THREE STUDIES IN ROMAN PUBLIC BATHING

THREE STUDIES IN ROMAN PUBLIC BATHING:

ORIGINS, GROWTH, AND SOCIAL ASPECTS

By

GARRETI G. FAGAN

A Dissertation

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

McMaster University

©Copyright by Garrett G. Fagan, March 1993

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (1992) McMASTER UNIVERSITY
(History I Roman Studies Programme) Hamilton, Ontario

TITLE: Three Studies in Roman Public Bathing: Origins, Growth and Social Aspects

AUTHOR: Garrett G. Fagan, B.A. (Mod; Hons) (Dublin University, Trinity

College)

M.Litt. (Dublin University, Trinity

College)

SUPERVISOR: Prof. R.J .A Talbert (UNC, Chapel Hill)

NUMBER OF PAGES: xv, 446

ii
 ABSTRACT

For ancient Romans, a trip to the public baths was one of the central events of daily life. The

copious physical remains of these buildings have been studied in detail by archaeologists and art

historians, but many facets of their history and functioning remain unclear or disputed. This

dissertation attempts to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge of this core institution in Roman

community life. Three aspects are selected for close study: the origins of the baths; the growth

of their popularity; and some social aspects of their daily operation. To date these questions

have been respectively not satisfactorily addressed, glossed over, or treated only in the most

general terms.

The approach taken in the first section, unlike previous studies, is to emphasize the

human side of the baths' origins: what drove the Romans (or, more precisely, the Carnpanians)

to create their distinctive bathing facilities? Previous theories, mostly based on archaeological

evidence, are examined in detail and found to be unsatisfactory. The admittedly sparse literary

and epigraphic evidence is subjected to close critical scrutiny. All three types of primary source

are then combined to form a new hypothesis which better fits all the evidence than the often

fanciful proposals which still carry currency among Roman balneologists.

Section two is concerned with tracing and explaining the growth in the baths' popularity

in the 1st centuries BC and AD. Again, archaeological and written evidence is combined to

determine the main periods of growth. In searching for an explanation for the phenomenon, it is

suggested that the medical teachings of the famous doctor Asclepiades of Bithynia may have

played an important, if not precisely quantifiable, role in the spread of the bathing habit in the

city.

iii
 The main basis for section three is the tabulated epigraphic evidence, a largely untapped

source for the study of the baths. Using these data (as well as material drawn from other

sources) an investigation is conducted into the identities, motives, and social statuses of bath­

builders and rnaintainers. In addition, an attempt is made to reconstruct from available evidence

the social environment to be found at the baths. In the course of the inquiry, some

consequences for broader topics in Roman social history are highlighted.

iv
 PREFACE

The production of this dissertation has been a truly international effort. It was begun and

finished at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. However, most of the research and much

of the initial writing was done during a study leave to the University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill (1989-90), and a Graduate Exchange in Eberhard-Karls Universitat, Tiibingen, Germany

(1990-91). I would like to thank all three institutions for the various forms of financial support

(Scholarships, Teaching Assistantships and an Instructorship) which enabled me to complete the

work.

Naturally, the number of individuals who offered me help in some form or other during

these travels is substantial; I shall try to name as many as space permits, but those not named are

no less worthy of my gratitude. First and foremost, my thanks go to my Supervisor, R.J .A

Talbert (UNC, Chapel Hill) for constant and untiring support. The same goes for the other

members of my supervisory committee: D.J. Geagan and G.M. Paul (McMaster University). In

Chapel Hill, I would like to thank T.R.S Broughton, J. Linderski and G.W. Houston for help

and pointers with the substantial corpus of bath inscriptions. W.J. McCoy is due special

gratitude for offering several helpful Hellenic insights on various matters, and for enabling me to

view personally many of the sites in Greece by inviting me to be the Teaching Assistant for his

1991 Study Programme in Greece. In Tiibingen, I thank F. Kolb for helping me on some

matters of German epigraphic terminology. Special thanks go to Janet DeLaine for a most

stimulating correspondence, as well as for two offprints. I am indebted also to C. Bruun

(Oxford), N. Raub (Purdue University) and E. Black (Colchester, England) for offprints of

their published or forthcoming work. A host of individuals earned my gratitude for

bibliographic references, comments and general assistance: K.M.D. Dunbabin, W. Slater

(McMaster); R.J.A. Wilson (Trinity College, Dublin); Claude Eilers (Brasenose College,

v
Oxford); D. Candilio (Museo Nazionale, Rome); Karen Ros (University of Toronto); I. Nielsen,

P. Allen, A Bosman and many other delegates at the First International Conference on Roman

Baths, Bath, England, 30 March- 4 April, 1992. Matthew "Tank" Trundle endured the proof­

reading.

None of the above should be held accountable for any errors that remain: they are solely

my responsibility.

Finally, I would like to thank numerous friends for their encouragement (Andies Bone,

Gregory and Holman, Will "Zeke" Wilson, Mike McShane, Bill Newbigging, Bob Parker and

Tony "Gob" Saint, to name but a few). Special gratitude is due to my parents-- to whom this

work is dedicated -- for their enduring support, both moral and material. Last but by no means

least, thanks are due to Katherine for so patiently putting up with me and the baths for so long.

I should point out that just as the dissertation was completed F. Yegiil's large book on

the baths appeared, Barhs and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

1992). A perusal of the work revealed that its focus is yet again archaeological, which goes to

highlight all the more the need for a historically oriented study such as this.

Hamilton, Ontario

vi
 CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

LIST OF CHARTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................... xiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ......... ................ ..... ........... ........ ........ ......... 1

SECTION ONE: ORIGINS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

I SERGIUS ORATA AND GREEK BATHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

(i) C. Sergius Orata, inventor of the hypocaust? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

(ii) Rome's debt to Greece? Gortys, Olympia and Greek baths ... ..... ........... ... 29

II THE STABIAN BATHS AND THE WRmEN EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

(i) The Stab ian Baths at Pompeii: from Greek to Roman? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

(ii) The literary and epigraphic evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

SECTION TWO: GROWTH

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

III THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC BATHING, c. 80 BC - AD 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

(i) The literary and epigraphic evidence .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 101

(ii) The archaeological record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

IV THE EARLY GROWTH OF BATH POPULARITY: GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

AND THE ROLE OF ASCLEPIADES OF BITHYNIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

(i) General contributing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

(ii) Asclepiades of Bithynia and the growth of bath popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

(iii) The role of Asclepiades? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

vii
 SECTION THREE: SOCIAL ASPECTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

V BUILDERS AND MAINT AINERS OF PUBLIC BATHS I: ROME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

(i) Emperors .......... . ..... ......... ..... .......... ......... .......... .................... 185

(ii) Imperial officials and others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

VI BUILDERS AND MAINT AINERS OF PUBLIC BATHS II:

ITALY AND THE PROVINCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

(i) The central authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

(ii) Local authorities and private benefactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

(iii) Social status of benefactors, and non-constructional bath benefactions . . . . . . . 224

(iv) Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

VII THE BATHS AS SOCIAL CENTRES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 244

(i) The physical environment: splendour and squalor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

(ii) The social environment 1: who used the public baths? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

(iii) The social environment II: social mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

(iv) The social environment III: social activities .. ... .. ... ....... ... .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . 286

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

GENERAL CONCLUSION . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

TABLES ............................................................................................. 306

Table 1: Inscriptions recording baths built, restored, extended or adorned

in Italy or the provinces by emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Table 2: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths built, restored, extended or

adorned in Italy or the provinces by imperial officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Table 3: Inscriptions recording baths built by local councils,

magistrates and officials, or patroni civitatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Table 4: Inscriptions recording baths built in Italy and the provinces by private

benefactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Table 5: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths restored, extended

or adorned by local councils, magistrates and officials

or patroni civitatis . . ...... .. .. . . . . . . . .. ..... ... . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 334

viii
 Table 6: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths restored, extended or

adorned in Italy and the provinces by private benefactors . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Table 7: Inscriptions recording non-constructional bath benefactions but including

water-supply benefactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

Appendix 1: The Literary Sources for Growth Listed Chronologically,

c. 80 BC- AD 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Appendix 2: Maps Illustrating the Spread of Public Bathing in the Italian Peninsula

up to c. AD 100 ... . . ... . . . ........ ... . . . ....... ...... ...... ... . . . . .. . . . . . . 377

Appendix 3: List of Public Bath-Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

Appendix 4: The Non-Imperial Baths of Rome and

their Possible Builders/Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Appendix 5: Parts of Baths Mentioned in the Epigraphic Sample as

Having Been Built, Restored, Extended or Adorned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

Appendix 6: Balneum Dare Inscriptions .... .. . ............ ..... ..... .. ....... ...... ..... 401

ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................. 405

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. 434

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations for ancient authors used throughout this dissertation are those found in The
Oxford Classical Dictionary. Those for journals and periodicals are as in L'Annee
Philologique. Other abbreviations, except those for articles in journals which can be readily
traced in the main bibliography, are listed below.

ABBOIT & JOHNSON, F.F. ABBOIT & A.E. JOHNSON, Municipal Administration in
Municipal Admin. the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926)
J BALSOON, Romans J.P. V.D. BALSOON, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: UNC
Press, 1979)

BOEfHIUS, Etruscan A. BOETHIUS, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (London:

Penguin, 1978, 2nd ed.)

BRUUN, Water C. BRUUN, The Water Supply ofAncient Rome. A Study of

Roman Imperial Administration (Helsinki: Commentationes
Humanarum Litterarum 93, 1991)

CASTREN, Ordo P. CASTREN, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society

in Roman Pompeii (Rome: Bardi, 1975)
CURCHIN, Magistrates L.A. CURCHIN, The Local Magistrates ofRoman Spain
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990)

CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum

D' ARMS, Romans J.H. D'ARMS, Romans on the Bay ofNaples. A Social and
Cultural Study ofthe Villas and Their Owners from 150 BC to AD
400 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970)
DELORME, Gymn. J. DELORME, Gymnasion. Etudes sur les monuments consacres
a !'education en Grece (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran~aises
d'Athenes et de Rome no. 198, 1960)

DUNCAN-JONES, Econ. R. DUNCAN-JONES, The Economy ofthe Roman Empire.

Quantitative Studies (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press,
1982, 2nd ed.)

DUNCAN-JONES, R. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure and Scale in the Roman

Structure Economy (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1990)
- DYSON, Communtiy S.L. DYSON, Community and Society in Roman Italy (Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, 1992)

EDELSTEIN, Asclepius E.J. & L. EDELSTEIN, Asclepius: A Collection and

Interpretation ofthe Testimonies, 2 vols. (Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press, 1945)

X
ESCHEBACH, Stab.
H. ESCHEBACH, Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji (Berlin: de
Thenn.
Gruyter, 1979)
FREDERIKSEN, Campania
M. FREDERIKSEN (ed. N. PURCELL), Campania (Rome:
British School at Rome, 1984)
FTUR
G. LUGLI, Fontes ad Topographiam veteris Urbis Romae
peninentes, 7 vols. (Rome: Universita di Roma, 1952-1969)
GINOUVES, Gorrys
L 'erablissement thennal de Gorrys d'Arcadie (Paris: Ecole
fran<;aise d'Athenes: etudes Peloponnesiennes, 1959)
GINOUVES, Balan.
R. GINOUVES, Balaneutike: recherches sur le bain dans
l'antiquite grecque (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran<;aises
d'Athenes et de Rome no. 200, 1962)
Gloss. Lat. G. GOETZ (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, 7 vols.
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1888-1923)
HEINZ, Rom Thenn. W. HEINZ, Romische Thennen: Badewesen und Badeluxus im
romischen Reich (Munich: Hirmer, 1983)
ILLRP A. DEGRASSI, lnscriptiones Latinae liberae Rei Publicae, 2
vols. (Florence: Ia Nuova Italia. 1957, 1963)
JACKSON. Doctors R. JACKSON. Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire
(Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 1988)
JACQUES, Libene F. JACQUES, Le privilege de libene: politique imperiale et
auronomie munidpale dans les cites de l'Occident romain (Paris:
Collection de l'ECole fran93ise de Rome 76, 1984)
JMA Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology
JOUFFROY, Construction H. JOUFFROY, La construction publique en Italie et dan.;;
/'Afrique romaine (Strasbourg: AECR. 1986)
JRA Journal ofRoman Archaeology
KOLOSKI OSTROW. A.O. KOLOSKI OSTROW. The Sarno Bath Complex (Rome:
Sarno Bretschneider. 1990)
KRUG, Heilkunst A. KRUG, Heilkunst und Heilkult. Medizin in der Antike
(Munich: C.H. Beck, 1985)
KUNZE & SCHLEIF. E. KUNZE & H. SCHLEIF, IV. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen
Olympia in Olympia (Berlin: de Gruyer. 1944)
MAIURI, L 'ultima fase A. MAIURI, L'ultima.fase edilizia di Pompei (Rome: lstituto de
studi romani 20. 1942)

xi
MANDERSCHEID, Bib. H. MANDERSCHEID, Bibliographie zum romischen Badewesen
umer besonderer Beriicksichtigung der ojfemlichen Thermen
(Munich: DB Drucken. 1988)
MANDERSCHEID, H. MANDERSCHEID, Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen
Skulpturen. Thennenanlagen (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1981)
MEUSEL, Verwaltung H, MEUSEL, Die Verwaltung und Finanzierung der ojfentlichen
Bader zur romischen Kaiserzeit (Koln: n.p., 1960)
MROZEK, Distributions S. MROZEK, Les distributions d'argent et de nourrilure dans les
villes italiennes du Haut-Empire romain (Brussels: Collection
Latomus 198, 1987)
NASH, Diet. E. NASH. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 2. vols.
(London: Thames & Hudson,-1968, rev. ed.)
NIELSEN, Therm. I. NIELSEN. Thennae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural
History of Roman Public Baths (Arhus: Aarhus University Press,
1990). . .

