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 7 total hits in 7 results.

uilt arches (fornices) on these piers. This statement is now generally believed to refer to the pons Aemilius, and Plutarch's attribution of the building of the bridge to a quaestor, Aemilius, is interpreted as a mistake or on the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone arches were laid by a later Aemilius in his quaestorship. That the upper part of the bridge was of wood, until 142 at least, is certain, and therefore a statement in Obsequens (16) under date of 156 B.C., pontis maximi tectum cum columnis in Tiberim deiectum, is cited as evidence that pons maximus was then a name in common use, although Mommsen's conjecture pontificis may be correct. In the fourteenth century an arch was standing in the forum Boarium in front of the Ponte Rotto described as arcus marmoreus in platea pontis S. Mariae (Anon. Magl. 155), on which was an inscription (CIL vi. 878) referring to a restoration by Augustus after 12 B.C. It is possible that this restoration may ha
statement in Obsequens (16) under date of 156 B.C., pontis maximi tectum cum columnis in Tiberim deiectum, is cited as evidence that pons maximus was then a name in common use, although Mommsen's conjecture pontificis may be correct. In the fourteenth century an arch was standing in the forum Boarium in front of the Ponte Rotto described as arcus marmoreus in platea pontis S. Mariae (Anon. Magl. 155), on which was an inscription (CIL vi. 878) referring to a restoration by Augustus after 12 B.C. It is possible that this restoration may have been that of the bridge. Besides pons S. Mariae (LS ii. 22-28; iv. 49, 84) this bridge was called in the Middle Ages pons Senatorum (Mirab. II), and pons Maior (Eins. 7. 4; cf. Delbruck, Hellenistische Bauten i. 14). In the seventh century Aethicus (loc. cit.) writes: pontem Lepidi qui nunc abusive a plebe lapideus dicitur iuxta forum boarium transiens. Both these early variants of Aemilius are easily explained, Lepidi from Aemilius, and lapide
of the citations just made with other passages (Ov. Fast. vi. 477-478; Serv. Aen. viii. 646; Aethicus, Cosmog. 28 (ed. Riese 83) ) indicates that this bridge was close to the pons Sublicius and crossed the river from the forum Boarium (cf. CIL i². p. 325). According to Livy (xl. 51. 4) M. Fulvius Nobilior when censor in 179 B.C. contracted (undoubtedly with his colleague M. Aemilius Lepidus) for the placing of 'pilas pontis in Tiberi,' and P. Scipio Africanus and L. Minucius, the censors of 142 B.C., built arches (fornices) on these piers. This statement is now generally believed to refer to the pons Aemilius, and Plutarch's attribution of the building of the bridge to a quaestor, Aemilius, is interpreted as a mistake or on the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone arches were laid by a later Aemilius in his quaestorship. That the upper part of the bridge was of wood, until 142 at least, is certain, and therefore a statement in Obsequens (16) under date
t. app.; Pol. Silv. 545; Hist. Aug. Elag. 17) of the first stone bridge across the Tiber, said to have been built ,u(p) *ai)mili/ou tamieu/ontos (Plut. Numa 9). A comparison of the citations just made with other passages (Ov. Fast. vi. 477-478; Serv. Aen. viii. 646; Aethicus, Cosmog. 28 (ed. Riese 83) ) indicates that this bridge was close to the pons Sublicius and crossed the river from the forum Boarium (cf. CIL i². p. 325). According to Livy (xl. 51. 4) M. Fulvius Nobilior when censor in 179 B.C. contracted (undoubtedly with his colleague M. Aemilius Lepidus) for the placing of 'pilas pontis in Tiberi,' and P. Scipio Africanus and L. Minucius, the censors of 142 B.C., built arches (fornices) on these piers. This statement is now generally believed to refer to the pons Aemilius, and Plutarch's attribution of the building of the bridge to a quaestor, Aemilius, is interpreted as a mistake or on the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone arches were laid by
ood of 1557 (cf. M61. 1906, 189-193) and repaired by Gregory XIII (III. 37). In 1598 the eastern half was carried away, and in 1887 two of the three remaining arches were removed, so that only one now stands in midstream. Recent investigation has shown that the ancient pier of this arch is not the earliest, as the remains of the abutment are earlier and belong to a bridge slightly further north which crossed the river at a slightly different angle. This was therefore the bridge of the second century B.C. and the existing arch and pier belong to a second structure, probably that of Augustus (Delbrfick, op. cit. i. 12-22 ; ii. taf. 2 ; Richter, Befestigung d. Ianiculums 18-20; Jord. i. I. 409-414; 420-421; RE i. 593; M61. 1906, 180-181, 189-193 ; Gilb. iii. 257-260 ; Ber. d. sachs. Gesell. 1850, 320-326; Besnier 128-130; BC 1914, 390; DuP 58, and fig. 31; TF 139-141). Cf. Ill. 32: and see FORNIX AUGUSTI. For a viaduct on the road leading from the bridge to the Janiculum, cf. VIA AURELI
1300 AD - 1399 AD (search for this): entry pons-aemilius
as a mistake or on the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone arches were laid by a later Aemilius in his quaestorship. That the upper part of the bridge was of wood, until 142 at least, is certain, and therefore a statement in Obsequens (16) under date of 156 B.C., pontis maximi tectum cum columnis in Tiberim deiectum, is cited as evidence that pons maximus was then a name in common use, although Mommsen's conjecture pontificis may be correct. In the fourteenth century an arch was standing in the forum Boarium in front of the Ponte Rotto described as arcus marmoreus in platea pontis S. Mariae (Anon. Magl. 155), on which was an inscription (CIL vi. 878) referring to a restoration by Augustus after 12 B.C. It is possible that this restoration may have been that of the bridge. Besides pons S. Mariae (LS ii. 22-28; iv. 49, 84) this bridge was called in the Middle Ages pons Senatorum (Mirab. II), and pons Maior (Eins. 7. 4; cf. Delbruck, Hellenistische B
g in the forum Boarium in front of the Ponte Rotto described as arcus marmoreus in platea pontis S. Mariae (Anon. Magl. 155), on which was an inscription (CIL vi. 878) referring to a restoration by Augustus after 12 B.C. It is possible that this restoration may have been that of the bridge. Besides pons S. Mariae (LS ii. 22-28; iv. 49, 84) this bridge was called in the Middle Ages pons Senatorum (Mirab. II), and pons Maior (Eins. 7. 4; cf. Delbruck, Hellenistische Bauten i. 14). In the seventh century Aethicus (loc. cit.) writes: pontem Lepidi qui nunc abusive a plebe lapideus dicitur iuxta forum boarium transiens. Both these early variants of Aemilius are easily explained, Lepidi from Aemilius, and lapideus from the tradition that it was the first stone bridge (Plut. loc. cit.). The identification of the pons Aemilius of the empire with the present Ponte Rotto may be regarded as certain. This bridge was partially destroyed by the flood of 1557 (cf. M61. 1906, 189-193) and repaired b