The Imperium

[Beholder]

They say your garden can be your Imperium.

 

The way you rule over all those tiny life forms whether is the insects or the trees.

 

Always thinking ahead in order to make your garden look better than the neighbor's.

 

Isn't that the way the Roman emperors looked over the empire?

 

What do you think?

[Ursus]

What?

[Klingan]

I was once getting the Roman garden described as 'nature mastered by men, as the Romans mastered the world' if that will help you.

[sylla]

They say your garden can be your Imperium.

 

The way you rule over all those tiny life forms whether is the insects or the trees.

 

Always thinking ahead in order to make your garden look better than the neighbor's.

 

Isn't that the way the Roman emperors looked over the empire?

 

What do you think?

I have never heard such concept in a Roman context; you may be erring on the Empire.

 

It is a well known Romantic orientalist concept of the English literature based on the famous description by Sir George Stauton of the first British embassy to a Chinese Emperor (Quianlong) by the Earl of Macartney in September 14, 1793.

 

It was a political metaphor specifically inspired by the gardens of the Tartar Zhe-hol Summer Palace (built by Kublai Khan and which also contributed to the Xanadu myth) when the Middle Empire was still considered as an administrative model by Europe.

 

An extract from Stauton's Authentic Account (Ch. II):

"mountains and valleis, lakes and rivers, rude precipices and gentler slopes, have been created where nature did not intend them... this world, in miniature, has been created at the command, and for the pleasure of one man, but by the hard labour of thousands'".

 

As this metaphor doesn't sound particularly exotic, it seems perfectly possible to me that it may be found within other cultural contexts.

Edited May 31, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

The Romans (by the first century AD) believed themselves to be rulers of the wold, given an empire without boundary for all time by the will of the gods, and indeed, masters over nature. Their superiority was celebrated in the arena, with venatorii hunting animals for the edification and delight of the public, but an event often staged with myhtological trappings. A female hunter was portrayed as Diana, and since she would 'triumph' against the beasts, the supernatural world is demonstrated to the crowd. Quite what happened when she failed and got mauled I don't know. Such things would deeply embarass the games editor/sponsor.

 

A fourth century writer (I don't know his name unfortunately) lamented the lack of wild animals. There were 'no more lions in Thessalay'. What he lamented wasn't the ecological loss, but the unavailability of these animals to prove the Roman mastery by ritual combat in the arena.

 

The Bible itself records the attitude of the Romans. "Man and woman are created to be God's regents over this new creation." as Wikipedia puts it. Arguably this is an element of judaic mythos rather than Roman, but we have a latinised Bible to work from, not the judaean.

 

Did Roman emperors see themselves as regents over their new creation? Some did. Nero wanted to recreate Rome as Neropolis. Commodus renamed Rome as Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana.. The majority were more worldly of course with personal motives. Some wanted no more than to be in charge, some because they wanted to be powerful and wealthy, some because legionaries persuaded them it was a good idea. However, the concept of a Roman emperor as a beneficent guardian of his peoples welfare is something closer to Roman propaganda as practised by various individuals. It certainly has little to do with becoming top dog in a dangerous and cutthroat political arena.