An Investigation of Roman horti using Spatial Theory: Could Roman Garden Space have been used for more than pleasure?

(1)

An Investigation of Roman horti using

Spatial Theory: Could Roman Garden

Space have been used for more than

pleasure?

Graduate School of Humanities University of Amsterdam September 2015

(2)

[2]

Abbreviations

Catul. Catullus.

Cic. Ag. Cicero, De Lege Agraria.

Cic. Att. Cicero, Ad Atticum.

Cic. Cael. Cicero, Pro Caelio.

Cic. De Orat. Cicero, De Oratore.

Cic. Mur. Cicero, Pro Lucio Murena.

Cic. Fat. Cicero, De Fato.

Cic. Fin. Cicero, De Finibus.

Cic. Inv. Cicero, De Inventione.

Cic. ND. Cicero, De Natura Deorum.

Cic. Rep. Cicero, De Re Republica

Cic. Acad. Cicero, Academica.

Dio. Cass. Dio Cassius, Romaika.

Don. Donatus, Interpretationes Vergilianae.

Hes. WD. Hesiod, Works and Days.

Hor. Carm. Horace, Odes.

Hor. Sat. Horace, Satires.

Mart. Martial, Epigrammata.

Ov. Ars. Ovid, Ars Amatoria.

Pl. Poen. Plautus, Poenulus.

Plat. Prot. Plato,Protagoras.

Pl. As. Plautus, Asinaria.

Pl. Truc. Plautus, Truculentus.

Plin. Ep. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae.

Plin. Nat. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia.

(4)

[4] Plut. De Exilio. Plutarch, On Exile.

Plut. Pomp. Plutarch, Pompei Viri Illustris Vita. Plut. Vit. Cim. Plutarch, Cimon.

Quint. Inst. 11 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Book 11. Sall. Cat. Sallust, Catilinae Conuiratio.

Suet. Aug. Suetonius, Divus Augustus.

Suet. Jul. Suetonius, Divus Julius.

Ter. Ad. Terence, Adelphoe.

Val. Max. Valerius Maximus, De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus .

Varr. Ling. Varro, De Lingua Latina.

Varr. RR. Varro, De Re Rustica.

(5)

[5]

Introduction

Classical scholars still continue to underestimate the contribution of Roman gardens to our understanding of Roman culture, despite increasing numbers of archaeologically known gardens and the huge amount of pictorial gardens found throughout the Roman world. Recently, however, archaeologists and art historians are beginning to develop a more nuanced notion of the Roman garden and to integrate this into the larger picture of Roman space, society and culture. This paper aims to be part of that very integration; an example of the new facets of Roman social history that are made visible by a new approach to Roman garden space.

The course of my paper will pursue the following trajectory; firstly I shall undertake a review of modern spatial and agency theory, and consider the ways in which this might be applied to ancient Rome. To do so, an exploration of Roman attitudes to constructed space is also necessary. This chapter will also contain an investigation of the relationship between movement and space, due to the fact that gardens are spaces designed for movement. Second, an exploration of Roman horti will of course be necessary. This will include a brief introduction into the historiography of garden spaces and Roman notions of horti. Third, I shall investigate the development of the use of horti at the end of the Republic into the Principate, from Pompey to Augustus. I contend that a spatial approach such as mine creates an illuminating effect upon the additional implications of Augustus' use of public

(6)

[6]

Chapter I: An Insight into the Spatial

Turn

In order to examine the possible uses and effects of green spaces in ancient Rome, we need to first investigate the different approaches that have previously been taken towards a study of 'space'. Subsequently it will be seen that an examination of the ancient world through the lens of spatiality and in terms of a socio- spatial dialectic can provide a

refreshing new take on spaces already much studied. This chapter will include an attempt to explore the current trends in spatial scholarship, the posited connection between space and society and whether space can be attributed with any sort of agency. Since spatial study is still particularly indeterminate this opening chapter focuses on exploring the theoretical basis for the study of space and its interaction with social processes from varying

perspectives of different disciplines from anthropology to geography. The aim is to introduce the reader to the type of theoretical and intellectual approach scholars are beginning to use in study of the ancient world.

Since the 1970s concepts of space have begun to evolve from a mathematical, geographical, static entity to that of a more fluid social construct.1 The word 'space' in the past has evoked the idea merely of an empty area, but since then scholarship concerned with 'The Spatial Turn' has asserted the notion of a socio- spatial dialectic. Urban

geographers such as Soja (perhaps the strongest proponent of the connection between social processes and space), have pointed out that 'space itself may be primordially given, but the organisation, use and meaning of space is a product of social translation,

transformation and experience'.2 Thus we can say that it is true that 'there is no such thing, in a social sense, as empty space'.3 One corollary of space being a social product is that each society produces its own variants of space, and therefore social space will be a useful tool for the analysis of any society. Ancient Rome had its own spatial practices, perhaps hugely different to ours today, and this makes space a valuable category of study that allows us

1_{Scott (2013) 170.} 2_{Soja (1980) 210.} 3

(7)

[7]

further insight into the ancient world. Indeed, urban space has been on the agenda of Roman scholarship since the 1980's, and the rise in popularity of interdisciplinary

approaches has enabled useful communication between different departments of Roman scholarship. Since the 1990's scholars concerned with landscape have helped promote the idea that examining the topography of the city of Rome encourages a more wide ranging exploration of what being Roman really meant.4 Although historians, geographers and art historians have now internalised the idea that landscape is a message to be decoded, 'this concept is only intermittently applied to Roman gardens, usually in the context of villa gardens which... are part of the sum but not the whole of Roman garden space. From the emphasis placed on horti in literature [especially at the beginning of the principate] it is clear that they were places eliciting a special set of responses'.5 There is an urgent need to relocate the role of the garden within a wider framework of conceptual space study.

However, the relation between space and social life is certainly still very poorly understood, presenting an area of heated controversy in the social sciences. This may partially be due to the variety of approaches used by different disciplines, each of which has also developed its own terminology. Indeed, 'epistemologico-philosophical thinking has failed to furnish the basis for a science which has been struggling to emerge for a very long time, as witness an immense accumulation of research and publication. That science is- or would be- a science of space'.6 Work in this area often produces mere descriptions, which are far from analytical or theoretical status. However, at least a discourse on space has begun. The semiology of this discourse raises difficulties because it is an incomplete body of knowledge, expanding rapidly without any sense of limitation. It is not within the scope of this paper to suggest an approach allowing forward movement through this academic minefield, but instead to highlight what a potentially dynamic field of study space can be, and how useful it may be to ancient historians. The summary below of different approaches to spatial study shows just how convoluted the discipline currently is. Despite this, it is important to introduce any newcomers to the mode of intellectual thought that is taking hold in order to cast off the more traditional institutionalised scholarly approaches towards space and material culture.

