Richelle Mehlhaff
History in Rome—Winter 2009
Roman Bathing—Ostia Antica
I. Introduction:
“Life is a bath. All paddle about in its great pool, some sink, some swim” [proverb] (Yeugal, 43)
Using bathing as an allegory for life shows the importance it had in the daily lives of Roman citizens, even Seneca used bathing in a metaphor: “The program of life is the same as that of a bathing establishment: sometimes things will be thrown at you, and sometimes they will strike you by accident” (Yegul, 43).
Bathing was an important daily social ritual involving all classes of society and allowing visitors to bath themselves in luxury. The reason that bathing developed into such a cultural phenomenon across the Roman Empire remains a question of great interest to historians.
Bathing complexes can be found throughout the entire Roman Empire, with Rome itself containing approximately 856 bathhouses (Yegul, 30). The city of Ostia Antica was a Roman port city, and because it was abandoned in the 4th century it is used by historians to gauge daily life in Imperial Rome. Ostia Antica experienced initial growth under the reign of Augustus from about 20 BCE to 20 CE. It reached its peak population of about 50,000 inhabitants during the reign of Hadrian ca. 120 AC (Aldrete, 207). More than 15 baths have been discovered in the city. The centrally located Forum Baths can be dated by their brick building materials to 150 CE (Gallico, 57). Several additions have been made to the Forum Baths during the 3rd and 4th centuries.
The history of bathing and how it became important to Roman life is usually attributed to Greek influence. The Greeks, especially in Hellenistic gymnasiums, used cold pools for athletes. Before the existence of bathhouses, Romans would bath individually in their own homes about once a week, washing their arms and legs daily (Ward, p. 126). Some of the earliest baths were built in Pompeii in the 2nd century BCE. The layout of Stabian Baths show early bath architecture that had separate entrances for men and women. The rooms built exclusively for the women are noticeably smaller than those for the men.
By the beginning of the Roman Empire under Augustus, bath architecture changed and women would use the same facilities as the men, bathing at different times. Women would bath in the morning, before the rooms were fully heated. Though it can be argued that bathhouses offered some feeling of social equality, a women’s experience at the baths was inferior to a man’s. (Ward, 128).
Bathing was considered essential for a healthy life, and doctors prescribed visits to the baths as a treatment, which may have increased the bath’s popularity. Both Celsus and Pliny the Elder (both Encyclopedists) recorded health benefits of bathing for people with various ailments including (but not limited to): head colds, loss of eyesight, chest pain, back pain, and fatigue. Medicinal suggestions also influenced the steps in which one bathed. For example, one might not enter the pool but rather have hot water poured over their head. (Fagan (2), 192)
Water ran to the baths through extensive aqueduct systems; some smaller bathhouses used very little water relying on reservoirs and cisterns for their supply. Bigger bathhouses used a very generous supply of water that would flow between pools and in fountains. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 537 CE they destroyed many aqueducts and most bathhouses could not function without this generous supply. It is not certain how many reopened after 537 CE. (Marvin 348).
The water was then heated through a hypocaust system, whereby the floor was raised and furnaces would heat the floor with pipes brining hot air into different rooms through terracotta pipes. The floor was often be too hot for bare feet which made bathing sandals a necessity. The hotter rooms, and especially the caldarium (hot room), were usually located closest to the furnace with the coldest room, the frigidarium, being furthest from the furnace. This would be more convenient in transporting the water from the boilers to the bathing tubs.
The administration and maintenance of a large Thermae bathing complex was difficult but potentially a profitable job which resulted in the single largest section of the work force next to the roman army and the construction industry (Yegul, 47). Jobs were divided into specialized groups; transportation of fuel, keeping the boilers operating, maintaining the pipes (keeping the water free of rust), and cleaning the floors (polishing and waxing the marble). Baths also maintained groups of attendants that performed services like selling oils, anointing with oils and performing massages. This also helped the bathing establishment maintain income since the entrance fee was usually very small.
II. Description:
Baths were very luxurious in both architecture and decoration. The luxury and “appreciation of such beauty appears to have been one of the principal joys of bathing at its best” (Fagan, 176). The larger baths, or Thermae, as they were called, were generally owned by the city or state. The biggest and most grandiose establishments were donated by Emperors in order to prove their generosity in the public’s eye. The baths of Imperial Emperors were extremely big, boasting between 2,000 and 4,000 bathers daily (Yegul, 43). The baths of Caracalla held some of Rome’s greatest sculpture, such as this statue of Herakles that was later taken by the Fernase family to decorate their palace.
