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 71 results in 60 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Cicero's Family and Friends. (search)
n politician. Their married life proved to be a most unhappy one, and they were probably divorced towards the close of the year 46 B.C. Fam. 6.18.5. Tullia herself died in Feb., 45 B.C.,Schmidt, Briefw. p.271. and her father was plunged in the deepest grief, in which his friends Caesar, Lucceius, Sulpicius, and others sought to comfort him by letters of condolence. Att. 13.20.1; Fam. 4.5; 5.13; 5.14; Att. 12.13.1. Marcus Tullius Cicero filius. 54. Cicero's only son Marcus was born in 65 B.C. The father gave his personal attention for some time to the young man's education, and sent him later to Athens to pursue his studies, in the hope that he would take up the legal profession; but the young man's tastes were averse to study, and the appearance of Brutus at Athens, in 44 B.C., was enough to cause his enlistment in the army of the liberatores, in which he served with distinction. ad Brut. 2.3. He espoused the cause of Octavius against Antony, was made consul by the former i
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Cicero's Correspondence and its First Publication. (search)
no letter from Atticus. This state of things, together with the well-known fact that Atticus was a publisher, and that Cornelius Nepos says Nep. Att. 16. that such a collection of Cicero's letters, not yet published, was in the possession of Atticus, makes it almost certain that these letters were arranged for publication by him. It is probable that they were not published until after his death (32 B.C.).Bücheler (Rhein. Mus. 1879, p. 352) believes that they were published between 60 and 65 A.D., but his argument is not convincing. Some of the men of note upon whom Cicero had expressed unfavorable opinions were still living in 32 B.C., and the publication of these letters would therefore have been indiscreet. The books in the collection ad Att. stand in chronological order, and the letters within the books are arranged chronologically, but not with accuracy. With the Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem may be mentioned the Commentariolum Petitionis,Upon the authenticity of the Commentari
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Letter I: ad Atticum 1.1 (search)
Letter I: ad Atticum 1.1 Rome, July, 65 B.C. The tenth letter of the extant correspondence; the earlier letters being Att. 1.5, 6, 7 (68 B.C.); 9, 8, 10, 11 (67 B.C.); 3, 4 (66 B.C.). The letter is interesting for the light which it throws in general upon methods of electioneering at Rome, and in particular upon Cicero's political plans and prospects a year before the elections at which he intended to be a candidate for the consulship. On the elections, cf. also Herzog, 1. pp. 654-661. Ciccf. below, more maiorum, praepropera prensatio, frontem ferias. more maiorum: to be joined closely with negatur; cf. similar expressions, Fam. 7.18.3 ego te Balbo more Romano commendabo, and Fam. 7.5.3. praepropera: Galba is canvassing in July, 65 B.C. , although the election will not take place before July, 64 B.C. cogitaramus and dicebat: epistolary tenses, representing respectively the perfect and present; cf. Intr. 84c. The statement is put in the form in which the facts would present them
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Letter II: ad Atticum 1.2 (search)
Letter II: ad Atticum 1.2 Rome, the latter part of 65 B.C. The historical value of this letter springs from the fact that it fixes the date of the birth of Cicero's son (65 B.C.), that it contains the main point in the evidence with reference to C65 B.C.), that it contains the main point in the evidence with reference to Cicero's defense of Catiline against the charge of misappropriation of public money, and accounts for the absence of letters between Cicero and Atticus from 64-62 B.C. inclusive (cf. last sentence). L. Iulio Caesare C. Marcio Figulo consulibus: the the date of this letter, but the reference to the approaching trial of Catiline proves that it must have been written in 65 B.C., after the election of the new consuls, as the trial was begun and finished in that year. The brevity and apparent lack or abs te, cf. Ep. I.4 n. hoc tempore cogitamus: it will never be certainly known whether Cicero did defend Catiline in 65 B.C. or not, but this passage certainly indicates such an intention on his part, and there is no satisfactory reason for beli
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Letter V: ad Atticum 1.16 (search)
iding consul in asking senators their views on the question before the senate. The rules of the Roman senate allowed a senator to depart from the special topic under consideration, and de summa republica dicere. Cf. Willems, II. 186. ille locus, etc., the following point was developed by me with telling effect. Lentulum: Catiline's fellow-conspirator, who was accused de peculatu in 60 B.C. , and at a later date underwent a similar experience. Catilinam: tried on a charge of 'repetundae' in 65 B.C. (cf. intr. to Ep. II.). He was again on trial, in 64 B.C. , for the murder of M. Marius Gratidianus. No mention is made here of the charge of incest brought in 73 B.C. against the Vestal Fabia, sister of Cicero's wife Terentia, in which Catiline was implicated. Cicero regarded the charge as unfounded, and wished, furthermore, to spare the good name of Terentia's family. immissum: properly used of wild beasts. Catiline is Compared to a wolf, Cic. in Cat. 2.2. reservarunt: Cicero address
