Pacis

Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Province

Location

Sublocation

Region IV Templum Pacis \

Garden

Garden of the Templum Pacis

Keywords

Garden Description

Vespasian vowed the Templum Pacis, also known as the Forum Vespasiani, in 71 CE (Josephus BJ 7.158; Seut. Vesp. 9.1) as a victory monument celebrating his military achievements in Judaea and dedicated it four years later (Dio Cassius 65.15.1 | Trans; Aurelius Victor Caes. 9.7; Epit. De Caes. 9.8). Vespasian constructed the Templum Pacis to the northeast of the Forum Romanum and adjacent to the Forum Transitorium, also known as the Forum of Nerva. The ancient sources refer to the complex as the Templum Pacis; only in the fourth century CE and later is it referred to as the Forum Pacis. Pliny considered it the most beautiful building in Rome (NH 36.102). It is known from the Forma Urbis Romae (FUR), ancient sources, and archaeological excavations (Fig. 1).

The Templum Pacis presented Vespasian as the bringer of peace and order. The porticus housed an extensive art collection, much of which was taken from the Domus Aurea; including Myron's bronze cow and a bronze statue by Phidias or Lysippos, among others (Procopius Goth. 4.21.12-14; Pliny NH 35.74, 35.102, 35.109, 36.27, 36.58; Pausanias 6.9.3; Juvenal 9.22). By displaying these works in the Templum Pacis, the people of Rome could now enjoy the artistic treasures that Nero had coveted for himself. Vespasian also utilized the space to display manubiae (spoils of war) from Judaea, including the seven-branched menorah from the Temple in Jerusalem, trumpets, and other golden vessels (Josephus BJ 7.161). The Templum Pacis also included a library (Aulus Gellius 5.21.9, 16.8.2). The erection of the Colosseum on the site of the gardens and stagnum of Nero's Domus Aurea was part of the same Flavian building project.

The Severan Marble Plan (FUR) was displayed in the room located to the southeast of the Temple of [Pax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_(goddess). Four pieces of the FUR depict three porticoes that enclosed a large open space (c. 110 x 105 m). It was organized along a SE axis with a central altar (or possible sculpture base), with six sets of four elongated, connected rectangles symmetrically framing the central axis and the Temple to Pax (Fig. 2). R. Lloyd estimated that these rectangles were 5 m. wide; the shorter rectangles were 12 m. in length, and the longer were 20 m. in length. Together, each series of elongated rectangles was 70 m. long. A. M. Colini, one of the first scholars to study the Templum Pacis, identified the rectangles as planting beds. Based on the marble plan, J. B. Ward-Perkins reconstructed the planting beds as individual, unconnected, and equally sized rectangles with large, thickly planted trees. R. Lloyd, however, has suggested that hedges or extensive [flowerbeds]((http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300008135) are more likely since trees are generally depicted on the Marble Plan with round drill holes.

Excavations of the Templum Pacis (carried out between 1998 and 2005) examined a portion of the SW part of the open space. The open space was enclosed on three sides by a portico, five steps above the ground level. The colonnade was composed of Corinthian columns of pink Aswan granite (with white marble bases, capitals, and entablature). There was an engaged colonnade of twenty-two columns with shafts of Lucullan black-red marble located along the main entrance from the Argiletum (NW corner). The majority of the square was beaten earth, though there was some marble flooring installed towards the Forum Transitorium. During the 1998-2000 excavations, three of the six longitudinal features visible on the FUR were unearthed. They are 4.70 m. wide and 1 m. tall, demarcated by [brick-faced](brick (construction material) concrete walls with a marble veneer. They do not match the rectangles depicted on the Marble Plan. The differences between the Marble Plan and the archaeological remains can perhaps be explained by a replanting and redesigning of the garden features after the Templum Pacis was badly damaged in the fire of 191 CE. Or, as Tucci suggests, it may be that the rectangles on FUR fragment 15b never existed.

Tucci noted that two of the longitudinal features (closest to the southeast portico) were connected by a brick wall (which showed no joint, suggesting that they were constructed at the same time). Traces of lead pipes (still unpublished as of 2017) and marble gutters have led the excavators to reconstruct water channels, which have been called euripi, carved into the top of the wall. The excavators have proposed that there were six marble covered basins (1-1.5 m. tall) where water flowed continually over the edge into a gutter (like a modern infinity pool). Along the gutters were a row of small vases in which Gallic roses were planted. Thirty-one planting pots with soil and seed remains were discovered. Based on the archaeobotanical examination of the surviving seeds by A. Celant, the plants were identified as Gallic roses, which are also depicted in Pompeian wall paintings.

Neither Tucci (whose two-volume work on the complex is a rigorous, long durée examination of the structure) nor A. Claridge finds this interpretation of water channels to be convincing. According to Tucci, the top of the six structures were capped by marble blocks, each of which had a hole for lewis irons to be placed transversely in the center and a recess for a, now lost, metal clamp. All of these elements would have been visible (and thus not attractive) and damaged by the continuous flowing of water. Furthermore, Tucci argues that the cornice at the edge of these structures might have belonged to the attic story of the porticoes rather than the structures themselves (i.e., they had fallen down and were misinterpreted by the excavators). He notes that the water channels were filled with earth; they were not lined by concrete, as would be expected for water channels. Furthermore, he argues that the position of the gutters (towards the SE portico) would be useless for a water channel flowing over the middle. Instead, the gutter and lead pipes (if in fact present) suggest an infrastructure for watering plants and for drainage, affirming that the Templum Pacis was a garden. It is unlikely, however, that the Templum Pacis was a type of botanical garden of exotic species that demonstrated Rome's power over the submissive east, as Pollard has proposed. While Vespasian and Titus paraded the balsam tree in their triumphs, bringing the plant to Rome for the first time, it is unlikely that it would have been planted within the Templum, as it needs very specific climate conditions (only found in the Middle East) to live, let alone thrive, and there is no archaeological evidence for plants other than the Gallic roses.

Figures

Figure 1. Base plan.

Figure 2. Marble Plan fragments (used by permission of the Stanford FUR project and Eugenio La Rocca).

Dates

71 CE- 410 CE

Bibliography

J. Anderson, The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora, Bruxelles, 1984: 101-18; pl. 1. (worldcat)
R. Lloyd, "Three Monumental Gardens on the Marble Plan" AJA 92 (1986): 85-100. (worldcat) | (JSTOR)
J.B.Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture, New Haven, 1981. (worldcat)
F. Coarelli, "Pax, Templum," Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (LTUR). (worldcat)
S. Rizzo, " Indagini nei Fori Imperiali: Oroidrografia, Foro di Cesare, Foro di Augusto, Templum Pacis," in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 108 (2001): 215-44.(worldcat)
A. Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Revised Edition, 171-74. (worldcat)
E. A. Pollard, "Pliny's Natural History and the Flavian Templum Pacis: Botanical imperialism in first-century Rome," Journal of World History 20.3 (2009): 309-38. (worldcat) | (JSTOR)
P. L. Tucci, The Temple of Peace in Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. (worldcat)

Gardens of the Roman Empire