To help understand what an Imperial bathhouse may have looked like, this reconstruction drawing of the Baths of Diocletian show people socializing, gathering around pools and the abundant artwork on the ceilings, walls and in niches.
Smaller bathhouses, or Balnae, were often privately owned, and fitted into available city lots. The origins and patrons of the Forum Baths in Ostia Antica are unknown but the bricks date the building to 150 CE, with later additions in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Forum Baths retain the walls and columns so that one can enter the different rooms and even see remains of the Hypocaust heating pipes in the walls.
The Forum Baths in Ostia were a very important building for their society in the 2nd century. Vendors sold food and wine while people made business deals or new social connections. Seneca and the elder Pliny both warned against the decadence, luxury, and pleasure seeking attitudes of the baths. The baths were also be a scene of vice and gluttony with people drinking, and indulging in food or sexual behavior. Seneca comments about drinking “This is one of youth’s popular vices to build up strength [by exercise in the palaestra] in order to drink on the threshold of the baths amid the unclad bather; nay, even soak in wine and then immediately rub off the sweat which they have promoted by many a glass of liquor!” (Yegul, 42). This atmosphere brought in all classes of society, giving the baths an illusion of social equality.
III. Function:
The function of a bathhouse was largely social, and considered necessary for a medically healthy lifestyle. In Rome, “one bathed as one wished” (Yegul, 39); there was not a strict ritual for which rooms to go to first, but evidence suggests a common practice of bathing. In order to flaunt social status, one would enter the baths with several slaves and attendants carrying their various oils and tools. Once a person changed into the bathing clothes, however, it would be hard to distinguish rich from poor. The first rooms were usually a part of the apoydyterium, whose purpose was for changing and storing a person’s things. One would start with exercising in the palaestra (exercise hall), which was usually an open courtyard for games and light activity. Then move to the tepidarium, warm room, followed by the caldarium, the hot bath. Massages could be given by attendants at the baths for a fee, or provided by personal servants of the wealthy bath visitor. Most time was usually spent in the frigidarium where more people could socialize together, as well as drink wine and be entertained by performers (Yegul, 34-39). The diagram below shows the plan of the Forum bath, with the small rooms all facing south to maximize the collection of light and heat from the sun in the winter. The Octagonal room is thought to be a sun room, especially important in the winter. The oval room with the evidence of the heating pipes, is most likely a laconicum, or sweat room. Around the Palaestra would be shops. The Forica, is the location of the public bathrooms; in this room the toilet seats were next to each other and water ran underneath flushing the waste into the sewer system. (Gallica, 58)
IV. Patronage
By the time of Constantine (312 CE), free or cheap bathing facilities had seemed like “a right of the poor, and the provision of suitable facilities, an obligation of the rich.” (Marvin, 347). Emperors would donate large bathing facilities as a sign of their generosity to the public. Even rich aristocrats were expected to donate to the public, most choosing to donate money or art to bathing complexes. The Emperor Titus built a public bathing complex on top of Nero’s palace, putting a public building on top of this private estate which was a symbol of Nero’s selfish greedy policies (Yegul, 31). Titus’ goal was to differentiate himself from his predecessor, making himself seem generous in comparison to the tyrannical personal spending of Nero. Nero even had a beautiful public bath built to improve his image; as a nobleman Martial said, “What was worse than Nero? What is better than Nero’s hot baths?” (Yegul, 32). Both of these examples show Emperors using the baths as a propaganda tool to communicate their generosity to the public. Shows of luxury and wealth in the baths were appreciated by the public who could thus immerse themselves in the wealth of such a uniquely rich empire. A bathhouse was a place where “wise man and fool, rich and poor, privileged and underdog, could rub shoulders and enjoy the benefits afforded by the Roman imperial system” (Yegul, 32).
Besides building huge, expensive bathing complexes in their honor, an Emperor could improve his popularity with the people by going to a public bath and communicating with his subjects. A famous historical anecdote suggests that Hadrian went to the public bath with people of all classes and encountered an army veteran. The poor man was rubbing his back against the wall, and when the Emperor asked him why, he replied that he was too poor to afford slaves that would rub his back for him. In his generosity, the Emperor donated a couple slaves to the old man and some money for their upkeep. The next time the Emperor was at the baths, he encountered a whole group of people rubbing their backs against the wall. Not to be fooled, he told them to rub each other’s backs instead. (Fagan, 190). This kind of rumor of an Emperor coming to a public bath was not uncommon. Emperors who built large bathing complexes were often rumored to visit them and speak with common people. This was probably not as common as one would think, since an Emperor usually had private baths in their palaces where they would not be bothered. However, such a visit, or even just the rumor of such a visit, could help a public figure achieve their propaganda goals.