4_{Spencer (2010) 1.}

5_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 49.} 6

(8)

[8]

Some have used architecture as a basis for building a new approach to the theory of the society-space relation. 'However much we may prefer to discuss architecture in terms of visual styles, its most far-reaching practical effects are not at the level of appearances at all, but at the level of space. By giving shape and form to our material world, architecture structures the system of space in which we move. In that it does so, it has a direct relation- rather than a merely symbolic one- to social life, since it provides the material preconditions for the patterns of movement, encounter and avoidance which are the material realisation- as well as sometimes the generator- of social relations. In this sense, architecture pervades our everyday experience far more than a preoccupation with its visual properties would suggest'.7

Among structural anthropologists, Levi-Strauss has suggested an approach that sees in space the opportunity to 'study social and mental processes through objective and

crystallised external projections of them'.8 This means that Levi-Strauss is of the opinion that the spatial configuration of a society can be seen as a straightforward embodiment of the social and mental attitudes of that society. The issue with his approach is that he does not take into account the variability of different societies. From a spatial perspective societies vary 'not only in the type of physical configuration, but also in the degree to which the ordering of space appears as a conspicuous dimension of culture.' It appears that some cultures invest much more in the physical ordering of space than others. Nor can space be merely an external projection of social and mental processes, since modes of production for social space are much more complex than this. Space must not be reduced to a simple by-product of external causative agencies, as we shall see later.9 It should also be recognised that space is not entirely a neutral commodity. Individuals are born into an urban

environment that has already been constructed, and their social choices are made in the context of this urban environment. Urban space in particular is a product of a specific historical time and society. Moreover, urban space has its own structure and rules; it cannot be arranged in a wholly random way. For instance, a building must somehow be entered from a street. 'The preferences of individuals, the concentration or aggregation of activities, the through-put of people and the ideology' of Roman society all place their constraints

7_{Hillier and Hanson (1984) IX.} 8_{Hillier and Hanson (1984) 3.} 9

(9)

[9]

upon any random qualities of space. 'In effect, it is the urban society that alters the random nature of space and moulds space to its needs.' Rome and the urban space it contained were social products rather than planned entities.10

The approach of Lefebvre is one which has been utilised by many scholars. He divides space into a conceptual triad. The first is spatial practice, or perceived space, which includes the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation. Second, he describes representations of space, or conceived space; the space of scientists and planners. This has ties to the relations of production and hence to knowledge and signs. Lastly, he lists representational spaces; space as directly lived through its associated images and symbols.11 Soja refined these pluralities into a system of 'Thirdspace'. Firstspace refers to geophysical reality as it is perceived by observers. Secondspace is the mapped reality as it is presented to observers. Thirdspace is the reality as it is lived and practiced, the rapidly continually changing space in which the observer lives. These concepts of space may be well demonstrated using the example of a market space. Firstspace distinguishes a market as a geographical area in a town. Secondspace sees it as a place where goods are bought and sold. From the point of view of Thirdspace it is a place where people come together to socialise, learn news, and buy local produce. The space of the market is given meaning by the human actors and the socialising it encourages, and every person experiences it in a different way.

This schema may be applied to garden spaces. Firstspace is the material reality perceived by visitors; lawns, flowerbeds and ornaments. Secondspace is the literary or pictorial garden, a representation which excludes elements considered socially undesirable or un-picturesque (the compost heap or animal dung). Thirdspace encompasses lived space, the cultural value of the activities and events located within the garden.12 The Thirdspace is not only distinct from the other two, but also encompasses them; it is the space in which all spaces come together. This approach emphasises space as a medium for actions and

relationships, and highlights the dynamic and reflexive relationship between architecture, the body, and the psyche. 'Thirdspace is also a dialectical perception of space in which the

10_{Laurence (1994) 19.} 11_{Lefebvre (1991) 33-40.} 12

(10)

[10]

encounters between spatiality and sociality (or spatiality and historicity) become a triad of spatial, social, and historical interaction'.13 Whilst I shall not be utilising this schema in my own study, its description provides an introductory methodology that allows those new to the study of space to begin to understand the multifaceted nature of social space.

Space is not only a product of social processes, but also reflexively influences and articulates such processes. An awareness of this reflexive action is not new; even Cicero can be seen to comment upon it.

''We see the wide differences between the natural characters of different localities.... Can the nature of the locality cause us to take our walk in Pompey's Portico rather than in the Campus? In your company sooner than in someone else's?'' (Cic. Fat. 4.7-8).

Winston Churchill also voiced the same notion, but in a characteristically succinct manner. When discussing how to rebuild the House of Commons after the destruction of the wartime bombing in 1943 he stated; 'We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us'.14 Space can be attributed with the agency to dictate codes of behaviour, even long after the events of social practices that shaped the space have faded. The behavioural sets demanded by sacred and secular spaces are an illustration of this. It seems that once a space has been built or created it is spectacularly obdurate in agency, and it will change those who use it, not the other way around. This idea is what interests the advocates of the Situationist movement, termed as the 'psychogeographies' of urban form.15 This deals with the effect of geographical setting on behaviour and mood of individuals. Historical, cultural and ideological associations are embedded within spaces, and are transferred onto the viewer and the act of viewing. Awareness of these processes aids any translation of images, monuments and spaces into an experiential understanding of a space as a whole,

particularly that of ancient Rome. We need to develop a terminology that extends beyond the visual to include the entire spatial experience. It is true that attempts to capture emotional responses elicited and manipulated by urban space have very real potential for misinterpretation due to the risk of imposing anachronistic conditions. Nevertheless, as

13_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 53.} 14_{Scott (2013) 1.}

15

(11)

[11]

pointed out by Masseglia; a disinclination to engage with the ancient mind because it cannot be completely reconstructed is 'defeatism bordering on the solipsistic'.16

In order to experience the space of the horti in Rome more fully, we must examine the relationships between the viewer and the viewed, identity and space, and Roman attitudes towards space. The individual not only inhabits space, but also shapes the space around itself. Despite this, critical approaches have often relegated the somatic effect of any particular space to a secondary position, instead focussing upon the intellectual

comprehension of the space.17 Such downplay of corporeality would be especially restrictive in our current study of gardens, since these spaces were deliberately produced with

intentions of providing synaesthetic experiences. One new approach has been that of cognitive theory; a much more versatile perspective which accepts a fluid perception of space. In this approach, the important signifiers lie in perceptual, not just physical, differences; mental models of a given space override material and geophysical

characteristics.18 Almost all of these new approaches described above have begun to refocus the study of space from that of a passive medium to a wider, lived experience, and various theories of art have moved away from the purely aesthetic, placing emphasis instead upon art and architecture as a form of instrumental action; investigating art to do with 'doing'. Such a view is implicit in the reflexive relationship between space and social processes mentioned above, and will be explored further.