PARSLOW, Praed. C. C. PARSLOW, The Praedia Iuliae Felicis in Pompeii (Durham,

NC: Dissertation, Duke University, 1989)
PASQUINUCCI, Terme M. PASQUINUCCI, Tenne romane e vita quotidiana (Modena:
Edizioni Panini. 1987)

PECS R. STILLWELL (ed.). The Princeton Encyclopedia ofClassical

Sites (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1976)
PELLETIER, Med. en A. PELLETIER (ed.), La Medicine en Gaule: villes d'eaux,
Gaule sanctuaires des eaux (Paris: Picard. 1985)
PHILLIPS, Greek Med. E.D. PHILLIPS, Greek Medicine (London: Thames & Hudson,
1973)
PLRE J.R. MARTINDALE et al. The Prosopographyofthe Later
Roman Empire. 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1971. 1980)
PORTER, Pat. and Pract. R.S. PORTER (ed.), Patients and Practitioners: Lay Perceptions
ofMedicine in Pre-Industrial Society (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1986)
RAWSON.lmellectual Life E. RAWSON.lmellectual Life in Rome in the Late Republic
(London: Duckworth. 1985)
RE PAULY-WISSOVA. Realencyclopiidie der classischen
Altenumwissenschaft.
RICHARDSON. Pompeii L. RICHARDSON. Jr.• Pompeii: An Architectural Historv
(Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. 1988) ·

xii
 RUSSELL, Town & State A.W. RUSSELL, The Town and State Physician in Europefrom
the Middle Ages to the Enlighterunent (Wolfenbiittel:
Wolfenbiitteler Forschungen 17, 1981)

' SCARBOROUGH, Rom. J. SCARBOROUGH, Roman Medicine (London: Thames &

Med. Hudson, 1969)

SEAGER, Crisis R. SEAGER, The Crisis ofthe Roman Republic (Cambridge:

Heffer, 1969)

SOLIN, Namenbuch H. SOLIN, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom· ein

Namenbuch, 3 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982)
Tab. Sulis R.S.O. TOMLIN, "The Curse Tablets" in CUNLIFFE, B. (ed.),
The Temple ofSufis Minerva ar Bath II: The Findsfrom the
Sacred Spring (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology, Monograph 16, 1988), pp. 59-277

Thennes Les thennes romains: acres de la table rondf organisee par /'Ecole
fran~aisede Rome (Rome: Collection de l'Ecole fran~aise de Rome
142, 1991)

VALLANCE, Theory J.T. VALLANCE, The Lost Theory ofAsclepiades ofBithynia

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1990)

VEYNE,Pain P. VEYNE, Le Pain etle Cirque. Sociologie historique d'un

pluralisme politique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1976)
WILLIAMS, Washing M.T. WILLIAMS, Washing "The Great Unwashed": Public Baths
in Urban America, 1840-1920 (Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 1991)

WESCH-KLEIN, G. WESCH-KLEIN, Liberalitas in Rem Publicam. Private

liberalitas Aufivendung zugunsten von Gemeinden im romischen Afrika bis
284 n. Chr. (Bonn: Habelt, 1990)

xiii
 CHARTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

CHARTS

1. The appearance of ban-, balin-, and therm- roots in the works of nine authors,
c. 80 BC- AD 100 ......... .... .................... ............ .................. .......... 115

2. The distribution of responsibility for bath construction, restoration, extension and

adornment among local authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

3. Social status of individual bath benefactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

4. Social status of joint bath benefactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. The thermal establishment at Gortys, Arcadia; groundplan (final phase)

(after GINOUVES, Balan., fig. 153) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. 407

2. The sanctuary at Olympia, with the baths marked A and the "Heroon" marked B

(after KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, Taf. 11) .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 408

3. "Greek hypocaust bath" at Olympia; groundplan

(after KUNZE & SCHLEIF. Olympia. Taf. 19) 409

4. The hypocaust system in building IV at Olympia

(after KUNZE & SCHLEIF. Olympia. Abb. 25. p. 52) .............................. 410

5. The Greek hip-bath rotundas in the Harbour Baths at Eretria; groundplan

(after GINOUVES. Balan.. fig. 160) ................................................... 411

6. The Stabian Baths. Pompeii; groundplan

(after HEINZ. Rom Therm.. Abb. 45. p. 56) .. ............................ .......... 412

7. The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: Eschebach's building periods (numbered 7.1-6)

(after ESCHEBACH. Stab. Therm .. Taf. 34a-37d) .................................... 413

8. Comparison of Eschebach's 5th-century hip-bath (8.1) with examples

from Athens (8.2) (after ESCHEBACH. Stab. Therm .• Abb. 16. p. 51 and

GINOUVES. Balan.• fig.. 151) ........ .................................................. 419

9. The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: reconstruction of the niche arrangement in the

caldarium and tepidarium (after NIELSEN. Therm.. II. 72. fig. 35) .. .............. 420

10. The Forum Baths. Pompeii; groundplan

(after RICHARDSON. Pompeii. fig. 20. p. 149) ..................................... 421

xiv
11. The Republican Baths, Pompeii; groundplan

(after MAIURI, NSc (1950), fig. 1, p. 117) 422

12. The Suburban Baths, Pompeii; groundplan

(after JACOBELLI, RSP 1988, fig. 51, p. 203) 423

13. The Central Baths, Pompeii; groundplan

(after NIELSEN, Therm., 11.100, fig. 79) .............................................. 424

14. The Suburban Baths, Herculaneum; groundplan

(after NIELSEN, Therm., 11.99, fig. 76) ............................................... 425

15. The Praedia Juliae Felicis, Pompeii; groundplan

(after PARSLOW, Praedia, fig. 8) ....................................................... 426

16. The Palaestra Baths, Pompeii; groundplan

(after RICHARDSON, Pompeii, fig. 45, p. 299) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

17. The Sarno Bath complex, Pompeii; groundplan

(after KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, figs 1-4) .......................................... 428

18. The public baths of Pompeii in three periods, c. 60 BC (18.1 ),

c. AD 30-40 (fig. 18.2) and AD 79 (fig. 18.3) ......................................... 430

19. The comer-bath near the Horrea Lolliana. Rome on Fr. 25 of the

Forma Urbis Romae (after E.R. ALMEIDA, Forma Urbis Marmorea:

Aggiornamento generale, [Rome: Edizioni Quasar. 1980]. Tav. XVIII) .. . .. . .. .. .. 433

XV
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Baths stood at the heart of Roman community life. By the High Empire, they were to be found

in every type of settlement, from cities to forts. from villas to hamlets. They came in a great

variety of shapes and sizes, and serviced every sector of society. They have been studied

extensively by archaeologists. architects. and historians of technology and art, but the social.

human side of their functioning has been remarkably neglected.! A study of the baths from this

perspective can throw new light on old questions, as well as reveal much about how Roman

society operated on a day-to-day basis by examining how the classes interrelated in an informal

context. Consideration of who built baths and why illuminates the mechanics of municipal life,

the phenomenon of private euergetism and the nature and extent of imperial beneficence. This is

the nature of the issues addressed in this dissertation, because thus far they have either been

neglected, or have received only perfunctory consideration. The focus of this study is more on

people than on buildings.

The dissertation consists of three distinct, but interconnected, sections. In the frrst. the

difficult question of the origins of Roman baths is addressed. The evidence is fully reviewed,

and previous theories (often fanciful) are discussed in detail. The material presented here is

largely archaeological, and there is a necessary reconsideration of a key issue that has troubled

previous students of the subject, namely: Were the baths an Italian development, or the result of

external, mainly Greek, influence? Analysis of the archaeological evidence, as well as close

study of the often glossed-over literary and epigraphic testimony. allows a revised solution to

this problem.

1 Cf. J. DeLAINE, "Recent Research on Roman Baths," JRA 1 (1988), 11-34, esp. 27-29.

All this may seem to stray from the main "people-not-buildings" theme. However,

central to the debate on origins is a simple question, for the most part not asked in prior studies:

why did the Romans develop their peculiar style of bath building? In other words. what

motivated them to develop the new technologies found in these establishments? Whereas

previous studies have implicitly assumed that bathers adapted their practices in response to

technological developments, it is, I believe, better to proceed from the supposition that the baths

developed to suit the practices of bathers. Such an approach proves instructive.

In the second section, an important yet scarcely investigated issue is examined: the

growth in bath popularity. First, the evidence is reviewed to help pinpoint the period of growth

to the 1st centuries BC and AD. The vital question is again one of people, not structures: why

did the Romans take to bathing in this period? It is all very well, for instance, to point out that

improved construction techniques in the 1st century BC facilitated building more elaborate baths,

but why apply that technology specifically to baths? Can any reasons be discerned which

explain why the Romans bathed? Are there any that can be assigned to the period of growth in

particular?

The third and final section is concerned with certain social aspects of the baths, chiefly

who built them and why, and what sort of social environment can be reconstructed there. The

frrst of these topics can throw light on the functioning and extent of imperial beneficence, and on

the phenomenon of municipal euergetism. The second is concerned less with the traditional

discussions of how the Romans bathed -- the uses of the various rooms, for example, or the

bathers' progression through them -- and more with attempting to discern what sort of people

used the baths, how they interrelated, and what they did there apart from bathing. Written and

epigraphic material will be key, but archaeology can also offer information, albeit limited.
 3

Before proceeding. it will be necessary to outline the limits of the study, to discuss briefly the

problem of bath terminology. and to sketch the nature of the evidence and the difficulties of

using it.

Limits ofrhe study

The volume of primary material for the study of baths is extensive, with useful material

found in just about every corner of the empire. from almost every time period. As a result,

limitations must be imposed upon the material to be considered.

The subject matter of the first two sections, concerned primarily with developments in

Rome and Italy from the 3rd century BC to the end of the 1st AD, imposes automatic restrictions

of time and place. However, establishing firm tennini for the last section proves difficult. In

general, the focus of attention is on the evidence from the Western Empire (and so from Latin
~J

sources). although material from the East'Will. not~ ignored. Chronologically. a similar

problem exists. The bathing habit was so widespread and long-lasting that Late Imperial.

Christian, and even Byzantine sources can provide evidence. Where possible. I have tried to

limit consideration to the High Empire, but some written material from the Late Imperial period

is included, because its omission would have been unnecessarily restrictive.

Within these broad geographic and chronological limits, attention is confined to a

particular type of bathing establishment: the urban public bath. "Public" here and throughout the

dissertation denotes what the Germans call "offentlich zugangliche Bader," baths accessible to

the public. Confusion with the ancient meaning of balnewn or thermae publicaelwn. usually
 4

denoting publicly owned establishments. is therefore to be avoided. The term "public." then.
applies here not only to publicly owned facilities (by their very nature open to the public). but
also to those establishments in private ownership run as businesses-- the so-called balnea
meritoria.2 Conversely. private baths, i.e. those found in villas and town houses, and so
restricted to use by the owners and their guests. are largely excluded. although they too could be
places for socializing. 3

However, even among public buildings as just defined, further restrictions apply. As
Heinz and Manderscheid have recently pointed out. there were many different sorts of bath open
to the ancient populace. 4 In addition to the urban public baths which interest us, there were
military, sanctuary and thermal establishments. for the most part typologically indistinguishable
from "normal" baths. However, they would have attracted particular categories of customers,
and so are largely excluded from consideration. A good example is military bathhouses.
Certain evidence strongly suggests that establishments found in or near some forts were open to
the inhabitants of the nearby vici or canabae, as well as to the soldiers. 5 Similarly, mamio-baths
attached to government road stations may have been used by civilian travellers as well as
imperial officials. 6 Such facilities are "public" by our definition, but some uncertainty

2 On balnea meritoria, cf. Phny Ep., 2.17.26; H. MEUSEL, Die Vern·altung und Fmanverung der
offentlichen Bader zur romischen Kaiserzeit (Koln: n.p., 1960), pp. 23-27; W. HEINZ, Romische Thennen.
Badewesen und Badelu.xus im romischen Reich (Munich: Hirmer, 1983), pp. 23-26; E. MERTEN. Bader und
Bade~epjlo~enheiten in der Darstellung tkr Histmia Augusta (Bonn: Habelt, 1983), pp. 2-6, 11, 43; I. NIELSEN,
Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural Hi~101)' ofRoman Public Baths (Arhus: Aarhus University
Press, 1990), 1.119-120, 123-125.
3 Cf. the vigorous postprandial bathing scene at Trimalchio's villa, Petron. Satyr., 72-73.
4 HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 23-26; H. MANDERSCHEID, "Romische Thermen. Aspekte vom
Architektur, Technik und Ausstattung" in Geschichte der Wasserversorgung. &nd 3: Die Wasserversorgung
antiker Stiidte (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1988), pp. 101-125, esp. pp. 104-105.
5 So, the children's teeth found in the legionary baths at Caerleon, Wales, cf. J.D. ZIENKIENWICZ,
The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon II: The Finds (Cardiff; Welsh Historic Monuments, 1986), p. 244.
NIELSEN, Therm., 1.77 states unequivocally that castellum-baths which lay outside the fort could be used by
civilian populations, and includes such structures in her catalogue of public facilities.
6 A good example is the mansio and bathhouse at Chelmsford (cf. N. WICKENDEN, Caesaromagus.
A History and Description ofRoman Chelmsford (Chelmsford: Chelmsford Museums Service Publications,
1991), pp. 10-13. A more detailed discussion of this bathhouse by P. ALLEN can be expected in the
forthcoming publication of the proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths, Bath, March
30- Apri/4, 1992 (to appear as a supplementary volume to JRA). In conversation, Mr. Allen told me that the
 5

surrounds the clientele of these buildings -- were all military or mansio-baths open to civilians?

If so, is there any way to determine what proportion were? More work needs to be done on

who used such buildings, but it is reasonable to suggest that an unrepresentative social

environment was to be found at these establishments. Given these points, it seems safer to omit

them from the present study.

Sanctuary baths were also undoubtedly for public use, but here the majority of the

clientele probably comprised pilgrims attending a religious festival or some special event, or

simply honouring a deity. As these baths may well have served primarily a religious function,

for purposes of purification etc., they too are omitted, although they could probably be used in

the "ordinary" manner. In addition, there were the thermal establishments, fed by natural hot

water, which attracted people hoping for cures for ailments, or reinforcements of good health.

As with military and sanctuary establishments, they could be used in the ordinary manner, but

their specific function prompts their exclusion from this study.

