DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0112
74
BASILICA AEMILIA
It consisted of a main hall, divided into a nave and two aisles by
two orders of columns of africano marble, respectively 0.85 metre and
0.55 metre in diameter, with bases and capitals1 of white marble, and
finely carved entablatures of the same material: two fragments of the
main entablature, which show traces of later injury by fire, bear the
remains of an inscription . . . pavl . . . resti . . . On the north-east
side of the nave there was a second line of columns, but as it lies only
about 4 feet from the outer wall, the intervening space cannot be treated
as a second aisle. The object of this inequality may have been to give
extra support, as there were probably no tabernae here. The pavement
is of slabs of fine coloured marbles (giallo, cipollino, porta santa).
The main hall was about 90 metres long and 27 wide ; it is most
probable, though not certain, that it had no apsidal termination at either
end. It was lighted by a clerestory, to which belong some pilasters of
white marble, with beautiful acanthus decoration, which stood between
the double windows.
Outside the south-west wall of the nave was a row of small chambers
(tabernae), which, like it, were built of opus quadratum of tufa even in
the reconstruction of 14 b.c. (or 22 a.d.). In three of them (one in the
centre and one near each end) were doors into the nave : the entire
difference in plan from the basilica Iulia may be due to the desire to
keep the heat out of the nave in summer. These chambers were vaulted
in concrete, the vault springing from a slight projection in the stone
block at the top of the side wall—an Augustan characteristic, noticeable
also in the basilica Iulia, the horrea Agrippiana, the temple of Castor
and Pollux, etc. A flight of stairs in the smaller chamber at each end
led to the space above them which opened on to the upper arcade of the
fagade and at the end of each of their side walls was a marble pilaster,
corresponding to the pillars which supported the main arcade, which had
fifteen arches. Most of the travertine foundation blocks of these pillars
are preserved, though some have been extracted by mediaeval and
Renaissance quarrying ; but the white marble blocks of which they were
composed have been removed—with a single exception, which is of special
interest, inasmuch as it comes at the south angle of the building, and
shows clearly that here there was a projecting porch of one intercolumnia-
tion. This porch bore three inscriptions, set up in 2 b.c. in honour of
Augustus and his two grandsons by the plebs, the senate, and the equites :
half of the first inscription is preserved (CIL vi. 3747 =31291) 2 but not
in situ, while the second lies as it fell when the building was destroyed
by earthquake. These inscriptions, with which have been connected
two bases also dedicated to Gaius and Lucius Caesar a year earlier
(DR 476-9 is not correct as to the circumstances of their discovery ; see
1 In Zeitschr. f. Gesch. d. Archit. viii. (1924), 73, objection is taken to the proposed
restoration of the lower order with Ionic columns in Toeb. cit. infra.
2 The attribution to Vespasian (Mitt. 1888, 89) has been given up.
BASILICA AEMILIA
It consisted of a main hall, divided into a nave and two aisles by
two orders of columns of africano marble, respectively 0.85 metre and
0.55 metre in diameter, with bases and capitals1 of white marble, and
finely carved entablatures of the same material: two fragments of the
main entablature, which show traces of later injury by fire, bear the
remains of an inscription . . . pavl . . . resti . . . On the north-east
side of the nave there was a second line of columns, but as it lies only
about 4 feet from the outer wall, the intervening space cannot be treated
as a second aisle. The object of this inequality may have been to give
extra support, as there were probably no tabernae here. The pavement
is of slabs of fine coloured marbles (giallo, cipollino, porta santa).
The main hall was about 90 metres long and 27 wide ; it is most
probable, though not certain, that it had no apsidal termination at either
end. It was lighted by a clerestory, to which belong some pilasters of
white marble, with beautiful acanthus decoration, which stood between
the double windows.
Outside the south-west wall of the nave was a row of small chambers
(tabernae), which, like it, were built of opus quadratum of tufa even in
the reconstruction of 14 b.c. (or 22 a.d.). In three of them (one in the
centre and one near each end) were doors into the nave : the entire
difference in plan from the basilica Iulia may be due to the desire to
keep the heat out of the nave in summer. These chambers were vaulted
in concrete, the vault springing from a slight projection in the stone
block at the top of the side wall—an Augustan characteristic, noticeable
also in the basilica Iulia, the horrea Agrippiana, the temple of Castor
and Pollux, etc. A flight of stairs in the smaller chamber at each end
led to the space above them which opened on to the upper arcade of the
fagade and at the end of each of their side walls was a marble pilaster,
corresponding to the pillars which supported the main arcade, which had
fifteen arches. Most of the travertine foundation blocks of these pillars
are preserved, though some have been extracted by mediaeval and
Renaissance quarrying ; but the white marble blocks of which they were
composed have been removed—with a single exception, which is of special
interest, inasmuch as it comes at the south angle of the building, and
shows clearly that here there was a projecting porch of one intercolumnia-
tion. This porch bore three inscriptions, set up in 2 b.c. in honour of
Augustus and his two grandsons by the plebs, the senate, and the equites :
half of the first inscription is preserved (CIL vi. 3747 =31291) 2 but not
in situ, while the second lies as it fell when the building was destroyed
by earthquake. These inscriptions, with which have been connected
two bases also dedicated to Gaius and Lucius Caesar a year earlier
(DR 476-9 is not correct as to the circumstances of their discovery ; see
1 In Zeitschr. f. Gesch. d. Archit. viii. (1924), 73, objection is taken to the proposed
restoration of the lower order with Ionic columns in Toeb. cit. infra.
2 The attribution to Vespasian (Mitt. 1888, 89) has been given up.