Samuel Jardine

Roman Baths - More about 'being seen' than 'keeping clean'?

By Samuel Jardine

1 March 2020

Citation advice: Samuel Jardine, ‘Roman Baths- More about ‘being seen’ than ‘keeping clean’?’, Snap Histories [Online], (Available at: https://www.samueljardine.co.uk/ ), 1-13

The Roman of Fordongianus, Image sourced from Wikipedia

Based on an article I wrote in 2017 for the Helios

1

Samuel Jardine

Introduction:

'You praise in 300 verses, Sabellus, the baths of Ponticus, who gives such excellent dinners. You wish to dine, Sabellus, not to be bathed.' (Marcus Valerius Martial)

The above image of the of Fordongianus and quote from Roman philosopher Martial epitomizes the essence of the following article on Roman Baths- 'did they ever really need water?'

Putting aside my facetiousness (of course it actually did, otherwise it would not have been much of a bathhouse), there is a serious question to answer here. What was behind the 'true' popularity of the publicly available bathhouses during the and Imperial eras?

This is the question i attempt to tackle with in this academic foray. It is one that classicists and historians have actually scuffled with one another over the years and while i claim no 'final word' in the debate, i think it would be enjoyable to take a brief break from geopolitics and economics to enjoy a more specific, less heated but equally complex issue.

So, what were Roman bathhouses actually used for? Were they truly an effective method of providing public hygiene and keeping clean? Or were they actually more to do with social and cultural display ('showing off' to you and me), both for the builders and the users?

The hot take:

My take is that the Roman baths were largely arenas for cultural and social display rather than holding any intrinsic hygienic purpose for their builders or patrons. While hygiene was of course one of their functions, it was not the most important one for Romans. Public spaces (of which the baths were of course one type) were integral to Roman society because of the limited functionality of many private homes stemming from their cramped and utilitarian nature. Even the wealthy and well to do whose lavish homes were fit for hosting and engaging in social activities, would attend the baths because there was a ready-

2

Samuel Jardine made audience to be had, and it was a convenient meeting place where you could catch up, do business and shoot the breeze while doing something- much like going bowling or hanging at the mall today.

The baths thus provided a public area where crowds congregated, creating an arena for social displays of status, wealth and relationships in both the republican and imperial Roman contexts. Romans would attend the bath thus to be seen, and with an awareness of being seen. Here they could display their status, host friends, show off, and network with one another, both on the slippery slope of social climbing and the greasy pole of politics. The builders of various baths were aware of this and designed the buildings themselves as cultural displays to their users, showcasing Roman power and helping legitimize the Imperial apparatus.

Laying out the table:

The article will illustrate this by establishing the extent of the baths' hygienic function, and then comparing Roman attitudes towards this and the way the baths were actually used through analysis of the writings of Pliny, Seneca and Martial. Supporting material from Pliny the Elder, Petronius, inscriptions and decoration will show the baths being perceived as a theater for cultural and social display.

The term 'Cultural display' is taken to mean the way the baths embodied and publicly broadcast shared characteristics and images of Roman culture. 'Social display' on the other hand, is the way individuals within the baths interacted with one another to establish a social hierarchy, build relationships, and form a community.

The perhaps surprising scale of this subject leads this article to concentrate specifically on the city of itself and on Imperial-era baths, due to the wider availability of sources that I can access for corroboration. The Republican era will be referenced just as a comparison to show the consistency of attitudes, but many features of imperial baths are equally applicable in a republican context. The obvious exception is their role in helping to legitimize an Emperor and serve as a propaganda piece for said Emperor; a way for him to build and maintain support. However, a similar use of baths in this way can arguably be

3

Samuel Jardine found in bathhouses built or donated to by leading Republican figures and senators wishing to build public support for themselves.

(A representation of the inner-goings on of the - Politics, business, gossip, relaxation, art, decadence and friendly back-scrubs, all brought together under one roof, Image courtesy of the public domain )

'Baths, wine and sex ruin our bodies'- Bathhouses not the first choice for getting clean?

The bath's fundamental purpose of hygiene is shown through Pliny noting in a letter that there are ‘baths for hire’ (2.17, p.78) near his country villa, saving him from needlessly heating his private bath to have a wash in. The implication here from Pliny's specific noting of this in his letter is that regular washing was something to aspire to, even for private occasions, and that being unwashed is considered unacceptable, regardless of context, places bathing as a regular expectation, at least for wealthy Romans. This is supported by public bath artworks such as the 'Bust of Asclepius' (Figure 4.29, Hope and Huskinson, 2006, p.107)- the Greco - Roman god of healing- at the Baths of . The fact that the bust is of Asclepius, a god of health and that this is associated as an appropriate statue to place in the baths (Almost thematically), reinforces the idea that the baths had the purpose and understanding of being places of hygiene.

