From Encarta:
phi·lip·pic [ fĬ 'lĬp pĬk ] (plural phi·lip·pics)
noun
Definition:
condemning speech: a verbal attack on somebody or something delivered in the most savage, bitter, and insulting terms, usually as a speech
[Late 16th century. Via Latin< Greek philippikos, speech of the 4th century bc Greek orator Demosthenes urging the citizens of Athens to rise up against Philip of Macedon]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scurrilous attacks were fatal in American history, too:A philippic is a fiery, damning speech delivered to condemn a particular political actor. The term originates with Demosthenes, who delivered an attack on Philip II of Macedon in the 4th century BCE.
Cicero consciously modeled his own attacks on Mark Antony, in 44 BC and 43 BC, on Demosthenes's speeches, and if the correspondence between M. Brutus and Cicero are genuine [ad Brut. ii 3.4, ii 4.2], at least the fifth and seventh speeches were referred to as the Philippics in Cicero's time. They were also called the Antonian Orations by Aulus Gellius. It is ironic that they were named after a series of speeches that failed to effectively warn the Greeks of the danger of Philip of Macedon whose son, Alexander the Great, went on to be one of the greatest conquerors of all time. After the death of Caesar, Cicero privately expressed regrets that the murderers of Caesar had not included Antony in their plot and became focused on discrediting Antony. Cicero even promoted illegal action, such as legitimatizing Octavian's private army. In total, Cicero made 14 Phillipics in less than two years - an impressively energetic feat for the over 60 ex-consul. Cicero's focus on Antony, however, would contribute to his downfall as he failed to recognize the threat of Octavian and ignored and promoted illegal actions. Cicero's attacks on Antony did not go unpunished and in 43 BC he was proscribed and killed. His head and hands were publicly displayed in the forum discouraging those who would openly oppose the new Triumvirate of Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus.
See also: Duel with Alexander Hamilton and Burr-Hamilton duelDuring an unsuccessful campaign for election to Governor of New York in 1804, Burr was relentlessly defamed in the press, often by the writings of Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), a long-time political rival and son-in-law of Philip Schuyler, the first U.S. Senator from New York whom Burr defeated in his bid for re-election in 1791. Taking umbrage at remarks made by Hamilton at a dinner party and Hamilton's subsequent failure to account for the remarks, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel on 11 July 1804, at the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey at which he mortally wounded Hamilton. Arguably the most famous duel in American history, the duel had immense political ramifications. Burr, who survived the duel, was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey (though these charges were either later dismissed or resulted in acquittal), and the harsh criticism and animosity directed towards him would bring about an end to his political career in the East, though he remained a popular figure in the West and South. Further, Hamilton's untimely death would fatally weaken the fledging remnants of the Federalist Party, which, combined with the death of George Washington (1732-1799) five years earlier, was left without a strong leader.