A final type excluded is Greek gymnasia of Roman date and the hybrid bath-gymnasia

found in the Eastern provinces. 7 The relationship between Greek gymnasia and Roman baths

needs further investigation, but it is at least clear that the gymnasium played a specific role in

bathing establishment was accessible both directly from the mansio and from outside, indicating perhaps that it
was open for use by bathers from both inside and outside the official building. A similar "road-stop" bathhouse
can be found at Valesio in Italy cf. J. BOERSMA, "Le tenne tardoromane di Valesio (Salento)" in Les Thennes
Romains. Actes de Ia table ronde organisee par /'Ecole .franraise de Rome (Rome: Collection de J'Ecole fran~aise
de Rome 142, 1991), pp. 161-173; cf. also the example from Ad Quintum in Macedonia catalogued by
NIELSEN, Thenn., 11.43 (C.352). E.W. BLACK is currently composing a book on Britain's mansiones and
their users, entitled Cursus Publicus: The Infrastructure ofGovernment in Roman Britain; he kindly sent me
copies of a synopsis of the whole, and offprints of the first two chapters, from which it is apparent that baths
were a regular feature of mansio facilities (at least in Britain). Indeed, it has recently been suggested that
mansiones may have formed the core of many small-towns in Britain, in which case their baths would have
provided a stimulus to community life, cf. B.C. BURNHAM & J. WACHER, The "Small Towns" ofRoman
Britain (London: Batsford, 1990), pp. 4-5, 12-14 (several examples of mansiones with bathhouses can be traced in
the Index, ibid., pp. 383-384, s.v. "mansiones").
7 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.104-111; A. FARRINGTON, "Imperial bath buildings in South-West Asia
Minor" in THOMPSON, F.H. (ed.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London: Society of Antiquaries,
1987), pp. 50-59. F. YEGUL's recent book (Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity [Cambridge, MA; MIT
Press, 1992]) can be expected to investigate more fully the relationship between Roman baths and Greek
gymnasia; at time of submission, I have not seen it.
 6

Greek tradition. s How far this traditional role was continued into the Roman period, as

manifested in bath-gymnasia, is not clear. but preliminary investigations suggest that it did not

disappear. 9 As a result. it is entirely possible that gymnasia and bath-gymnasia served a social

function quite different to that of the public baths which interest us, even if there were significant

overlaps. Given this. they are best omitted from consideration here. I should add, however,

that where evidence pertaining to one or more of the excluded classes of building appears

relevant to conditions in urban public facilities. it will be mentioned. with a notation to that

effect.

In short, this study will focus on baths found in cities and towns, whether publicly or

privately owned, which were open to the public. Most attention will be paid to Western

sources, though some Eastern material will be adduced. The Early and High Empires are taken

as the central chronological points of reference for the third section, though later evidence will be

included where applicable.

Tenninology

Among the greatest problems facing the student of the baths is the complicated ancient

terminology associated with them. A bewildering variety of terms referring to baths or parts of

baths is found in the written evidence, and a full-scale philological study would be required to

make sense of it aJJ.IO There is not the space for such a study here, but some initial observations

can be made.

8 On which, cf. J. DELORME, Gvmnasion. Etudes sur les monuments consacris a /'education en Grece
(Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome 198, 1960).
9 Cf. FARRINGTON, Joe. cit. above inn. 7. A paper by the same author on the peculiarities of
Roman baths in the Greek world was delivered at Fin.1 International Conference on Roman Baths, Bath, March 30
- Apri/4, I 992. It will appear in the publication of the conference proceedings.
10 A collection of bath-terms from the epigraphic corpus assembled at the end of the thesis is to be
found in Appendix 5. For a recent article making sense of some of these terms, cf. R. REBUFF AT. "Vocabulaire
thermal: documents sur le bain romain," in Tlzennes, pp. 1-34.
 7

In the first place, very few surviving remains feature inscriptions that can be securely

assigned to them. Conversely, very few inscriptions can be associated with known remains. 11

This is even more the case with literary references. As a result, bath elements named in written

sources usually cannot be directly compared to known ruins. The wide range of bath types,

displaying great variations in size, number of rooms and their relative arrangement makes

applying unattached texts to known buildings hazardous. Even when a text clearly refers to a

particular building, there are still problems. Aside from the functional elements, with pools

and/or heating systems etc., many rooms offer no distinguishing architectural characteristics.

So although informed guesses can be made, it remains difficult to identify basilicae thennarum.

sphaeristeria, cellae balnearwn etc. securely.12

But the terminological difficulties run even deeper than this. Making sense of the very

terms the Romans used for "bath" presents problems. Two words stand out. balneum (and

variants) and thennae. Both are derived from Greek, ~a.>-..a.vdov (bath) and 8Ep~a.( (hot).

This may or may not be significant; 13 in the case of thennae, I have been unable to uncover any

pre-Roman Greek usage denoting a bath building. It seems therefore to have been a Greek term

adapted by the Romans. 14 This need not surprise: a Greek -sounding name to a type of building

developed by the Romans is known in other cases (e.g. basilica, amphitheatre). and may have

been considered to lend an air of sophistication to the structure, at least initially.

Determining the distinctions between balneum, its variants and thennae presents greater

difficulties. What, for example, distinguished a balneum from balnea, or balneae from thennae?

II Only a handful of texts from our corpus can be assigned to investigated remains; such cases are
indicated in the notes to the entries.
12 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.162 (basilica), and 165 (sphaeristeria).
13 For Greek baths, cf. below, pp. 43-47.
14 As was, for instance, "hypocaust," the earliest uses of which appear in Roman sources: Pliny Ep.,
2.17.23, Stat. Silv., 1.15.59; cf. LSJ, s.v. VTIOKCX.l.JOTOV.
 8

Previous students have found this problem intractable. 15 Varro offers an explanation for the
differences between the uses of balneum, balnea and balneae.l6 He says that balneum referred
to private bathrooms. Public baths were called balneae, not balnea. This was because the first
public baths in the city were "double buildings," with sections for men and women, each called
balneum. Thus, people called their private (single) bath suites a balneum. Since public baths

were called balneae, and private ones balneum, as Varro says, the form balnea was ambiguous.
Was it a female singular of balneae, or neuter plural of balneum? As a result, language purists
shunned it.17 However, the language of purists was not the language of all, and balnea appears
frequently in the written evidence (especially the literary sources). 18 Likewise, balneum,
technically designating a private bath suite, is often found denoting a public facility . 19 Clearly,
despite the grammatical injunctions of Varro, the uses of these words displayed little or no order
in everyday life, and any could be used to denote a public bath.

The difference between balneum (and variants) and thermae leads to even more
treacherous territory. It is clear from the sources that the ancients drew some sort of distinction
between them, although it was not the presence of heated elements, as the root meaning of

15 Cf. e.g. HEINZ, Rom Therm., pp. 27-29 who despairs of making sense of the ancient evidence;
NIELSEN, Therm., 1.3 who dismisses it as unworkable. Cf. REBUFFAT, Thermes, pp. 23-28 for a recent (if
not particularly helpful) assessment.
16 ling. Lat., 9.68: item reprehendunt analogias, quod dicantur multitudinis nomine publicae ba/neae,
non balnea, contra quod privati dicant unum balneum, quom plura balnea non dicant. ... Primum balneum
(nomen est Graecum), cum introiit in urbem, pub/ice ibi consedit, ubi bina essent coniuncta aedificia lavandi
causa, unum ubi viri, alterum ubi mulieres lavarentur; ab eath>m ratione domi suae quisque ubi lavatur balneum
dixerunt et, quod non erat duo, balnea dicere non consuerunt, cum hoc antiqui non balneum, sed lavatrinam
appellare consuessent. Varro's main point, of course, was to clear up matter of grammatical uncertainty, and (as
shown above) the average man in the street is not likely to have bothered with such terminological rigidity.
17 It is never used, for instance, by Cicero.
18 Cf. e.g. Martial, 1.23, 1.59, 2.14, 3.51, 6.93, 9.19, 10.70, 11.22, 11.52, 12.50, 14.60; and nos.
137 (Table 5); 199(?), 201 (Table 6). In accordance with Varro's grammatical observations, inscriptions often use
balneae to denote public facilities, cf. nos. 47, 66 (Table 3); 121, 167, 171 (Table 5); 194 (Table 6).
19 Cf. nos. 1, 2 (Table 1) [cf. no. 218 (Table 7)], 5, 6, 9, 11(?), 12 (Table 1); 21, 25, 41 (Table 2); 45,
50, 52, 55, 58, 62, 63, 71 (Table 3); 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 99, 105, 107, 110, 112 (Table
4); 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 124, 126, 127, 140, 142, 153, 155, 174, 175 (Table 5); 181 (Table 6); 226, 247,
251, 259, 260, 261, 266 (Table 7).
 9

thermae may suggest: balnewn was habitually characterized as a hot bath. 20 In fact, the nature
of the distinction remains a puzzle. Thus, the Baths of Sura at Rome are called thermae in the
Notitia, but labelled Bal(nea?) on the Forma Urbis.2 1 The luxurious baths of Claudius Etruscus
are called balneum by Statius, and thermulac by MartiaJ.2 2 And so on. It seems impossible to
make any sense of the primary material in this regard. Nielsen, in fact, has dismissed the
ancient evidence altogether, and proposed modern definitions based on typological features of
surviving remains.23

However, certain features of the ancient evidence appear clear enough. Many factors
need to be taken into account, most notably the possibility of regional variations in usage and
shifts in the application of terms over time. The former would require close study and analysis
beyond the scope of this dissertation, but the latter can be traced from the available material, at
least in outline. As will be shown below, Republican sources exclusively use the term balnewn
and variants to denote baths (though the Latin designations lavatwn and lavatrina are found.
albeit rarely). Thermae appears only in the second quarter of the 1st century AD, initially in
reference to private establishments. 24 Throughout the High Empire, balnewn and thennae are
used about evenly, while in the Later Empire thermae becomes more prominent. 25

This observation, however, does not illuminate the distinction between balnewn and
thermae. The fluid ancient application of these terms precludes strict definitions, but suggests

20 So, for instance, the Noriria Urbis Ref{ionum lists thermae and balnea separately (FTUR, 1.5), nos.
49 (Table 3) and 246 (Table 7) (balneae and thermae at Lanuvium and Comum respectively). Cf. also Martial,
2.14.11-12, 2.48, 3.20.15-16, 3.25, 9.75, 12.82. For hot ba/nea, cf. e.g. Petron. Satyr., 41; Sen. Ep., 86.10;
Pliny NH, 23.54, 31.40, 31.102; Pliny Ep., 3.14; Plut. Mar., 12.3.
2! Cf. FTUR, 1.5; G. CARETTONI eta!, La Pianta marmorea di Roma anrica: Forma Urbis Romae
(Rome: n.p., 1955), fr. 21.
22 Stat. Silv.,l.5; Martial, 6.42.
23 NIELSEN, Therm., 1.3, cited below, p. 62. It may be dangerous to apply modern meanings to ill­
understood ancient terms: the possibilities for confusion double.
24 Cf. below, pp. 69-70.
25 This can be appreciated by glancing down the "Work Done" columns of Tables 1-6, paying attention
to the chronological divisions indicated by broken lines.
 10

that thermae were larger and grander structures, more luxuriously decorated and offering a wider
variety of facilities than the balneum. So, for instance, the thermae at Lanuviurn which replaced
the balneae, is expressly said to be "bigger in area, with more rooms" (ampliatis /ocis et
cellis).26 Similarly, Statius calls the Baths of Etruscus a balneum perhaps due to their small
size, but the exceptional richness of their decoration may be what prompts Martial to call them
"little thermae" (thennulae)P Naturally, the large and luxurious imperial baths were called
thermae. 28 Because the application of the terms by the ancients appears to have been a matter of
opinion, it is hardly surprising to find confusion in the sources, with the different terms
sometimes applied to the same structure.

Two more terminological observations need to be mentioned. First, the term lavacrum.
It appears to have denoted a part of a bathhouse, though it could also be applied to the whole
facility.29 By the Late Empire, however, the latter meaning dominated, and it appears frequently
in the Historia Augusta as the designation for baths of various kinds, even imperial buildings. 30
Second, Greek terminology is no clearer than the Latin. The Greek terms applied to Roman
baths are: ~a.A.a.vEl.ov, A.ouTpov and yu!J. vci.owv. These had their own particular meanings in

the pre-Roman Greek context,3l and they seem to have been applied indiscriminately to Roman
buildings.32 The confusion surrounding the Greek terminology is, if anything, more

26 Cf. no. 49 (Table 3).

27 Cf. above, n. 22. Cf. also Martial, 9.75 where the thermae ofTucca are so much more luxuriously
appointed than the wooden balneum built by the same man that Martial suggests that he burn the latter as fuel for
the former.
28 Cf. e.g. ITUR 1.5; /LS 5713; Martial, Spect., 2.5-7, Ep., 2.48, 3.25, 3.36.
29 Cf. nos. 240, 262 (Table 7) where it denotes a part of the bathhouse (the heated part, as no. 262 may
suggest?). It first appears in the 2nd century AD (Aul. Gell., AN, 1.2.2; Apul. Met., 1.7). Apuleius (Met.,
2.19.5, 3.12.5) uses it to denote whole structures. Cf. TLL. s.v. "Lavacrum."
30 Cf. HA, Hadr., 19.10; Pius, 8.3; M. Aur., 23.8; Comm., 17.5; He/., 17.8-9; Sev. Alex., 53.2.
31 I'u!J. vci.otov meant a particular place where exercise and education took place; AOUTp6v was a
bathing element in a yull vci.otov; and ~a.A.a.VEtOV was a public bath not connected with either of the
previous two. Cf. R. GINOUVES, Balaneutike: Recherches sur le bain dans l'antiquite grecque (Paris:
Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran~aises d'Athenes et de Rome 198, 1962), pp. 109-150, esp. 129-130 (yu!J.VtXOlOV
and A.OUTpOV) and 183-224 (~a.A.a.VEtOV).
32 A fme example of the confusion is the variety of Dio's names for the Baths of Agrippa, cf. below,
Ch. 5, n. 2. I'u!J. vci.oto V, when it can be shown to denote a Roman-style bath building, usually refers to a
 11

pronounced for this reason: without corresponding archaeological evidence. it is often

impossible to tell whether a text mentioning a yu~J-vaowv refers to a purely Hellenistic-style
building. a purely Roman-style thennae or a hybrid bath-gymnasium. Bo::\o:vE1ov. on the other
hand, can usually be safely taken to refer to a public bath of some sort. 33 /\mnp6v falls

between the two and. where a gymnasial context is not proven or mentioned, usually denotes a
public bath.

