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 28 total hits in 15 results.

1 2
78 BC (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
equal responsibility in its construction, notwithstanding Livy's statement, a hypothesis that is supported by references to the later history of the basilica. In 78 B.C., the consul M. Aemilius Lepidus decorated the building (here called basilica Aemilia) with engraved shields or portraits of his ancestors (Plin. NHxxxv. 13), and 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 rebuildin78 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. 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 capitals 1 In Zeitschr. f. Gesch. d. Archit. viii. (1924), 73, objection is taken to the proposed restoration of
150 BC (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
acted for the building of a basilica 'post argentarias novas' (Liv. xl. 51). In 159 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, when censor, installed a water clock in basilica Aemilia et Fulvia (Varro, LL vi. 4; cf. Censorin. de die nat. 23. 7; Plin. NH vii. 215: idque horologium sub tecto dicavit a.u. DXCV). This use of the double name, Aemilia et Fulvia, would seem to indicate that it was thus given in Varro's source, and was a usual, perhaps the official, designation of the building in the middle of the second century B.C., and that it had not wholly dropped out of use in Varro's own time. If so, Fulvius' colleague in the censorship of 179, M. Aemilius Lepidus, must have had at least equal responsibility in its construction, notwithstanding Livy's statement, a hypothesis that is supported by references to the later history of the basilica. In 78 B.C., the consul M. Aemilius Lepidus decorated the building (here called basilica Aemilia) with engraved shields or portraits of his ancestors (Plin. NHx
14 BC (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
y and Plutarch, it appears as basilica Paulli (Stat. Silv. i. 1. 30: regia Pauli), so that this, rather than basilica Aemilia, was probably its ordinary name. 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 rea 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. It consisted of a main hall, divided into a nave and two aisles by two orders of columns of africano marble, respectively 0.85 metreOutside 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 du
22 AD (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
lt 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, s22 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, th1), 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. It consisted of a main hall, divided into a nave and two aisles by two orders of columns of africano mmall 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 fro
399 AD (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
more steps led to the forum level. The shrine of VENUS CLOACINA (q.v.) was built at the foot of the steps, not far from the north-west end. The steps on the south-east side have recently been exposed at one point, which has rendered it possible to determine the length of the building. At the beginning of the fifth century A.D. the wooden roofs of the nave and aisles were set on fire (perhaps in 410, when Alaric captured Rome) and numerous coins, from the time of Constantine to the end of the fourth century, were found on the marble pavement. Above the stratum of ashes is a layer, about 1 metre thick, of earth mixed with fragments of architecture, statues, bricks, pottery, etc.; and upon this stratum has fallen the brick wall which replaced the back wall of the tabernae after its destruction by fire. From this it is clear that the nave of the basilica was abandoned after the fire (from which, as the fragments show, the africano columns suffered especially) and was to a certain extent
12 AD (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
e 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 proba
34 BC (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
Plutarch and Appian. Cicero says that Paullus used the ancient columns of the earlier structure. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have completed the work, for in 34 B.C. his son L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, when consul, finished and dedicated the building (Cass. Dio xlix. 42). In all references to the basilica after 54 B.C., excepstoration 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 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.
847 AD (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
umns of red granite (Ill. 11) which stood on high 'white marble pedestals (none of which were found in situ) may have belonged to its portico. Certainly, the attribution of them to a restoration of the facade of the basilica in the fifth century must be given up. Nor, on the other hand, can they belong to the mediaeval church of S. Iohannes in Campo (HCh 270), which must have lain at a much higher level, The final ruin of the whole, which caused the collapse of the brick wall at the back of the tabernae, may best be attributed to the earthquake of Leo IV in 847 A.D. (LPD ii. 108; see VENUS ET ROMA, TEMPLUM). See REi. 540; Suppl. i, 16; BC 1899, 169-204; 1900,3-8; 1901,20-30; CR 1899, 465; 1901, 136; 1902, 95; DR 396-408; Mitt. 1902, 41-57; 1905, 53-62; Atti 566-570; HC 123-132; Pl. 194-198; RL 1912, 758-766; LS ii. 191-193; AJA 1913, 14-28; BA 1914, Cr. 73; JRS 1919, 176-177; 1922, 29-30; DuP 99-100; D'Esp. Fr. ii. 59-61; Toeb. i. 27-34; ASA 83, 84; HFP 34). See also PILA HORATIA.
65 BC (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
colleague in the censorship of 179, M. Aemilius Lepidus, must have had at least equal responsibility in its construction, notwithstanding Livy's statement, a hypothesis that is supported by references to the later history of the basilica. In 78 B.C., the consul M. Aemilius Lepidus decorated the building (here called basilica Aemilia) with engraved shields or portraits of his ancestors (Plin. NHxxxv. 13), and probably restored it somewhat; for a coin of his son Lepidus, triumvir monetalis about 65 (Babelon i. p. 129, No. 25; BM Rep. i. 450. 3650-3) Restored by Trajan (Babelon, ii p. 573, No. 7). represents it as a two-storied porticus on which shields are hung with the legend M. Lepidus ref(ecta) s(enatus) c(onsulto). In 55 B.C., the aedile L. Aemilius Paullus, brother of the triumvir (RE i. 564), undertook to restore the basilica with money furnished by Caesar from Gaul (Plut. Caes. 29 [where the earlier building is called Fulvia only]; App. BC ii. 26; Cic. ad Att. iv. 16. 14). The t
February (search for this): entry basilica-aemilia
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 occupiedmoved-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 intercolumniation. 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) The attribution to Vespasian (Mitt. 1888, 89) has been given up. but not in situ, while the s
1 2