So far, hygiene then appears to be accepted by Romans as part of the remit of public baths. That however, is not the whole story, but simply one of several intended functions for the

4

Samuel Jardine baths. Indeed, from the attitudes and usage of bathers, a rather different image emerges of hygiene actually playing a far less important role in comparison to the other uses of the baths. Seneca in 65CE for instance contrasts the republic’s enforcing ‘standards of cleanliness’ in baths (Reading 4.5, p.99) with the contemporary imperial period's lack of cleanliness in bathhouses. This implies both that during the Republic, the state had to step in to try and enforce bathhouses to be clean and hygienic (Implying that they were not) and that current imperial baths are not perceived as the most hygienic of places as they are no longer forced to be so. This calls into question their ability to actually keep people clean and whether they were in fact perceived and used for this purpose.

Of course a degree of exaggeration may be at play here, as Seneca uses this comparative statement to present a stoical attack on his perceived decadence of his time through comparison with the past virtues of Republican Rome, a fact highlighted by his damning statement that ‘Men are dirtier creatures now’ (4.5, p.99). However, Martial’s epigrams written around the same time provide corroboration through his several suggestions that baths are unhygienic, epitomised by Zoilus, who Martial chastises for spoiling ‘the bathtub washing your arse’ (4.2, p.71).

Martial’s writings were of course paid entertainment for the wealthy elites (Hope and Huskinson, 2006 p.22). But while the subject is perhaps humorously overstated for entertainment, this humour could not work unless the idea was already present in the minds of Martial and his elite audience that bathing alongside others might be perilously unhygienic. It therefore seems reasonable to assume there is some element of genuine social commentary within these lines, that bathhouses were not a place to go if you wanted just to clean yourself, as you are bathing alongside the filth of others.

This attitude is also present within other areas of society. In the early imperial era, in the great capital itself, the freed-woman Merope states in a tomb inscription for her companion that ‘Baths, wine, and sex ruin our bodies’ (4.8, p.105). That baths are perceived as bad for the body is not something we would expect of an intended place of hygiene. This of course is only one inscription and so we should not generalize too freely from it. Extrapolating from limited evidence to guess at the experience particularly of the lower orders may be an issue as their direct views are rarely available, especially those of women. However, this tomb

5

Samuel Jardine inscription does support the attitudes expressed among the elite, thus some cross-societal consensus can be established.

(A mosaic at a Roman villa in Sicily, believed to be of women playing games at the baths - Image courtesy of Wikipedia Commons)

The power and realpolitik of scrubbing- Bathhouses as political statements and cultural icons

If the baths hygienic value is questioned by contemporaries it would imply their use as popular public venues must have more to it. The cramped quality of most of Rome’s housing leads to a greater importance and prominence given to public areas as places for social interaction, since the majority of the populace were unable to spend their leisure hours indoors, let alone socialise in their homes. This was due to the small size of average urban housing and its incredibly basic conditions. Some family apartments merely had one room for all functions and lacked even the simplest utensils such as washing or cooking apparatus, other apartments were actually shared by multiple families (Hope and Huskinson, 2006, p.77).

6

Samuel Jardine

The baths then could provide the missing informal location for socializing and be an arena for the obligatory social display that humans love to engage in. This is suggested by the fact that various Emperors were clearly not only aware of the baths as popular social centers, but also sought to shape them into arenas of control and legitimization (Zajac, 1999) through cultural display. As an example, we have Pliny’s suggestion that Trajan rebuilt the baths at Prusa for ‘the splendour of your reign’ (10.23, p.268) as through their decoration and function the baths epitomize the power of the Emperor and his care for his subjects. Thus, hygiene here is being subsumed under the umbrella of cultural display to cement the Emperor's place in the social hierarchy.

Pliny here speaks of a bath in provincial Bithynia though, not Rome, but as bathing culture was exported so successfully to the provinces (Fagan, 1999) it is reasonable to assume a similar attitude and perception would be present, albeit with the slight difference that Rome’s baths would also attest to its paramount place as an imperial capital through their luxury. This is suggested by Lucian’s description of an imperial era bath as ‘the most beautiful place in the world’ (4.18, p.118). While likely a paid advertisement it does show an expectation existed among Romans that baths be luxurious and thus reflect the economic benefits of having an empire and notions of Roman cultural supremacy through its display of beauty and decadence. Indeed Seneca confirms this by complaining that his contemporaries ‘object to walking on anything other than precious stones’ (4.5, p.99). Provincial baths were thus vehicles for the declaration of Roman superiority far and wide.

