hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
187 BC 5 5 Browse Search
183 BC 5 5 Browse Search
184 BC 5 5 Browse Search
192 BC 5 5 Browse Search
188 BC 3 3 Browse Search
185 BC 3 3 Browse Search
189 BC 3 3 Browse Search
183 BC 2 2 Browse Search
192 BC 2 2 Browse Search
196 BC 2 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 39 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.). Search the whole document.

Found 16 total hits in 6 results.

189 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
apparently Polybius (l.c.; cf. Nepos, l.c.), despite what Livy says here, puts the date a year later. Rutilius is nowhere else quoted by Livy. write, died this year. For my part, I agree neither with them nor with ValeriusAntias dated Scipio's death in 187 B.C.: XXXVIII. liii. 8. —not with them, because in the censorship of Marcus Porcius and Lucius Valerius I find that the princeps senatus chosen was the same Lucius Valerius who was censor, whereas in the two preceding lustraThe censors of 189 B.C. gave him this rank for the third time (XXXVIII. xxviii. 2 and the note). The choice of Valerius in 184 B.C. is not mentioned in the running account of the censorship (xliii. 5 —xliv. 9 above). Africanus had held this distinction, and while he lived, unless he had been expelled from the senate, a disgrace which no one has recorded, another princeps would not have been chosen in his stead.Livy thus concludes that Scipio was dead before the lectio by Cato and Flaccus. Their active term a
187 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
ear later. Rutilius is nowhere else quoted by Livy. write, died this year. For my part, I agree neither with them nor with ValeriusAntias dated Scipio's death in 187 B.C.: XXXVIII. liii. 8. —not with them, because in the censorship of Marcus Porcius and Lucius Valerius I find that the princeps senatus chosen was the same Lucius Vahat of P. Claudius and Porcius (and of Cato and Flaccus) from March 15 to December 10, 184 B.C. If Naevius was the prosecutor Scipio could not have been tried in 187 B.C. Livy does not observe that his criticism brings under suspicion his entire narrative of the trial, so far as it is based on Antias. Thus it seems that he lived i B.C. (Polybius and Rutilius) because he believes that Scipio was dead before the censorship of Cato and Flaccus beginning March 15, 184 B.C. He has rejected 187 B.C. (Antias) because he now believes that Naevius was the prosecutor (term beginning December 10, 185 B.C.). Since Livy thinks that death followed soon after the
185 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
d.Inauguration day for consuls at this period was March 15; for tribunes, apparently at all times, December 10. Naevius then entered upon his office December 10, 185 B.C. (Ap. Claudius M. Sempronius coss.), and his term was concurrent with that of P. Claudius and Porcius (and of Cato and Flaccus) from March 15 to December 10, 184 accus beginning March 15, 184 B.C. He has rejected 187 B.C. (Antias) because he now believes that Naevius was the prosecutor (term beginning December 10, 185 B.C.). Since Livy thinks that death followed soon after the trial, this reasoning brackets both events as having occurred between December 10, 185 B.C., and March 15,185 B.C., and March 15, 184 B.C., this being the portion of the term of Naevius which does not overlap that of Cato and Flaccus. The whole is an interesting specimen of Livy's historical criticism, the more valuable because there are so few parallels. But his readiness to follow one source, almost blindly in Book XXXVIII, while professing
184 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
e him this rank for the third time (XXXVIII. xxviii. 2 and the note). The choice of Valerius in 184 B.C. is not mentioned in the running account of the censorship (xliii. 5 —xliv. 9 above). Africanus ead before the lectio by Cato and Flaccus. Their active term as censors extended from March 15, 184 B.C., to about mid-September 183 B.C., and the lectio might have been held late in the period. So fant with that of P. Claudius and Porcius (and of Cato and Flaccus) from March 15 to December 10, 184 B.C. If Naevius was the prosecutor Scipio could not have been tried in 187 B.C. Livy does not observ he believes that Scipio was dead before the censorship of Cato and Flaccus beginning March 15, 184 B.C. He has rejected 187 B.C. (Antias) because he now believes that Naevius was the prosecut reasoning brackets both events as having occurred between December 10, 185 B.C., and March 15, 184 B.C., this being the portion of the term of Naevius which does not overlap that of Cato and Flaccus.
183 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
thus concludes that Scipio was dead before the lectio by Cato and Flaccus. Their active term as censors extended from March 15, 184 B.C., to about mid-September 183 B.C., and the lectio might have been held late in the period. So far as this evidence goes, then, Scipio's death might have occurred as late as the summer of 183 B.C.183 B.C., and Livy's criticism is not necessarily valid. The refutation of Antias as an authority is the tribune of the people Marcus Naevius, against whom was directed, according to the title,Cf. XXXVIII. lvi. 6 and the note. Livy forgets here his own remark, that the speech itself did not contain the name of Naevius. B.C. 183 the speechbefore the censorship of Lucius Valerius and Marcus Porcius. The last sentence seems to be an attempt to reconcile conflicting testimony. Livy has rejected 183 B.C. (Polybius and Rutilius) because he believes that Scipio was dead before the censorship of Cato and Flaccus beginning March 15, 184 B.C. He has rejected 187
105 BC (search for this): book 39, chapter 52
Scipio also, as both Polybius and RutiliusPolybius (XXIV. ix. —ix.a) and Rutilius (consul 105 B.C., a member of the Scipionic circle, although much younger than the majority, and a writer of memoirs) should have had access to family records and other evidence as to the date. Yet apparently Polybius (l.c.; cf. Nepos, l.c.), despite what Livy says here, puts the date a year later. Rutilius is nowhere else quoted by Livy. write, died this year. For my part, I agree neither with them nor with ValeriusAntias dated Scipio's death in 187 B.C.: XXXVIII. liii. 8. —not with them, because in the censorship of Marcus Porcius and Lucius Valerius I find that the princeps senatus chosen was the same Lucius Valerius who was censor, whereas in the two preceding lustraThe censors of 189 B.C. gave him this rank for the third time (XXXVIII. xxviii. 2 and the note). The choice of Valerius in 184 B.C. is not mentioned in the running account of the censorship (xliii. 5 —xliv. 9 above). Africanus had he<