the house of Ephraiui .... laid claim to the 

 suzerainty over Philistia." The fact that Ahaziah of 

 Israel sent to inquire of a Philistine god (2 Kings i.), 

 or the fact that the Shunamite woman went to sojourn 

 in the land of the Philistines (2 Kings viii. 2) do not 

 necessarily prove that the Philistines were then entirely 

 independent of Judah. But evidently they had then 

 already become politically important. The revolt in 

 the time of Jehoram of Judah soon followed (2 Chron. 

 xxi. 10, 10). Shortly afterward the dynasty of Omri 

 was overthrown by Jehu, who took the throne as the 

 rassal of Shalmaneser II., of Assyria. At the same 

 date the dynasty of David was for six years displaced 

 from the throne of Judah by Athaliah. After this, 

 when we first hear from the Philistines (Am. i. 6-8, 

 >i a f. ) they seem to be independent of Judah. 



The contact of the Assyrians with Philistia does not 

 begin with Tiglath-pileser (B. c. 734). .-Shalmaneser 

 II. says that he took tribute from all the kings of the 

 sea-coast, Tyre being expressly specified, and the Phil- 

 istines very likely being included. However this may 

 be, his grandson, Riimnan-nirari III., whom the 

 Assyriologists date as reigning B. c. 812-783, but whose 

 date would be some forty years earlier by the chronology 

 found in the margins of most Bibles, the contemporary 

 of Jehciahaz and Jehoash of Israel, explicitly claims 

 Mi/erainty over the Philistines. See Smith's Ch.ro- 

 ""/".'/.'/, p. 115, or Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions, 

 tnoibted by Whitehouse, p. 203-206. In the times 

 of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah, when the Assyrian power 

 was broken in all these regions, Uzziah partially re- 

 established the power of Judah over the Philistines (2 

 Chron. xxvi. 0, 7). Under his grandson, Aha/, they 

 again became hostile (2 Chron. xxviil 18 ; Isa. ix. 12), 

 and from that time on they mingled prominently in the 

 struggles in which Judah, Egypt, Assyria, and Bab- 

 ylonia were engaged. (W. J. B.) 



PHILLIMCFRE, SIR ROBERT JOSEPH (1810-1885), 

 an Knglish jurist, was born in London, Nov. 5, 1810. 



He was educated at Westminster School and Christ 

 Church, Oxford, graduating in 1831. He was after- 

 wards clerk in the Board ot Control, was called to the 

 bar at the Middle Temple, and became Queen's Coun- 

 sel. Besides having extensive practice in civil courts, 

 he was made chancellor of the dioceses of Chichester 

 and_ Salisbury. He was elected to Parliament from 

 Tavistock in 1853 and took an active part in legislation 

 pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs. In 1862 he was 

 made advocate-general in admiralty and received the 

 honor of knighthood. In 1 807 he was made Judge of 

 the High Court of Admiralty and of the Arches Court 

 of Canterbury, being then sworn of the Privy Coun- 

 cil. After holding other offices he was in 1875, on the 

 reorganization of the courts, nominated judge of the 

 admiralty and probate division of the High Court 

 of Justice, which office he held till his death, Feb. 4, 

 1885. As a writer his fame rests on his valuable 

 Commentaries upon International Law (4 vols., 1854- 

 61). He also published Memoirs of George Lord Lyt- 

 tleton (2 vols., 1845); Ecclesiastical Law of the Church 

 of England (i vols., 1873); an annotated translation 

 of Lessing's Laocoon (1874), and several treatises of 

 temporary interest. 



His daughter, CATHARINE MART PHILLIMORE, has 

 written The King's Namesalce (1872); Thought's on 

 Marie Antoinette (1873) ; Pictures from the Early His- 

 tory of Venice (1874) ; Scenes from the Life of Savon- 

 arola (1881), and has edited the Eikrni Basilike (1879). 

 which she maintains to be the work of King Charles I. 



PHILLIPS, WENDELL (1811-1884), orator, was 

 born at Boston, Nov. 29, 1811. His father, John 

 Phillips (1770-1823), was chosen first mayor of Boston 

 in 1822. Wendell graduated at Harvard College in 

 1831 and was admitted to the bar in 1834. His natural 

 gifts, social advantages, and scholarly training seemed 

 to mark him out for conspicuous success in the usual 

 course. But his destiny was swayed by his profound 

 moral character, moved by the peculiar circumstances 

 of his city. State, and nation. Boston was a centre of 

 wealth and refinement, but still more was it a city of 

 merchants. The commercial spirit guided its action, 

 when, on Oct. 21, 1835, a mob of gentlemen gathered 

 to break up an anti-slavery meeting presided over by a 

 woman. Their wrath had been especially roused 

 against George Thompson, an English anti-slavery 

 lecturer, but when he escaped, they seized and dragged 

 through the streets with a rope the non-resistant Wil- 

 liam Lloyd Garrison. The sight of this infuriated, 

 well-dressed mob stirred Phillips' moral nature to its 

 lowest depths, and this pure-souled, high : born lawyer 

 joined in spirit with the persecuted abolitionist. Two 

 years of thought and study passed before he was 

 prominently identified with that cause. A meeting 

 was held in Faneuil Hall on Dec. 8, 1837, to make on 

 behalf of Boston a protest against the murder of Rev. 

 Elijah P. Lovejoy at Alton, 111., who had been killed 

 by a mob while defending the printing-office of his 

 anti-slavery newspaper. Rev. Dr. Channing made an 

 impressive address and proposed resolutions 4 when Mr. 

 J. T. Austin, State attorney-general, who had come 

 with others to divert the meeting from its purpose, 

 strenuously objected. Phillips was called on to reply 

 and at once overwhelmed the apologist for murder 

 with a torrent of indignant eloquence. _ But the 

 moneyed aristocracy of Boston closed their doors in 

 the face of the champion of abolitionists. He never 

 faltered. He adopted Garrison's view of slaveholding 

 as a sin, personal and national, and immediate emanci- 

 pation as a duty. Believing that the U. S. Constitu- 

 tion by its compromises recognized and supported 

 slavery, he gave up his legal practice and even the ex- 

 ercise of the elective franchise as contaminating. But 

 he used all the more the mighty power of the platform 

 and the press. He spoke without pay wherever he had 

 a chance to be heard on his chosen topic. For ad- 

 dresses on other subjects he was paid, but he generally 

 turned the proceeds into a fund to advance the cause 