Strong controversy surrounds the bathing systems of the Romans. If all other parts of daily life were segregated, why was the intermingling of poor and rich at the baths tolerated? It seems that the baths were important for poor people who needed an escape from their rough, often dirty, daily life to feel a part of this rich Empire. Martial theorized what his life would be like as a commoner;
We should know nothing of the halls and mansions of the mighty , nor sour lawsuits and the gloomy Forum, nor haughty death masks: but riding, chatting, books, the Field, the colonnade, the shade, the Virgin, the baths—these should be our daily haunts, these our labors (Fagan, 196).
The presence of lower classed members of society is also apparent in the graffiti of public baths, were visitors would carve their names into the marble. This mixture created the illusion of a classless society which have contributed to feelings of pride in the Roman Empire and a connection to the upper class.
V. Conclusion:
The growth of bathing throughout the republican and early Empire shows the increased urbanization of Rome, sophisticated technology that went into their public projects. Bathing is also indicative of a community spirit that existed between social classes, whereby the rich would donate money to a public utility like the baths, in which everyone benefitted. Baths also displayed the wealth of the Empire through art and massive architecture. Social equality was an illusion at the baths, and it is hard to determine how the different classes interacted. However, it was a common practice which allowed the poorer citizens to identify with the Empire and with the nobility. Since the baths were a common daily ritual for all citizens, the political regime would use the baths to gain support from the public and improve their image with propaganda. An imperial bathhouse was a public gift which bore the name of Emperor and would make people aware of the generosity of their ruler on a daily basis.
The bathing ritual remained important until the Visigoths raided Rome (537 CE) and destroyed a lot of the aqueducts that supplied water to the baths. The baths used so much water that after the aqueducts were destroyed it was nearly impossible to recreate the kind of flowing system of water used before. It is not certain how many reopened after 537 CE (Marvin, 348). There are many surviving Roman baths in different countries were the Roman Empire extended.
Ostia Antica remains a significant example of middle class Imperial life with parts of structures still able to communicate their past purposes.
VI. Personal Reactions:
Visiting the site of Ostia Antica was very interesting, and contained many baths that we did not explore as a class. The Baths of Neptune were built under Hadrian in 117 CE, and have beautiful existing mosaics that show Neptune being pulled in a chariot drawn by hippocampi (mythical underwater horses).
Also in Ostia Antica are the baths of Mithras which combine the spiritual Cult of Mithras with Roman tradition of bathing. At the end of a long corridor bath is a statue of Mithras and the bull.
My favorite part of the Forum Baths is the Forica. Seeing the toilets was a reminder of the thousands of people that actually lived in Ostia, going about their daily business in a place that is now in ruins. It is a common link between the people of today and those who lived almost 2000 years before us. The toilets also emphasize the incredible Roman ingenuity and talented engineering that allowed their cities to flourish.
The social importance of bathing in Roman society has been a very interesting topic, since contemporary American society does not have anything that is very similar. The kind of propaganda and public relations that were present in bathing complexes still exist today; it reminds me of modern day baseball stadiums that are named after their sponsors (i.e. Pac Bell Park in San Francisco). When you go into a public sports stadium you are constantly being reminded of the sponsors that donated money to build that stadium, just as a Roman would be reminded of the civic generosity of the government. Similarly, companies (or politicians) that get into trouble will try to improve their image through donations and public service; following the good PR example set by many Roman Emperors.
Thank you for your interest in Roman Bathing!
Works Cited
Aldrete, Gregory S. Daily life in the Roman city: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia. Westport CT. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. 2004.
Cherry, David. The roman World: a sourcebook. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Inc. 2001.
Fagan, Garrett G. Bathing in Public in the Roman world. University of Michigan. 1999
Fagan (2), Garrett G. “Bathing for Health with Celsus and Pliny the Elder”. The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1 (May, 2006), pp. 190-207
Gallico, Sonia. Guide to the Excavations of Ostia Antica. Ats Italia Editrice srl. 2000.
Marvin, Miranda. “Freestanding Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla”. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 87, No. 3 (July 1983), pp. 347-384. http://www.jstor.org/stable/504802
Ward, Roy Bowen. “Women in Roman Baths”. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (April, 1992), pp. 125-147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509900
Yegul, Fikret. Baths and Bathing in classical Antiquity. Cambridge, 1992.