16_{Masseglia (2012) 138.} 17_{Lefebvre (1991) 194-207.} 18

(12)

[12]

A Study of Agency

It is to theories of art, architecture, and space to do with 'doing' that we shall now turn. This type of 'doing' has been theorised as 'agency', a process in which material entities motivate inferences, affective responses and intellectual constructions in a viewer; essentially

affecting them in some way. Agency theory can profitably be applied to an entire constructed space, as well as the distinct units comprising such a space. Agency may be defined as 'attributable to those persons (and things, see below) who/which are seen as initiating causal sequences'.19 Early work on agency was couched in terms of intentionality, and is still notoriously indeterminate.20 Indeed, some authorities still concentrate mainly upon intentionality, meaning that constructed space and the material artefacts that constitute an urban environment are simply traces of human agency and any agency they may possess is a passive form of the creators'.21 However, this approach may be criticised for a partiality towards an anthropocentric view. There is an opposing argument which has gathered momentum; one which allows the attribution of agency to material objects. One result of this line of thinking is the view of material culture as actively constructing the world within which people act and affecting individual's subjectivities,22 and this is the mode of thought utilised in this paper. In this approach, the concept of intentionality was overtaken with agency amounting to 'the power to act'.23

Gell is one of the scholars of the opinion that causal sequences initiated by agents come into being through intentionality. If the initiator (human individual beginning the sequence) does not come into contact with a recipient (the individual being affected by the sequence), then the initiator's agency must be mediated by physical objects. In Gell's definition of agency, material objects (including space itself) cannot be agents in

themselves, but act merely as extensions of another's agency. However, Gell differentiates between 'primary agents' (intentional beings) and 'secondary agents', through which primary agents distribute agency. He emphasises that 'secondary' does not mean that such

19_{Gell (1998) 16. (authors' parenthesis)} 20

Hodder (2000) 22.

21_{Cf. Gell (1998).}

22_{Dobres & Robb (2000) 12.} 23

(13)

[13]

objects are not agents; merely a different type of agent.24 Although they may not possess intentional agency, they have that effect by virtue of being embedded within social relationships and processes. Whilst it may seem that this theory is a comfortable middle ground between the two lines of thought, the problem created is that the primary focus is still placed upon the intentionality of the initiator. Thus any causal sequence, deductions and inferences caused by the material object that correlate with the presumed intention of the initiator will be privileged over any other incidental inferences and potential meanings created by the same object. This may lead to inductive and speculative error.

The Mutability of Meaning

Scholars have called for archaeologists to 'refute the claim that the material could ever have had a single meaning, or that a privileged meaning resides in the moment of its origin'.25 There is a need to acknowledge in the study of Roman space that variables can change the effectiveness of visual communication; one material object or space may send different messages to a range of possible viewers.26 Lefebvre comments that 'a monumental work... does not have a signified [meaning]; rather, it has a horizon of meaning: a specific or indefinite multiplicity of meanings, a shifting hierarchy in which now one, now another, meaning comes momentarily to the fore'.27 This line of thought runs parallel to that of scholars such as Martindale, who postulate that idiosyncratic cultural, social and political presuppositions are integral to each act of interpretation. Indeed 'meaning... is always realised at the point of reception,'28 and is therefore an unstable phenomenon, dynamically shifting due to the angle of vision of spectator and the passing of time. Jas Elsner also

comments extensively upon what he terms 'visuality'; the 'pattern of cultural constructs and social discourse that stand between the retina and the world, a screen through which the subjects of this inquiry... had no choice but to look, and through which they acquired... their

24_{Gell (1998) 20.} 25 Barret (2000) 67. 26_{Clarke (2003) 9.} 27_{Lefebvre (1991) 222.} 28 Martindale (1993) 3.

(14)

[14]

sense of subjectivity'.29 Firstly, we must allow for a potential disjunct between the ancient Roman internal 'screen' and our own modern one. Second, ancient Romans possessed a remarkable range of visualities that they were able to apply to the objects of their gaze, potentially due to greater variations in class and education, and a lack of homogenising mass media.30 Thus we must be aware of the multiplicity of possible interpretations of constructed spaces and the material objects within them. Additionally, since analyses of urban experience and conceptual reactions to the constructed spaces of ancient Rome are based on fragmentary information they must be considered provisional and any conclusions drawn should be left open for re-examination.31

Such mutability of meaning is often referred to in studies of gardens, since some scholars stress the individual nature of any response to a garden; an 'immediate reaction to the flow of perception... carefully selected for its power to evoke a mood'.32 Any emotion experienced is also influenced by the associations brought by the viewer to their experience, as previously discussed. Kuttner uses a suggestive approach in her study of movement in an imperial water garden.33 Rather than reconstruct a single model she proposes an infinite range of possible responses, but they can be characterised by the Roman culture from which they arise. 'Experience is certainly achieved by individuals, but it arises from the embodiment of a cultural narrative by the particular person who is subjected to the experience'.34 Conan usefully likens this to the limits of meaning inherent in a single

sentence. Our analysis 'cannot reach a reconstruction of individual experiences and must be satisfied with an understanding of a culturally specific domain of experience'.35

Thus, when investigating the agency of constructed environments such as gardens, instead of speculating as to the intended effect of the initiators, it is important to focus instead on the possible effects caused by these spaces both directly upon participants and also reflexively upon the initiators themselves, set within a culturally specific narrative.

29 Elsner (2007) XVII. 30 Favro (1996) 9. 31_{Favro (1996) 22.} 32 Conan (2003) 26. 33_{Cf. Kuttner (2003).} 34_{Conan (2003) 27.} 35 Conan (2003) 28.

(15)

[15]

Space and

Identity

Having begun to wrestle with the different approaches to the study of space and agency, we may now turn to the ways in which space is linked to identity, both individual and social. Urban spatial arrangements may be a focus for the formation of any identities. It is possible for architecture to enable the embodiment of both cultural concepts and hierarchies of accessibility in the physical space of the city. Robin and Rothschild have shown that 'it is through spatial interaction that people integrate local and personal knowledge within larger political economic processes'.36 They argue for the concept of lived space which is both socially constructed and experienced, and has a history, or memory, which is inscribed on it by the people inhabiting it through time. We need to recognise the physical landscape as a 'fundamental participant' in historical action, as both 'reflector and articulator of social values, phenomena and identities'.37

More can be understood about the relationship between space and social theory by asking certain questions. How are key social categories (community, class, race, gender or sexuality) constituted and reproduced in urban contexts throughout history? How are and were social relations shaped by urban spaces?

