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
J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, Select Orations of Cicero , Allen and Greenough's Edition. 1 1 Browse Search
Titus Livius (Livy), Ab Urbe Condita, books 28-30 (ed. Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University) 1 1 Browse Search
Strabo, Geography (ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.) 1 1 Browse Search
Knight's Mechanical Encyclopedia (ed. Knight) 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 86 results in 78 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 29 (ed. Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University), chapter 20 (search)
ee of the senate to this effect having been passed, the tribunes of the plebs were requested either to arrange among themselves or to choose by lot which two of them should go with the praetor and legati. The matter of expiation for all that in the temple of Proserpina at Locri had been touched and profaned and carried away was referred to the college of pontiffs. The tribunes of the plebs, Marcus Claudius MarcellusCf. xi. 13; XXVII. xxvi. 12; xxvii. 7. Consul in 196 B.C.; censor 189 B.C.; XXXIII. xxiv. 1; XXXVII. lviii. 2. and Marcus Cincius AlimentusAlmost certainly a brother of Lucius, the historian (frequently mentioned in XXVI-XXVII). As tribune in this year he proposed the Lex Cincia to limit gifts; cf. Cicero Cat. Mai. 10. Livy fails to mention the law until XXXIV. iv. 9, in a speech of Cato as consul, 195 B.C. B.C. 204 departed with the praetor and ten legati. A plebeian aedile was added to their number, and either in case Scipio in Sicily should fail to obey the pra
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 33 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. Professor of Latin and Head of the Department of Classics in the University of Pittsburgh), chapter 13 (search)
ans had made with Philip. These words were received with applause from all the allies, but to the Aetolians they were unpleasant to hear at the moment, and later on they were the cause of war and, as a result of the war, of great slaughter to the Aetolians.The ill-feeling thus engendered and increased by the resentment of the Aetolians at Rome's settlement with Philip led them, in 193 B.C. (XXXV. xii. 1 ff.), to invite Antiochus to invade Europe. They were not finally subjugated until 189 B.C. (XXXVIII. xi. 1 ff.). It was agreed with Philip that he should surrender his son Demetrius and certain of his friends as hostages and pay two hundred talents, and send ambassadors to Rome with respect to other matters; for this purpose a truce of four months was granted. If peace was not obtained from the senate, it was agreed that Philip should recover his hostages and money. It is said that nothing influenced the Roman commander more strongly to secure a speedy peaceB.C. 197 t
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 33 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. Professor of Latin and Head of the Department of Classics in the University of Pittsburgh), chapter 18 (search)
ght lasted and then returned to camp. It is quite clear that if the victors had at once marched to Stratonicea, this city could have been recovered without a struggle. The opportunity for this was lost while they consumed time in occupying the forts and towns of Peraea. Meanwhile the courage of those who were holding Stratonicea with the garrison was renewed, and presently Dinocrates entered the walls with the troops that had survivedB.C. 197 the battle. In vain was the city then invested and besieged, nor was it recovered until some time later through the aid of Antiochus.The meaning is quite uncertain. In xxx. 11 below it is said that the Romans gave the city to the Rhodians according to the peace of 196 B.C. It is also possible that the city was included in the settlement in 189 B.C., after the war with Antiochus (XXXVII. vi. 6). Such were the events of this period, which took place during, we may almost say, the same days in Thessaly, Achaea, and Asia.
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 37 (ed. Evan T. Sage, PhD professor of latin and head of the department of classics in the University of Pittsburgh), chapter 1 (search)
as an untamable and anti-social people. When the contest had continued for many days, it was finally decided that peace should be neither granted nor refused; two choices were placed before them; either they should entrust themselves to the free discretion of the senate, or they should pay one thousand talents and consider the same peoples as friends and enemies.The latter would technically make them socii, though in a relation of dependency; this was one of the conditions imposed in 189 B.C. (XXXVIII. viii. 10). When they tried to elicit a definite statement as to the extent to which the senate would exercise itsB.C. 190 discretionIn XXXVI. xxii. 8 ff. the Aetolians discovered that Roman and Greek interpretations of diplomatic phraseology differed, and wanted to know what liberum arbitrium could mean. The acceptance of the first proposal in its extreme form might amount to a complete surrender. over them, no positive reply was given. So without any settlement they were or
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 38 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.), chapter 30 (search)
aving arranged matters in Cephallania and stationed a garrison at Same, crossed to the Peloponnesus, whither the Aegians especially and the Lacedaemonians had long been summoning him. From the beginning of the Achaean League the meetings of the assembly had all been called for Aegium, whether this was a tribute to the importance of the city or the convenience of the place. This custom Philopoemen, in this year for the first time, was trying to break down, and was preparing to propose a law that the meetings should be held in all the cities which belonged to the Achaean League in rotation. And at the approach of the consul, when the damiurgi of the cities (they are the chief magistrates)Cf. XXXII. xxii. 2 and the note. called the meeting at Aegium, Philopoemen —he was then praetorHis fifth term in this office began in the autumn of 189 B.C. Livy habitually uses the Latin word praetor for the chief magistrate of foreign states: cf.
