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
300 AD - 399 AD 90 90 Browse Search
1500 AD - 1599 AD 58 58 Browse Search
100 AD - 199 AD 31 31 Browse Search
500 AD - 599 AD 30 30 Browse Search
200 AD - 299 AD 24 24 Browse Search
179 BC 20 20 Browse Search
1400 AD - 1499 AD 19 19 Browse Search
400 AD - 499 AD 19 19 Browse Search
1100 AD - 1199 AD 17 17 Browse Search
700 AD - 799 AD 15 15 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Samuel Ball Platner, Thomas Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Search the whole document.

Found 2 total hits in 2 results.

30 BC (search for this): entry ianus-geminus
ificasse unde et Ianus ipse duas facies habet, quasi ut ostendat duorum regum coitionem; xii. 168), and still another that it was erected by Numa as an index pacis bellique (Liv. i. 19; Plin. NH xxxiv. 33; Varro, LL v. 165) in order that when open it might indicate that Rome was at war, and when closed that she was at peace. This became the accepted signification of the temple, and after the reign of Numa its doors were closed in 235 after the first Punic war (Varro, Liv. locc. citt.), in 30 B.C. after the battle of Actium (Liv. loc. cit.; Hor. Carm. iv. 15.9), and twice besides by Augustus (Mon.Anc.ii. 42-46; Suet. Aug. 22; cf. Cohen, Aug. 385 = BM. Aug. 126); Mr. H. Mattingly informs me that Cohen,.Aug. 110, is best disregarded, as being probably false. and afterwards at more frequent intervals down to the fifth century (Hist. Aug. Comm. 16; Gord. 26; Claudian. de cons. Stil. ii. 287; Amm. Marc. xvi. 10, 1). There is no mention of any rebuilding of this temple, and therefore it
400 AD - 499 AD (search for this): entry ianus-geminus
is became the accepted signification of the temple, and after the reign of Numa its doors were closed in 235 after the first Punic war (Varro, Liv. locc. citt.), in 30 B.C. after the battle of Actium (Liv. loc. cit.; Hor. Carm. iv. 15.9), and twice besides by Augustus (Mon.Anc.ii. 42-46; Suet. Aug. 22; cf. Cohen, Aug. 385 = BM. Aug. 126); Mr. H. Mattingly informs me that Cohen,.Aug. 110, is best disregarded, as being probably false. and afterwards at more frequent intervals down to the fifth century (Hist. Aug. Comm. 16; Gord. 26; Claudian. de cons. Stil. ii. 287; Amm. Marc. xvi. 10, 1). There is no mention of any rebuilding of this temple, and therefore it was probably never moved from its original site, which, according to the practically unanimous testimony of all forms of the tradition, was near the point where the ARGILETUM (q.v.) entered the forum close to the curia (ad infimum Argiletum, Liv. i. 19; circa imum Argiletum Serv. Aen. vii. 607;pro\ tou= bouleuthri/ou o)li/gon u