Your search returned 221 results in 132 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
Chrysostom's works. In Fabricius there is a notice of some other unpublished translations by Gaza, as of the Aphorismi of Hippocrates, and the Libri de Re Militari of the emperor Maurice. Translations from Latin into Greek His versions from Latin into Greek were:-- 1. *Ma/rkou *Tulli/ou *Kike/rwnos *(rwmai/ou *Ka/twn h)\ peri\ *Gh/rws, M. T. Ciceronis Cato sive de Senectute ; and 2. the *)/Oneiros tou= *Skipi/wnos, Somnium Scipionis, of the same author. Editions These were both printed by Aldus Manutius at Venice, A. D. 1519. 3. A letter of Pope Nicholas V. to Constantine Palaeologus, the last emperor of Constantinople. Editions Both the original and the version are given in the Opuscula Aurea Theologica of Arcudius, 4to. Rome, A. D. 1630, and again A. D. 1670. Further Information Hody, De Graecis Illustribus Linguae Graecae, &c. Instauratoribus. 8vo. Lond. 1742. C. F. Boerneri, De Doctis Hominibus Graecis. 8vo. Lips. 1750; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. pp. 388-395.[J.C.M]
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith), (search)
was published fol. Rome, 1517, by Petrus Paccius, the translator's brother: again, fol. Basil. 1519, and in a smaller form at Paris, 1554. The Greek text was first printed by Hen. Stephanus, 8vo. Paris, 1557, accompanied, but in a separate volume, by the version of Paccius. The edition of Heinsius, from a MS. in the King's Library at Paris (with the title quoted above), with a new Latin version and notes by the editor, was printed 8vo. Leyden, 1607 and again 1614, and without the notes, A. D. 1630. It has been reprinted once or twice since then. In the first edition the Latin version and the notes formed separate volumes. Heinsius did not follow either the arrangement of his MS. or his own suggested arrangement in Tetralogia. The first edition of Davis, fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, with the version of Heinsius, whose arrangement he adopted, and short notes, was published, 8vo. Cambridge, 1703; the second and more important edition, in which the text was carefully revised an
Jubal Anderson Early, Ruth Hairston Early, Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early , C. S. A., Chapter 28: devastation of the country. (search)
ape who could, and ascertaining definitely the capture of the regiments on the left, and that the enemy had a guard at the further end, the bridge was fired at the end next us, and so destroyed that it could not be used by the enemy. Receiving orders from General Lee to move back to my camp, I did so at three o'clock in the morning, after having sent off Graham's and Dance's batteries. The loss in my division in this affair was 5 killed, 35 wounded, and 1593 missing, making a total of 1630. The loss in Green's battery was 1 killed and 41 missing, total 42, making the loss altogether 1672, besides the four guns and the small arms. The killed are those who were known to be killed, and the wounded were those who got off. Doubtless there were a number killed and wounded who were put down in the missing, but the enemy came up to the works firing but very little, and therefore the loss in that respect was comparatively slight. Nearly three hundred of Hays' officers and men, bet
Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Ancestry-birth-boyhood (search)
son, Samuel, took lands on the east side of the Connecticut River, opposite Windsor, which have been held and occupied by descendants of his to this day. I am of the eighth generation from Mathew Grant, and seventh from Samuel. Mathew Grant's first wife died a few years after their settlement in Windsor, and he soon after married the widow Rockwell, who, with her first husband, had been fellow-passengers with him and his first wife, on the ship Mary and John, from Dorchester, England, in 1630. Mrs. Rockwell had several children by her first marriage, and others by her second. By intermarriage, two or three generations later, I am descended from both the wives of Mathew Grant. In the fifth descending generation my great grandfather, Noah Grant, and his younger brother, Solomon, held commissions in the English army, in 1756, in the war against the French and Indians. Both were killed that year. My grandfather, also named Noah, was then but nine years old. At the breaking o
Baron de Jomini, Summary of the Art of War, or a New Analytical Compend of the Principle Combinations of Strategy, of Grand Tactics and of Military Policy. (ed. Major O. F. Winship , Assistant Adjutant General , U. S. A., Lieut. E. E. McLean , 1st Infantry, U. S. A.), Sketch of the principal maritime expeditions. (search)
o those forces were to be joined an army of twenty-five thousand men, which the Duke of Parma should bring from the Low countries by Ostend. A tempest and the English did justice to this armament, a considerable one for the epoch, but which, far from meriting the pompous epithet which had been given it, lost thirteen thousand men and the half of its vessels, without having approached the coasts of England. After this expedition, that of Gustavus Adolphus to Germany first presents itself, (1630.) The army was composed only of fifteen or eighteen thousand men; the fleet numbered nine thousand sailors; but it is without doubt through error that M. Ancillon affirms that it carried eight thousand cannon. The debarkation in Pomerania met with little opposition from the imperialists, and the King of Sweden found a great point of support in the people of Germany. His successor made an expedition of quite an extraordinary nature, and of which there is found in history but a single other e