It is useful at this stage to turn to an example for illustration. The Roman circus, amphitheatre and theatre were particular and iconic spaces that helped to construct Roman identity, and to locate individual identity within the social matrix across the Roman world. By the time of Augustus the Circus Maximus is estimated to have had capacity for 150,000 spectators.38 The size and comparative accessibility of spaces such as this to a wide range of social groupings allowed enormous, heterogeneous in every sense, crowds to gather in a single constructed space. Accustomed as we are to such crowds of people, it is easy to forget the possible effects of such a large, varied crowd upon the subjectivities of participants in antiquity. Such a vast spectacle loudly proclaimed Rome to be truly the greatest city on earth; the noise of the crowd alone would have been remarkable, and probably the loudest sound many had ever heard. The impressive spread of Empire was

36_{Robin & Rothschild (2002) 162.} 37_{Scott (2013) 168.}

38

(16)

[16]

shown by the importation of exotic animals and people for the entertainment of Rome. In this vast constructed space every viewer, regardless of class, citizenry or origin, was enabled to become temporarily part of the Roman ideal. Repeated exposure to such impressive examples of Roman power within a spatial experience of such heroic dimensions must undeniably have had many powerful effects upon the crowd. Viewers' cultural identities would have been constantly realigned to fit within this image of power, and also relatively homogenised to increase civic pride.

However, simultaneously, the internal spatial arrangement of spaces such as the theatre and circus, constructed for pleasure, also reproduced structures of social difference and hierarchy. In terms of gender men and women actually sat side by side in the Circus Maximus; but in theatres they were strictly separated. While there is still debate about seating in the Circus Maximus, most have concluded that seating at the Circus from

Augustus' time onwards was 'generally...by rank'.39At all public shows in Rome the first row of seats were reserved for senators. The equites had had fourteen rows reserved for them in the theatre since 67 BC (Lex Roscia), and had separate seats in the Circus from AD 5 (Dio. Cass. 55.22.4). It is probable that other magistrates and religious officials had separate seats also. (It is unclear whether Augustus' laws giving separate seating sections to soldiers, married men, and boys with their tutors applied to the Circus as well as to the theatre.) This visible system of grading meant that it was possible to literally visualise ones' social position within the city, and easily become familiar with the social hierarchy of Rome. Constructed public spaces such as this helped delineate and negotiate the urban frictions between community and individual. These spaces provided ways of uniting a highly varied population in recognising mutual claims to social space whilst also preserving individual notions of difference and separateness. 40 This neatly illustrates Lamour's eloquent notion that the "'I' is inseparable from and very much dependent upon, 'the eye'".41

We have established there is a firm connection between space and society. Constructed space can indeed be attributed with some form of agency, and there exists a reflexive relationship of agency between people and the spaces they create. Social space is

39_{Humphrey (1986) 77.} 40_{Tonkiss (2005) 4.} 41

(17)

[17]

tied up in a protean knot involving both the collective identity of societies, and the individual's sense of self. Thus it is clear why scholars such as Scott argue for a broader engagement between history and space. 'A spatial approach is, actually, indispensible to constructing a well-rounded, textured and credible understanding of the complexity of the ancient world.'42

Roman Notions of Space

Having justified a spatial approach, and explored a few of the ways in which we experience space, it is now important to return to Elsner's idea of 'visuality'. As already mentioned, Romans may have interacted with space in a culturally specific manner, different to ours today. This means that we must attempt to investigate Roman attitudes concerning constructed spaces, and the various traditions they held for manipulating urban spaces.

Because of low literacy rates in antiquity, many other methods were used to convey information to the broadest audience possible, including the manipulation of the urban topography.43 Because of this necessity, many Romans of all classes were skilled readers of non verbal texts. Communication through the physical form of the city was convenient, natural and necessary for Romans, since 'interwoven with histories, narratives, and

propaganda, ancient buildings and urban environments provided enduring and highly visible frameworks for conveying information'.44 Favro argues that Romans had a more

'circumscribed awareness of cities than modern observers'. Pedestrian travel in Rome also forced immediate and personal interaction with the cityscape. Many citizens learnt about their city through acquiring first hand knowledge as they moved through the urban space; unlike today most streets were not named and maps were rare. A result of this was that pedestrians were forced to 'conceptualise the placement of urban features and themselves in a relational manner' based upon the location of noteworthy urban elements (Ter. Ad. 573-85). Thus 'good environmental memories were essential to navigate the convoluted

42_{Scott (2013) 2.} 43_{Favro (1996) 6-7.} 44

(18)

[18]

byways of larger cities, and to understand the meaning woven into the urban fabric'.45 The various monuments and constructed spaces of Rome did not stand alone. Instead, their diverse messages and inherent socio-cultural connotations were read in a cumulative matrix of information and associations, creating a complex web of relationships and meaning throughout the city. Cicero has been quoted in support of this idea, since he states that a consideration of space should not only involve the nature of the actual site itself, but also the vicinity and the whole district (Cic. Inv. 1.38). Thus it can be seen that Roman space was considered according not only to its absolute, but also to its relative qualities, which were often socially constructed.

Within the study of rhetoric, leading Romans were trained to use the mnemonic system, which ties together notions of movement, space and intellectual activity. This involved training to help the memorisation of extensive speeches necessary for the successful political life of the elite. Participants were taught to develop and visualise environments (loci) in their minds, which were filled with memorable objects (imagines). Each object or view would then correspond to a particular concept of the speech. To recall the entire speech accurately an orator would 'move' through his internally constructed space, reading and decoding the content bearing images as he encountered them.46 Quintilian's book of rhetoric describes this system, and significantly for the purpose of this paper, stresses that the urban cityscape can also form a usable mnemonic environment (Quint. Inst. 11.2.21). Such an oratorical method of composing a narrative from a cityscape or constructed space neatly demonstrates how some Romans were able to read and decode their surrounding physical environment in a manner probably very far removed from ours today. Elite Romans were trained, and therefore predisposed, to look for underlying coherent narratives in built environments.

Many scholars are interested in what has been termed 'collective/cultural memory' in relation to the cityscape, which seems to be peculiarly manifest in Rome and is essential to this study. This concept encapsulates 'the collectively shared knowledge of a society, the peculiar set of certainties and convictions it has about itself, and, in particular, about its historical roots. The collective memory helps... a society as a whole to articulate an

45_{Favro (1996) 5-6.} 46

(19)

[19]

awareness of its defining characteristics and its unity, and therefore form an essential basis for its self- image and identity'.47 Holkeskamp discusses the educational and normative function of such collective memory; this type of memory integrates members of society, reinforces society's cohesion, and provides instruction from the past as to how to act in the present and future. Whilst there is a wide possible spectrum of forms such collective memory may take, it is evident that 'memory tends towards spatiality', and nowhere more so than in ancient Rome.