With this in mind, Inge Nielsen’s passing reference that baths provided an exhibition platform for cultural art (1990) is very accurate. The Bath of Caracalla’s Farnese Bull (The Open University, 2009, Plate 51) highlights this. It is a Roman copy of the Greek original (Chilvers, 2004). Greek based artistry was popular in the imperial era (Beard and Crawford, 2014, p.24), and the Emperor would wish to be seen delivering an appropriate level of fashionable decadence, both assuring Romans of his imperial credentials and overawing them through displays of wealth un-affordable by many Roman elites, let alone the average person. Furthermore, Emperors may have wished to associate themselves with the baths as a way to link the technical triumph of Roman power over nature with their person. The taming and directing of water through mountains (Pliny the Elder, 4.22, p.120) was an

7

Samuel Jardine impressive feat displayed in the baths for all users to appreciate what Rome, and thus the Emperor, could achieve.

These facets of cultural display provided the backdrop for the baths as a social theater. They were used to enshrine the Emperor at the top of the social hierarchy, as he was perceived to allow the citizenry a brief sojourn in the baths, which mirrored the realm of high culture where the public expected him to exist (Zajac, 1999). We see this when Pliny the Elder (23CE-79CE) writes that Agrippa, an adviser, general and all-round best-friend to Augustus, made bathing establishments ‘free’ (4.22, p.120) in celebration of the extensive public works undertaken by the Emperor to provide Rome and other cities with an expanded water supply. His actions would have reflected well on Augustus whom he served and was closely associated with in imperial propaganda. It would also have acted to further solidify Augustus's position as Emperor, as the competitive ethos of the Roman elite, which had greatly contributed to the republic’s political instability (Andrews et al, 2006, p.131), as elites had sought to out-compete each other for the love of the masses (and thus create a power-base that may allow them to violently quash their rivals or overthrow an existing leading figure), might be curtailed in the face of a seemingly insurmountable imperial position offering affordable (or free) luxury to the masses in the shape of existing popular social centers (The bathhouses).

Indeed, Pliny notes that at the time there were 170 baths in Rome, and this number ‘infinitely increased’ (4.22, p.120). This may reflect an increase in demand, or the increased importance of the baths to the imperial administration for reasons beyond hygiene, as Emperors supported baths to solidify their position. The source also perhaps shows a difference in attitude towards the baths' range of purposes between late republican and early imperial periods. The republican baths lacked the emphasis on display for legitimization of a monarch. This might be the reason why the baths increased in both number and sophistication in the 1st Century BCE and 1st Century CE (Cartwright, 2013), as they played a role, however minor, in the move from republic to empire as Emperors and rising hopefuls sought to ingratiate and legitimize themselves in a myriad of ways. Bathhouses provided one avenue for this.

8

Samuel Jardine

Showing up and showing off at the Baths- Bathhouses as theaters of social display and hierarchy.

Further to the differences between imperial and late republican era baths, the social aspect of the baths was slightly narrower during the republic, with men and women generally bathing separately. , writing in the first century BCE, highlights this with an architectural provision that ‘baths for men and for women are adjacent’ (4.21, p.119). In contrast, heading back to the Imperial era we find that Martial displays his incredulity that a woman who likes him avoids bathing with him (4.2, p.71).

While a comic jibe, the crux of the witticism is that she avoids bathing with him - the fact that she could if she chose to is taken for granted. There is thus a slight change in use between the two periods; some of the baths' functions of providing a venue to socialize, bond, take pleasure and form attachments such as courting and sex in an informal setting are absent in the republican context. However, the baths still remain a symbol of Roman cultural power and also, in part because of cramped housing, a place of social display, particularly as regardless of era, Rome was always an incredibly ‘wealth-conscious society’ (Andrews et al, 2006, p.27).

The clearest example of this is found in Martial’s complaint that Fabianus demands he give ‘service’ (4.2, p.71) by accompanying him to the baths. This is an example of the system of patronage prevalent in both republican and imperial eras. Martial as a client of Fabianus is expected to accompany him as part of a social display. The more clients Fabianus has with him, the more influential and wealthy he will appear to others (Andrew et al, 2006, p.37). The baths, it seems were the perfect venue for showing off in this way.

9

Samuel Jardine

(An 1868 oil painting by Fyodor Bronnikov representing female bathers at a bath in Pompeii- the Baths were not merely the providence of the menfolk, in the imperial era it was increasingly common for men and women to bathe together. Everyone got your scandal hankies at the ready? Image c ourtesy of WikiArt )

Slave retinues at the baths were also for both republican and imperial periods a means of social display similar to being attended by clients. The Figure 4.30 ‘Mosaic depicting a group of bathers entering the baths’ (Hope and Huskinson, 2006, p.107) highlights this. The central figure is a woman, from her placement and elaborate dress presumably the mistress. Two supporting male slaves, and two female slaves carrying a box, possibly towels, and a hamper, perhaps of food, accompany her. These items themselves are a conspicuous display of status through possessions, particularly as the consumption of food and drink at the baths was popular among bathers to show their wealth. This is illustrated in Petronius’s first century CE The Satyricon , where Trimalchio gives his slaves ‘Falernian’ (4.3, p.76) a renowned wine, flaunting his wealth by allowing even his slaves to partake in luxurious

10

Samuel Jardine consumption. While purposefully overblown, the work is a satire mocking existing attitudes, so the description must have been based on reality.

