The conventional view regarding mankind's relationship with nature in the Roman villaFootnote ¹ is threefold. First, man is master of the natural landscape.Footnote ² Statius is usually adduced to support this claim—Siluae 2.2 and 4.3 are the most common, but 1.3 features too—not just in literary studiesFootnote ³ but in spatialFootnote ⁴ and environmentalFootnote ⁵ ones as well. Pliny the Younger's villa letters (Ep. 2.17 and 5.6) are likewise evoked to assert the claim.Footnote ⁶ Leach is an exception when she remarks that both Statius and Pliny ‘bring out the interactive adaptation of nature and architecture’,Footnote ⁷ but there was a lack of detailed examination into this interactivity. Archaeological examples are also sometimes used, from Roman water management,Footnote ⁸ to physical, social and visual control in the rural landscape of Roman Gaul,Footnote ⁹ to Italian villa remains.Footnote ¹⁰

Second, villas were positioned at vantage points so that the downward gaze of a dominus reinforced his domination. Purcell defines the conventional thinking about this when he writes that ‘through the capturing of the view, indeed, the whole wider landscape was made subservient to the one villa and could be thought of as serving the purposes of its owner’.Footnote ¹¹ Siluae 2.2 features strongly in the literary evidence for this, where it is not just the proprietorial gaze of Pollius FelixFootnote ¹² but also the active viewing of the villa itself that reinforce the domination of man and manmade over nature.Footnote ¹³

Third, gardens offered opportunities to bring order upon nature.Footnote ¹⁴ This is clearly stated by Thommen, who argues that ‘villa gardens were seen as an improved version of nature, and as a statement against its uncontrollability.’Footnote ¹⁵ Yet this view is not universally held, with Myers noting with nuance that ‘as symbolically separate realms in which the relationship of human activity and the natural world is magnified and intensified, gardens may serve as a microcosm for a number of different worlds’ and viewpoints.Footnote ¹⁶

Manilius Vopiscus’ villa in Statius’ Siluae 1.3 suggests that the three conventional views just described are too one-sided and out of step with broader environmental studies which already recognize the diverse literary formulations of the mankind–nature relationship,Footnote ¹⁷ especially when a broader range of sources are considered.Footnote ¹⁸ In this poem, man, the manmade and nature are in harmony with one another. Contrary to prevailing views, nature is neither tamedFootnote ¹⁹ nor merely cooperative.Footnote ²⁰ Instead, it is the villa architecture which accommodates and integrates with pre-existing natural features. This results in a carefully calibrated balancing effect; there is no notion of human domination, nor does nature overwhelm the villa.

The harmony between architecture and nature is illustrated in two ways. First, through the river Anio, which is neither subjugated nor altered by men. The combative language used elsewhere in the Siluae to illustrate human supremacy is absent in this poem.Footnote ²¹ While the buildings vie for their master (1.3.4 certantesque sibi dominum defendere uillas),Footnote ²² they none the less keep to their respective banks and do not complain about the river running through them (1.3.25–6 alternas seruant praetoria ripas | non externa sibi fluuiorum obstare queruntur). This harmony means that we are disinclined from reading inserto geminos Aeniene penates (1.3.2) as ‘as if the buildings had existed prior to the river’, which Newlands does.Footnote ²³ Rather, inserto reaffirms the closeness between the natural and the artificial. They are so close that they are considered to be a unity (1.3.24–5 tectum mitissimus amnis | diuidit).Footnote ²⁴

This closeness suggests that nature is peaceful of its own accord, instead of acting out of consideration of Vopiscus or being controlled by him.Footnote ²⁵ The Anio (1.3.21–3)