A permanent landscape of memory visibly staged remembrance of important events and people to the people within Rome. A vibrant interplay was created between the stories attached to a location and their contemporary public function. Each new visual element added to the cityscape was given additional meaning by the urban context of Rome's collective memory, creating a plurality of meanings to the layers of Rome's topology. Such physical memory ensured the Roman present was never too far removed from the Roman past, creating a magnificent 'trans-generational memory'.48 Plutarch is plainly aware of this evolutionary process; 'A city is like a living thing... a united and continuous whole. This does not cease to be itself as it changes in growing older, not does it become one thing after another with the lapse of time, but is always at one with its former self in feelings and identity' (Plut. De Exilio. 559). The famous chapter in Livy's History of Rome that recounts the speech of M. Furius Camillus (5.32-55) demonstrates how Romans saw the site of Rome as a kind of 'time machine' with a phenomenological quality. After the sack of Rome by the Gauls (390/389 BC) Camillus spoke against the proposal to move to Veii. He generates a complex historicising scenography in order to show Romans that their city and its physical site are their identity; the two cannot be successfully separated.49 It is important for our purposes also to note here that the natural features of the site of Rome are just as significant as the manmade structures. Thus it might be argued that landscape, and

constructed spaces, circulate as mediums of exchange, sites of visual appropriation, and foci for the formation of identity.

47_{Holkeskamp (2006) 481- 482.} 48_{Holkeskamp (2006) 489.} 49

(20)

[20]

The Building Traditions of Rome

It is partly because of the connection between identity and space that there has always been a symbiosis between the will to power and monumental display. Politics, as any social process, unfolds in space, and these spaces become objects of struggle in their own right. Whilst ostensibly merely providing a setting for political action, spaces often become politicised in contests over access, power and representation. Indeed, one of the most visible and basic methods of evidencing power is to seize or control space.50 We have already discussed the ways in which architecture makes power legible to a wide audience, and it is also true that such displays require no complicity from their users, other than their physical presence or comprehension.51 Many scholars have commented on the public display of imagery in the city of Rome, and its traditional function of honouring deserving citizens.52 This tradition indicates public understand in Rome that art, and its spatial setting, could bestow status.

For example, it is no mere coincidence that Suetonius opens his biography of Augustus by discussing historical spatial evidence for the influence and distinction of the Octavian family. (This was intended to contradict contemporary derogatory claims about the family's social standing.) In Velitrae, 'not only was a street in the most frequented part of town long ago called Octavian, but an altar was shown there besides, consecrated by an Octavius' (Suet. Aug. 1.1). Suetonius uses 'locus celeberrimus' to describe the prominent nature of the space, and the elevated rank of the family is demonstrated by their influence in such a locus celeberrimus.53 Here we have an example of space being considered by its relational qualities, as Cicero mentions, instead of as an absolute quality. Furthermore we can see how space affects not only viewers, but also reflexively affects the social identity of the individual who manipulated the space. Viewers translate the altar and street name into signs of status attributing power to the Octavian gens, but the viewers' identity is also simultaneously realigned as a member of a society in some way influenced by the Octavian family. It is interesting that Suetonius need only create a literary representation of this

50 Tonkiss (2005) 59-60. 51_{Newsome (2011) 293.} 52_{D'Ambra (1998) 41.} 53 Newsome (2011) 24.

(21)

[21]

alleged space in Velitrae to reproduce the original effect of public distinction, which is recognisably and elegantly transferred to Augustus.

As the Republic drew towards its violent demise, the progressive destruction of national values and traditions assisted the development of a style of strong

self-representation by individuals who wished to achieve prominence. The monuments and topology of Rome were 'both a stage for and a product of the political struggles of the Republic, reflecting the increasing levels of competition within the Roman elite and the central importance of their relationship with the Roman People for the aristocracy'.54 Repairs of older structures were few and far between; many wealthy citizens preferred to begin new projects and monuments, the messages of which would have been easier to control. Torelli suggests that such self-representation left the cityscape physically

fragmented, with many competing and contradictory messages.55 However, Favro is of the opinion that the monuments counterbalanced each other, and these architectural texts were read in a collective nexus of associations by Rome's inhabitants.56

Roman Space and Movement

It is now necessary to investigate Roman movement, since horti were spaces constructed for leisured walking. Is it not true that we move through a garden in response to its design? Motion is a crucial aspect of landscape design and relative to our engagement with the world around us, so a study of movement may help us learn something about the deeper life of consciousness underlying more perceptive activities that took place in Roman horti.57 Anthropologists have posited that different types of movement are largely culturally

determined.58 This notion of cultural specificity leads us to attempt to transcend the cultural disparity between Roman attitudes to movement and our own, presenting movement as a rich text through which we can understand a culture from a refreshingly new perspective. We shall see how the physical act of leisured walking became a touchstone of cultured

54_{Patterson (2006) 350.} 55 Torelli (2006) 96. 56_{Favro (1996) 72.} 57_{Conan (2003) 11.} 58 Mauss (1979) 97- 119.

(22)

[22]

behaviour in Rome. An exploration of the origin of such a ritualised act will be indispensible, since it will illuminate inherent cultural associations embedded in the notion of the leisured walk. Finally, it is important to explore how notions of space and movement were tied together, as well as ideas concerning the spatial setting for leisured movement in Rome.

Philosophical Movement

The act of self-conscious ambulation involved in Roman leisurely walking has a clear prototype in the arena of Greek philosophy. The names of two influential Greek

philosophical schools even derived their names from movement or its spatial setting; the Peripatetics and the Stoics.59 However, the reality of the reputation of Greek philosophers for ambulatory discussion is questionable; for example sources mention that Protagoras only began serious dialogue once his audience was seated (Plat. Prot. 314e). But what is important is that there existed in antiquity a pervasive belief that movement of the body reflected movement of the mind. As with other Hellenistic cultural elements, the Romans absorbed and adopted the link between walking and philosophical dialogue for their own purposes.60 Varro conceptualised intellectual activity as analogous to types of movement, likening his own to a hunt (Varr. Ling. 5.5).61 Pliny gave movement an intellectual dynamic in his letters to Fuscus Salinator, recounting walking during a typical day. Pliny's regular walks were not only for his health, but also to dictate to his slave or pursue conversation (Plin. Ep. 9.36).62 A friend of Pliny's, T. Vestricius Spurinna, is described as walking three miles a day, exercising his mind no less than his body (Plin. Ep. 3.1.4). The plethora of Roman sources that link movement with intellectual activity demonstrate that this connection was firmly entrenched within popular imagination of the upper class. Leisured walking with strong philosophical overtones had become an important element in the pursuit of an elite lifestyle. 59 O'Sullivan (2011) 3. 60_{O'Sullivan (2011) 93.} 61_{Spencer (2011) 69.} 62 Macaulay-Lewis (2007) 52.

(23)

[23]

The philosophical overtones of leisured movement often directed the accompanying discourse, creating a connective interplay between action and speech. Idealised

philosophical rhetoric was often employed, encouraging contemplation and reflection on the self and one's role in community.63 Although philosophy was not considered a

cornerstone of elite education (unlike rhetoric for example), a grounding in philosophy could serve to form an identity in line with aristocratic ideals. Philosophical lectures

regularly covered topics such as emotional self control, which was considered crucial to elite self- definition.64 Roman enthusiasm for leisured walking was not only a tribute to the erudite lifestyle of Greek philosophers, but also an act of self definition as a member of the elite.

