As is widely known, the Ten Books on Architecture written by Marcus

Vitruvius Pollio (c75BC- 15BC) is the only text on architectural principles to

have survived from Classical Antiquity. He famously gave the prerequisites for
good architecture as “Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas” which is usually given in
English as “Commodity, Firmness and Delight” (following The Elements of
Architecture, 1624 by Sir Henry Wotton).

In Book V, Chapter 1 Vitruvius describes a Basilica which he says, “I erected

and the building of which I superintended at Fanum Fortunae” (modern Fano).
Throughout the Ten Books, it is the only building Vitruvius claims to have
designed. And it seems safe to conclude that it was the only one (or perhaps the
only one of any significance) because the Ten Books are a sort of extended job
application addressed to Emperor Augustus Vitruvius sets down all that he
knows about design in the hope that he will be employed as the architect on
some future project. Had he completed other buildings he would surely have
said so, because, as an architect, it’s not so much what you know that counts,
but how you apply that knowledge.

The Basilica is described in some detail and my interpretation of what Vitruvius

says is shown on my drawings. (Vitruvius only writes, there are no drawings in
the Ten Books.)

The first thing to note is the Basilica was a large building. Vitruvius says the
columns are 50 Roman feet tall (about 47ft, 14.5m) with a base diameter of 5
Roman ft, approximately the same size as the columns in the temple of Castor
and Pollux, or a little larger than those in the portico of the Pantheon. To give an
English comparison, the columns in the portico of St Paul’s, London are 40ft
tall. Given their size and the somewhat rustic, less grand, aspects of other parts
of the design the columns are likely to have been made of rendered (plastered)
brickwork, rather than stone.

The columns are Corinthian, and in Book IV, Chap 1 Vitruvius explains the
origin of the Order (a delightful fiction) and gives rules for proportioning the
capitals. He says the height of the capital should equal the base diameter of the
column (5ft) and this is what I have drawn, also following Vitruvius’ rules for
proportioning within the capital. (Most ancient and later Corinthian capitals
would be a little taller than the base diameter.)

Classical columns diminish towards the top (i.e. they have entasis). Vitruvius
gives rules for how much columns should diminish depending on their height,
the taller they are, the less they diminish (Book III, Chap 3). Following his
rules, the top diameter for the Basilica’s columns would be 4ft 4 ½ inches and
this is what I’ve drawn. (However most later architects would make it 4ft 2
inches.)

With a base diameter of 5 ft and a height 50ft the overall proportions of the
column are 1:10, these are canonic proportions for the Corinthian Order with
which most architects would agree.

The most startling thing about the whole design is the curious way in which
there are openings at high level around the column capitals – sort of clerestory
windows. To modern eyes this looks entirely wrong, but Vitruvius is
unambiguous on this point (Book V, Chap 1.6 & 1.7). However, its not unique,
in some recent reconstructions a similar arrangement is shown on the basilica at
Pompeii (albeit over the side aisles, not the main body).

Vitruvius gives the dimensions of the central part as 100 x 60 Roman ft and
says there are 8 columns on the long side and 4 on the short. This results in
uneven column spacing. He then says the roof gables form a “T” shape and
implies the centre part of the long side is the same dimension as the short side.
And this is what I have shown on my plan. I’ve taken the dimensions to the
centres of the columns, this makes the central space a double cube. Such simple
proportions always seem to be right.

The happy result of my setting out is the columns precisely follow Vitruvius’
rules for column spacing — intercolumnation (Book III, Chap 3): Systyle (2
diameters between columns) for those closely spaced on the long sides,
and Diastyle (3 diameters between) for the short sides and the centre parts of
the long sides.

Vitruvius warns that with the wide Diastyle spacing the architrave may break.
There’s no risk of that in the Basilica because he says the architrave, and the
whole entablature, are timber. Now that is unusual! The only other example he
gives for the use of a timber entablature is for Tuscan temples. As far as I’m
aware, Vitruvius’ Basilica is the only example in Classical Antiquity of a timber
entablature used in conjunction with Corinthian columns.

Vitruvius describes timber blocks (4x4x3 Roman ft) in the frieze directly above
the columns. Many have understood this to mean there are openings between,
another set of clerestory windows. Surely this is unlikely? The amount of light
grained would be minimal and such a feature would create a nuisance pigeon
roost. There’s no reason why the spaces between wouldn’t be filled with timber
boarding.
The timber blocks would undoubtedly be needed to ensure the colossal weight
of the roof trusses is carried down to the columns. Also, the opposite: with a
huge roof open on the underside, under certain conditions the uplift must have
been formidable – a good connection, roof truss to column, would have been
essential.

Usually the height of an entablature is between 1/5 and ¼ of the column height,
So, for the 50ft columns of the Basilica it would be a height of something like
10ft to 12ft 6 inches. Vitruvius only gives heights for the architrave, 2ft, and the
frieze, 3ft, he says nothing about the cornice. And a general Corinthian cornice
is not described in the Ten Books. In fact, Vitruvius says Corinthian columns
may have either an Ionic entablature or Doric, complete with triglyphs and
mutules! (Book IV Chap 1) Generally in ancient examples the cornice is a little
larger than the frieze, therefore on my drawings I’ve made it 3ft 6 inches, giving
a total height for the entablature of 8ft 6 inches.