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Letter XIX: ad familiares 7.1 (search)
before the nomen in formal Latin in the Ciceronian period but this order is common enough in colloquial Latin e.g. Bassus Caecilius, Ep. LXXXVI 4 Pollio Asinius; Ep. XCVIII Cimber autem Tullius, Fam. 6 12 2 Balbi quoque Corneli, Fam 8.11.2 in Horace we read Fuscus Aristius, Musa Antonius, etc., in Livy, Gemmus Servilius, Antias Valerius, etc. In the writers of the Silver Age this innovation, like many others, was accepted without question. ambitio: e.g. in his purpose to defend Catiline in 65 B.C. ; cf. Ep. II.1. rogatu eorum: as when he defended Vatinius in 54 B.C. at the request of Caesar (Fam. 1.9.19), although he had bitterly attacked him in an oration delivered only two years before. humaniter: adverbs in -iter from adjectives in -us are peculiar in this period to colloquial Latin. In Cicero of these formations we find only naviter (Ep. XVIII. 3), firmiter, humaniter and its compounds; and these forms occur only in the Letters and in those writings to which Cicero intentionall
Frank Frost Abbott, Commentary on Selected Letters of Cicero, Letter XLII: ad familiares 16.11 (search)
e dixit, ita maxime ab inimicis Caesaris collaudatur, and according to Dio Cassius 41.3 the consul Lentulus went so far as to summon them u(pecelqei=n pri\n ta\s yh/fous dienexqh=nai. The principle that the tribune could not be held responsible for his official acts seems to have been first called into question in the year 98 B.C. , in the case of C. Furius, who had been tribune in the preceding year, and similar prosecutions occurred in the years 94 B.C. , 86 B.C. , 74 B.C. , 66 B.C. , and 65 B.C. (cf. Herzog, 1.1167 ff.; Madvig, Verf. u. Verw. 1.467). The case before us would seem to have been the first instance when an attempt was made to hold a tribune accountable during his term of office. As Caesar puts it, de sua salute septimo die (of the calendar year) cogitare coguntur, B. C. 1.5. Cf. also Appian, Bell. Civ. 2.33. Cicero's words, therefore, nulla vi expulsi, while technically true, misrepresent the real state of the case. It was this infringement of the rights of the tri
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
became an independent principality during the civil wars of Antiochus Grypus and his brother. It has been supposed by some, that Antiochus Asiaticus, the last king of Syria, is the same as Antiochus, the first king of Commagene; but there are no good. reasons for this opinion. (Clinton, F.H. iii. p. 343.) This king is first mentioned about B. C. 69, in the campaign of Lucullus against Tigranes. (Dio Cass. Frag. 35.2.) After Pompey had deposed Antiochus Asiaticus, the last king of Syria, B. C. 65, he marched against Antiochus of Commagene, with whom he shortly afterwards concluded a peace. (B. C. 64.) Pompey added to his dominions Seleuceia and the conquests he had made in Mesopotamia. (Appian, App. Mith. 106, 114.) When Cicero was governor of Cilicia (B. C. 51), he received from Antiochus intelligence of the movements of the Parthians. (Cic. Fam. 15.1, 3, 4.) In the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (B. C. 49), Antiochus assisted the latter with troops. (Caesar, Caes. Civ. 3.5; A
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), or Anti'ochus Asiaticus (search)
ing of SYRIA, surnamed ASIATICUS (*)Asiatiko/s), and on coins Dionysus Philopator Callinicus (*Dio/nusos *Filopa/twr *Kalli/nikos), was the son of Antiochus X. and Selene, an Egyptian princess. He repaired to Rome during the time that Tigranes had possession of Syria, and passed through Syria on his return during the government of Verres. (B. C. 73-71.) On the defeat of Tigranes in B. C. 69, Lucullus allowed Antiochus Asiaticus to take possession of the kingdom; but he was deprived of it in B. C. 65 by Pompey, who reduced Sicily to a Roman province. In this year the Seleucidae ceased to reign. (Appian, App. Syr. 49, 70; Cic. in Verr. 4.27, 28, 30; Justin, 40.2.) Some writers suppose, that Antiochus Asiaticus afterwards reigned as king of Commagene, but there are not sufficient reasons to support this opinion. [ANTIOCHUS I., king of Commagene.] For the history and chronology of the Syrian kings in general, see Fröhlich, Annales Syria, &c. ; Vaillant, Seleucidarum Imperium, &c. ; Ni
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), Anti'pater (search)
Anti'pater （*)Anti/patros), father of HEROD the Great, was, according to Josephus, the son of a noble Idumaean of the same name, to whom the government of Idumaea had been given by Alexander Jannaeus and his wife Alexandra, and at their court the young Antipater was brought up. The two other accounts which we have of his parentage appear to be false. (J. AJ 14.1.3; Nicol. Damasc. apud Joseph. l.c.; African. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1.6, 7; Phot. Bil. n. 76, 238.) In B. C. 65, he persuaded Hyrcanus to take refuge from his brother Aristobulus II. with Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, by whom accordingly an unsuccessful attempt was made to replace Hyrcanus on the throne. (Ant. 14.2, Bell. Jud. 1.6.2.) In B. C. 64, Antipater again supported the cause of this prince before Pompey in Coele-Syria. (Ant. 14.3.2.) In the ensuing year, Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, and Aristobulus was deposed ; and henceforth we find Antipater both zealously adhering to Hyrcanus, and labouring to ingratiate hims
1 2 3 4 5 6