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:

Le'pidus 15. M'. Aemilius Mam. F. M. N. LEPIDUS, probably likewise a son of No. 8, was consul, B. C. 66, with L. Volcatius Tullus, the same year in which Cicero was praetor. He is mentioned several times by Cicero, but never attained much political importance. In B. C. 65, he is spoken of as one of the witnesses against C. Cornelius, whom Cicero defended. He belonged to the aristocratical party, but on the breaking out of the civil war in B. C. 49, he retired to his Formian villa to watch the progress of events. Here he was in almost daily intercourse with Cicero, from whose letters we learn that Lepidus was resolved not to cross the sea with Pompey, but to yield to Caesar if the latter was likely to be victorious. He eventually returned to Rome in March. (Sal. Cat. 18; Cic. in Cat. 1.6, pro Sull. 4; D. C. 36.25; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 66, ed. Orelli; Cic. Att. 7.12, 23, 8.1, 6, 9, 15, 9.1.)
Lucullus 5. L. LICINIUS LUCULLUS, L. F. L. N., son of the preceding. His praenomen, according to Valerius Maximus, was Marcus; but this is considered by Drumann (Gesch. Roms. vol. iv. p. 175) as so contrary to analogy, that he does not hesitate to regard it as a mistake. (See also Orelli, Onom. Tull. vol. ii. p. 352.) As he was the son of Servilia, he could not have been born before B. C. 65; and was a mere child at the time of his father's death. Lucullus had entrusted him to the guardianship of his maternal uncle, Cato; but at the same time recommended him, by his testament, to the friendly care of Cicero, who appears to have joined with Cato in superintending the education of the boy. (Cic. de Fin. 3.2, ad Att. 13.6.) His relationship with Cato and Brutus naturally threw the young Lucullus into the republican party, whom he zealously joined after the death of Caesar: so that he accompanied Brutus to Greece, was present at the battle of Philippi, and was killed in the pursuit after
of Pontus as a Roman province: a purpose which was defeated by the unfavourable change that had taken place in the affairs of that country. (Cic. Att. 13.6; Plut. Luc. 35.) On his return he was assailed by C. Memmius with the accusation already mentioned, which however, terminated in his acquittal (Plut. Ib. 37; Pseud. Ascon. ad Cic. Div. in Caecil. p. 109). From this time forth he bears a prominent place among the feaders of the aristocratic party or Optimates at Rome; thus we find him in B. C. 65, coming forward together with Hortensius, Catulus, Metellus Pius, and M. Lepidus, to bear testimony against the tribune C. Cornelius (Ascon. Arg. in Cic. p. Cornel. p. 60, ed. Orell.). Though opposed on this occasion to Cicero, In he was in general a warm friend and supporter of the great orator, whom he assisted with his counsels in the dangers of the Catilinarian conspiracy, when both he and his brother were among the first to urge the execution of the conspirators (Cic. Att. 12.21): and
sters of Mithridates proved too much for the fidelity of Machares, and he sent an embassy to Lucullus with a present of a crown of gold, and requested to be admitted to terms of alliance with Rome. This was readily granted by Lucullus; and as a proof of his sincerity, Machares furnished the Roman general with supplies and assistance in the siege of Sinope. (Appian, App. Mith. 67, 78, 83; Plut. Luc. 24; Memnon, 54, ed. Orelli.) But when Mithridates, after his defeat by Pompey, adopted the daring resolution of marching with his army to the Bosporus, and renewing the contest from thence, Machares became alarmed for the consequences of his defection; and on learning the actual approach of his father (B. C. 65) fled to the city of Chersonesus, where he soon after, despairing of pardon, put an end to his own life. (Appian, App. Mith. 102.) Dio Cassius, on the contrary, relates (36.33) that Mithridates deceived him with promises of safety, and then put him to death. (Comp. Ores. 6.5.) [E.H.B]
asters, at length gained a victory over Sertorius, he was so elated with his success, that he allowed himself to be saluted imperator, and celebrated his conquest with the greatest splendour. But Sertorius soon recovered from this defeat, and would probably have continued to defy all the efforts of Metellus and Pompey, if be had not been murdered by Perperna and his friends in B. C. 72. [SERTORIUS.] Metellus returned to Rome in the following year, and triumphed on the 30th of December. In B. C. 65, Metellus was one of those who supported the accusation against C. Cornelius. He was pontifex maximus, and, as he was succeeded in this dignity by C. Caesar in B. C. 63, he must have died either in this year or at the end of the preceding. Metellus Pius followed closely in the footsteps of his father. Like him, he was a steady and unwavering supporter of the aristocracy; like him, his military abilities were very considerable, but not those of a first-rate general, and he was unable to adap