This brief discussion of the terminological difficulties associated with the baths has
pointed to the need for a close and careful philological study of the subject. It would greatly
benefit Roman balneology if someone were to clear up at least some of the outstanding problems
raised above. It is doubtful whether absolutely clear-cut definitions based on the ancient sources
could be offered, because the ancients' application of the various bath-terms in everyday life
appears to have been carefree, but some cataloguing of the evidence and clarification of usage
(perhaps by region) would be helpful. Given the current confusion, it should be clear why I
have for the most part avoided using terms like balneum and thennae in the text in favour of the
more neutral English "bath," "bathhouse" etc. As this dissertation is not much concerned with
archaeological and architectural typology, the problem is not a pressing one, although it is
relevant.

structure of some magnificence (i.e. thermae cf. Dio 68.15.3(2) (the Baths of Sura]), but not invariably: the
thermae ofTitus (Dio 66.25.1) and ofCleander/Commodus (Dio 72.12.5) are both designated ~0::\CtVElO:.
3 3 It is for this reason that I have excluded from the epigraphic corpus Greek texts referring to
gymnasia, while retaining those that mention ~a.:\a.VEtOV.
 12

The evidence34

Here, the general characteristics of the evidence for public bathing, and the problems
they present to the historian studying the baths, will be outlined Difficulties encountered while
investigating specific questions will be covered in the introductions to the relevant sections.

There are four broad, interconnected problems associated with the evidence for baths:
quantity; quality and focus; distribution; and typicality. Each is treated in turn.

Qlantity

It is perhaps the balneologist's privilege to complain of too great a volume of evidence:

for the most part in ancient history, precisely the opposite circumstance obtains. The baths
present the historian with dizzying quantities of both types of primary evidence, archaeological
and written. In the archaeological sphere alone, Nielsen's recent catalogue of public facilities
runs to 387 entries, and it is not comprehensive. It can be further supplemented by over 200
sites listed in Manderscheid's Bibliographie, and the number grows every year.35 Restricting
attention only to the public facilities treated in this study, a fair estimate of their number
throughout the empire would approach one thousand.

Inscriptions and literary references are also abundant. The Tables of inscriptions below
comprise 267 entries, and they include only those texts from the most important collections, the
readings of which are sufficiently full and well-preserved to allow identification of the building

34 An earlier version of this section formed part of a paper delivered by the author at the First
International Conference on Roman Baths, Bath, England, 30 March- 4 April, 1992. (The Proceedings are to be
published a~ a supplement to JRA).
35 Cf. Appendix 3. The number of published sites continues to grow: cf. e.g. Chelmsford's rnansio­
bath and the similar structure at Valesio in Italy (cf. above, n. 6); J.P. OlESON, "Humeima Hydraulic Survey,
1989," EMC9.2 (1990), 145-163, esp. 152-162 (cf. AJA 95 (1991), 270-271); B. de VRIES "Archaeology in
Jordan," AJA 95 (1991), 274 (S.T. PARKER on military baths at Limes Arabicus).
 - - - - - - - - - --

13

and its builder.36 There are hundreds more fragmentary inscriptions not meeting these criteria;

such texts are useful in that they reveal the presence of baths in places where they may otherwise

be unattested. ln the literary sphere. virtually every type of author provides pertinent testimony.

Altogether. the volume of material is immense.

All this represents a plethora of evidence for the historian to master and marshal, a

situation which generates problems even at the level of assemblage. Whether one individual can

know it all remains to be seen.

Quality and focus

The quality and focus of the material presents the second main problem.

Archaeologically, a wide spectrum of bath types survives in varying degrees of preservation:

from the almost perfectly preserved small city baths at Pompeii and Herculaneum, to the

impressive but more ruined Imperial remains in Rome, bath-sites present a far from uniform

aspect to their students.

Accessible inscriptions are for the most part formulaic records of construction history.

which alone can tell us much about bath builders and, in some cases, their professed motives.

The quality varies greatly from highly informative, almost complete building histories,3 7 to the

tersest of one-liners: "into the baths! "38 The obvious means of access to bath inscriptions is via

the indices of modern collections. This route, however, invariably leads to texts containing the

words balnea or thermae etc., which tend for the most part to be texts commemorating

construction work. This is certainly useful, but will not uncover texts found in baths that do not

36 Cf. the general notes to the Tables, below, pp. 307-308.

37 E.g. nos. 49 (Table 3), and 88, 92 (Table 4) and notes.

38
CIL 4.2140 (graffito on tavern no. 4 down the Via Stabiana from the Stabian baths): im balneum.
 14

contain bath-related words. Tracking such texts relies largely on chance. No doubt many lie

hidden in the pages of AE. CIL. ILS and the myriad local collections, but short of someone

reading every page of every volume. they are likely to remain so. The great pity is, these are

often the most revealing.39

The variety in quality of the literary testimony is also considerable, ranging from

Lucian's Hippias to disembodied fragments. For the most part, literary bath-notices are

anecdotal, or used to illustrate or provide a setting for the author's main point. It is necessary to

read between the lines to discern the norm (if it can be discerned at all) -- a process fraught with

danger as it depends so much on subjective interpretation. This is especially true for anecdotes,

which, according to a recent view. may be particularly unreliable for specific details, but quite

instructive for people's attitudes and ideologies.40 Any given bath anecdote, therefore, does not

necessarily reflect what actually happened in a bath building (though it may do), but it does

reveal, at the very least, what people thought could happen there. This approach will prove

useful throughout the thesis.

The situation demands close assessment of each reference, which to date has often not

been made frequently enough for the literary evidence. A good example is provided by the

crucial literary testimony for the origin and early development of baths in Rome and Italy in late

3rd/early-2nd centuries BC. The testimony of Plautus and Livy is not above suspicion, yet it

has often been adduced without critical comment.4 I This study seeks to repair the oversight. at

least partially. Even if solutions to specific interpretative problems cannot always be advanced.

at least the shortcomings of the written record will have been highlighted in the hope of

39 E.g. C/L 6.29848b (graffito from the Baths of Titus, Rome; unsure date): duodecim deos iit
Deanam et Iovern I optumum maxinu(m) habeat iratos I quisquis hie mixerit aut cacarit.
40 Cf. R. SALLER, "Anecdotes as historical evidence for the Principate" Greece & Rome S.S. 27
(1980), 69-83. Although SALLER's focus is on ancedotes as evidence for imperial administration and the like,
his findings can easily be transferred to bath anecdotes.
41 Cf. most recently NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.29.
 15

generating future discussion. The "indirect" nature of the material plays a role here as well. For
instance, what general situation stands behind the statement attributed to Cato the Elder that he
did not bathe daily in his boyhood?42 Another good example is Pliny's report about Agrippa's
bath benefactions of 33 BC, which has been almost universally taken to show that there were
170 or more balnea in Rome at that date, when in fact it does not. 43 Critical assessment of the
written material is therefore essential.

Questions of quality aside, the focuses of the different classes of evidence vary, so that
they rarely interlock: as has been seen, despite the volume of archaeological material, secure
identification of various non-functional rooms mentioned in the written evidence remains
elusive. Making use of the different types of evidence in concert is therefore no easy matter,
though not impossible.

Distribution

Much of the evidence derives from very different geographic and chronological contexts.
It starts for the literary material in the late 3rd century BC, and for archaeology and epigraphy in
the mid-2nd century BC. All three types then run parallel into the 5th, 6th and even 7th
centuries AD. Further, public baths are found in virtually every part of the empire, from the
capital city to the frontiers (e.g. Dura-Europus in the East, or Xanten in the North). A similarly
wide distribution applies for inscriptions and literary references. In addition, the uneven
excavation, investigation and publication of remains throughout the modern countries which
make up the empire means that some areas are under-represented relative to others.44 This
42 Nonius p. 108M (155L), s.v. "ephippium." Cf. below, pp. 81-82 for discussion.
43 Pliny NH, 36.121; cf. below, pp. 102-103 for discussion.
44 This is easily appreciated by glancing at the fly-maps in NIELSEN, Thenn. It is clear that the
remarkably small numbers for baths in Spain. or the eastern Northern Border provinces (esp. Pannonia, Dacia,
Thrace), are not fully representative of ancient conditions; Spain in particular was a peaceful and prosperous
province and should provide a greater volume of material. On the other hand, intense investigation of the Holy
Land and Britain has uncovered dozens of sites in relative backwaters of the empire.
 16

situation needs remedying before a more complete impression of the ancient distribution of baths
can be formed. Despite this, the geographical and chronological ubiquity of baths stands as
remarkable testimony to the Romans' successful introduction of their bathing habit to every
comer of their empire; it also attests to the lasting popularity of Roman-style bathing among the
provincials, comprising people often of widely varying cultural backgrounds and outlooks (at
least initially).45

Typicality

The main problem thrown up by all these features of the evidence is that of typicality.
Since it is unsafe to assume that the social role and functioning of baths was constant in all parts
of the Empire, and remained so at all times between the 2nd century BC and 6th century AD.
how can we be sure that one piece of evidence from a specific time and place illustrates a general
norm rather than a regional variation? This problem has been encountered by scholars working
on other ill-illumined aspects of Roman life, and no fully satisfactory answer has been found to
overcome it.46 To a large degree, then, discerning typicality depends again on subjective
interpretation. Perhaps the clearest way forward is to look for the cumulative effect of several
corresponding pieces of evidence, especially from different places and times. Widespread
customs should, after all, leave some traces. In the case of the baths, however, there must be a
timeless quality about certain aspects of life there: e.g. Seneca's complaints about the noisiness
of the baths he lodged over at Baiae would surely be applicable to almost any public bath in the

4 5 A good example is provided by the exchange in the Babylonian Talmud between two Rabbis
(Sabbath, 33b; trans. inN. LEWIS & M. REINHOLD, Roman Civilizan"on: Selected Readings, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1990, 3rd ed. ], 11.333-334): one praises the Romans for their bridges, markets and
baths; the other contests that such buildings are primarily for the pleasure and benefit of the Romans, not the
Jews. For Jewish attitudes to the use of gentile baths in Palestine, cf. M. GOODMAN, State and Society in
Roman Galilee, AD 132-212 (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983), pp. 83-84.
46 Cf. the comments of R. MacMULLEN, Roman Social Relations, 50 BC to AD 284, (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1974), pp. viii, 41; or K. HOPKINS, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in
Roman History//, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 203 concerning the difficulties of using
the evidence for social relations and attitudes towards death respectively.
 17

empire at any time. 47 From this perspective, the baths reinforce the impression of how little life

in the ancient world changed over centuries. But, as will be seen, when we tum to specifics. the

water becomes muddier. As a result, the limitations and difficulties of the evidence as outlined

here should be kept in mind at all times.

Now that the main parameters of the study, the problems ofterminology and the difficulties of

the evidence have been reviewed. we can proceed. No better starting place offers than the

complex and difficult question of the origins of Roman public baths, one that has troubled

scholars for some time and generated considerable, if often inconclusive, discussion.

47 Cf. Sen. Ep., 56.12.

SECTION ONE:

ORIGINS

 INTRODUCTION

In the middle of the first century AD, the Roman moralist and tutor to the Emperor Nero, L.

Annaeus Seneca, visited the villa of the Republican hero P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus in

Campania. 1 It is evident from the text that Seneca admired greatly the man who defeated

Hannibal, and he dwells at length on Scipio's qualities, especially that of moderation. 2 The

simplicity of Scipio's private bath reflected this moderation, and Seneca devotes much space to

describing it, and contrasting it to what he considered the excessive luxury of bathing in his

day.3 In the course of this passage he says that the ancient Romans bathed fully only once every

eight days, but washed their arms and legs on a daily basis, a claim corroborated by the personal

recollections of Cato the Elder.4 Roman bathing practices evidently had rather humble

beginnings, or at least the later Romans thought so.

The bath at Scipio's villa was a private one, but its simplicity may reflect similar

conditions in whatever type of public establishments were current at this time. s Many

questions, however, remain. Where did the Roman practice of public bathing come from? Was

it an import from some foreign culture, or was it a uniquely Roman development? If the former,

by which cultures were the Romans influenced, if the latter what conditions led to the

appearance of the familiar series of heated rooms and communal pools that characterize the

NOTE: This section was largely written before the appearance ofNIELSEN, Therm. which covers much the same
ground in 1.6-36. Nielsen and I, it will be seen, come to the same general conclusion, but disagree on some
major points and details. Chapter 2 includes a close assessment of Nielsen's position.
I Sen. Ep., 86.4-13.
2 Ibid., §§ 1-3.
3 Ibid., §§ 4-13. Cf. below, pp. 110-111 for more on Seneca's bath diatribes.
4 Ibid., § 12: nom, ut aiunt, qui priscos mores urbis tradiderunt, brachia et crura cotidie abluebant . ..
ceterum tori nundinis Javabantur. Cato the Elder claimed that in his boyhood, daily bathing was unknown to
him, cf. Cato cited in Non., p. 108M (155L), s.v. ephippium: mihi puero modica tunica et toga, sine fasceis
calciamenta, ecus sine ephippio, balneum non cotidianum, alveus rarus.
5 That is to say, they were simple in comparison to what Seneca knew as public baths in his day, i.e.
the early-mid 1st century AD. That there were public baths in Rome in Scipio's and Cato's day is clear enough
from the early literary evidence for the city, cf. below, pp. 75-82.

19

 20

fully developed Roman baths? When and where did the first Roman-style public bath appear?

In short, what are the origins of Roman public bathing? These questions have already been

asked by several scholars, but the answers they offer vary greatly.