All four slaves in the mosaic mentioned above are well dressed. This may merely be an idealization as the mosaic is an artistic work for display, but it is also true that a slave’s appearance is a direct reflection of their master’s image and circumstances. Wealthier owners would make sure they had the best-presented slaves as a means of cementing their place in the social hierarchy. This can be seen from Martial’s jibe at Aper whose ‘bow legged’ (4.2, p.75) slaves detract from his image. This is clearly something Aper is keenly aware of as he makes his bathing trip as short as possible. We might assume that the brevity of Aper's visit suggests no more than that the extent baths were for hygiene depended on individual context, Aper simply wants to turn up, get washed and get out- no cavorting. However, Aper’s awareness of his public image, combined with his immediate ‘upgrade’ in slave quality when possible, and the fact he then spends a longer amount of time at the baths, shows this is not the case. Regardless of the comical intent, Martial highlights an active awareness of the importance of social display. Even those merely washing are still participating within the context of an informal social venue by being the audience, or reacting to the views of that audience.

Wrapping up- Hygiene then while a reason for bathhouses, takes a backseat to showing off.

The mosaic’s depiction of a woman bathing replete with trappings of status shows that social display was not just for male elites. Indeed, slaves, clients and average bathers all were aware of their roles in social display at the baths, either through participation, support or as an audience. This, alongside the seeming consensus that baths were not particularly hygienic, overshadowed their original purpose of providing an opportunity for cleanliness, instead promoting their use as community centres to provide an informal setting for socializing in lieu of houses, against a backdrop of cultural display highlighting Roman power and later legitimation of Emperors as sovereigns. Within these contexts bathers, as Aper found, could not merely wash at the baths without being aware of the image they, their surroundings and their fellow Romans were projecting.

11

Samuel Jardine

Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

· Classical Illustrations Book (2009), Milton Keynes, The Open University

· Hope, V. and Huskinson, J. (2006) Rome- City and People, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.107, Figure 4.29

· Hope, V. and Huskinson, J. (2006) Rome- City and People, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.107, Figure 4.30

· Lucian, Hippias or the Bath 5-8 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.117-8

· Martial, Epigram 2.42 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.71

· Martial, Epigram 3.36 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.71

· Martial, Epigram 3.51 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.71

· Martial, Epigram 12.70 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.75

· Merope, (n) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI15258 (The corrupting effect of baths) (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.105

· Petronius, The Satyricon (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.76-87

· Pliny, Book 2 Letter 17. To Gallus, in Radice, B. (1969) The Letters Of The Younger Pliny, London, Penguin Books, pp.75-9

· Pliny, Book 10 Letter 23. Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, in Radice, B. (1969) The Letters Of The Younger Pliny, London, Penguin Books, p.268

· Pliny the Elder, Natural History 36.121-23 (2009), Classical Readings book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.120

· Seneca, Letters from a Stoic, Letter 86 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.98-100

· Vitruvius, On Baths 5.10 (2009), Classical Readings Book 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.119-20

12

Samuel Jardine

Secondary Sources:

· Andrews, C., Fear, F. and Perkins, P. (2006) ‘Part 2 The political system in the late republic’, The Roman Republic, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.24-45

· Andrews, C., Fear, F. and Perkins, P. (2006) ‘Part 5 Poetry and cultural politics in Augustan Rome’, The Roman Republic, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.129-91

· Beard, M. and Crawford, C. (2014), Rome in the Late Republic, London, Bloomsbury Academic

· Cartwight, M. (2013), 'Roman Baths', Ancient History Encyclopaedia [Online] Available at https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Baths/

· Chilvers, I. (2004) ‘The Oxford Dictionary of Art: Farnese Bull’ in Oxford Reference [Online] Available at http://www.oxfordreference.com.libez...o2&result=1236

· Fagan, G. (1999) ‘Interpreting the evidence: did slaves bathe at the baths?’, Readings Book 2 [Online] Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/pluginfile...p849956_l3.pdf

· Hope, V. and Huskinson, J. (2006) ‘Part 1 The People of Rome’, Rome- City and People, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.9-38

· Hope, V. and Huskinson, J. (2006) ‘Part 3 Living in Rome’, Rome- City and People, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.71-105

· Price, C. (2009) ‘Essay Seven Seneca: a philosophy of living’ in Perkins, P. (ed) Experiencing the Classical World, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.153-71

· Zajac, N. (1999) ‘The thermae: a policy of public health or personal legitimation?’, Classical Readings Book 2 [Online] Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/pluginfile...p849956_l3.pdf

13