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 Thermae 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 Roman Thermae 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 Roman Republic 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 Rome 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 Baths of Caracalla- 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 Diocletian. 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.