Roman Movement

Philosophy was a cultural ritual of leisure (rather than education) that only the elite could afford to engage in. It has been suggested that the desire to be linked with philosophy lay in the social and political dividends that 'might attach to such a sheen of philosophy'.65

Undertaking an ambulatio in public could be described as a performance of elite identity for two reasons, firstly because of its links with philosophy. Secondly, such ambulatio flaunted the walkers' economic independence, since it visibly announced he did not need to use his body to earn a wage.66 Strategies of hierarchy can therefore be articulated even in the social network of movement.67 Anthropologists interested in movement have generally defined it in terms of culturally distinctive gestures. Bourdieu, a French sociologist, established the concept of habitus; namely that every socio- economic group may be characterised by a particular set of external characteristics. One function of habitus is that political ideologies particular to any given group are 'embodied, turned into a permanent disposition, a durable way of standing, speaking, walking, and thereby of feeling and thinking'.68 A concept such as

63 Spencer (2011) 66. 64_{Hahn (2011) 123.} 65 Hahn (2011) 66. 66_{O'Sullivan (2011) 9.} 67_{Newsome (2011) 3.} 68 Bourdieu (1990) 69-70.

(24)

[24]

this can be usefully applied to the Roman world, where we have already seen that the appearance of one’s physical deportment facilitated displays of economic and social status.

The word most commonly used in invective texts to describe a persons' gait is

incessus.69 This has posed a translation challenge for scholars, since it is frequently used where we might not expect it in English. Translators have used 'bearing' or 'demeanour', neither of which are even listed in The Oxford Latin Dictionary, in attempts to convey the use of incessus as a synecdoche for physical self presentation despite the limitations of the English word 'gait'. Scholars have shown that the difference is not just semantic but also cultural.70 It is rare in Western cultures today to infer social status from how someone walks, but Roman audiences translated movement into comprehensible categories of class. If we turn to Roman comedy we see the implicit expectation for an audience to recognise a correlation between movement and character. The dominant class moved slowly and calmly, whereas attendants and workers were identified by stereotypically hasty

movements; so much so that the concept of the servus currens became a humorous motif in many plays.71 Indeed, the notion was so familiar that Plautus was able to parody it by

causing a group of freedmen to adopt an exasperatingly exaggerated slow pace of an aristocrat. 'A sober pace in the city streets is the suitable thing for free men; it has a servile look to bustle about on the run' (Pl. Poen. 522-3).72

In turning to other types of literature, it can be seen that the ambulatio had evolved from its intellectual and philosophical roots into a profoundly social activity. Martial’s disgusted description of Selius frantically scurrying through the porticoed spaces of the Campus Martius to seek out dinner invitations is a good example of what an educated Roman considered the 'wrong' way to walk (Mart.2.11-14). Additionally, this example shows that Roman elite sought out these spaces in order to undertake leisurely walks and to meet friends and plan other social activities.73 Ambulatio provided a setting for conversation amongst equals, and the act of choosing to carry out a leisurely walk in another's company became a virtual symbol of friendship. In a letter to an old friend expressing his wish to be

69_{Corbeill (2004) 118.} 70 O'Sullivan (2011) 12-13. 71_{Corbeill (2004) 17.} 72_{O'Sullivan (2011) 18.} 73 Macaulay-Lewis (2007) 60.

(25)

[25]

reunited Cicero tells of how he would like to discuss his many anxieties in the conversation of a single walk (Cic. Arr. 1.18.1). Cicero clearly imagines the pair not only talking but also walking, supporting the theory that the public performance of ambulatio could have been translated as a show of trust, friendship or political association.74 It must also be noted at this point that the 'correct' way of walking was at least partially dictated by the toga, the customary woollen dress of the elite. This was a cumbersome garment held in place not with a clasp but by its own weight, requiring one arm to be constantly held at the side of the body and thereby seriously restricting speed and form of movement.75 The effective non verbal form of representation created by such cultural translation of movement was a powerful visual method of maintaining social hierarchy, especially since it inscribed such hierarchy into the body itself. The privileged Roman used notions of the body and movement to simultaneously create and reinforce social distinction.76

Movement, the Gaze and Space

We have previously discussed the mnemonic system which coupled together ideas of movement, space and intellectual activity. Time and memory were materialised in 'memory theatres', architectural spaces that actively promoted and controlled specific memories and ideas stimulated by the interdependent relationship between architecture and memory. The art of mnemotechnics promoted by Simonides as early as the sixth century BC emphasised movement through architecture as a blueprint for actively storing, structuring, and

retrieving memories (Cic. de Orat. 2.86). 'Public spaces... were not rigid monuments of nostalgia, but dynamic expressions of memory as shared social communication through movement and speech'.77

Most anthropologists have studied movement only as isolated gesture, largely divorced from its spatial context.78 This type of study will give only partial access to culturally constructed movement in Rome, since movement was intrinsically related to

74_{O'Sullivan (2011) 6.} 75 O'Sullivan (2011) 19. 76_{Corbeill (2004) 113.} 77_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 64.} 78 Macaulay-Lewis (2007) 19.

(26)

[26]

space in Roman culture. There exists a conceptual link between the two even in the Latin language. Spatior is translated as 'to walk about, especially in a...leisurely manner', with a secondary meaning of 'to spread out or be extended'.79 The related noun is spatium, meaning space. This connection can also be found in many extant literary sources. For example, Varro, a polymath of the late Republic, explores the relationship between time, space and movement. He ties motion, space and body together stating that 'where it [the body] is in motion, is place' (Var.Ling.5.11).80

Adoption of Greek traditions such as the philosophical debate was part of the acculturation of Hellenistic concepts into Roman aristocratic culture that reached its zenith in the second century BC. It is no coincidence that during this period Pompeian houses began to incorporate peristyles; gardens surrounded by porticos on one or more sides.81 This architectural form owed much to the Greek gymnasia, associated as much with philosophical debate as health. Cicero states that settings such as these porticoed gardens were considered especially appropriate for philosophical conversation. Imagining a

conversation on eloquence amongst leading statesmen of the early first century BC, Catullus draws attention to their location; the portico of Crassus' Tuscan villa. 'Do you really think this scene ill fitting [for discussion], where this very colonnade, in which we are now

walking, this exercise ground... in some degree awaken memories of the gymnastic schools and discussions of the Greeks?' (Cic. De Orat.2.4.20). It is clear that certain topographical features were deliberately designed with the purpose of reminding visitors of the spaces associated with Greek philosophy, and consciously intended as settings for intellectual activity.82 Cicero's phrasing suggests that both the architectural space and decor of the portico garden encouraged movement of both body and mind, and allusions to Greek gymnasia set their minds in reflective motion, in a way similar to the mnemonic system. Although no contemporary Greek descriptions of the Academy survive, Diogenes Laertius's

Lives of the Philosophers, written in the second century AD, suggests that trees and walks

had become fundamental parts of the landscapes of the academy and Athen's other

79

Oxford Latin Dictionary (1798) s.v.spatior.

