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) 4 4 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 290 AD or search for 290 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 4 results in 4 document sections:

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
ng to Panziroli (de Clar. Jur. Interpp. pp. 13, 59), was the same with the Arcadius to whom Carus, Carinus, and Numerianus directed a rescript, A. D. 283. (Cod. 9. tit. 11. s. 4.) There is a constitution of Diocletianus and Maximianus, addressed, A. D. 300-2, to Arcadius Chresimus. (Cod. 2. tit. 3. s. 27.) Panziroli would here read Charisius for Chresimus, and would also identify our Charisius with the Carisius (Vat. M. S.; vulg. lect. Charissimus), praeses of Syria, to whom was addressed (A. D. 290) an earlier constitution of the same emperors. (Cod. 9. tit. 41. s. 9.) These identifications, however, though not absolutely impossible, rest upon mere conjecture, and would require the jurist to have lived to a very advanced age. Three works of Charisius are cited in the Digest. Four extracts (Dig. 22. tit. 5. s. 1; Dig. 22. tit. 5. s. 21; Dig. 22. tit. 5. s. 25; Dig. 48. tit. 18. s. 10) are made from his Liber singularis de Testibus; one (Dig. 50. tit. 4. s. 18) from his Liber singular
ia causis praesentitum temporum videbantur, elegimus. In this place codice cannot fairly be subaudited, and therefore, so far as the authority of the Westgothic interpreter goes, the longer name Gregorianus must be preferred to Gregorius. (Zimmern. R. R. G. vol. 1.46. n. 35.) Burchardi (Lehrbuch des Rör. Rechts, vol. i. p. 233, Stuttgart. 1841), nevertheless, prefers the shorter form, Gregorius, and thinks that the compiler of the codex may have been the Gregorius to whom was addressed, in A. D. 290, a rescript of the emperor Diocletian (Cod. Just. i. tit. 22. s. 1), and may also have been identical with the Gregorius who was praefectus praetorio under Constantine in A. D. 336 and 337. (Cod. Theod. 3. tit. 1. s. 2, Cod. Theod. 2. tit. 1. s. 3, Cod. Just. 5. tit. 27. s. 1, Nov. 89. 100.15.) This hypothesis is consistent with the date at which the Gregorianus Codex may be supposed to have been compiled, for the latest constitution it contains is one of Diocletian and Maximinian of the y
Victorino Episcopo et Martyre, Par. 1664, in the appendix to which we find a discussion on five distinguished persons who bore the name of Victorinus; but several points are still involved in much obscurity. Both Putschius and Lindemann prefix the name of Maximus Victorinus to the whole three. Victori'nus 1. VICTORINUS, bishop of Pettaw on the Drave in Styria, hence distinguished by the epithet Petavionensis, or Pictaviensis, flourished towards the close of the third century (A. D. 270-290), and suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Diocletian, probably in A. D. 303. Works St. Jerome tells us that he understood Greek better than Latin; and that, in consequence, his works, though pregnant with great thoughts, were couched in poor language ; a criticism which has been thought inconsistent with the fact recorded by Cassiodorus that he was originally a rhetorician ( Victorinus, de oratore episcopus, Inst. Div. 5). The difficulty, however, will be removed if we suppose tha
Victori'nus 1. VICTORINUS, bishop of Pettaw on the Drave in Styria, hence distinguished by the epithet Petavionensis, or Pictaviensis, flourished towards the close of the third century (A. D. 270-290), and suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Diocletian, probably in A. D. 303. Works St. Jerome tells us that he understood Greek better than Latin; and that, in consequence, his works, though pregnant with great thoughts, were couched in poor language ; a criticism which has been thought inconsistent with the fact recorded by Cassiodorus that he was originally a rhetorician ( Victorinus, de oratore episcopus, Inst. Div. 5). The difficulty, however, will be removed if we suppose that Greek was his native language, but that he felt himself constrained to write in Latin, with which he was less conversant, because it was the tongue spoken in the province where he exercised his episcopal functions. It is to be remarked that this Victorinus was long supposed to have been bishop of P