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 5 total hits in 5 results.

iii. 20: quattuor sua iugera in Vaticano, quae prata Quintia appellantur). These indications of locality are sufficiently vague, and various sites have been proposed. Hulsen places them below the narrowest part of the river, in the neighbourhood of the Palazzo Farnese (HJ 485-486). If the reference to Rome were certain, the earliest mention of them would be in a line of Ennius (ap. Serv. ad Aen. xi. 326: idem campus habet textrinum navibus longis); but they were in any case in existence in 167 B.C. (Liv. xlv. 35. 3; 42. 12: naves regiae ... in campo Martio subductae sunt; cf. Polyb. xxxvi. 5 [3], 9). But the fact that we are told that in 179 B.C. M. Fuluius locavit ... porticum extra portam Trigeminam, et aliam post navalia [et] ad fanum Herculis, et post Spei a Tiberi ad aedem Apollinis Medici (Liv. xl. 51) has led Hulsen (DAP 2. vi. 246-254) to argue that, as the porticus post navalia [et] ad fanum Herculis-the argument seems to apply whether we omit the et of the MSS. or not-must b
INIS MEDICI (q.v.). Still, it would be difficult to suppose that any other temple of Hercules was meant than that of Hercules Victor; and if we refer the passage to the navalia in the campus Martius, the temple of Hercules must have been one of the two near the circus Flaminius (see HERCULES CUSTOS, HERCULES MUSARUM) and the porticus becomes altogether too extensive. It is also very natural to suppose that the navalia of the early republic (the first mention of navalia comes in reference to 338 B.C., Liv. viii. 14: naves Antiatium partim in navalia Romae subductae) were under the protection of the Servian walls, and therefore situated on the Tiber bank between the porta Carmentalis and the porta Trigemina. And the description of the arrival from Epidaurus of the sacred serpent of Aesculapius and especially the words ' egressis legatis ' in Val. Max. i. 8. 2, which show that the ship had reached its destination (v. AESCULAPIUS, AEDES) in 291 B.C., and the account of the landing of Cato
ention of navalia comes in reference to 338 B.C., Liv. viii. 14: naves Antiatium partim in navalia Romae subductae) were under the protection of the Servian walls, and therefore situated on the Tiber bank between the porta Carmentalis and the porta Trigemina. And the description of the arrival from Epidaurus of the sacred serpent of Aesculapius and especially the words ' egressis legatis ' in Val. Max. i. 8. 2, which show that the ship had reached its destination (v. AESCULAPIUS, AEDES) in 291 B.C., and the account of the landing of Cato the younger on his return from Cyprus (Plut. Cat. min. 39 ; Vell. ii. 45), which describes his landing at the navalia and passing through the forum to deposit the treasures of Ptolemy in the aerarium Saturni and on the Capitol, both suit such a site. On the other hand, it seems very doubtful whether the expression of Procopius (BG iv. 22) in regard to the ship of Aeneas, which was preserved in his day at the navalia e)n me/sh| th=| po/lei need refer t
s landing at the navalia and passing through the forum to deposit the treasures of Ptolemy in the aerarium Saturni and on the Capitol, both suit such a site. On the other hand, it seems very doubtful whether the expression of Procopius (BG iv. 22) in regard to the ship of Aeneas, which was preserved in his day at the navalia e)n me/sh| th=| po/lei need refer to the forum Boarium. All the other passages in which the navalia are mentioned-e.g. Cic. de or. i. 62 (a restoration by Hermodorus in 99 B.C.), Paul. ex Fest. 179: Navalis porta a vicinia navalium dicta (where a city gate is certainly not in question), Plin. NH xxxvi. 40-do not give us any topographical indications, so that it is not certain to which navalia they refer. Hulsen also thinks that a coin of Antoninus Pius (Coh. No. 7 ; cf. Zeitschr. f. Num. 1900, 32) represents, not a bridge, but the navalia with the Aventine in the background (cf. Mitt. 1886, 168; 1900, 352-354). See, however, JRS 1911, 187-195. A painting known t
e been proposed. Hulsen places them below the narrowest part of the river, in the neighbourhood of the Palazzo Farnese (HJ 485-486). If the reference to Rome were certain, the earliest mention of them would be in a line of Ennius (ap. Serv. ad Aen. xi. 326: idem campus habet textrinum navibus longis); but they were in any case in existence in 167 B.C. (Liv. xlv. 35. 3; 42. 12: naves regiae ... in campo Martio subductae sunt; cf. Polyb. xxxvi. 5 [3], 9). But the fact that we are told that in 179 B.C. M. Fuluius locavit ... porticum extra portam Trigeminam, et aliam post navalia [et] ad fanum Herculis, et post Spei a Tiberi ad aedem Apollinis Medici (Liv. xl. 51) has led Hulsen (DAP 2. vi. 246-254) to argue that, as the porticus post navalia [et] ad fanum Herculis-the argument seems to apply whether we omit the et of the MSS. or not-must be intermediate between the other two porticus, those extra portam Trigeminam and post Spei, we have an indication of the existence of other earlier Nav