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 38 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.), chapter 43 (search)
There was a feud between Marcus Fulvius and the consul Marcus Aemilius, and, in addition to everything else, Aemilius considered that it was due to the efforts of Marcus Fulvius that he himself had reached the consulship two years late.Fulvius had presided at the election of his own colleague in the peculiar election for 189 B.C. (XXXVII. xlvii. 7) and at the election for 188 B.C. (xxxv. 1 above), and on both occasions Aemilius was defeated. He had then some reason for blaming Fulvius particularly for his failures. However, the interval between his praetorship (191 B.C.) and his consulship was not unusually long for this period. Therefore, with a view to making Fulvius unpopular, he introduced to the senate ambassadors of the Ambraciots, previously coached as to their charges, who were to complain that, while they were at peace and had performed the orders of the previous consuls and were ready to render the same obedience to Marcus Fulvius, war had been declared on t
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 39 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.), chapter 36 (search)
and because he belonged to the party of Philopoemen, who was responsible for whatever had been done in Lacedaemon, replied thus: "It is more difficult for us, Appius Claudius, to speak in your presence than it was recently in Rome before the senate.He probably means the embassy reported in xxxiii. 7 above, although it is not recorded that Lycortas himself was a member of that embassy, and Livy has not mentioned any argument with the Lacedaemonians at that time. Lycortas was also at Rome in 189 B.C. (XXXVIII. xxxii. 5-10). For then our task was to answer the accusations of the Lacedaemonians: now we have been accused by you, before whom we must plead our cause. This disadvantage of situation we accept in the hope that you will listen in the spirit of a judge, laying aside the vehemence of a prosecutor with which you spoke a little while ago. I at any rate, when these complaints which were presented, both here previously before Quintus CaeciliusThere must have been uno
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 39 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.), chapter 40 (search)
When this election had been avoided by the wisdom and courage of the senate, another followed,Cf. the similar contest at the preceding election of 189 B.C. (XXXVII. lvii. 9 —lviii. 2). involving a greater contest, as it was both for a more important prize and participated in by more and more powerful men. The censorship was sought with the most intense rivalry by Lucius Valerius Flaccus,B.C. 184 Publius and Lucius Scipio, Gnaeus Manlius Volso and Lucius Furius Purpurio, patricians, as well as by the plebeians Marcus Porcius Cato, Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, Tiberius Sempronius Longus and Marcus Sempronius Tuditanus.All the candidates were ex-consuls, as usual. Publius Scipio is Nasica, Lucius Scipio was striving for rehabilitation after his trial, but the outcome of the election suggests that the glory of the Scipios had, at least for a time, departed. But among all the patricians and plebeians of the most illustrious houses, Marcus Porcius Cato stood out most conspicuou
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 39 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.), chapter 52 (search)
apparently Polybius (l.c.; cf. Nepos, l.c.), despite what Livy says here, puts the date a year later. Rutilius is nowhere else quoted by Livy. write, died this year. For my part, I agree neither with them nor with ValeriusAntias dated Scipio's death in 187 B.C.: XXXVIII. liii. 8. —not with them, because in the censorship of Marcus Porcius and Lucius Valerius I find that the princeps senatus chosen was the same Lucius Valerius who was censor, whereas in the two preceding lustraThe censors of 189 B.C. gave him this rank for the third time (XXXVIII. xxviii. 2 and the note). The choice of Valerius in 184 B.C. is not mentioned in the running account of the censorship (xliii. 5 —xliv. 9 above). Africanus had held this distinction, and while he lived, unless he had been expelled from the senate, a disgrace which no one has recorded, another princeps would not have been chosen in his stead.Livy thus concludes that Scipio was dead before the lectio by Cato and Flaccus. Their active term a
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 41 (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. and Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D.), chapter 7 (search)
order to render an account to the Roman people of the reason why he had gone from the province of Gaul, which he had obtained from the lot, over into Histria? When, they asked, had the senate decreed that war? When had the Roman people ordered that war? But, by Hercules, he will say that although the war was undertaken on his own initiative, it was conducted wisely and courageously.The criticism of Manlius is similar to that directed against his brother after the Galatian campaign of 189 B.C. (especially XXXVIII, xlv. —xlvi). On the contrary, they said, it was impossible to say whether it was undertaken more improperly or prosecuted more imprudently. Two outposts were surprised by the Histrians, a Roman camp captured, and all the infantry and cavalry in the camp slaughtered, the rest, unarmed and routed, the consul himself leading the way, had fled to the sea and the ships! As a private citizen Manlius would give account of his actions, since he had refused to do th
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...