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
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 30 results in 25 document sections:

Cotys 2. King of Thrace from B. C. 382 to 358. (See Suid. s.v. where his reign is said to have lasted twenty-four years.) It is not, however, till towards the end of this period that we find anything recorded of him. In B. C. 364 he appears as an enemy of the Athenians, the main point of dispute being the possession of the Thracian Chersonesus, and it was at this time that he first availed himself of the aid of the adventurer Charidemus on his desertion from the Athenian service [see p. 684b.]. He also secured the valuable assistance of Iphicrates, to whom he gave one of his daughters in marriage, and who did not scruple to take part with his father-in-law against his country. (Dem. c. Aristocr. pp. 663, 669, 672; Pseudo-Aristot. Econ. 2.26; Nep. Iphicr. 3; Anaxandr. apud Athen. iv. p. 131.) In B. C. 362, Miltocythes, a powerful chief, revolted from Cotys, and engaged the Athenians on his side by promising to cede the Chersonesus to them; but Cotys sent them a letter, outbidding his
Cy'dias a celebrated painter from the island of Cythnus, B. C. 364, whose picture of the Argonauts was exhibited in a porticus by Agrippa at Rome. (Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 526; Plin. Nat. 35.40.26; D. C. 53.27; Urlichs, Beschr. der Stadt. Rom. 3.3. p. 114.) [L.U]
favour of Demosthenes. (Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 828, c. Aphob. iii. p. 861.) At length, in the third year after his coming of age, in the archonship of Timocrates, B. C. 364 (Dem. c. Onet. p. 868), Demosthenes brought his accusation against Aphobus before the archon, reserving to himself the right to bring similar charges against Demchus, p. 106, &c.; Westermann, Quaest. Demosth. iii. p. 96, &c. 26 and 27. The two orations against Aphobus The two orations against Aphobus were delivered in B. C. 364. 28. *Pro\s *)/Afobon yeudomarturiw=n *Pro\s *)/Afobon yeudomarturiw=n, is suspected of being spurious by Westermann, Quaest. Dem. iii. p. 11, &c. Comp. Schöm th=s trihrarxi/as, after B. C. 361, is suspected by Becker, Demosth. als Staatsmann und. Redner, p. 465. 51. *Pro\s *Ka/llippon *Pro\s *Ka/llippon, spoken in B. C. 364. 52. *Pro\s *Niko/straton peri\ tw=n *)Areqousi/ou a)ndrapo/dwn *Pro\s *Niko/straton peri\ tw=n *)Areqousi/ou a)ndrapo/dwn, of uncertain date, was suspected b
Eubo'tas (*Eu)bw/tas), a Cyrenaean, who gained a victory in the foot-race in Ol. XCIII. (B. C. 408), and in the chariot-race in 01. CIV. (B. C. 364). There is considerable doubt as to the name. Diodorus calls him *Eu)/batos, Xenophon *Eu)bo/tas ; nor is it quite clear whether Pausanias, where he mentions him, speaks of two victories gained at different Olympiads, or of a double victory gained on the second occasion. (Paus. 6.8.3, 4.2; Diod. 13.68; Xen. Hell. 1.2.1.) [C.P.
