DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0111
BASILICA AEMILIA
73
In 14 b.c. it was burned, and rebuilt in the name of the Aemilius who
then represented the family (probably the same man who carried out the
restoration of 22 a.d.), but really by Augustus and the friends of Paullus
(Cass. Dio liv. 24). Still later, in 22 a.d., M. Aemilius Lepidus, son of
the restorer of 34 b.c., asked the senate for permission to carry out another
restoration at his own expense, according to Tacitus (Ann. iii. 72), who
calls the building basilica Pauli Aemilia monumenta. Pliny (NH
xxxvi. 102) reckons it, the forum of Augustus and the temple of
Peace, as the three most beautiful buildings in the world, and mentions
its columns of Phrygian marble as very wonderful. These must have
stood in the interior of the basilica, but we do not know to which restora-
tion they belong, and no traces whatever of them have been found in the
ruins ; while those of the basilica of S. Paolo fuori le Mura are 1.19 metres
in diameter, and therefore too large. After the first century the basilica
is mentioned only on one inscription on a slave’s collar (CIL xv. 7189 :
in basilica Paulli), in the Regionary Catalogue (Reg. IV), and in Polemius
Silvius (p. 545). It is represented in a fragment of the Marble Plan
(Mitt. 1905, 53, fig. 13 ; cf. AJA 1913, 15, n. 1).
Dr. E. Van Deman has propounded (AJA 1913, 26-28) a theory (1) that
the porticus Gai et Luci is to be identified with the front arcades of the
basilica Aemilia ; and (2) that the name porticus Iulia (Cass. Dio lvi. 27. 5
—though the MSS. have Livia, HJ 315—Schol. Pers. sat. iv. 49 : foenera-
tores ad puteal Scribonis Licini1 quod est in porticu Iulia ad Fabianum
arcum) was applied to it at a later date. If she is right in identifying
the remains of the arch with some blocks of tufa on the north side
of the temple of Caesar (JRS 1922, 26-28), the latter postulate is perhaps
to be conceded ; for the fornix Fabianus cannot have stood anywhere
near the basilica Iulia (Jord. i. 2. 210). In that case Suet. Aug. 29 porticum
basilicamque Gai et Luci must then refer to two separate monuments :
for whatever the porticus may be, the basilica Gai et Luci must be the
basilica Iulia (Mon. Anc. iv. 13-16 : basilicam quae fuit inter aedem
Castoris et aedem Saturni . . . nominis filiorum meum incohavi). But
the passage of Dio refers to a dedication in 12 a.d., which will not fit
the date of the inscription of Lucius Caesar (2 b.c., see p. 74) any
more than it agrees with the date of the dedication of the porticus Liviae.
The remains of the basilica Aemilia, of which nothing was previously
visible, have been for the most part laid bare by the recent excavations.
It occupied the whole space between the temple of Faustina (from which
it was separated by a narrow passage) and the Argiletum.
There are some remains, including a column base which probably
belongs to the earliest period of the basilica, of the structures of 179,
78, and 34 b.c. (TF 66-75), or of 78 and 54 b.c. (JRS 1922, 29-31), but
it is clear that little change was made in the extent and plan of the basilica
in the rebuildings of 14 b.c. and 22 a.d.
1 Vulg. : Scribonii Libonis is the emendation generally adopted.
73
In 14 b.c. it was burned, and rebuilt in the name of the Aemilius who
then represented the family (probably the same man who carried out the
restoration of 22 a.d.), but really by Augustus and the friends of Paullus
(Cass. Dio liv. 24). Still later, in 22 a.d., M. Aemilius Lepidus, son of
the restorer of 34 b.c., asked the senate for permission to carry out another
restoration at his own expense, according to Tacitus (Ann. iii. 72), who
calls the building basilica Pauli Aemilia monumenta. Pliny (NH
xxxvi. 102) reckons it, the forum of Augustus and the temple of
Peace, as the three most beautiful buildings in the world, and mentions
its columns of Phrygian marble as very wonderful. These must have
stood in the interior of the basilica, but we do not know to which restora-
tion they belong, and no traces whatever of them have been found in the
ruins ; while those of the basilica of S. Paolo fuori le Mura are 1.19 metres
in diameter, and therefore too large. After the first century the basilica
is mentioned only on one inscription on a slave’s collar (CIL xv. 7189 :
in basilica Paulli), in the Regionary Catalogue (Reg. IV), and in Polemius
Silvius (p. 545). It is represented in a fragment of the Marble Plan
(Mitt. 1905, 53, fig. 13 ; cf. AJA 1913, 15, n. 1).
Dr. E. Van Deman has propounded (AJA 1913, 26-28) a theory (1) that
the porticus Gai et Luci is to be identified with the front arcades of the
basilica Aemilia ; and (2) that the name porticus Iulia (Cass. Dio lvi. 27. 5
—though the MSS. have Livia, HJ 315—Schol. Pers. sat. iv. 49 : foenera-
tores ad puteal Scribonis Licini1 quod est in porticu Iulia ad Fabianum
arcum) was applied to it at a later date. If she is right in identifying
the remains of the arch with some blocks of tufa on the north side
of the temple of Caesar (JRS 1922, 26-28), the latter postulate is perhaps
to be conceded ; for the fornix Fabianus cannot have stood anywhere
near the basilica Iulia (Jord. i. 2. 210). In that case Suet. Aug. 29 porticum
basilicamque Gai et Luci must then refer to two separate monuments :
for whatever the porticus may be, the basilica Gai et Luci must be the
basilica Iulia (Mon. Anc. iv. 13-16 : basilicam quae fuit inter aedem
Castoris et aedem Saturni . . . nominis filiorum meum incohavi). But
the passage of Dio refers to a dedication in 12 a.d., which will not fit
the date of the inscription of Lucius Caesar (2 b.c., see p. 74) any
more than it agrees with the date of the dedication of the porticus Liviae.
The remains of the basilica Aemilia, of which nothing was previously
visible, have been for the most part laid bare by the recent excavations.
It occupied the whole space between the temple of Faustina (from which
it was separated by a narrow passage) and the Argiletum.
There are some remains, including a column base which probably
belongs to the earliest period of the basilica, of the structures of 179,
78, and 34 b.c. (TF 66-75), or of 78 and 54 b.c. (JRS 1922, 29-31), but
it is clear that little change was made in the extent and plan of the basilica
in the rebuildings of 14 b.c. and 22 a.d.
1 Vulg. : Scribonii Libonis is the emendation generally adopted.