80_{Spencer (2011) 57-64.} 81_{O'Sullivan (2011) 93.} 82

(27)

[27]

philosophical schools.83 Plato can be found perched in trees (3.7), matters were disputed whilst walking on paths (2.130), and Aristotle strolled in the tree lined walks of the Lyceum (5.2).

Some have argued that a mobile gaze was identified with active thought in the ancient world. Corbeil, using the epic cycle and evidence of Claudius Donatus, suggests eye movement was known to reflect thought (Don. 7.251). He states 'to have a fixed gaze means to express resolve' and 'it would be against nature for the eye to remain fixed when the mind is in a state of activity'.84 Gaze is connected with intellectual endeavour, alongside movement. As a person moves through space, so too does their gaze, and discussion follows; reflecting upon the sights and contours of the surrounding space. It is often found in philosophical debate that participants would encounter an object or vista which then inspired and directed conversation (Cic. De Orat. 1.28).85

Leisurely movement and the accompanying conversation had a specific spatial context in the public areas of Rome; porticos, portico-temples and public gardens. Such outdoor spaces have long been undervalued by an historically site-/structure-centric type of archaeology.86 These open spaces were essential to Roman architecture; it is significant that Vitruvius opens his discourse of public buildings with not a 'building' in the traditional sense of the word, but a colonnaded open space (Vitr. 5.1.12).87 The advent of spaces such as the monumental portico and public gardens, specifically designed to accommodate leisured movement, testifies to the particular cultural specificity of Roman leisured walking, and its importance as an elite pursuit.88 We have established the tradition of leisured walking retained qualities of the philosophical ambulation from which it was derived. Physical and intellectual movement were joined in a mutual relationship, adding more cultural

significance to the act of leisured walking. The quality of philosophical learnedness

conferred elite status upon the walker, as did the public display of economic independence shown through the use of the body for leisure. The incessus was used to demonstrate status and maintain social boundaries, with 'correct' ways of movement culturally determined and

83 Macaulay-Lewis (2013) 101. 84_{Corbeill (2004) 146.} 85 O'Sullivan (2011) 89.

86_{Robin & Rothschild (2002) 159.} 87_{Anderson (1997) 247.}

88

(28)

[28]

approved. The act of leisured walking was embedded into a process of elite self-definition, furthered by philosophical debate concerning identity and the state. We have seen how the spatial context within which leisured walking took place had a role in directing movement of both body and mind. Space and the physical environment are dynamic forces with the ability to act upon society and individuals. This is an influence of no small importance considering the significance of leisured walking in elite self definition. Thus it is important to analyse the horti of Rome as public spaces for leisured walking, in an attempt to understand how participants may have been influenced during these reflective moments.

(29)

[29]

Chapter II: Gardens

From the time of the late Republic, Rome was surrounded by the vast gardens of the elite. In addition a multiplicity of other types of gardens existed within the city. These ranged from the gardens surrounding bathhouses, gardened walkways, temple groves, courtyard gardens of houses, to the humble window box. A large percentage of the inhabitants of Rome had access to gardens of various kinds. Many had their own gardens, especially after the implementation of the Augustan urban water programme of c.30 BC onwards which aided irrigation.89 In any investigation of Roman public horti, we must be aware that 'gardens mean something quite different in every culture, and garden art has very different

associations for different societies'.90 In this chapter we shall explore several attitudes and traditions that form the backdrop to the complicated relationships between gardens, architecture and identity in Rome in the first century BC and onwards. We shall see that garden spaces were intellectually rarefied, highly allusive creations, 'dominated by complex traditions and consciously linked with important philosophical questions of how man should behave and what is his relationship with the natural setting in which he finds himself'.91 After discussing some of the methodological approaches to garden space I shall proceed to address the definition of a garden space, and lastly Roman notions of the garden.

89_{Jones (2014) 782.} 90_{Purcell (1987) 187.} 91

(30)

[30]

Introduction

The historiography of Roman garden spaces is hardly encouraging. Few scholars have

examined gardens in terms of the conceptual rules governing their production, space theory or human geography. Until recently 'even in studies of the Roman house the garden is usually represented as a blank lacuna of undifferentiated space'.92 However, the more we study horti romani, the less faith can be placed in generalisation and typologies. Scholars such as Wallace- Hadrill have begun to look at the specific historical transformation of a long tradition of land utilisation. He, in a similar investigation to this paper, examines the 'socio-cultural context of a specific model of hortus that emerged in the late Republic and early Empire', and looks at the impact this new model had on social strata below that of the elite.93 Recent scholarship has begun to emphasise the role of gardens as vehicles of cultural communication, stressing that 'deep in what the Romans thought about themselves we find intensive horticulture and the plots on which it took place'.94

The investigation of horti romani is one fraught with difficulty. The material remains generally present only a fragmentary and often even unintelligible story. There are no surviving treatises about ancient garden design, and few plans can be connected with actual garden sites.95 Certain archaeological techniques (geophysical surveying, aerial photography etc.) aid in mapping plantings and landscaping, but to interpret the resulting stratigraphy and to explore further how and why particular landscapes were of significance, we need to turn to surviving texts. Literary, material and visual texts all help us recreate Roman

understanding of horti.96 It has been established by Littlewood that in the study of horti 'in general the type of information provided by literature, at least up to the mid-second century AD is reliable, exaggeration being restrained and fantasy eschewed'.97 There survives a large

body of literature in which real and imaginary gardens appear in a variety of contexts. These gardens offer themselves for study which can explore not only the ways in which Romans

92 Von Stackelberg (2009) 3. 93_{Wallace-Hadrill (1995) 1.} 94 Purcell (1996) 122. 95_{Macaulay-Lewis (2013) 99.} 96_{Spencer (2010) 3.} 97 Littlewood (1987) 9.

(31)

[31]

thought about the functions and meanings of gardens, but also how Romans used gardens to reflect upon and define themselves socially, aesthetically and politically.98

Definition

Reaching a definition of 'garden' is difficult, since the garden as a material object

demonstrates an erratic complexity. Notions about gardens are extremely diverse, and a garden is not defined by its form, scale, content or location. Latin scholars have been keen to fix exactly what was meant by the word hortus. Typically hortus has been translated as a singular garden, whereas horti is usually taken to refer to a large estate or pleasure garden. This impulse to define the semantics has blinded many to the subtle ways in which the term 'garden' operates, even today. The word encompasses a wide range of garden art,

landscape elements, architecture, and different uses. If we consider the modern example of London's Kensington Gardens, we find the space is simultaneously a public park, a royal estate, a collection of diverse separate gardens and now also a purposefully constructed green space within a busy city. Horti, or gardens, suggest 'an expansive and multi-use landscape, populated with decorative, utilitarian, and ideological aspects and sites... also tends to imply narrative or metaphorical complexity'.99 It is not within the range of this paper to differentiate between the many types of garden and their individual roles in Roman identity, so we shall be mainly dealing with the private pleasure parks made public at the end of the Republic and onwards, although undoubtedly there will be encounters with other types of gardens along the way.

