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 3 total hits in 3 results.

14 BC (search for this): entry iuppiter-stator-aedes-2
the decorations (sau/ra, ba/traxos), the legend arose that the architects were two Spartans, Saurus and Batrachus; and further that, as the decorations in the temple of Jupiter belonged to that of Juno, and vice versa, the statues of the deities had been set up in the wrong cellae by the mistake of the workmen (Plin. NH xxxvi. 42-43; RE iii. 145). The idea that an Ionic capital now in S. Lorenzo fuori has anything to do with these temples has generally been abandoned (HJ 539, n. 87). After 14 B.C. Augustus either rebuilt the porticus Metelli, or replaced it by the PORTICUS OCTAVIAE (q.v.), and presumably restored the enclosed temples at the same time. That of Jupiter is mentioned on an undated inscription of the empire (CIL vi. 8708 : aedituus de aede Iovis porticus Octaviae), and it is included under the rubric Aedes of Region IX in Not. (om. Cur.). The temples are also represented on a fragment (33) of the Marble Plan, that of Juno as hexastyle prostyle, and that of Jupiter as hexa
146 BC (search for this): entry iuppiter-stator-aedes-2
IUPPITER STATOR, AEDES (templum, Pliny): a temple which, with that of Iuno Regina and the enclosing PORTICUS METELLI (q.v.), was built by Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus after his triumph in 146 B.C. (Vell. i. I. 3). It is referred to as aedes Iovis Metellina (Fest. 363) and aedes Metelli (Plin. NH xxxvi. 40; CIL vi. 8708). It was inside the porticus Metelli (Vitr. iii. 2. 5), close to the circus Flaminius (Macrob. iii. 4. 2; Hemer. Urb., CIL i'. p. 252, 339), and its exact site is known, beneath the church of S. Maria in Campitelli. The temple of Juno was just west of this, on the opposite side of the Via della Tribuna di Campitelli. It is not stated in so many words by Velleius (loc. cit.) that Metellus built both temples, but this is the natural inference from the passage. He is also said to have been the first to build a temple in Rome entirely of marble, and this statement probably applies to both structures. In front of the temples Metellus placed Lysippus' equestrian st
300 AD - 399 AD (search for this): entry iuppiter-stator-aedes-2
the Marble Plan, that of Juno as hexastyle prostyle, and that of Jupiter as hexastyle and peripteral but with ten columns on a side instead of eleven, as Vitruvius says it had (see above). This discrepancy may perhaps be explained as due to some changes made by Augustus' restoration. Lugli (ZA 229) maintains that, like the porticus Octaviae, they were restored by Severus. The existing ruins of both temples are concealed for the most part by modern houses in the Via di S. Angelo in Pescheria, and consist chiefly of substructures and walls of travertine and of brickwork, with fragments of marble columns and entablature. Three fluted columns of white marble belonging to the temple of Juno, 12.50 metres in height and 1.25 in diameter, with Corinthian capitals and entablature, are visible in No. I of that street. Of the history of these temples after the fourth century, nothing is known (HJ 538-540; Rosch. ii. 684-686. Cf. also Bull. d. Inst. 1861, 241-245; Ann. d. Inst. 1868, 108-132).