Assuming an entablature of reduced height was Vitruvius’ intention, it was a

good decision. An entablature of more usual dimensions will look
overwhelming when used above wide Diastyle column spacing, especially, as
here, when part of an interior.

For the roof structure Vitruvius is silent. And there are no mentions of the roof
structures, of any type, throughout the Ten Books. (Just one of several
unfortunate omissions, for example there’s nothing on that most important
Roman material: concrete.) So, what form was the Basilica roof? Vitruvius says
the structure was exposed on the underside (another less grand counterpoint to
the Corinthian columns). I’ve shown a series of king-post trusses, the universal
common type. This would have been a challenge – there are only so many large
trees, even 2,000 years ago. But whatever the truss form we know the Romans
could have done it; for example, the basilica at Lepcis Magna had a span of 75
Roman ft (65ft, 20m) and that at Trier, 100 Roman ft (95ft, 29m).

The least clear part of Vitruvius’ description is the opening on the long side,
“the two middle columns on that side are omitted, in order not to obstruct the
view of the pronaos of the temple of Augustus (which is built at the middle of
the side wall of the basilica, facing the middle of the forum and the temple of
Jupiter) and also the tribunal which is in the former temple”. This is where
drawn reconstructions vary most widely (see illustrations). It’s a mystery why
the Temple of Augustus is described as “former”. Augustus would only recently
have been deified. Could it be that something was hastily erected, or perhaps
converted, to accommodate the new cult of the Emperor while something far
more worthy was being constructed, and then, when it was completed, the first
temple was incorporated as part of the Basilica?

Earlier I gave the less tall entablature as an instance of sound visual judgment.
Other parts of the design are less successful. For example, Vitruvius says there
are pilasters behind the main columns supporting the first-floor aisle and, in
turn, the aisle roof. Structurally, they’re unnecessary and they compromise the
soaring quality of the columns. It would have been better to leave them out.

Also, as my drawings show, the overall design is like a hybrid of two buildings:
the grand central space, defined by the Corinthian columns, and the more
humble side aisles (on two levels). A far more satisfactory solution would be to
have the aisles as tall as the columns and all under the same roof.

Another example: I’ve tried to make the internal elevations elegant but there’s
something decidedly awkward about the clerestory windows above the side
aisle roofs. Was this an arrangement that Vitruvius thought a clever solution to
the problem of getting light into the heart of the Basilica, but which others
found less successful? And how easily could one have seen the Corinthian
capitals? From the comparatively dark interior of the Basilica they would be
seen more as silhouettes against a bright Italian sky.

It’s not unknown for an architect to design something to solve a practical

problem but which then doesn’t quite work visually. But that’s what so enticing
about architectural design: all good architects are striving to achieve the
Vitruvian balance of Commodity, Firmness and Delight – Firmitas,
Utitas, Venustas.

Vitruvius, in his "Ten Books on Architecture," describes a Basilica that he claims to

have designed in Fanum Fortunae (modern Fano). This is the only building he
mentions designing in his writings.

The Basilica had Corinthian columns that were 50 Roman feet tall with a base
diameter of 5 Roman feet, making them approximately 47 feet (14.5 meters) tall. The
columns likely had rendered (plastered) brickwork rather than stone.

The columns followed canonic proportions for the Corinthian Order, with an overall
proportion of 1:10 (height to diameter).
The Basilica had openings at high levels around the column capitals, akin to
clerestory windows. This may seem unusual to modern eyes but is described by
Vitruvius.

The central part of the Basilica had dimensions of 100 x 60 Roman feet with 8
columns on the long side and 4 on the short side. The roof gables formed a "T"
shape, and the central space had a double cube proportion.

Vitruvius warned that the wide Diastyle column spacing might risk the architrave
breaking. However, he mentioned that the architrave and the entire entablature were
made of timber, which was unusual for a building with Corinthian columns.

The timber blocks in the frieze above the columns were likely not openings but
instead filled with timber boarding to support the weight of the roof trusses.

Vitruvius did not provide detailed information about the cornice of the entablature,
but it was assumed to be of reduced height given the wide Diastyle column spacing.

The roof structure of the Basilica was not described by Vitruvius, but the underside of
the structure was exposed. The reconstructions show king-post trusses, although the
exact form of the roof is uncertain.

There is ambiguity in Vitruvius' description of the opening on the long side of the
Basilica, especially in relation to the "temple of Augustus" being described as
"former." It's unclear why this term is used.

Vitruvius' design had pilasters behind the main columns, which were deemed
unnecessary and visually compromising. A more elegant design would omit them.

The overall design of the Basilica combines a grand central space defined by
Corinthian columns and more humble side aisles on two levels, which some find less
satisfactory.

The clerestory windows above the side aisle roofs may have been an attempt to solve
the problem of getting light into the Basilica but could have been visually awkward.

Architects strive to achieve the Vitruvian balance of Commodity, Firmness, and

Delight (Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas) in their designs.