occurs in Etruscan sepulchral monuments, corresponds to that of Licinius, and hence it would appear that the family was of Etruscan origin. This opinion is thought to be supported by the fact, that in the consulship of C. Licinius Calvus Stolo, B. C. 364, Etruscan players took part in the public games at Rome; but as it is recorded by Livy that scenic games were established in this year to avert the anger of the gods, and that Etruscan players were accordingly sent for (Liv. 7.2), it is not necnuvium with the Licinii Murenae [MURENA]. The name would therefore seem to have been originally spread both through Etruria and Latium. The first member of this gens who obtained the consulship, was the celebrated C. Licinius Calvus Stolo, in B. C. 364; and from this period down to the later times of the empire, the Licinii constantly held some of the higher offices of the state, until eventually they obtained the imperial dignity. [See below, p. 783.] The family-names of this gens are, CAL
Plutarch about the unwillingness of Nicias to sell one of his pictures to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, if we suppose Ptolemy I. to be meant (Non poss. suav. viv. sec. Epicureos, 11). On the other hand, Pliny tells us that Nicias assisted Praxiteles in statuis circumlinendis, that is, covering marble statues with a sort of encaustic varnish, by which a beautifully smooth and tinted surface was given to them (see Dict. of Antiq. PAINTING, § viii.). Now Praxiteles flourished in the 104th Olympiad, B. C. 364-360. We must therefore either suppose that Nicias thus painted the statues of Praxiteles a considerable time after they were made, which is not very probable in itself, and is opposed to Pliny's statement; or else that Pliny has confounded two different artists, indeed he himself suggests that there may have been two artists of the name. (See Sillig, Catal. Artif. s. v.) But, plausible as this argument is, it is not conclusive, for the division of a master and pupil by seven or eight Olymp
d with marked distinction by the king, and obtained, as far as Persia could grant it, all that he asked for, viz. that Messenia should be independent, that the Athenians should lay up their ships, and that the Thebans should be regarded as hereditary friends of the king. For himself, Pelopidas refused all the presents which Artaxerxes offered him, and, according to Plutarch (Plut. Art. 22), avoided during his mission all that to a Greek mind would appear to be unmanly marks of homage. In B. C. 364, the Thessalian towns, those especially of Magnesia and Phthiotis, again applied to Thebes for protection against Alexander, and Pelopidas was appointed to aid them. His forces: however, were dismayed by an eclipse of the sun (Jane 13), and, therefore, leaving them behind, he took with him into Thessaly only 300 horse, having set out amidst the warnings of the soothsayers. On his arrival at Pharsalus he collected a force which he deemed sufficient, and marched against Alexander, treating l
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
r for the throne, Pausanias, soon compelled both Eurydice and her two sons, Perdiccas and Philip, to have recourse to the assistance of the Athenian general Iphicrates, who drove out the usurper, and re-established Perdiccas upon the throne. Ptolemy seems to have been reinstated in his office of regent or guardian of the young king, under which name he virtually enjoyed the sovereign power, until at length Perdiccas caused him to be put to death, and took the government into his own hands, B. C. 364. (Just. 7.4, 5; Aesch. de Fals. Leg. §§ 28-31, ed. Bekk.; Diod. 15.77, 16.2 ; Syncell. p. 263; Flathe, Gesch. Mlacedon. vol. i. p. 39-40; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. v. p. 162-164.) Of the subsequent reign of Perdiccas we have very Little information. We learn only that he was at one time engaged in hostilities with Athens on account of Amphipolis (Aesch. l.c. §§ 32-33), and that he was distinguished for his patronage of men of letters. Among these we are told that Euphraeus, a disciple of Pl
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
Pe'ticus, C. Sulpi'cius a distinguished patrician in the times immediately following the enactment of the Licinian laws. He was censor B. C. 366, the year in which a plebeian consul was first elected; and two years afterwards, B. C. 364, he was consul with C. Licinius Calvus Stolo, the proposer of the celebrated Licinian laws. In this year a fearful pestilence visited the city, which occasioned the establishment of ludi scenici for the first time. In B. C. 362 he served as legate in the army of the plebeian consul, L. Genucius, and after the fall of the latter in battle, he repulsed the Hernici in an attack which they made upon the Roman camp. In the following year, B. C. 361, Peticus was consul a second time with his former colleague Licinius : both consuls marched against the Hernici and took the city of Ferentinum, and Peticus obtained the honour of a triumph on his return to Rome. In B. C. 358, Peticus was appointed dictator in consequence of the Gauls having penetrated through t
as an artist was intimately connected with that city. This fact is not only indicated by the constant association of his name with the later Attic school of sculpture, and by Pliny's reference to his numerous works in the Cerameicus at Athens, but there is an inscription still extant, in which he is expressly called an Athenian. (Böckh, Corp. Inscr.No. 1604). With respect to his date, he is mentioned by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 34.8. s. 19) as contemporary with Euphranor at the 104th Olympiad, B. C. 364. Pausanias (8.9.1) places him in the third generation after Alcamenes, the disciple of Pheidias ; which agrees very well with the date of Pliny, since Alcamenes flourished between Ol. 83 and 94, B. C. 448-404. Vitruvius (vii. Praef. § 13) states that he was one of the artists who adorned the Mausoleum of Artemisia; and, if so, he must have lived at least as late as Ol. 107, B. C. 350. If we were to accept as genuine the will of Theophrastus, in which he requests Praxiteles to finish a stat