In the context of the harmony just described, we are encouraged to read ueritus as reverential respect rather than fear.Footnote ²⁶ By ceu, Statius conveys only an impression that the river has quietened down just for Vopiscus. Translating the lines ‘as though it respectfully cowed from disturbing the Pierian days of restful Vopiscus’ does not give the sense that the river is ‘obedient to Vopiscus’ needs’.Footnote ²⁷ Later on, when we read that the river is connected to the bathhouse boiler (1.3.45 uaporiferis iunctus fornacibus amnis), there is no need to read iunctus as yoked ‘like a servant’.Footnote ²⁸ Even though the heat of the fire and the chilly banks are starkly juxtaposed (1.3.44 impositum ripis algentibus ignem),Footnote ²⁹ with impositum suggesting an intrusion upon the natural landscape, the river was not adversely affected by its connection to the boiler. Rather, the very next line, in which the river laughs at the panting nymphs, indicates that this is a harmonious intrusion. The river is receptive, not disgruntled or subservient. In short, in no place does the text urge us to read that Vopiscus tamed or subjugated the river Anio.

Second, in the poem, sunlight (the natural) and reflective tiles (the manmade) work together to illuminate Vopiscus’ lustruous mosaic floor (1.3.53–6):

In this passage, the sun's radiance prefigures the scene in the baths of Claudius Etruscus (1.5.45–6 multus ubique dies, radiis ubi culmina totis | perforat atque alio sol improbus uritur aestu). Here, however, Statius focusses on the precedence of the natural light as the source of illumination.Footnote ³⁰ The material mimics the natural by reflecting it, and this recalls the earlier reflection of the foliage by the river (1.3.18–19 fallax responsat imago | frondibus). If we consider these two scenes of reflection together, the tiles appear to lose their materiality and become nothing but the sunlight they reflect. Furthermore, we see the ground rejoicing through the varied arts on display (1.3.56 gaudet humus nouis figuris). It does so because the combined appearance of the natural and the material surpasses even the famed ‘unswept pavement’ recorded by Pliny the Elder (HN 36.184).Footnote ³¹ Given this harmony, we should not read the ground's rejoicing as a grateful response to a civilizing benefactor,Footnote ³² since this scene is very much unlike that in Siluae 2.2, where nature submits to, and even celebrates, its alteration by Pollius (2.2.57–8 [possessorem] formantem rupes expugnantemque secuta | gaudet humus). Two very different things are happening. In this poem, the harmony between both the river and the villas and between the sunlight and the tiles shows that the poem challenges the first commonly held view about mankind's relationship with nature—namely, that man lords it over the landscape.

Similarly, this poem does not support the commonly asserted notion of the domineering gaze by the dominus. In the villa of Pollius Felix, this dominance is clear, as Statius describes the vistas from the rooms with particularly possessive language (2.273–5):

The use of sua, proprium and seruit sua terra makes it clear that it is the villa and the villa owner who are in ownership and control. On the other hand, when Statius describes the views from the aula of Vopiscus’ villa (1.3.39–42), this kind of language is absent:Footnote ³³

In these lines, the villa seems to become transparent,Footnote ³⁴ since its architectural details are, for the moment, elided in favour of the vistas it offers. We are in an open courtyard, seeing not so much the house but what it looks onto. The rockless river below (1.3.39 infra) balances the denser woods behind (1.3.40 respicis),Footnote ³⁵ just as the calmness of the former already described (1.3.20–3) is matched with the quiet atmosphere of the latter (1.3.40 tacentes). There is no sense that the trees have been ‘made silent and acquiescent’;Footnote ³⁶ they simply are silent. Again, nature appears to act on its own accord. The woods and night itself are peaceful just as the Anio is freely at rest.