The following two chapters of this dissertation are inseparably linked and should be seen

as part of the same inquiry. The problem of the origins of Roman public baths is examined in

detail, tracing developments down to the dictatorship of Sulla by which time the baths appear to

have assumed their familiar shape. The arguments of previous scholars working on this difficult

topic are presented and their strengths and limitations assessed. What ancient evidence there is

is carefully scrutinized and a new hypothesis for the origins of Roman baths advanced more in

keeping with it.

It must be stressed that the meagre literary and epigraphic record is extended

disappointingly little by archaeology. 6 Just two surviving sets of baths predate the 1st century

BC: the Central Baths at Cumae and the Stabian Baths at Pompeii, dated to c.l80 BC and 140

BC respectively. Of these, only the Stab ian Baths have been fully investigated and published.

Only six other examples are known from before the 1st century AD.7 The literary and

epigraphic evidence is hardly more prolific. A handful of Republican writers mention baths, and

the same can be said for surviving inscriptions.s That is all there is to work from. As a result,

some informed speculation is inevitable in attempting to address the problem of origins.

Nonetheless, the different types of evidence can be marshalled to produce a coherent and

convincing picture.

6 For what follows, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.39.

7 These are, citing NIELSEN's Catalogue numbers in parentheses (cf. Appendix 3): the Republican and
Forum Baths at Pompeii (C.41, C.42); the Central Baths at Cales (C.35); the Baths of Agrippa at Rome (C.l);
the earliest phase of the Vignale Baths at Velia (C.52); and the small baths at Musarna (C.62).
8 Cf. below, pp. 72-89 where the literary and epigraphic evidence is treated in detail.
 21

When and where did the first Roman-style baths appear and what culture(s) could have

influenced Roman bathing habits? The earliest archaeological evidence comes from 2nd-century

BC Campania The only culture possessing a demonstrable public bathing habit with which

Rome had had any close contact before this time was that of Greece. Neither Carthaginian nor

Etruscan society gave prominence to public baths.9 While it is true that Etruscan cists are

occasionally decorated with bathing scenes, they are clearly influenced by, if not directly derived

from Greek models. 10 Furthermore, the bathers in the scenes are all women. I would suggest,

therefore, that these cists, themselves part of the bathing apparatus, were primarily used in

women's (private?) baths, and cannot be seen as reflective of public bathing. 11 In addition, no

Etruscan site has yielded evidence of a public bathing establishment.I2 Whatever sort of bathing

the Carthaginians and Etruscans practised, it was not in recognizable public establishments.

Given this circumstance, previous scholarly opinion has been able to offer only two

broad alternatives: either the Romans developed their baths themselves, or they adopted them

9 Public baths have not been found among the remains of Punic Carthage, cf. S.E. TLA TU, La
Canhage punique. ttude urbaine (Paris: Libraire d'Amerique et d'Orient, 1978), pp. 31-109, esp. 83-109. See
also W. HUSS, Die Kanhager (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1990), pp. 357-361 for a brief study of Punic society which
does not feature public bathing. It seems, in fact, as if public baths came to Carthage with the Romans, cf. D.
SOREN et al, Canhage: Uncovering the Magnificence and Splendors ofAncient Tunisia (Toronto: Simon &
Schuster, 1990), p. 181 for the first mention of baths in the book. Note, however, that Valerius Maximus
(9.5.ext. 4; cited inCh. 7, n. 60) refers to the Carthaginian rulers' habit of bathing apart from the people, which
seems to imply a public bathing habit (in which the rulers did not take part). However, Valerius's source for this
comment is not known, and as its context is a discussion of insolentia, it may be an invention designed to
illustrate Punic failures, but coined in terms Romans would immediately recognize (i.e. the mingling of classes
in public baths, for which cf. below, pp. 274-285).
10 Cf. G.B. BATTAGUA, Le Ciste Prenestine (Rome: Consiglia nazionale delle ricerche, 1979), 1.22
(pp. 95-97; tav. CXIII-CVII), 24 (pp. 101-104; tav. CXXI-CXXIV), 38 (pp. 132-133; tav. CLXI-CLXIV), 50-51
(pp.l58-162; tav. CCXVI-CCXXV) which all depict women in bathing scenes comparable to those shown on
Greek pots, cf. GINOUVES, &fan., figs. 50, 52-56, 58; R.F. SUTTON, "Female Bathers on Attic Pottery,"
AlA 95 (1991), 318. All the scenes feature lionhead fountains, also an element in the Greek bathing scenes.
11 Cists are clearly visible in two bathing scenes on these cists: BATTAGUA, Ciste, nos. 22 (esp.
tav. CXIV.22b and CXVI.22e) and 38 (esp. tav.CLXTI.38d and CLXIV.38h). Most interesting is the cist in the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts (1. * 10 [ibid., pp. 66-68; tav. LXXIV -LXXVTI]) which still had its contents intact: a
sponge, an unguentarium, a comb and spatufae. The type of bath shown in these scenes is the >-.oun'\ptov, a
basin raised on one foot for body-washing (cf. GINOUVES, &fan., pp. 77-99).
12 Cf. in this connection, L. BANTI, Etruscan Cities and their Culture (London: Batsford, 1973; Italian
original, 1968), pp. 37-178; and note the absence of public baths among the building types discussed by A.
BOETHIUS, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (London: Penguin, 1978), pp. 32-113.
 22

from Greece. 13 The most recent exposition. that of I. Nielsen, essentially combines the two

theories and acknowledges the Greek debt while highlighting the Roman contribution, which

she considers to have been the underfloor heating system called the hypocaust. 14 These theories

all share a common perspective in that they consider the invention of the hypocaust to be the

determining factor in the emergence of Roman public baths. This is certainly a defensible

proposition. Without the hypocaust. Roman-style baths-- the two essential characteristics of

which are communal bathing pools and a clear sequence of variously heated rooms -- could not

have existed. 15 In consequence. all three theories assume that it was the hypocaust which came

first. the baths second. However, this apparently sound assumption may need modification.

For the moment. though, the centrality of the hypocaust to Roman establishments demands

special attention.

13 Cf. J. DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 11-32, esp. 14-17.

14 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.20-22, 25-36. The technical details of the hypocaust are thoroughly
covered in ibid., 1.14-20.
15 Cf. e.g. HEINZ, Rom Thenn., pp. 9-18, 29-34, 37-38; NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.3-4, 153-161.
 CHAPTER I

SERGIUS ORATA AND GREEK BATHS

Introduction

This chapter focuses primarily on the Greek evidence, while the following is concerned
primarily with the Italian. This separation, however, is not hard and fast. In the frrst section of
the current chapter ancient literary evidence indicating that the inventor of the hypocaust was a
Roman, C. Sergius Orata, is examined. The second section documents the challenge made to
this picture by the so-called "Greek theory", championed by R. Ginouves in the 1960s and
generally accepted subsequently .1 It focuses particularly on two structures, the bath at Gortys,
Arcadia and phase IV of the Greek baths at Olympia, both of which are examined in detail. A
consideration of Greek public baths and bathing habits in general closes this chapter, and any
features that clearly anticipate Roman practice are highlighted.

1 GINOUVES makes his case in two publications: L 'etablissement thermal de Gortys d'A.rcadie (Paris:
Ecole Fran~aise d'Athenes: Etudes Peloponnesiennes, 1959), esp. pp. 7-88 and the monumental &laneutike. For
acceptance of GINOUVES's thesis, cf. e.g. E. BRODNER, Die romischen Thennen und das antike Badewesen
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Betrachtung, 1983), pp. 8-12; or more forcefully, HEINZ, Rom Thenn., pp. 36­
51, esp. 41-51.

23

I] 24

(i) C. Sergius Orata, inventor of the hypocaust?

The main source is Pliny the Elder:

Sergius Orata was the first man to invent oyster ponds, on the Gulf of Baiae in
the time of the orator L. Crassus, before the Mars ian war; his motive was not
gluttony but greed, and he earned a great income from his cleverness -- as he was
the first inventor of pensiles balineae -- by selling villas, the appearance of which
he had improved with this device.2

The passage is clear on a number of points. It places Orata's activities in Campania in the first

decade of the 1st century BC (Crassus was consul in 95 BC and the Marsian War was part of

the Social War, 91-88 BC). It says he was a fishfarmer who invented pensiles balineae. The

passage infers a link between Orata's fishfarming and his invention of pensiles balineae, though

the exact nature of the link is not made plain (beyond Orata's avarice and ingenuity standing

behind both). Valerius Maximus makes the link stronger: "C. Sergius Orata was the first man to

arrange the building of pensilia balinea. This expense, having started out small, went almost as

far as raised seas of hot water. "3 As with Pliny, the general context here is fish farming, so

Maximus clearly imagines Orata as using his pensilia balinea in this connection, most probably

as large heated pools for his fish. This suggestion may be supported by Cicero, who says in a

fragment of the Honensius cited in Nonius Marcellus: "he was the first to raise little baths; he

confined fish. "4 Although no name is provided here, the reference is almost certainly to Orata.

Finally, Columella presents Orata primarily as a fish farmer, and claims he derived his cognomen

from that trade. 5

2 NH, 9.168: ostrearum vivaria primus omnium Sergius Orata invenit in Baiano aerate L Crassi
oratoris, ante Marsicum bellum, nee gulae causa sed avaritiae, magna vectigalia tali ex ingenio suo perdpiens, ut
qui primus pensiles invenerit balineas, ita mangonicatas villas subinde vendendo. (All translations are my own
unless otherwise stated).
3 Val. Max., 9.1.1: C. Sergius Orata primus pensilia balineafacere instituit. quae inpensa levibus
intiis coepta ad suspensae caldae aquae tantum non aequora penetravit. This tradition is later repeated in
Macrobius, Sat., 3.15.1-3.
4 Non. 194M (285L), s.v. balneae: primus balneola suspendit, inclusit pisces.
5 Columella, 8.16.5: Sergi us Orata et Licinius Murena captorum piscium laetabantur vocabulis.
Macrobius, Joe. cit in n. 3 above, also claims that Orata derived his name from his goldfish (aurata). Festus
(182M) presents an alternative tradition: Orata derived his cognomen from two large gold rings he wore. Oysters
were a particular delicacy among the Romans; that Orata could have made a lot of money from raising them (as
Pliny implies) is certainly possible, cf. A.C. ANDREWS, "Oysters as a Food in Greece and Rome," CJ 43
(1947/8), 299-303, esp. 300.
I] 25

Orata's fishfarming activities as outlined in Pliny are therefore well attested in other

sources. His real-estate business, which constitutes the second part of Pliny's notice. also finds

corroboration in two references in Cicero, where we see Orata buying and selling properties

amid accusations of unfair play. 6 It is not specified whether Orata had fitted out these properties

with pensiles balineae in the way Pliny mentions.

The crucial point is what pensiles balineae means. The term translates literally as

"hanging baths," which has led some scholars to imagine suspended bathtubs or shower-like

devices. 7 However, most scholars interpret pensiles balineae to mean "raised baths" in the

sense of a hypocaust. 8 Vitruvius calls the hypocaust a suspensura ("a hanging thing") which is

reminiscent of Cicero's wording for Orata's invention, balneola suspendit. 9 In general, pensilis

means "hanging" and could easily have been applied to pools seen to "hang" between the roof

and the ground by being part of a raised underfloor heating system. 10 The suggestion that

pensiles balineae denotes a hypocaust is therefore a reasonable and plausible one.

6 Cic. de Or., 1.178 and de Off, 3.67. Note also de Fin., 2.70 where Cicero regards Orata as a person
who lived most comfortably (iucundissime vixerat).
7 The fullest treatment of the problem is that ofJ. BENEDUM, "Die Balnea Pensilia des Asklepiades
von Prusa," Gesneru.s· 24 ( 1967), 93-107, esp. 96-102. Some of these ideas are not dead -- the Loeb edition (H.
RACKHAM, 1940) translates pensiles balineae as showers. Showers were certainly known in Greek baths, cf.
GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 21-28, but none have been demonstrated in Roman structures.
8 Cf. e.g. E.F. FABRICOTI, "I bagni neUe prime ville romane," Cronache Pompeiane 2 (1976), 29­
lll, esp. 39-41; also the works referred to in DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 14-15. The notion commands
widespread support: J. HILTON TURNER, "Sergi us Orata, Pioneer of Radiant Heating," CJ 43 (1947/8), 486­
487; BENEDUM, Gesnerus 24 (1967), 99-101; BRODNER, Rom Therm. (1983), pp. 22-23; NIELSEN,
Therm., 1.20-22 and esp. 161 where pensiles balineae are presented a~ the earliest designation for the hypocaust.
9 Cf. Vitruv., 5.10.2. Vitruvius also uses the term hypocausis in connection with this system
(5.10.1), but it seems to be in relation to the furnaces rather than the raised floor itself. Note also the inscription
(no. 174 [Table 5]) which mentions a benefactor who balneum suspendit, which may mean that he installed a
hypocaust, although it could also mean that he vaulted the roofs, cf. OLD s.v. "suspendo (3b)."
10 More directly, the OLD (s.v. pensilis 3) records the word as meaning "that [which] is raised above
the ground"; cf. BENEDUM, Gesnerus 24 ( 1967), pp. 99-100 where the strongest case for identifyng the pensi les
balineae with the hypocaust is made.
I] 26

But there are some distinct problems. The majority of the sources implicitly connect the

device primarily with Orata's fishfarming business, not with baths for human use; the passage

on Orata in Pliny appears in the context of a digression on men who invented fishponds. 11

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the terms suspensura or hypocaustwn, used elsewhere to

denote the underfloor heating system in baths, 12 are not used in connection with Orata's

invention, even in later sources (such as Pliny or Macrobius), which were written when such

terms had been current for some time. Conversely, pensiles balineae never appears in other

sources (notably Vitruvius) in connection with the heating system for baths. There is also an

ancient picture of waterfront structures that bears an inscription identifying the various buildings

portrayed, among them Bal(neae) Faustines and aquae pensiles. 13 The point to note is that the

"hanging waters" are not part of the bathhouse, but a separate structure. Of course, aquae

pensiles may be quite different from pensiles balineae.

Despite these anomalies in the sources, the question remains: if pensiles balineae does

not refer to the hypocaust system, then what were they? The sources allow only one other

possible alternative: Orata's pensiles balineae were heated pools for raising and keeping fish,

and had nothing to do with human bathing at all. If this hypothesis is correct, it would remove

Orata from the history of baths altogether.

