Scanned text contains errors.
263
at once. From this moment Archelaus is no more mentioned in history, but several writers state incidentally, that he was honoured by the Roman senate. (Appian, de Bell. Mithrid. 17—64 ; Plut. Sull. 11—24; Liv. Epit. 81 and 82; Veil. Pat. ii. 25 ; Florus, iii. 5 ; Oros. vi. 2; Pans. i. 20. § 3, &c.; Aurel. Vict. de Vir. Illustr. 75,76 ; Dion Cass. Fragm. n. 173, ed. Reimar.; Sallust. Fragm. Hist. lib. iv.)
2. A son of the preceding. (Strab. xvii. p. 796; Dion Cass. xxxix. 57.) In the year b. c. 63? Pompey raised him to the dignity of priest of the goddess (Enyo or Bellona) at Comana, which was, according to Strabo, in Pontus, and according to Hirtius (de Bell. Alex. 66), in Cappadocia, The dignity of priest of the goddess at Comana conferred upon the person who held it the power of a king over the place and its immediate vicinity. (Appian, de Bell. Mithr. 114 ; Strab. I. c., xii. p, 558.) In b. c. 56, when A. Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, was making preparations for a war against the Parthians, Archelaus went to Syria and offered to take part in the war; but this plan was soon abandoned, as other prospects opened before him. Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, who after the expulsion of her father had become queen of Egypt, wished to marry a prince of royal blood, and Archelaus, pretending to be a son of Mithri-dates Eupator, sued for her hand, and succeeded. (Strab. II. cc.; Dion Cass. I. c.) According to Strabo, the Roman senate would not permit Archelaus to take part in the war against Parthia, and Archelaus left Gabinius in secret; whereas, according to Dion Cassius, Gabinius was induced by bribes to assist Archelaus in his suit for the hand of Berenice, while at the same time he received bribes from Ptolemy Auletes on the understanding that he would restore him to his throne. Archelaus enjoyed the honour of king of Egypt only for six months, for Gabinius kept his promise to Ptolemy, and in b. c. 55 he marched with an army into Egypt, and in the battle which ensued, Archelaus lost his crown and his life. His daughter too was put to death. (Strab. II. cc.; Dion Cass. xxxix. 58; Liv. Epit. lib. 105 ; Cic. pro Rabir. Post. 8 ; Val. Max. x. 1, extern. 6.) M. Antonius, who had been connected with the family of Archelaus by ties of hospitality and friendship, had his body searched for among the dead, and buried it in a manner worthy of a king. (Plut. Ant. 3.)
3. A son of the preceding, and his successor in
the office of high priest of Comana. (Strab. xvii.
d. 796, xii. p. 558.) In b.c. 51, in which year
Jicero was proconsul of Cilicia, Archelaus assisted
,vith troops and money those who created disturb-
mces in Cappadocia and threatened king Ariobar-
:anes II.; but Cicero compelled Archelaus to quit
Cappadocia. (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 4.) In b. c. 47,
r. Caesar, after the conclusion of the Alexandrine
var, deprived Archelaus of his office of high priest,
,nd gave it to Lycomedes. (Appian, deBdl.Miilir.
21; Hirt. de Bell. Aleoc. 66.)
4. A son of the preceding. (Strab. xvii. p. 796.) n b. c. 34, Antony, after having expelled Ariara-hes, gave to Archelaus the kingdom of Cappadocia -a favour which he owed to the charms of his mother, Glaphyra. (Dion Cass. xlix. 32 ; Strab. ii. p. 540.) Appian (de Bell. Civ. v. 7), who laces this event in the year b. c. 41, calls the son l Glaphyra, to whom Antony gave Cappadocia, isinna; which, if it is not a mistake, may have
been a surname of Archelaus. During the war between Antony and Octavianus, Archelaus was among the allies of the former. (Plut. Ant. 61.) After his victory over Antony, Octavianus not only left Archelaus in the possession of his kingdom (Dion Cass. Ii. 3)? but subsequently added to it a part of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. (Dion Cass. liv. 9; Strab. xii. p. 534, &c.) On one occasion, during the reign of Augustus, accusations were brought before the emperor against Archelaus by his own subjects, and Tiberius defended the king. (Dion Cass. Mi. 17; Suet. Tib. 8.) But afterwards Tiberius entertained great hatred of Archelaus, the cause of which was jealousy, as Archelaus had paid greater attentions to Caius Caesar than to him. (Comp. Tacit. Annal. ii. 42.) When therefore Tiberius had ascended the throne, he enticed Archelaus to come to Rome, and then accused him in the senate of harbouring revolutionary schemes, hoping to get him condemned to death. But Archelaus was then at such an advanced age, or at least pretended to be so, that it appeared unnecessary to take away his life. He was, however, obliged to remain at Rome, where he died soon after, A. d. 17. Cappadocia was then made a Roman province. (Dion Cass., Tacit. II. cc.; Suet. Tib. 37, Calig. 1; Strab. xii. p. 534.) [L. S.]
The annexed coin of Archelaus contains on the reverse a club and the inscription BA3IAE.Q2; AP-XEAAOT $IA(A?)OnATPIA02 TOT KTI5TOT.
He is called /m'or?^, according to Eckhel (iii. p. 201), on account of his having founded the city of Eleusa in an island of the same name, off the coast of Cilicia. (Comp. Joseph. Ant. xvi. 4. § 6.)
ARCHELAUS (*Ap%eAaos), a philosopher of the Ionian school, called PUysicus from having been the first to teach at Athens the physical doctrines of that philosophy. This statement, which is that of Laertius (ii. 16), is contradicted by the assertion of Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. p. 30), that Anaxagoras jjLeTijyayev a-rro rtfs *I&vias 'AO??-va£e rriv SiarpiS^Vy but the two may be reconciled by supposing with Clinton (F. II. ii. p. 51), that Archelaus was the first Athenian who did so. For the fact that he was a native of Athens, is considered by Ritter as nearly established on the authority of Simplicius (in Pliys. Arisiot. fol. 6, b.), as it was probably obtained by him from Theophrastus 5 and we therefore reject the statement of other writers, that Archelaus was a Milesian. He was the son of Apollodorus, or as some say, of Mydon, Midon, (Suid.) or Myson, and is said to have taught at Lampsacus before he established himself at Athens. He is commonly reported to have numbered Socrates and Euripides among his pupils. If he was the instructor of the former, it is strange that he is never mentioned by Xenophon, Plato, or Aristotle ; and the tradition which connects him with Euripides may have arisen from a confusion with his namesake Archelaus, king of Macedonia, the well-known patron of that poet.
The doctrine of Archelaus is remarkable, as