Von Stackelberg has postulated four precepts for defining gardens; 'a garden is a cultivated space; it is distinguished from the surrounding landscape either by enclosure or another visual indication of spatial transition; it is continuous to or in the vicinity of a man-made structure; it bears a symbolic value in addition to its productive value'.100 The garden can mediate between ideals associated with rural nature and urban civilization.

98_{Cf. Beard (1995).} 99_{Spencer (2010) 140.} 100

(32)

[32]

Fundamental to this mediatory role is the fact that its’ boundary is porous.101 When

recreating Roman attitudes to gardens we must avoid utilising the diverse grouping of ideas, traditions and cultural assumptions that notions of gardens and landscape entail today. Modern notions of the garden have been coloured by movements such as Romanticisms' fascination with the un-knowability and sublime power of nature.102 We should try to put these notions aside and approach Roman attitudes to gardens with an open perspective. Many scholars have commented that the Roman garden was as much a conceptual space as a physical space.103 Von Stackelberg uses Pliny the Elder as evidence for this; 'The lower classes of Rome, with their mimic gardens in their windows, day after day presented the reflex of the country to the eye' (Plin. Nat. 19.19). The Latin phrase 'imago hortorum' is used, a usual translation of which reads as referring to window boxes. The use of 'imago' to describe the simple and prosaic window box shows that such an image was a resonant concept in Roman society, conveying not only a visual image but also cultural information. 'A garden was not just a place, it was an idea of a place, experienced on both a societal and an individual level.'104 Jones, who sets the Roman garden in the context of identity,

imagination and cognitive development, also comments upon the same phenomenon. He states how the person experiencing one garden sees it through other gardens, real, historical or poetic. It is a 'place for thinking about literature, history and identity'.105 The Roman imagination uses the garden as a medium through which something other than mere literal reality is seen. This makes gardens a fostering environment for 'role-play and self-impersonation (therefore also contributing to the expression of identity)'.106 It may come as a surprise to us today when the sense of self and the idea of a garden seem at great

variance to each other, but 'they have been tightly bound at completely different historical times'. 'Beyond the playfulness of dramatic experiences of gardens and landscapes, there appeared a much deeper role for gardens in self-development' in Roman culture.107 Even a cursory familiarity with Latin literature and Roman art can easily discover a frequently expressed strong emotional investment in the representation of gardens. Despite an

101

Jones (2014) 803.

102

Spencer (2010) 2-3.

103_{Jones (2014), Von Stackelberg (2009).} 104 Von Stackelberg (2009) 1-2. 105_{Jones (2014) 781.} 106_{Jones (2014) 783.} 107 Conan (2003) 20-21.

(33)

[33]

impressive urban cityscape Roman society considered itself, at heart, an agricultural society. Certainly, 'gardens were as much an expression of aesthetic and cultural ideals as a practical amenity'.108 It is necessary in this exploration of Roman horti to trace their role as vehicles of cultural communication.

The History of the Roman Garden

The Roman garden was not a tabula rasa but part of a long gardening tradition, involving notions of sacred space, royal power, civic pride and philosophical engagement,

antecedents of which can be found in Egypt, Asia Minor and the Aegean. It is possible to read Roman 'landscape as a site of memory, giving access to priscae virtutes, ancient and fundamental qualities of the ideal Roman',109 but in order to do so we need to investigate some of the historical associations, cultural connotations and inherent values of the Roman garden.

The earliest appearance of the 'hortus' in literature is concerned with both property and identity. Pliny the Elder discusses the twelve tables of the fifth century BC codifying traditional customs into statutory law. Pliny establishes a conceptual relation between the

hortus and the heredium by highlighting that which Romans would term as a hortus was

termed as a heredium by their ancestors. 'In our laws of the Twelve Tables, we find the word 'farm' (villa) is never named, instead the word 'garden' (hortus) is always used with that signification, while the term 'heredium' we find employed for 'garden'' (Plin. Nat. 19.19). This connection begins to demonstrate the spatial importance of the hortus, since the

heredium was the original Roman garden space, considered to be both productive and civic.

Varro tells us that the heredium was made up of two acres (as much land one man can plough in a single day), with great symbolic value since it corresponded to the original land grant assigned by Romulus to each Roman citizen (Varr. RR. 1.10). This fixed portion of land also symbolised continuity between one generation and the next, since it was an inalienable portion of an estate that could not be bequeathed outside the family. Thus 'as a conceptual

108_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 4.} 109

(34)

[34]

space, the hortus shared these associations with citizenship, identity, and legitimacy

represented by the heredium'.110 Von Stackelberg suggests a reason for the replacement of

heredium with hortus in common usage. Hortus' most closely related noun is 'cohors',

translated as both an enclosure and as a group of men banded together for a common purpose. Both words share root concepts of grouping together, cultivation and

commonality. The subsequent identification of the hortus as villa or garden establishes it 'as a pivotal space in a continuing process in which land ownership and social status were mutually interdependent'.111

From the mid second century BC the villa became the focus of social display between aristocratic Romans and an inspirational ideal for the non-elite. Many leading men of the late Republic transformed their estates around the city from agricultural-type villas to monumental private villa suburbanae.112 The source of inspiration for this transformation has been attributed to the Hellenistic East, which in turn drew on the Oriental models of the

paradeisos.113 These horti were heavily decorated with sculpture and were foci of leisure and competitive display. While the traditional, agricultural and productive aspect of the villas’ hortus was not wholly abandoned, a majority of the garden was directed towards luxury items (Hor. Carm. 2.15.1-10). Although an encyclopaedist who focussed on the minutiae of garden content, Pliny the Elder's interest in the cultural value of the hortus shows a conceptual evolution of the hortus from 'a simple space of rural production to a complex space of social meaning'.114 The view of Roman moralists about such luxurious private pleasure spaces as symptomatic of the escalation of luxury in Rome is well known. Pliny states that people owned property for frivolous reasons, with even meadows and villas in the city (Nat. 19.50).115 Gardens such as those of Lucullus and Sallust were ostentatious spaces designed for self display. The richest leading citizens created a green belt upon the hills on the outer edges of the city centre, stretching from the Aventine, Esquiline, and Pincian to the Campus Martius, right up to the Tiber. On the one hand these estates were unambiguously private. Boundary stones inscribed 'privatum (sc. iter)' discovered in the

110 Von Stackelberg (2009) 9-10. 111_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 10-11.} 112 Macaulay-Lewis (2013) 102. 113_{Wallace- Hadrill (1995) 1-2.} 114_{Von Stackelberg (2009) 12.} 115 Boatwright (1995) 72.

An Investigation of Roman horti using Spatial Theory: Could Roman Garden Space have been used for more than pleasure?