The sources for Orata's fishfarming have been listed above, and the implicit connection

between this activity and the pensiles balineae noted. The source chronologically closest to

II Th~ s~ction (NH, 9.168-173) is introduced with the sentence: quae mentio piscinarum admonet ut
paulo plura die am us hac de re priusquam digrediamur ab aquatibus (9.167). Both Valerius Maximus (9.1.1) and
Macrobius (Sat., 3.15.1-3) also mention Orata in the context of fish-keeping.
12 Cf. e.g. Vitruv., 5.10.2 (suspensura) and Pliny Ep., 2.17.23 (hypocauston).
13 CIL 6.29830: Bal(neae) Faustines, I horrea, I Fo(rum?) Boar(ium), I aquae pensiles, II For(um).
Olitor(ium), I portex Neptuni, I T(emplum) Apollonis. The closest parallels for such a representation are provided
by the pictures of shore-line buildings at Baiae and Puteoli found on some cut-glass vessels, cf. C. PICARD,
"Pozzoles et le paysage portuaire," l.Atomus 18 (1959), 23-51; K.S. PAINTER, "Roman Flasks with Scenes of
Baiae and Puteoli," JGS 17 (1975), 54-67.
I] 27

Orata. a fragment of Cicero's Honensiu.s, uses the term balneo/wn to describe what Orata

invented. and immediately appends the comment that he raised fish. 14 This would seem to

imply that something other than regular baths were meant. otherwise Cicero. ever mindful of

using the correct word, would surely have employed balineum or the like. Granted. balneolum

is used later to denote bathhouses or bathrooms. but Cicero's unusual choice of word here

remains curious.I 5 It is known that men like Lucullus or Hortensius liked to keep fish in their

villas. In fact. Cicero dubbed such wealthy Romans piscinarii, "fish-fanciers. "16 In light of

this, Pliny's portrayal of Orata fitting out villas with pensi!es balineae and then selling them

could refer to his equipping the properties with heated fishponds. 17 This activity. in addition to

his fishfarming business. might also explain why he derived his cognomen from goldfish.

This fishpond hypothesis is not without its problems. The general confusion

surrounding bath terminology makes Cicero's use of balneolum difficult to assess. 18 Further.

all the sources use some form of the word balneum to describe Orata's invention. Although

balneum can denote tubs or tanks as well as bath-buildings and the act of bathing, 19 if fish-tanks
were envisaged, why not use piscina, vivaria. or stagnum (the habitual terms for fishponds) or

some variant thereon? But the chief objection to the fish-tank hypothesis is provided by the

activities of the contemporary doctor Asclepiades of Bithynia who, it is reported, was the first to

14 Cf. above, n. 4

15
Cf. Sen. Ep., 86.4: balneolum angustum, tenebn"cosum (Scipio's private villa bath); Stat. Silv., I
pr., Claudi Etrusci testimonium est, quo balneolum a me .mum intra moram cenae recepit; Juv., 7.4-5: cum iam
celebres notique poetae balneolum Gabiis, Romae conducere furnos temptarent. See also Anth., 36.2.
16 Cf. Att., 1.19.6: hos piscinarios dico amicos tuos; Att., 1.20.3: mihi vero ut invideant piscinarii
nostri aut scribam ad te alias aut in conxressum nostrum resen•abo. Cf. also Macr. Sat. 3.15.6. Lucullus's fish
are said to have fetched HS4,000,000 when sold on his death, Pliny NH, 9.170, Macr. Joe. cit. For fishponds in
Campanian villas, cf. Pliny and Macrob., locc. citt.; Varro, Res Rust., 3.3.9-10 and especially 3.17.5; Hor. Od.,
2.15.2-4.
17 That such activity was not unknown is indicated by Varro Res Rust., 3.17.5: Q. Hortensius,
familiaris noster, cum piscinas haberet magna pecunia aedijicatas ad Baulos, ita saepe cum eo ad villamfui, ur
illum sciam semper in cenam piscis Puteolos mittere emptum solitum. This is not to suggest that Orata was the
contractor here, but Varro's notice does suggest the existence of a market for the fishpond construction industry at
about this time.
18 Cf. above, pp. 6-11.

19
Cf. OLD, s.v.
I] 28

use pensiles balineae for remedial purposes.zo Did Asclepiades put his patients into heated

fishponds? It would seem unlikely. Rather, the context would appear to demand that the tenn

here denotes heated tanks or pools in general, not specifically intended for fish. Perhaps

Asclepiades adapted Orata's piscine invention for his own purposes but, whatever the case, his

treatments provide a bridge between Orata's pensiles balineae and human bathing.

Given the available evidence, it is unfortunately not possible to resolve the issue of the

nature of Orata's pensiles balineae with certainty. The sources give no clear indication what the

device was like, and archaeology has so far turned up nothing that can be identified as "hanging

baths" except for the hypocaust in bathing establishments. In light of this, it should be accepted

(albeit tentatively) that the written sources, despite some terminological anomalies, picture Orata

as the inventor of the hypocaust heating system (or a version of it) later used in public baths

throughout the Roman world. However, it is possible that Orata used the device solely for

fishponds,21 and that it was Asclepiades of Bithynia who first used Orata's invention for human

bathing. Orata and Asclepiades shared an association with L. Crassus, so they may have known

each other. 22 Given the prominence of baths in Asclepiades's treatments, he may have adapted

Orata's invention for his own purposes.

Straight acceptance of Orata as inventor of the hypocaust would make the question of the

origins of Roman baths simple indeed, the argument running as follows: because the hypocaust

was essential for the creation of Roman-style baths, they could not have existed as such before

20 Pliny NH, 26.16. Asclepiades is said in the sources to have used baths (balnea) in his treatments
(e.g. Celsus 2.17.3). Cf. Chapter 4 for a fuller assessment of Asclepiades' role in the development of the
popularity of baths, and of his use of hot baths in his treatments.
21 But if so, I am not aware of any heated fishponds; cf. RE 20.1783-1785, s.v. -Piscina (1)"
[Schneider], where the main difference between types of fishpond is the use fresh- or sea-water.
22 Cic. de Oral., 1.62 (Asclepiades); Cic. de Off, 1.78, de Offic., 3.67 and Val. Max., 9.1.1 (Orata).
On Crassus, cf. BROUGHTON, MRR, ll.ll, 579, no. 55. Cf. E. RAWSON, -The Life and Death of
Asclepiades of Bithynia/ CQ 32 (1982), 361 on the connection between Orata and Asclepiades.
I] 29

Orata. Therefore, Roman baths only came into being in the years following Orata in the 1st
century BC. 23

But Orata's position as inventor of the hypocaust has met with a severe, and apparently
successful, challenge from Greece.

(ii) Rome's debt to Greece? Gortys, Olympia and Greek baths

Two bathing establishments on the Greek mainland, one at Gortys, Arcadia, the other at
Olympia, have been cited as proof that the Greeks not only invented the hypocaust long before
Orata 's day, but that they developed it to its final form. R. Ginouves relies heavily on both
sites to claim that the Romans adopted the hypocaust, their baths, and even their bathing habits
directly from the Greeks. 24 In this section, the structures at Gortys and Olympia will-be--:, ,- _,
examined in turn and their relevant features described. In order to place these two important
sites in their proper perspective, and to assess the validity of Ginouves's position, a brief
consideration of the general characteristics of Greek baths and bathing practices wil-l-be.- -'
necessary.

23 This is basically I. NIELSEN's position as discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

24 GINOUVES, Balan., p. 228: "Mais ces thermes romains, precisement, derivent directement des
etablissements de bains grecs, et par leur conception d'ensemble, et par bien des details de leur organisation
materielle."
I] 30

The thermal establishment at Gortys, Arcadia

The bathing establishment at Gortys in Arcadia is situated in a sanctuary of Asclepius, on

a hillside above the banks of the Gortynios river (fig. 1). 25 It forms a rectangle, 17.7m x

16.54m, within whose walls the rooms are far from rectilinear. The public rooms. which are

paved in mosaics of grey, white and blue pebbles, make up the eastern half of the structure. 26

There is an entrance hallway (A) containing a statue base. This leads into a vestibule (B) which

has an apse on its north side. Underneath this apse is a hypocaust, of which more below.

The vestibule in tum leads into the big rotunda (C), the heart of the establishment. There

are many features worth noting here. The room has two apses, on its east and west walls
respectively. The former has a hypocaust under it. It has two fountains. One (8) in the west

apse, was a cold fountain fed from a reservoir (X) behind it. The other(:>-.) was a hot fountain.

housed in a bigger basin standing closer to the ground thane and fed from a hot-water unit

which Ginouves reconstructs from various small finds in the area behind!-., between rooms C

and G. There is also a bench ( s) and a shelf (T)) flanking the entrance to C from B. An open

channel starts under the bench sand runs through the south wall ofC into B. Then it follows

the eastern half of B's north apse, along the entire east wall and runs out into a canal that stands

outside the south wall of the building.

C is very much the centre-piece of the structure and gives access to its other public

rooms (E, D, F and, indirectly, G). Ginouves interprets E as a sweat bath; it features a

hypocaust underneath the entire floor area of the rotunda. West of E stands D, a sort of annex to

25 For what follows, cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 7-88.

26 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 7-44, where the individual rooms are clearly treated under separate
headings.
IJ 31

C on a higher level, which contains three bathing tubs for full immersion. Directly under the

tubs in D runs the hypocaust, so these tubs were used as hot-water baths.

The north exit of C leads into F, a room for waiting and relaxing which had a cold

fountain(~). very like e in C. There is also a bench and shelf arrangement (J.l) at the south end

of this room. The small rotunda G contains 9 hip-baths, which are the hallmark of Greek baths

in general. 27 Here the bathers would sit in the individual tubs and have hot water poured over

them by the establishment's personnel. The heated water, Ginouves says, came from an open

vat located in the hotwater unit between rooms C and G. The hypocaust runs under this unit,

and so would heat the water tanks. Rooms H and I have no discernible function, but their

paving indicates they were public rooms. Two features are worth noting. First, a channel, like

the one that leads through B from C, emerges from the east doorway of G, and runs along the

west and north walls of H, the north wall of I and empties into a canal outside the east wall of

the establishment. Second, room I contains, against its west wall, a statue base very like the one

in A. (The small enclosure J, not accessible from any part of the structure, has no discernible

function).

The service rooms are housed in the west half of the building and can be treated very

briefly.28 They are all unpaved, having instead beaten earth floors. Room Vis accessible from

B and may have been a cloakroom, although Ginouves cautions that this interpretation may be

retrojecting later Roman practice to the Greek.29 The timber for the furnace appears to have

been housed in W, and the cinders and ash from the fire may have been disposed of through this

room. Underneath the floor here was found a terracotta pipeline which ran from F to the canal

outside the south wall of the building. X is the reservoir for the building, being almost a metre

27 Cf. below, pp. 43-47.

28 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 48-58.

29 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, p. 51, cf. p. 46, n. 5.

I] 32

above the ground level: it fed the fountains~ in F and 8 inC directly. RoomY was the furnace

room for the hypocaust, while Z is in so fragmentary and battered a state that Ginouves is not

sure what function it served, save noting that it offers communication between the service and

public areas.

The date of this structure is firmly fixed by numismatic and ceramic evidence. 30 The

first structure was erected around the time of the establishment of the Arcadian League in c. 370

BC. This was destroyed in the second half of that century, and a new building put up in the late

4th/early 3rd century. In about the middle of the 3rd century, the hypocaust was put in. There

were some alterations at the end of the 2nd century and then the site was abandoned in the 1st

century AD. A brief Roman reoccupation in the 4th century saw the erection of some houses on

the site. 31

The heating system, dated by pottery evidence to the mid-3rd century BC, is perhaps the

most remarkable element in the building, and a very important one for those scholars who see

here a forerunner to developed Roman baths. 32 The underground heating system is comprised

of a channel which runs east from the fire in Y, under D toE, with an appendage jutting north

towards G to heat the water in the tanks of the hot-water unit reconstructed as standing between

C and G. Under E it enters a series of what Ginouves terms couronnes chauffantes ("heating

crowns") which are found under E, the east apse of C, and the north apse of B. These

"crowns" are made of stone or brick supports in two concentric circles upon which trapezoidal

terracotta plaques were placed, many found in situ. These in tum formed the basis for the

pebble-mosaic flooring. What is more, in the areas behind the thin brick walls of E and the

30 This is very clearly laid out in GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 135-145. Apart from three major coin
hoards of the later Roman period, 127 Greek coins and countless pottery fragments were unearthed at various
points of the site, allowing precise dating of the different stages of its development.
31 GINOUVES, Gortys, p. 155 provides a summary of the building's history; see also, ibid., p. 145.
32 The system is described in GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 58-77.
I] 33

apses of C and B, Ginouves reconstructs what he calls "vertical heating chambers" which served

two functions. First, they helped add to the heat of the areas abutting them, i.e. the thin brick

walls of E, the north apse of B, and the east apse of C. Second, they cooled down some of the

hot air and gases, and so increased the circulation in the subterranean channels. Only the

chamber behind the north apse of B was open to the sky, and so acted as the chimney for the

whole system.

The water system is much simpler than that for heating.3 3 A channel from a source

further up the slopes ran directly into the reservoir X which fed the whole building. A drainage

canal was located outside the building along the south wall, and another extended from the east

wall. These canals were fed by the open channels which run through B, and H and I, as well as

by the terracotta pipeline under W. The system is fairly rudimentary, although it utilizes and

negotiates the changes of level at the site skillfully. It is noteworthy that Ginouves offers no

explanation of how the hot-water unit he reconstructs behind A and between C and G was

supplied. It is most natural to suppose that it was fed by hand from the fountain~ in F,

although this appears remarkably inefficient, as well as inconvenient for the bathers moving

from C to For G.

Looking at the building as a whole, Ginouves reconstructs the path of the bather through

its rooms. 34 Entering through the portico A, he proceeded into room B to undress, perhaps

leaving his clothes with an attendant in room V. On entering room C, he faced a series of

possibilities. He could sit on bench Cand wait until a favoured facility came free; the shelf Y)

was provided for belongings and accoutrements. There was the cold fountain e and the hot one
A for cleaning. A visit to the sweat room E, or immersion in one of the hot tubs in D were also

possibilities, although the latter, upon analogy with other cultures, would only come after

33 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 78-88.