Moreover, Tibur's natural beauty explains why we hear nothing certain about the estate's landscaped gardens.Footnote ³⁷ There is no terraforming as with the villa of Pollius Felix (2.2.52–62) or with the uia Domitiana (4.3.50–60). Statius does not suggest that the tall woods (1.3.17–18 nemora alta citatis | incubuere uadis) were planted for naturalistic effect, as in Pollius’ estate (2.2.55–6 ubi nunc nemora ardua cernis | hic nec terra fuit). This limited detail suggests rather that Vopiscus tried to preserve the pre-existing beauty of the natural landscape (1.3.15–16 quae forma beatis | ante manus artemque locis). Where Ovid speaks of nature's imitation of art (Met. 3.158–9 simulauerat artem… | natura) and hence of the ambiguity between the natural and the artificial,Footnote ³⁸ Statius instead stresses the complementarity between manmade and natural beauty, and the compounding effect they collectively produce. First came Nature's own lavishing (1.3.16–17 non largius quam indulsit Natura sibi), following which came man's handiwork and art (1.3.15–16 ante manus artemque), all of which produced the many marvels that Statius beheld (1.3.14 quam lassos per tot miracula uisus). Vopiscus did not so much replace but enhance the natural beauty that was long present.

Contrary to the three commonly held views of nature's subjugation, the domineering gaze of the dominus, and the heavily landscaped gardens, in this poem it is the villa's architecture which is accommodated and integrated with the best possible natural beauty. The Anio obviously preceded the buildings,Footnote ³⁹ and, unlike the rivers in the way of the uia Domitiana, the Anio is neither servile (as in 4.3.67–94) or diverted (4.3.54–5 hi… | longe fluuios agunt minores).Footnote ⁴⁰ As we saw earlier, the buildings do not transgress the river's flow. The limited human intervention in the natural landscape is confirmed by Statius’ description of the uenerabile … | lucorum senium (1.3.38–9).Footnote ⁴¹ Their age indicates that they too predated the villa, and that they were left undisturbed by men. The clearest example that human intervention was generally limited is the tree at the villa's heart (1.3.59–61):Footnote ⁴²

The preservation of the tree (1.3.59 seruata) hints that the villa architecture was actually dictated by this feature. Its growth is additionally uncontrolled and uncontrollable by man, since it rises through the doorways and past the roof into the open air. That it was not cut down is better understood as the result of the villa's enhancement by it, rather than as the result of Vopiscus’ benevolence.

Granted, there are a couple of architectural features that intrude upon the natural setting. As mentioned earlier, the fire heating the baths was imposed—albeit harmoniously—upon the chilly banks (1.3.44 impositum ripis algentibus ignem). In addition, the aqua Marcia cut across the river's flow (1.3.66 per obliquum penitus quae laberis amnem). However, effort was made to limit the visibility of such an intrusion, for the pipe was penitus, hidden from sight. This detail confirms that care was taken to ensure that artifice, where necessary to provide modern comforts, was not obtrusive. There is also no negative connotation about the quality of the water flowing through the pipe. This contrasts with Horace, where water passing through lead pipes comes with the sense of unhealthy artificiality (Epist. 1.10.20–1).Footnote ⁴³ Instead, in Vopiscus’ villa, there is a delicate interplay between the manmade and the natural, where neither takes anything away from the quality of the other.

The river, the woods and the central tree show how the villa architecture was shaped by, and around, the natural landscape. But the harmony between architecture and nature as well as the temporal precedence of the latter extend to Vopiscus himself.Footnote ⁴⁴ Scholars accept that the villa's virtues are identified with those of its owner.Footnote ⁴⁵ This seems to be true only in as much as we accept the reverse. This is because Vopiscus’ celebrated virtues are found in nature first. His ‘song-filled slumbers’ (1.3.23 habentes carmina somnos) and his fecunda quies (1.3.91) are enabled by the eternal rest (1.3.29 aeterna quies) of the landscape; his serene brow (1.3.91–2 serena | fronte) mirrors the peacefulness of nature, and Vopiscus steers the ‘middle course between uirtus and uoluptas’Footnote ⁴⁶ at the very place where the river rests in midstream tranquillity (1.3.20–1 infraque superque | spumeus).Footnote ⁴⁷ It seems then that Vopiscus chose that particular spot for his villa because it was a locus amoenus by nature's own doing (as discussed above with regard to 1.3.15–17), and not that the nature of the place became quiescent because he chose the location. Vopiscus’ choice of location was, furthermore, consistent with his Horatian way of life. Cucchiarelli observes how Vopiscus’ literary interests—lyric, satire and epistles—are precisely those which Horace cultivated.Footnote ⁴⁸ And just as Horace drew poetic inspiration from the countryside,Footnote ⁴⁹ so too does Vopiscus. This, taken together with the villa owner's respect for nature as indicated by his non-subjugation of nature and by the harmony between the villa and the landscape, reinforces how the harmony between architecture and nature extends to Vopiscus himself.

