IANUS GEMINUS
a shrine of Janus on the north side of the forum, usually
referred to simply as Ianus Geminus or lanus Quirinus (Hor.
Carm. iv.
15. 9; Mon.
Anc. ii. 42; Suet. Aug. 22), but also as sacellum (Ov.
Fast. i.
275); sacrarium (Serv.
Aen. vii. 607; cf. Warde Fowler, The Gathering of
the Clans, Oxford, 137-38),
νεὼς δίθυρος (Plut. Numa 20),
ναός (Procop.
B.G. i. 25), and aedes (Macrob.
Sat. i. 9. 18), although it was probably
not an aedes. It was also called
geminae belli portae, (Verg.
Aen. vi. 707),
Iani gemini portae (de vir. ill. 79. 6; August. civ.
Dei iii. 10),
πύλη ἐνυάλιος(Mon.
Anc. vii. 5）
πύλη πολέμιου(Plut. Numa 20), porta Ianualis
(Varro,
LL v. 165), porta Iani (
Flor. i. 19. I), and
πύλαι τοῦ ᾿Ιανοῦ(Cass.
Dio li. 20).
Tradition varied as to the date and origin of this shrine. According
to one form of the story (
Macrob. i. 9. 17-18) it was already in existence
when the victorious Sabines under Titus Tatius were stopped and driven
back by floods of hot water which Janus caused to gush forth from his
temple and through the gate of the city
sub radicibus collis Viminalis.
1
This gate was called the porta Ianualis from this event, and apparently
identified or confused with the temple (cf. Jord.
Hermes 1869, 252 ; Top.
i. I. 177; PI. 191). A variant of this legend made the erection of the
shrine a result of the intervention of the god (Ov.
Fast. i. 263-276; cf.
Serv.
Aen. i. 291 ;
viii. 361; Varro, LLv. 156, 165; Ter. Maurus, frg. i. 5).
Another tradition was that Romulus and Tatius built the temple as a
sign of the union of the two communities (Serv.
Aen. i. 291 :
alii dicunt
Tatium et Romulum facto foedere hoc templum aedificasse 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);
2
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;
πρὸ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου ὀλίγον ὑπερβάντι τὰ τρία φᾶτα, Procop.
BG i. 25;
πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ συνεδρίου, Cass.
Dio
lxxiii. 13; in foro, Sen. Apoc. 9;
Hic ubi iuncta foris templa duobus
habes, Ov.
Fast. i. 258, i.e. the forum and the forum Iulium). It has
generally been supposed that it lay between the curia and the west end
of the basilica Aemilia, but the excavations have as yet shown hardly
any room here for even so small a building (
Mitt. 1902, 47). Varro
(
LL v. 165) says that the porta Ianualis was the third gate in the wall
of the Palatine city-
dicta ab Iano et ideo positum Iani signum et ius
institutum a Pompilio, but it is difficult to see how a gate in the wall of
the Palatine city could have been on the north side of the forum valley.
Procopius' description (
B.G. i. 25) and coins of Nero (Cohen, Nero
114, 115, 132-177; BM. Nero 64, 111-113, 156-167, 198-204, 225-233,
319-322, 374, 375 and pp. clxxiv, 267, 398) agree in representing this
temple as a small rectangular structure of bronze, with two side walls
and double doors at each end. The walls were not so high as the doors,
and were surmounted by a grating. These gratings and the arches over
the doors supported an entablature of two members extending all around
the building, but there was no roof. The ancient bronze statue of the
two-faced god (bifrons, Verg.
Aen. xii. 198; biformis, Ov.
Fast. i. 89）
stood in the centre of the temple, which was no temple in the ordinary
sense but a passage (ianus). No traces of the structure have ever
been found, and there is no reference to it after Procopius. (For this
temple and the various theories about it, see, besides literature cited,
Jord. i. 2. 345-352; WR 103-106;
Rosch. ii. 15-20; Th6d. 71-74;
Mitt.
1895, 172-178; 1921-22, 14-17; HC 134-136;
Mel. 1908, 258-261;
Binder, Die Plebs, 1909, 61-72; Burchett, Janus in Roman Life and
Cult, Menasha,
Wis. 1918, 37-44;
CR 1918, 14-16; DR 145-150; RE
Suppl. iii. 1178-1182;
Suppl. iv. 506.)
