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
43 BC 170 170 Browse Search
44 BC 146 146 Browse Search
49 BC 140 140 Browse Search
45 BC 124 124 Browse Search
54 BC 121 121 Browse Search
46 BC 119 119 Browse Search
63 BC 109 109 Browse Search
48 BC 106 106 Browse Search
69 AD 95 95 Browse Search
59 BC 90 90 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith). Search the whole document.

Found 4 total hits in 3 results.

C. Verres, at that time city praetor, for the express purpose of convicting Oppianicus, of voting out of his proper decuria, of giving sentence without hearing the evidence, of omitting to apply for an adjournment of the proceedings, and of receiving 40,000 sesterces as a bribe from the prosecutor, A. Cluentius. He was, however, acquitted, since his trial did not take place until after the excitement that followed the Judicium Albianum had in some measure subsided. But eight years later, B. C. 66, Falcula was again brought to public notice by Cicero, in his defence of Cluentius. After recapitulating the circumstances of the Judicium Albianum, Cicero asks, if Falcula were innocent, who in the concilium at Oppianicus's trial could be guilty ? an equivocal plea that inferred without asserting the guilt of Falcula, in B. C. 74. In his defence of A. Caecina, in B. C. 69, Cicero ushers in the name of Falcula, a witness against the accused, with ironical pomp, and proceeds to point out gro
ace until after the excitement that followed the Judicium Albianum had in some measure subsided. But eight years later, B. C. 66, Falcula was again brought to public notice by Cicero, in his defence of Cluentius. After recapitulating the circumstances of the Judicium Albianum, Cicero asks, if Falcula were innocent, who in the concilium at Oppianicus's trial could be guilty ? an equivocal plea that inferred without asserting the guilt of Falcula, in B. C. 74. In his defence of A. Caecina, in B. C. 69, Cicero ushers in the name of Falcula, a witness against the accused, with ironical pomp, and proceeds to point out gross inconsistencies in Falcula's evidence. Great uncertainty is thrown over the history of Falcula by the circumstance that it suited Cicero, from whose speeches alone we know any thing of him, to represent at different times, in different lights, the Judicium Albianum. When Cicero was pleading against C. Verres, Oppianicus was unjustly condemned, and Falcula was an illegal
Fa'lcula, C. Fidicula'nius a Roman senator, was one of the judices at the trial of Statius Albius Oppianicus, who in B. C. 74 was accused of attempting to poison his step-son, A. Cluentius. The history of this remarkable trial is given elsewhere [CLUENTIUS]. Falcula was involved in the general indignation that attended the conviction of Oppianicus. The majority of jadices who condemned Oppianicus was very small. Falcula was accused by the tribune, L. Quintius, of having been illegally balloted tius. After recapitulating the circumstances of the Judicium Albianum, Cicero asks, if Falcula were innocent, who in the concilium at Oppianicus's trial could be guilty ? an equivocal plea that inferred without asserting the guilt of Falcula, in B. C. 74. In his defence of A. Caecina, in B. C. 69, Cicero ushers in the name of Falcula, a witness against the accused, with ironical pomp, and proceeds to point out gross inconsistencies in Falcula's evidence. Great uncertainty is thrown over the hist