34 For what follows, cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 46-48.

I] 34

cleansing. G provided the means for this, with its hip-baths for washing proper. The bather

could loiter in F on the way to G, if it were full, or to take a rest. The functions of H and I, as

mentioned above, are not clear, and Ginouves simply omits them from the main series of rooms.

The bather then left by the same route, in reverse. These baths are thus "linear"- or "row"-type

baths, in which one had to go back through the system to get out, as opposed to "circle" ones,

whereby one could avoid this inconvenience.

Such then is a description of the thermal establishment at Gortys. Several elements are

seen as foreshadowing developed Roman baths. Foremost among them are the heating and

water systems.3 5 Although primitive by comparison to Roman examples, Ginouves sees the

rudiments of Roman practice present at Gortys, with raised floors and heated walls, canals

bringing water from afar and channels allowing drainage. A further argument in favour of

Gortys's importance as a forerunner to Roman baths is that it shows an elementary sequence of

rooms. 36 This is seen as a clear precursor to that in Roman baths. Indeed Heinz argues that it is

precisely this feature which makes Roman baths distinctive. 37 So, for him, the appearance of a

recognizable series of rooms at Gortys shows that the Greeks had fully developed all the

elements of Roman baths, which the Romans merely systematized.38

35 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 166-167.

36 Cf. GINOUVES, Balan., p. 209. Even so, the case is weak: room A is supposed to be the cold
room, D and E the hot rooms, and B and C the moderately hot rooms. This is not convincing. As GINOUVES
himself admits, the progression through these rooms is not well-ordered. Furthermore, the so-called cold room is
little more than an entrance vestibule. Room Dis hardly a separate room at all, but an adjunct to room C; it is
also comprised entirely of immersion tubs. And rooms B and C would hardly have been like tepidaria in that they
were only partially heated. Despite these faults, GINOUVES's suggestion meets with full acceptance in HEINZ,
Rom Therm, pp. 47-50.
37 Cf. HEINZ, Rom Therm., pp. 37-38.
38 Cf. HEINZ, Rom Therm., p. 51. HEINZ also draws on elements found at Olympia and elsewhere,
which will be looked at below. GINOUVES, looking at Gortys alone, develops a similar opinion: "Le role des
Romains fut de concentrer les dispositifs, en poussant plus loin I'analyse des fonctions, et de harmoniser a leurs
gouts moins «sportifs»" (Gortys, p. 167).
IJ 35

However, there are some profound differences between this site and Roman public
baths. Some of these Ginouves himself points out.3 9 For instance, there is no recognizable
frigidariwn, all the bathrooms instead being at least partially heated. It is equally difficult to
identify specifically a caldariwn or tepidariwn, as even Heinz has to admit. 40 The supposedly
clear series of rooms is therefore not convincing .. especially when one considers that from room
C the bather had at least 5 possibilities available. There is simply no clear-cut room sequence.
Nor is there a pool for communal immersion in either hot or cold water. 41 As already seen.
these are the essential elements in Roman baths. Even the hypocaust has come under suspicion.
It has recently been pointed out that the heating system at Gortys, as at other Greek sites, is of a
type quite different from the developed Roman suspensura. 42 In the latter, the entire floor area
of a room was raised and heated. while in the former only sections of rooms were heated by
means of a subterranean corridor (though at Gortys, the whole floor of room E is heated). The
two systems are really only alike in that they share the same basic principle of underfloor
heating.

Certain general considerations also cast doubt on a direct link between the establishment
at Gortys and developed Roman baths. In the first place, it is in Arcadia, very much a
backwater of Greece and of the ancient world in general. It is difficult to see such a place as
contributing a major new form to leisure architecture, especially in the context of the instability
of mid-3rd century central Greece. 4 3 It may be argued that the bath at Gortys must have had
sister buildings elsewhere. This suggestion finds support in the indications that the architect had

39 Cf. GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 167-168.

40 Cf. HEINZ, Rom. Therm., p. 48.
4 1 But note that room Y was once such a pool, before it was converted into the furnace of the
hypocaust in the mid-3rd century BC, cf. GINOUVES. Gortys, pp. 56-57. Furthermore, although room D
contains hot immersion pools, they are individual ones. Nothing like the Roman pisci no or alveus is found here.
42 Cf. J. DeLAINE, ftSome Suggestions on the Trdnsition from Greek to Roman Baths in Hellenistic
Italy," JMA 2 (1989), 111-125, esp. 111-114; NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.20-21.
43 Cf. DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 15.
I] 36

had experience with the technology involved in the hypocaust. 44 Certainly, whoever designed

and built Gortys appears to have had previous experience with at least elements of such a

building.

Nonetheless, no other building like that at Gortys occurs in the archaeological record to

date. It is, to the best of our knowledge, unique, although its constituent elements are found

separately in other Greek baths.4 5 This is not to assert that Gortys was the only such building in

Greek antiquity, but presumably it was not a very common type or others like it would surely

have been found. It is possible that the establishment at Gortys was unusual, even to those who

used it. Perhaps its immediate context offers an explanation. Gortys is not, like the Roman

public baths which are the focus of this study, found in an urban or civic context, but rather in a

religious one. It is the centre-piece of a sanctuary of Asclepius, whose healing cult involved

rites of purification and bathing.46 What is more, sanctuaries of this god elsewhere feature

baths among their buildings, and tend to be situated in well-watered places.47 Ginouves himself

assesses the role of the Gortys establishment in the cult and concludes that it shows a transition

in the cult's practices from purely religious bathing to "physical or hygienic" bathing. Its

44 Especially in the "vertical heating chambers" to heat the abutting rooms and quicken the subterranean
circulation. HEINZ, in fact, detects "die planende Hand eines geschulten Architekten" in the building's subtleties,
cf. Rom Therm., p. 47.
45 Cf. the survey of related sites in GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 156-165. Such elements are the hip­
baths, sweat room, hypocaust and immersion baths.
46 Bathing featured in the preparatory rituals before sacrifice and often in the cures "prescribed" by the
god, cf. Aelius Aristides, The Sacred Tales, passim; E.J. & L. EDELSTEIN, Asc/epius (Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press, 1945), 1.407, 408a, 421.656-658,423.37,432, ll.l48-149, 186-187; GINOUVES, Balan., pp.
349-361. A concise summary of this cult is provided by R. JACKSON, Doctors anti Diseases in the Roman
Empire (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), pp. 138-169, esp. 140-155; note in particular the
place of bathing in the cult, p. 145. On the Asklepian cult in general, cf. C. KERENYI, Asklepios (NYC:
Pantheon, 1959). In fact, baths played a significant role in Greek religious life in general, as GINOUVES's
Balan., makes clear: over 50% of the text is concerned with "la proprete et Ia vie religieuse" (pp. 234-428).
47 Such as Epidauros, where there were one or two bath-complexes of Greek date, cf. A. BURFORD,
The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros (foronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), pp. 51, 65, 76,79 and
110 who says there were two, but R. TOMLINSON, Epidauros (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983), p. 84
identifies only one. Other Asklepieia include Kos, Pergamon and Athens. For the latter, cf. S. ALESHIRE, The
Athenian Asklepieion (Amsterdam; Gieben, 1989) and ead., Asklepios at Athens (Amsterdam; Gieben, 1991).
The others are described in sequence by JACKSON, Doctors., pp. 148-155. For the well-watered nature of
Asklepian sanctuaries, cf. BURFORD, Temple Builders, pp. 45-47.
I] 37

function, he argues, is primarily that of a thermal establishment, although under the patronage of

a god. 48

But Ginouves's division of function may be false. The establishment is found in the

context of a sanctuary dedicated to the principal Greek healing god. Its function was therefore

surely religious first and foremost, in that its patrons would have been frequenting it not merely

to get clean and socialize, but to fulfil religious requirements of purification, or to respond to the

god's commands aimed at healing.49 There are indications on the site itself that this was so.

The two statue bases, in A and I. could have been for images of the god or his associates (such

as Hygieia). The rooms H and I, with no discernible function in the bathing process, may well

have had some religious function, carried out during bathing or afterward. In the reservoir X a

piece of pottery in the form of a foot was found, with a votive inscription. This is a familiar

feature of the cult attested at other Asklepieia, where model bodyparts were regularly used to call

the god's attention to a particular ailment. They could be displayed, nailed to boards hung up in

the sanctuary's temple. as testimonies to the effectiveness of divine healing. Other inscriptions

of a religious or votive nature were found reused in the Roman walls on the site, although these

could not be definitely connected with the thermal establishment. 50

In short, while the establishment at Gortys shows beyond doubt that the Greeks

developed certain rudimentary forms of technology later essential to Roman baths, it is difficult

to see it as a direct forerunner to those baths. It is so far a unique and rather sophisticated

48 Cf. Gortys, pp. 47, 156.

49 GINOUVES practically admits this when he concedes that the immersion baths in D in particluar,
and the whole building in general, would have been visited mainly by sick people: " C'est que le bain par
immersion, a l'epoque hellt!nistique qui est celle du batiment, est relativement rare, et generalement reserve aux
<<delicats>> ou aux malades; et certes l'establissement de Gortys, dans le sanctuaire d'un dieu guerisseur, devait
en recevoir beaucoup." ( Gortys, p. 48)
50 For all of this see, GINOUVES, Gortys, pp. 7-19 (room A), 44-46 (rooms Hand 1), 139 (foot); and
143 (inscriptions). GINOUVES attempts to play down the religious nature of the place, in an attempt to
highlight the role of Gortys in the development of later Roman baths. Asklepieia all over the Greco-Roman
world have yielded vast quantities of votive body parts of the sort found at Gortys, e.g. Epidauros, Corinth and
Kos.
I] 38

structure standing in a culn.rral backwater of Greece. lacking certain bathing elements basic to

Roman baths, and, above all, operating in the religious context of a sanctuary of Asclepius.

Whatever else may be claimed about the building, this last point is surely decisive, as it sets the

function of the Gortys establishment firmly apart from that of the developed civic baths of the

Roman era.

The "Greek hypocaust bath" at Olympia

The pan-Hellenic sanctuary at Olympia provides what some scholars see as proof that the

Greeks developed the hypocaust to its final form. 5 1 The building in question was numbered by

the excavators as phase IV of an older strucn.rre, and labelled das griechische Hypokaustenbad,

"the Greek hypocaust bath" (figs. 2-4).52 The area around this bath had seen considerable

construction spanning three-and-a-half centuries, in the form of alterations and replacements of

previous bath buildings. 53 The visitor today would be hard-pressed to make sense of the

different structures built atop each other, and weeds and decay make the task all the more

difficult. The excavators' report therefore remains the most reliable guide.

The early baths on the site can be treated briefly. The first, building l, was put up in the

first half of the 5th century BC and was a simple rectangular hall with a fountain. 54 Towards

the middle of that century it was extended to include a new building (II) containing eleven hip­

baths and two water tanks, one apparently for standing baths. In a building to the south-east of

51 E.g. GINOUVES, Gortys, p. 167; ibid. Balan., pp. 204-209; H. ESCHEBACH, Die Stabianer
Thermen in Pompeji (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), p. 65; BRODNER, Rom Therm., pp. 8-9, 16-23;
HEINZ, Rom Therm., pp. 41-47, esp. 44-46.
52 The building is described in E. KUNZE & H. SCHLEIF, IV. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in
Olympia (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1944), pp. 51-56. A more recent summary, deviating little from the more
detailed report of KUNZE & SCHLEIF can be found in A. MALLWITZ, Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich:
Prestei-Verlag, 1972), pp. 270-273.
53 For these buildings see, KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, pp. 32-51 (descriptions), 70-80, 96
(dates). See also HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 41-47.
54 I have not provided detailed plans of the three early periods, but they can be roughly located by
number (J-Ill) in building A in fig. 2.
 - - ---------------

I] 39

this complex (building Bin fig. 2), stood a round room, possibly a sweat bath, the so-called

"Heroon." Assuming it was a sweat bath, it had its own changing room (the western half of the

building), an oven room (in the south-east section) and a rotunda where the patrons sweated.

There is no evidence of water supply or drainage in this building; recent research suggests it may

have been a temple. 55

The hip-bath complex II was altered in the early 4th century to accommodate a hot water

vessel. Reckoned to be contemporaneous with or slightly earlier than these alterations is the

construction of a huge open air swimming-pool to the west of the main building (C in fig. 2). It

measured 100 x 75 Olympic feet (24.4m x 16.4m), was 5 Olympic feet (1.22m) deep. and had 5

steps around the interior wall leading down to the paved bottom. The hip-bath complex was

radically altered c. 300 BC, or soon after, to form phase III. This saw the construction of a

larger hip-bath room, with twenty tubs and a hot water tank housed in a new room to the west of

the old building II. The latter was transformed and enlarged, possibly to form a cold bath,

although this is unsure. This complex was altered in the course of the 3rd century BC, and

heating elements added to the former "cold bath." This room may now have become a sweat

bath. It seems that throughout the existence of this building (III) the swimming-pool and the

putative sweat bath in the "Heroon" continued in use.

The next phase (IV) is, for us, the most important (figs. 3-4). The hip-bath complex had

been abandoned in the early 2nd century BC. and now an entirely new and revolutionary

structure was erected to replace it. This is "the Greek hypocaust bath. "56 It is a rectangular

structure, 7.93m x 9.51m, with an apse at one end. The long, north-south walls are thicker than

55 Note the very similar structure (date: c. 490 BC) found in the sanctuary at Santa Venera near
Paestum, which is interpreted by the excavator as a temple, cf. J.G. PEDLEY, Paestum (London: Thames &
Hudson, 1990), pp. 136-143.
56 The hypocaust bath is covered in KUNZE & SCHLEIF, O~ympia, pp. 51-56 (description) and 79-80
(date).
I] 40

the short, east-west ones, and this suggested a barrel-vaulted roofto the excavators. The apse

was roofed with a semi-dome. The floor of the building was raised up on 90 pillars made of

brick and other materials, which stood 80-85cm high. This did not extend under the apse (fig.