This raises a question of hierarchy. Does nature's temporal precedence mean that it is in control? Only sometimes, when it imposed certain constraints on the architectural features and enabled Vopiscus’ lifestyle. As discussed, the villa architecture takes second place to allow Statius to focus on the vistas of the river and the woods (1.3.39–42), while the central tree dictated the architecture of the heart of the villa (1.3.59–61). In other details, however, human intervention amplifies natural beauty. For example, in the mosaic floor scene described earlier, the ground rejoices because it is picta by human artistry (1.3.55–6), even if the sunlight has precedence as the source of illumination. There is, therefore, a seesaw rhythm to Statius’ elaboration of the relationship between nature and mankind. None of this takes the poem's encomiastic function away, since the poet focusses on how, during his visit, nature, architecture and the villa proprietor are all in harmony. Indeed, the tempered theme of harmony fits well with the equally tempered presentation of Vopiscus’ luxuque carentes | deliciae (1.3.92–3) and of his docta otia.Footnote ⁵⁰

The relationship between mankind and nature depicted by Statius in this poem helps us understand how it plays out in the rest of the Siluae. We have already seen how it differs from the depiction of Pollius Felix's villa in Siluae 2.2 and the uia Domitiana in Siluae 4.3. It is only from the former onwards, including in Siluae 3.1, that the domination of nature is brought to the fore. This trope culminates in the Sibyl's proclamation that Domitian is natura melior potentiorque (4.3.135). On the other hand, throughout Book 1 there is a more harmonious relationship between mankind and nature. It is true that in Siluae 1.1 the ground pants under the weight of Domitian's genius (1.1.56–8), whereas in our poem it is nature's ingenium at the fore (1.3.15 ingenium quam mite solo).Footnote ⁵¹ But even in the former we do not witness full-blown subjugation of nature, just significant strain. In other poems we find echoes of the harmony we found in Vopiscus’ villa. For example, in Stella's townhouse in Siluae 1.2, ancient trees comingle with a climate-controlled dwelling (1.2.154–7 nec seruat Natura uices [156]), details also found in our poem (1.3.7–8, 1.3.38–9). In both of these poems, the language of domination over nature is absent. And, as mentioned, the sunlight illuminating the mosaic floor (1.3.53–6) mirrors the scene in Etruscus’ bath (1.5.45–6). This means that we should not be reading the poems of Book 1 with conventional assumptions about the relationship between mankind and nature: nature appears to be not oppressed, a downward gaze is not emphasized, and gardens are not utilized as opportunities for subjugation.

We find in our poem a paradigm different from the orthodox view. We have a villa, its architecture and its owner mirroring, integrating with and complementing the outstanding natural beauty of the place. Statius uses key natural features, such as the river Anio, the sunlight, the woods and the central tree to craft a harmonious relationship between the natural and the manmade. At times, nature takes centre stage, while at others it is the brilliance of the architecture that shines; artificial intrusions upon the landscape, where they are necessary, for example the aqua Marcia, are hidden from view. And Statius goes further to also suggest that Vopiscus’ virtues match and harmonize with the qualities of the natural environment. Much like the unity of opposites in Vopiscus’ character, where rest is productive and serious virtue is matched with calm brow (1.3.91–2 hic premitur fecunda quies uirtusque serena | fronte grauis), there is a sense of harmonious intrusion regarding the artificial and the natural. The villa is no small presence in the landscape, yet it occasionally cedes to and always complements nature's first move. It is this harmonious intrusion that encapsulates the relationship between mankind and nature in Statius’ Siluae 1.3.