hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith) 8 8 Browse Search
Strabo, Geography (ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.) 1 1 Browse Search
Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (ed. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.) 1 1 Browse Search
Samuel Ball Platner, Thomas Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome 1 1 Browse Search
M. Tullius Cicero, De Officiis: index (ed. Walter Miller) 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith). You can also browse the collection for 292 BC or search for 292 BC in all documents.

Your search returned 8 results in 8 document sections:

Aga'thocles 2. The son of Lysimachus by an Odrysian woman, whom Polyaenus (6.12) calls Macris. Agathocles was sent by his father against the Getae, about B. C. 292, but was defeated and taken prisoner. He was kindly treated by Dromichaetis, the king of the Getae, and sent back to his father with presents; but Lysimachus, notwithstanding, marched against the Getae, and was taken prisoner himself. He too was also released by Dromichaetis, who received in consequence the daughter of Lysimachus in marriage. According to some authors it was only Agathocles, and according to others only Lysimachus, who was taken prisoner. (Diod. Exc. xxi. p. 559, ed. Wess.; Paus. 1.9.7; Strab. vii. pp. 302, 305; Plut. Demetr. c. 39, de ser. num. vind. p. 555d.) In B. C. 287, Agathocles was sent by his father against Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had marched into Asia to deprive Lysimachus of Lydia and Caria. In this expedition he was successful; he defeated Lysimachus and drove him out of his father's provinc
Great, should be tolerated at Athens or not. The time of his greatest activity is from B. C. 317 to B. C. 307, during which time Demetrius Phalereus conducted the administration of Athens. But when in B. C. 307 Demetrius Poliorcetes advanced against Athens, and Demetrius Phalereus was obliged to take to flight, Deinarchus, who was suspected on account of his equivocal political conduct, and who was anxious to save his riches, fled to Chalcis in Euboea. It was not till fifteen years after, B. C. 292, that, owing to the exertions of his friend Theophrastus, he obtained permission to return to Athens, where he spent the last years of his lift, and died at an advanced age. The last event of his life of which we have any record, is a law-suit which he instituted against his faithless friend, Proxenus, who lead robbed him of his property. But in what manner the suit ended, is unknown. The principal source of information respecting the life of Deinarchus is the treatise of Dionysius of Hali
self. (Diod. 19.44.) In B. C. 312, we find him entrusted by that monarch with the charge of collecting bitumen from the Dead Sea, a project which was frustrated by the hostility of the neighbouring Arabs. (Id. 19.100.) The statement of Josephus (c. Apion. 1.23) that he was at one time appointed by Antigonus to the government of Syria, is in all probability erroneous. After the death of Antigonus, Hieronymus continued to follow the fortunes of his son Demetrius, and he is again mentioned in B. C. 292 as being appointed by the latter governor or harmost of Boeotia, after his first conquest of Thebes. (Plut. Demetr. 39.) Whether he was reinstated in this office when Thebes, after shaking off the yoke for a while, fell again under the power of Demetrius, we are not told, nor have we any information concerning the remaining events of his long life; but it may be inferred, from the hostility towards Lysimachus and Pyrrhus evinced by his writings at a period long subsequent, that he continue
m he soon after put to death, either to gratify Demetrius, or from displeasure at the indignant remonstrances of the young man himself. (Paus. 1.10.1; Just. 16.1, 2; Plut. Pyrrh. 6; Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. xxi. p. 490.) We are told that Lysimachus was compelled to conclude this disadvantageous peace, because he was at the time embarrassed by the hostilities in which he was engaged on his northern frontier with the Getae. (Just. 16.1.) We know little of the circumstances which led to this war (B. C. 292), but it appears to have been one of pure aggression on the part of Lysimachus. If so, he was deservedly punished by the series of disasters that followed. His son Agathocles, who had led an army into the enemy's territory, was defeated and taken prisoner, but generously set at liberty and sent back to Lysimachus. Notwithstanding this the king soon assembled a more powerful army, with which he crossed the Danube and penetrated into the heart of the country of the Getae; but he was soon red
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
s, Fa'bius 2. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. M. N., son of the preceding, acquired the agnomen of GURGES, or the Glutton, from the dissoluteness of his youth. His mature manhood atoned for his early irregularties. (Macr. 2.9; comp. Juv. Sat. 6.267, 11.40.) In B. C. 295 Fabius was curule aedile, and filed certain matrons of noble birth for their disorderly life; and with the produce of the fines built a temple to Venus near the Circus Maxilnus. (Liv. 10.31; Victor. Region. xi.) He was consul in B. C. 292, and was completely defeated by the Pentrian Samnites. The adversaries of the Fabian house, the Papirian and Appian parties, took advantage of this defeat to exasperate the people against Fabius, and he escaped degradation from the consulate only through his father's offer to serve as his lieutenant for the remainder of the war. Victory returned with the elder Fabius to the Roman arms. In a second battle the consul retrieved his reputation, stormed several Samnite towns, and was rewarded w
and arbitrary in the extreme, and the Postumian gens notorious for its patrician pride-brought upon Megellus, at the expiration of his office, an impeachment by M. Scantius, tribune of the plebs, from which his services as the lieutenant of Sp. Carvilius in the campaign with Samnium, in B. C. 293, and the popularity of his general, rescued him. The third consulship of Megellus (B. C. 291) is better known: his imperious, perhaps his insane, extravagances made it remarkable. At the close of B. C. 292, Megellus was appointed interrex to hold the consular comitia. He followed the example of Appius Claudius Caecus in B. C. 297 (Liv. 27.6), and nominated himself. His administration was answerable to his assumption of office. He refused to wait for the usual allotment of the consular provinces, and took Samnium for himself. He employed his legionaries, not in quenching the embers of an expiring war, but in levelling the woods on his own demesne. He violently, and in defiance of a deputation
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), Menander of ATHENS (search)
ted the poet to his court at Alexandria; but Menander seems to have declined the proffered honour. (Plin. Nat. 7.29. s. 31; Alciphr. Epist. 2.3, 4.) Suidas mentions some letters to Ptolemy as among the works of Menander. The time of his death is differently stated. The same inscription, which gives the date of his birth, adds that he died at the age of fifty-two years, in the archonship of Philippus, in the 32nd year of Ptolemy Soter. Clinton shows that these statements refer to the year B. C. 292-1 (F. H vol. ii. p. xv. and sub ann. 342, 291); but, to make up the fifty-two years, we must reckon in both extremes, 342 and 291. The date is confirmed by Eusebius (Chron.); by the anonymous writer on comedy (p. xii.), who adds that Menander died at Athens; by Apollodorus (apud Aul. Gel. 17.4); and by Aulus Gellius (17.21). Respecting the manner of his death, all that we know is that an old commentator on Ovid applies the line (Ibis, 593) Comicus ut medius periit dum nabat in undis to M
ore, in the name of the republic, to a humiliating peace. The Roman state however refused to ratify the treaty, and sent back the consuls and the other commanders to Pontius, who, however, refused to accept them. The name of Pontius does not occur again for nearly thirty years, but as Livy rarely mentions the names of the Samnite generals, it is not improbable that Pontius may have commanded them on many other occasions. At all. events we find him again at the head of the Samnite forces in B. C. 292, in which year he defeated the Roman army under the command of the consul Q. Fabius Gurges. This disaster, when nothing but victory was expected, so greatly exasperated the people that Fabius would have been deprived of his imperium, had not his father, the celebrated Fabius Maximus, offered to serve as his legate during the remainder of the war. It was in the same year that the decisive battle was fought, which brought the war to a conclusion. The Samnites were entirely defeated, and Pont