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 44 results in 32 document sections:

1 2 3 4
n B. C. 370, and Diodorus (15.59.) tells us that he was the author of the plan, though the words of Pausanias (8.27, 9.14.) would seem to ascribe the origination of it to Epaminondas. (Comp. Arist. Pol. 2.2, ed. Bekk.; Xen. Hell. 6.5.6, &c.) In B. C. 369 Lycomedes was general of the Arcadians and defeated, near Orchomenus, the forces of the Lacedaemonians under Polytropus. (Xen. Hell. 6.5.14; Diod. 15.62.) In the following year we find symptoms of a rising jealousy towards Thebes on the part ofs second invasion of it. The vigour exhibited in consequence by the Arcadians under Lycomedes and the successes they met with are mentioned by Xenophon and Diodorus, the latter of whom however places these events a year too soon. Thus it was in B. C. 369, according to him, that Lycomedes marched against Pellene in Laconia, and, having taken it, made slaves of the inhabitants and ravaged the country. (Xen. Hell. 2.1. §§ 23, &c.; Diod. 15.67; Wess. ad loc.) The same spirit of independence was aga
Maluginensis 10. M. Cornelius Maluginensis, consular tribune in B. C. 369, and again in B. C. 367. (Liv. 6.36, 42.)
ic contest of B. C. 419, namely, the *Ko/lakes of Eupolis, the *Ei)rh/nh of Aristophanes, and the *Fra/tores of Leucon (Athen. 8.343; schol. ad Arisloph. Pac. 804). He is again attacked by Aristophanes in the *)/Orniqes, B. C. 414. In addition to these indications of his date, we are informed of a remark made by him upon the tragedies of Diogenes Oenomaus, who flourished about B. C. 400 (Plut. de Aud. p. 41c.). The story of his living at the court of Alexander of Pherae, who began to reign B. C. 369, is not very probable, considering the notoriety which he had acquired fifty years earlier, and yet the allusion made to his position and conduct there is quite in keeping with all that we know of his character (Plut. de Adul. et Amic. p. 50e.). The most important passage respecting Melanthius is that in the Peace of Aristophanes (796, &c.), which we subjoin in the form in which Welcker gives it: *Toia/de xrh\ *Xari/twn damw/mata kalliko/mwn to\n sofo\n poihth\n u(mnei=n, otan h)oina\
Menecleidas (*Meneklei/das), a Theban orator, was one of those who joined Pelopidas in delivering Thebes from Sparta and the oligarchical government in B. C. 379. After this, however, finding himself eclipsed by Pelopidas and Epaminondas, he strove in every way to bring them into discredit with their countrymen, and, in particular, he took part in the prosecution against them for having retained their command beyond the legal time in the campaign of B. C. 369. Being further exasperated by their acquittal, he continued his rancorous attacks on them; and, as he was a powerful speaker, he so far succeeded against Epaminondas as to exclude him from the office of Boeotarch. Against Pelopidas his efforts were of no avail, and he therefore endeavoured, in the true spirit of envy, to throw his merits into the shade, by advancing and exaggerating those of Charon. The latter had been successful in a slight skirmish of cavalry just before the great battle of Leuctra (B. C. 371), and Menecleidas
Nico'machus 2. The father of Aristotle, who belonged to the family of the Asclepiadae, and was descended from Nicomachus, the son of Machaon. He had another son named Arimnestus, and a daughter named Arimneste, by his wife Phaestis, or Phaestias, who was also descended from Aesculapius. He was a native of Stageira, and the friend and physician of Amyntas II., king of Macedonia, B. C. 393-369. He was perhaps the author of the works attributed (apparently) by Suidas to his ancestor, the son of Machaon. (Suid. s. v. *)Aristote/lhs, *Niko/maxos; Ammon. in vita Aristot.; D. L. 5.1.1.; Dionys. De Demosth. et Aristot. § 5; Joann. Tzetz. Chil. 10.727). [W.A.G
Ocellus (*)/Wkellos, *)/Wkullos), or OCYLLUS, a Lacedaemonian, was one of the three ambassadors who happened to be at Athens when Sphodrias invaded Attica, in B. C. 378. They were apprehended as having been privy to his design, but were released on their pointing out the groundlessness of the suspicion, and on their assurances that the Spartan government would be found to look with disapproval on the attempt of Sphodrias. In B. C. 369, we find Ocellus again at Athens, as one of the ambassadors who were negotiating an alliance between the Athenians and Spartans against Thebes. (Xen. Hell. 5.4. §§ 22, &c., 6.5. §§ 33, &c.; comp. Diod. 15.29, 63 ; Plut. Pel. 14.)
id that Sparta was not invincible, even in a pitched battle and with the advantage of numbers on her side. At Leuctra (B. C. 371) Pelopidas joined Epaminondas in urging the expediency of immediate action; he raised the courage of his countrymen by the dream with which he professed to have been favoured, and by the propitiatory sacrifice which he offered in obedience to it [SCEDASUS], and the success of the day was due in a great measure to him and to the Sacred Band, which he commanded. In B. C. 369, he was one of the generals of the Theban force which invaded the Peloponnesus, and he united with Epamimnondas in persuading their colleagues not to return home till they had carried their arms into the territory of Sparta itself, though they would thus be exceeding their legal term of office. For this, Epaminondas and Pelopidas were impeached afterwards by their enemies at Thebes, but were honourably acquitted. [EPAMINONDAS; MENECLEIDAS.] Early in B. C. 368, the Thessalians who were suf
Pharax 3. A Spartan, was one of the ambassadors who were sent to negotiate an alliance with Athens against Thebes, in B. C. 369. (Xen. Hell. 6.5. §§ 33.) [E.
Ariobarzanes, the Persian satrap of the Hellespont, to effect a reconciliation between the Thebans and Lacedaemonians. He came well supplied with money, and in the name of Artaxerxes II.; but in a congress which he caused to be held at Delphi, he failed to accomplish his object, as the Thebans refused to abandon their claim to the sovereignty of Boeotia, and Lacedaemon would not acknowledge the independence of Messenia. Upon this Philiscus, leaving behind him a body of 2000 mercenaries for the service of Sparta, and having been honoured, as well as Ariobarzanes, with the Athenian franchise, returned to Asia. Here, under cover of the satrap's protection, he made himself master of a number of Greek states, over which he exercised a tyrannical and insolent sway, till he was at last assassinated at Lampsacus by Thersagoras and Execestus (Xen. Hell. 7.1.27 ; Diod. 15.70; Dem. c. Aristocr. pp. 666, 667). Diodorus places the mission of Philiscus to Greece in B. C. 369, a year too soon. [E.E]
tice is proved, not only by the above testimonies, but also, as Bentley has shown, by the way in which Simonides mentions Stesichorus, in connection with Homer, as an ancient poet (Ath. iv. p. 172ef.); whereas, if the statement of the Marble applied to him, he must have been contemporary with Simonides. Still further light is thrown on this matter by another clause of the Parian inscription (Ep. 74), which states that " Stesichorus the second, of Himera, conquered at Athens in Ol. 102. 3," B. C. 369. The clear and satisfactory explanation of these statements is, that the poetic art was, as usual, hereditary in the family of Stesichorus, and that two of his descendants, at different times, went to Athens to take part in the dithyrambic contests. There are different statements respecting the country of Stesichorus. The prevailing account was that he was born at Himera, and he is sometimes called simply " the poet of Himera; " but others made him a native of Mataurus, or Metaurus, in t
1 2 3 4