general in honourable feeling and conduct. Murena followed Tigranes in his retreat from Tigranocerta to the Taurus, and took all his baggage, and he was left to maintain the siege of Tigranocerta while Lucullus marched from before that city to check Tigranes, who was again in sight of Tigranocerta with a large army. He returned to Rome before the end of the war, and was one of ten commissioners who were sent out to settle affairs in the countries conquered by Lucullus. (Cic. Att. 13.6.) In B. C. 65, was praetor with Serv. Sulpicius, and had the jurisdictio, while Sulpicius had the unpopular function of presiding at the quaestio peculatus (Cic. pro Muren. 20). Murena expended considerable sums on the public exhibitions (ludi Apollinares), which he had to superintend during his office. (Plin. Nat. 33.3; Cic. pro Muren. 18, 19.) After his praetorship (B. C. 64) he was propraetor of Gallia Cisalpina, where his brother Caius served under him, and he settled the disputes between debtor and
Natta or NACCA, "a fuller" (Festus, s.v. Appul. Met. ix. p. 636, ed. Ouden.), was the name of a family of the Pinaria gens. Natta, or Nata, which we find upon coins, seems to be the correct orthography. The Nattae are very rarely mentioned, but appear to have been a very ancient family. Cicero speaks in general of the Pinarii Nattae as nobiles, and mentions an ancient bronze statue of a Natta, which was struck by lightning in the consulship of Torquatus and Cotta, B. C. 65. (Cic. de Div. 1.12, 2.20, 21.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
Paetus, Autro'nius 1. P. Autronius Paetus, was elected consul for B. C. 65 with P. Cornelius Sulla; but before he and Sulla entered upon their office, they were accused of bribery by L. Aurelius Cotta and L. Manlius Torquatus, and condemned. Their election was accordingly declared void: and their accusers were chosen consuls in their stead. Enraged at his disappointment Paetus conspired with Catiline to murder the consuls Cotta and Torquatus; and this design is said to have been frustrated solely by the impatience of Catiline, who gave the signal prematurely before the whole of the conspirators had assembled. (Sal. Cat. 18; D. C. 36.27; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 74, ed. Orelli; Suet. Jul. 9; Liv. Epit. 101.) [CATILINA, p. 629b.] Paetus afterwards took an active part in the Catilinarian conspiracy, which broke out in Cicero's consulship. After the suppression of the conspiracy Paetus was brought to trial for the share he had had in it; he entreated Cicero with many tears to undertake his de
Pa'pius 1. C. Papius, a tribune of the plebs B. C. 65, was the author of a law by which all peregrini were banished from Rome. This was the renewal of a similar law which had been proposed by M. Junius Pennus, in B. C. 126. The Papia lex also contained provisions respecting the punishment of those persons who had assumed the Roman franchise without having any claim to it (D. C. 37.9; Cic. de Off. 3.11, pro Balb. 23, pro Arch. 5, de Leg. Agr. 1.4, ad Att. 16). If we are to believe Valerius Maxim6). If we are to believe Valerius Maximus (3.4.5), this law must have been passed at a much earlier period, since he relates that the father of Perperna, who was consul B. C. 130, was accused under the Papia lex after the death of his son, because he had falsely assumed the rights of a Roman citizen. But since Dio Cassius (l.c.) expressly places the law in B. C. 65, and Cicero speaks of its proposer as a contemporary (de Off. 3.11), we may conclude that there is some mistake in Valerius Maximus.
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), Pompeius Magnus or Pompeius the Great or Cn. Pompeius (search)
inter. The legions were distributed through the country in three separate divisions; and Oroeses, king of Albania, on the borders of whose kingdom the Romans were encamped, thought this a favourable opportunity for crushing the invaders. He accordingly crossed the Cyrus at the head of a large army about the middle of December, but was easily defeated by Pompey, and compelled to sue for peace, which was granted him on condition of his giving the Romans a passage through his territories. In B. C. 65 Pompey commenced his march northwards in pursuit of Mithridates, but he had first to fight against the Iberians, a warlike people, who lay between the Albanians on the east and the Colchians on the west. Having repulsed these barbarians, and compelled them to sue for peace, Pompey then advanced as far as the river Phasis (Faz), which flows into the Euxine, and here he met with his legate Servilius, the commander of his fleet in the Euxine. From him Pompey obtained more certain information r