H. Wager Halleck , A. M. , Lieut. of Engineers, U. S. Army ., Elements of Military Art and Science; or, Course of Instruction in Strategy, Fortification, Tactis of Battles &c., Embracing the Duties of Staff, Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery and Engineers. Adapted to the Use of Volunteers and Militia., Chapter 13: permanent fortifications.—Historical Notice of the progress of this Art.—Description of the several parts of a Fortress, and the various Methods of fortifying a position (search)
of fortification. He published in 1645. At the close of the sixteenth century, the Dutch had bee forced to resort to military defences to protect themselves against the aggressions of the Spaniards. As the Dutch were inferior in other military means, fortification became one of tie vital resources of the country. Their works, however, throw up in much haste, were in many respects defective, although well adapted to the exigencies of the time. Freytag, their principal engineer, wrote in 1630. Some of his improvements were introduced into France by Pagan. He was preceded by Marolois, (a cotemporary of Pagan,) who published in 1613. In Germany, Rimpler, a Saxon, wrote on fortification in 1671. He was a man of great experience, having served at the sieges of Candia, Phillipsburg, Bonn, Riga, Bremen, Dansburg, Bommeln, &c. He fell at the siege of Vienna in 1683. His writings are said to contain the groundwork of Montalembert's system. In Italy, after the time of Tartaglia,
Owen Wister, Ulysses S. Grant, III. (search)
III. various ardent pens have attempted to embellish Grant's boyhood. He has even been given illustrious descent. It is enough to know for certain that, Scotch in blood and American since 1630, he was of the eighth generation, and counted a grandfather in the Revolution, besides other soldier ancestors. The first Grant, Matthew, probably landed at Nantucket, Massachusetts, May 30, 1630. In 1636 he helped establish the town of Windsor, Connecticut. He was its first surveyor and a trusted citizen, Samuel, Solomon, Noah, Adoniram, that is what the Grants in colonial Connecticut were called. And with such names as these they did what all the other colonial Noahs and Adonirams were doing. None of them rose to uncommon dimensions; but they, and such as they, were then, as they are now, the salt and leaven of our country. After the Revolution, as our frontier widened and the salt and leaven began to be sprinkled westward, Captain Noah Grant went gradually to the Ohio River, leav
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 2: (search)
d for the increase of the plantation here this year, 1630; but made a long, a troublesome, and costly voyage, rs; for they thought such streams indispensable. In 1630 they would not settle in Roxbury because there was no running water. In Charlestown (1630) the people grew discontented for want of water; who generally notioned Gov, Dudley says: Some of us planted upon Mistick (1630), which we called Meadford. This shows the beginninpen land could be used for planting. A writer says (1630): The scarcity of grain was great; every bushel of wwing Medford names among the list of freemen between 1630 and 1646. How many were settlers here we know not. inthrop had settled himself on the Ten-Hill Farm, in 1630, he recommended Gov. Cradock's men to plant themselvlestown say: About the months of April or May, A. D. 1630, there was a great design of the Indians, from the Ne first park for deer impaled in this country. In 1630, Mr. Cradock provides a man (Richard Waterman), whos
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 3: (search)
1620; Salem, 1629 ; Charlestown, 1629; Boston, 1630; Medford or Mystic, 1630; Watertown, 1630; Roxb1630; Watertown, 1630; Roxbury, 1630; Dorchester, 1630 ; Cambridge or Newton, 1633; Ipswich, 1634; Concord, 1635; Hingham, 16351630; Dorchester, 1630 ; Cambridge or Newton, 1633; Ipswich, 1634; Concord, 1635; Hingham, 1635; Newbury, 1635; Scituate, 1636; Springfield, 1636; Duxbury, 1637; Lynn, 1637; Barnstable, 1639; Tau1630 ; Cambridge or Newton, 1633; Ipswich, 1634; Concord, 1635; Hingham, 1635; Newbury, 1635; Scituate, 1636; Springfield, 1636; Duxbury, 1637; Lynn, 1637; Barnstable, 1639; Taunton, 1639; Woburn, 1642; Malden, 1649. London, May 22, 1629: On this day the orders for establisns of the province, by a general act passed in 1630; and, under this act, it had at any time a rigtion. Thus Medford was an incorporated town in 1630. The first representative was Stephen Willis, we turn to the acts of the General Court. From 1630, the Court considered Medford a town, and treaty, and Dorchester. Thus Medford had been, from 1630, an incorporated town, possessing all the civiledford as a town, and date its incorporation in 1630; but this appears to be an error. We are conte34-5; but Medford was taxed, as other towns, in 1630. Here, therefore, were four or five years in w[3 more...]
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 5: (search)
Chapter 5: Military history. 1630: The first tax levied on the inhabitants of Medford was the sum of £ 3, for the paying of two instructors in military tactics. The hostile Indians, and the more hostile wild animals, soon placed guns, swords, powder, and ball among the necessaries of life. To be a good marksman became one of the first accomplishments. The legal equipment of a soldier was as follows:-- A musket (firelock or matchlock), a pair of bandoleers, a powder-pouch, with b and the temperance reformation has hardly yet arrested it. Although we have recorded the organization of a military corps in 1781, whose officers were chosen by the town, according to the laws then existing, there were soldiers in Medford from 1630 to that time. What the exact rules and regulations respecting enlistment were in the middle of the seventeenth century, we cannot discover. There were composition companies; and the associations were often accidental, according to contiguity of
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...