4). In the north and south corners of the east wall were two holes in the main room's flooring,

interpreted by the excavators as small chimneys for the hypocaust. Heating was provided from

the north end of the building, so that what had been building II now served as a furnace room.

Other small rooms were built against the main room's east side and north-east corner.

In the north-west corner stood a bath, separated from the rest of the main room by a

short wall, 60cm high. This was heated by means of a device later called a testudo alvei

(literally "tortoise of the pool"), whereby water in a hot container was heated by a fire

underneath and circulated into the pool, thus maintaining a supply of hot water for the entire

pool. 57 This "tortoise" was placed above the entrance to the hypocaust, and so the same fire

could heat the pool and the room. Starting outside the west end of the pool and running along

the length of the west wall of the main room was a drainage channel, which emptied through an

opening adjacent to the apse. In the flooring of the apse itself were found the outlines of a pillar

and a wall that connected it to the apex of the apse. The latter is interpreted as having supported

and supplied what the Romans called a labrum, i.e. a raised basin for dousing, which is now

lost. Outside the north-west corner, the main supply tank for building III was renovated to

supply the hydraulic needs of building IV.

While there can be no doubt that this building contains many technological and

architectural refinements, it is more difficult to see it as a Greek development that clearly

foreshadows Roman bathing practices. Its architectural form is that of a caklariwn of a

Republican Roman bath almost straight from the pages of Vitruvius, but it is disembodied and

57 Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.16.

I] 41

stands in isolation. There is no identifiable tepidarium or.frigidarium associated with it. What is

more, as Schleif himself notes, it marks a striking departure from the individual hip-bath

complexes of the previous buildings on the site, and must reflect a radical change in the bathing

practices themselves. 58 Such a change in bathing habits from individual to communal

immersion is not attested at other Greek bath sites, and is very much the exception to the rule.

Although there is a swimming-pool at Olympia, immersion was in cold water-- hip-baths were

provided for hot-water bathing-- and pools like it were a rarity in Greek baths in any case.

Furthermore. as at Olympia, such pools are found predominantly at or near sanctuaries, which

may indicate that they had a primarily religious function. 59 However, in building IV the

communal immersion is in hot water, with no alternative hip-bathing facilities available. This is

indeed "a basic change in bathing habits."

What brought about such a change? That it was of local origin is not supported by the

evidence. There is no sign at Olympia of gradual development. Rather, the change is from hip­

bath to heated communal pool -- with a much smaller capacity than the hip-bath complex III -­

without any visible transition. This would suggest the work of an external influence on bathing

habits, and clues exist as to its identity. Given the form of the building, a Roman caldarium,

and its date, c.l00 BC, phase IV at Olympia is probably the product of Roman influence at the

site. 60 After all, by this date the Romans had been involved in Greek affairs for nearly a century

58 KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, p. 51: "Mit der Aufg.abe des jung.eren Sitzbades ohne Ersatz durch
eine entsprechende weiterentwickelte Neuanlage zeigt sich eine grundsatzlicbe Veriinderung der Badegewohnheiten
an, die in dem nachfolgenden grofien Neubau lV folgericbtig ihre baulicbe Gestaltung findet."
59 Other communal pools are found in the gymnasia at Delphi or Delos (where they are round) or in the
bath at Nemea (rectangular), cf KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, pp. 40-46, esp. 42; GINOUVES, &/an., pp.
133-134; S.G MILLER (ed.), Nemea. A guide to the Sire and Museum (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990), pp. 110-117. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. Note also that they are all in religious
contexts, and so may have served some ceremonial or ritual purpose.
60 Cf. KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, pp. 79-80 where the building is dated by pottery evidence. I.
NIELSEN, "Considerazioni sulle prime fasi dell'evoluzione dell'edificio termale romano," ARID 14 (1985), 81­
112. esp. 101-104 reconsiders the evidence and sets a date no earlier than 100 BC and perhaps sometime later; see
also ead., Thenn., 1.22.
I] 42

and some had even emigrated to live there.6 1 In particular, we know that the architect
Cossutius, identified by Vitruvius as a Roman citizen, was active in Greece during the reign of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 BC). 62 This is not to suggest that Cossutius designed bath
IV at Olympia, but it is nonetheless interesting to hear of a Roman architect active in Greece at so
early a date. Conceivably others followed in his footsteps. Unfortunately, lack of evidence
makes it impossible to establish how typical Cossutius was.

Some of the concerns expressed above about the Gortys establishment apply to Olympia
as well. The bath is in the religious context of a sanctuary, not a civic one. Its main patrons
would have been those who visited the sanctuary (pilgrims and athletes), but not everyday
passers-by. Like Gortys, it is also a unique structure with no surviving parallels among Greek
baths. All these arguments taken together make it difficult to see building IV at Olympia as a
direct Greek model for Roman baths.

Thus both Gortys and building IV at Olympia, the two cornerstones of the "Greek
theory" for the origin of Roman baths, now seem unsatisfactory for this purpose. It is
appropriate to tum next to other, more typical Greek bathing structures to see if these can offer
any features that seem to anticipate Roman baths.

61 Cf. A.J.N. WILSON, Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (NY: Manchester
University Press, 1966), pp. 94-98.
62 Cf. Vitruv., 7.15-17. J.M.C. TOYNBEE, "Some Notes on Artists in the Roman world," Latomus
8 (1949), 310 suggests he was of Campano-Greek stock. E. RAWSON, Roman Culture and Society (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 189-203 (originally PBSR 43 (1975), 36-47), esp. 190-193 confirms Cossutius's
Campanian origins and identifies other members of the family (pp. 193-195) as active in Athens and the Aegean
region (including Delos) at this time, though their activities cannot be determined. See further, H.A.
THOMPSON, "The Impact of Roman Architects and Architecture on Athens: 170 BC-AD 170ff in F.H.
THOMPSON (ed.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London: Society of Antiquaries, 1987), pp. 1-17.
I] 43

The characteristics ofGreek baJhs

There were two main types of public bath in the Greek world: one was found in the

gymnasium and the other was an independent entity. 63 We can treat both fairly briefly. 64 Here

we are concerned only with the gymnasium's bathing facilities; the palaestra and its related

rooms, which had a definite influence on Roman baths, are considered elsewhere. 65 However,

we should note that the presence of a palaestra in Roman baths from an early date is in itself a

clear sign of Greek gyrnnasial influence on those baths. 66

The baths associated with the gymnasium, usually called 1\ouTpwv or l\ouTp6v, had

some defmite characteristics which only acquired architectural form along with the institution

itself in the late 5th century BC and on into the Hellenistic period. 67 Gymnasial baths could be

open to the sky (as at Delphi) or a part of the palaestra building (as at Eretria, Pergamum or

Priene). Such establishments featured only cold water baths, normally in the form of simple

basins against a wall (e.g. Delphi, Nemea, Priene, Pergamum, and Epidauros).68 There could

be a swimming pool, but this was a rarity.69 Such pools, when they existed, were also supplied

with cold water. Heated elements in gymnasia! baths were restricted mainly to round sweat

63 Cf. DELORME, Gymn., pp. 245-246 for the distinction between gymnasial and public baths. More
recently, cf. D.G. KYLE, Athletics in Ancient Athens (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 56-101, esp. 64-71.
64 Cf. DELORME, Gymn., pp. 304-305 or the fuller account in GINOUVES, &/an., pp. 124-147.
See also NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.9-13. For more information on the sites of both gymnasia and public baths
mentioned in the following brief survey, cf. GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 431-440. See also the additional sites
mentioned (with bibliography) by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.6, n. 7.
65 Gymnasia generally included a palaestra-like element, though palaestrae could also exist
independently, cf. the works cited above, n. 63.
66 Note that Vitruvius (5.11.1 ), when describing a building he calls a palaestra says that he considers
palaestrae not to be a part of Italian, but Greek culture (nunc mihi videtur, tametsi non sint ltalicae consuetudinis
palaestrarum aedijicationes, traditae tamen, explicare et quemadmodum apud Graecos constituantur, monstrare).
But note that he clearly presents the palaestra as a separate building and not part of the baths which he has just
described (5.10). As NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.34 points out, no examples of such a structure have been found.
67 On the terminology and problems associated with it, cf. GINOUVES, Balan., p. 129, n. 7. Archaic
and early Classical gymnasia appear to have been extremely simple affairs, little more than open-air spaces with
basins for washing.
68 GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 130-135 and figs. 90-93.
69 See above, n. 59.
I] 44

baths (as at Delos, possibly the "Heroon" at Olympia or the palaestra at Eretria) until the
Hellenistic period. after which their nature becomes debatable.7° Such were the physical
characteristics of gymnasia baths. Aside from the palaestra, there are three features here that
were to find parallels, if not descendants, in Roman baths -- cold-water basins, the round sweat
bath and the swimming-pool. although the latter was a rarity in Greek establishments, and the
Romans could have developed it independently. What is more, the cold-water basin (labrum)
and the sweat-room (laconicum) were respectively minor and optional features of Roman baths.

Greek public baths, called ~IXA.IXvEiov (pl. ~IXA.IXVEliX), were a different type of

building altogether. 7 1 Athenaeus says the Sybarites were using them in the 6th century BC, but
he may be mistaken.72 BIXA.IXVEliX were certainly in existence in Athens when Aristophanes
wrote at the end of the 5th/beginning of the 4th century BC. 73 Vase paintings of this period
depict bath scenes, but it is often unclear if they are private or public in setting. 74 An exception
is a red-figure vase of the 5th century BC portraying young men around a basin inscribed with
the word orn.wotiX. What does the word mean here? "Public place" or "publicly owned"?75 If

70 GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 135-140. Much of the evidence GINOUVES cites in these pages is of
Roman date, and so not strictly applicable to unadulterated Greek practice. Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., p.ll.
71 Cf. GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 183-224; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.6-9. Note also the celebrated comment
of Poseidonius (cited in Athen., 5.210e-f and 12.527e-t) that the people of Syria were using the Y1JI-l VCWliX as
~IXA.IXVEliX.
72 Ath., 12.518c. Elsewhere Athenaeus (1.18b-c), citing the 4th-century BC comic poet Antiphanes,
says that public baths had only been recently introduced (npoo¢6. TW~ OE KIXl TCt ~IXA.CtVEliX
TiiXpf\K TIX l).
73 Specifically public baths, however, are often difficult to discern in Aristophanes' comments, but they
seem to stand behind the following references: Knights, 1060-1063 (424 BC); Clouds, 835-837,991, 1045,
1050-1054 (423/1 BC); Frogs, 1279-1280 (405 BC); Plutus, 535-536,952-953 (388 BC). We may also note
those places where a ~IXAIXVEUS', a keeper of public baths, is mentioned: Knights, 1403; Birds, 490-492 (414
BC); Frogs, 711; Plutus, 955-956. Baths of unclear type-- private or public?-- are found at: Knights, 50;
Lysistrata, 1066-1068 (411 BC); Plutus, 615-616. Note also that Aristophanes seems to use both ~IXA.IXv{iov
and A.ovTp6v to refer to public baths, compare Clouds, 991 with 1045 and 1051, clearly in reference to the
same sort of establishment. Whether the Old Oligarch means "bathhouses" (as opposed to baths in an athletic
setting) by AOVTpWVIXS' in 2.10 is not clear, but they are clearly the work of the demos.
74 GINOUVES, Balan., p. 127 makes this point. Cf. Ch. 2, n. 138 for a discussion of the eponymous
painting in the Tomb of the Diver.
75 The vase was in the Hamilton collection and is depicted in DAREMBERG & SAGLIO, 1.651, fig.
748. GINOUVES, Balan., p. 127 interprets the word a~ meaning "public place" but a recent study of the
I] 45

the latter, it may indicate that the place had a restricted clientele (e.g. ambassadors, members of

the prytany or public guests).

Many examples of Greek public baths have been found, the majority dating from the

Hellenistic period or later. As a result, their main features can be confidently determined.

The chief characteristic of the ~a:A.a:vEl.ov was the hip-bath ('rnJEA.os-). This type of tub

had a distinctive shape. 76 There was a seat, often of stone, at the high end, with a small basin at

the low, foot end. The walls of the tub itself, often made from terracotta, sloped down from

about chest to knee height on a seated bather. The bathers sat in the tub and had water poured

over them by an attendant Such hip-baths would be arranged side-by-side around the walls of

an open room, normally a rotunda (e6A.os).77 Where the walls of these hip-bath chambers have

been preserved to a sufficient height, there are often niches over the hip-baths for the bather to

store belongings or washing gear.78 There could also be individual immersion tubs, quite

similar to the bath-tub of modern times in form and function. 79 Occasionally sweat-baths and

hypocaust systems connected with them are also found in such baths. 80 Cold-water washing is

development of public property and the application of the term OY)!J.OOLO: in Greek cities would suggest it
means "publicly owned," cf. D. LEWIS, "Public Property in the City," in 0. MURRAY (ed.), The Greek City
from Homer to Alexander (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 245-263
76 For which cf. GINOUVES. Bakln., pp. 2949. esp. 4749, and his figs. 10-26. 98-116. 119-124.
149-152, 156-160.
77 E.g. Rotunda: room Gat Gortys (fig. 1). Harbour Baths at Eretria (fig. 5). Eleusis. Piraeus, Agora
and Dipylon baths at Athens, Oeniadae, Syracuse, Gela. Megara Hyblaea; cf. Athen., 11.501e (comment of the
grammarian Timarchos or Timachidas (late 2nd/early 1st cent. BC; cf. RE 2.6a.1 052-60, s.v. "Timachidas,"
[Ziegler]) that baths in Athens were round); Other. buildings II and ill at Olympia (rectangular), room A at Gela
and the "Sacred Baths" at Cyrene (both U-shaped, though there are rotundas at both sites as well).
78 E.g. room Gat Gortys (fig. 1), rotunda R1 at the Piraeus, the "Sacred Baths" at Cyrene.
79 E.g. room D at Gortys (fig. 1), but also at the "Sacred Baths" at Cyrene.
80 E.g. sweat baths: room E at Gortys, and possibly rotunda E at Syracuse; hypocausts: Gortys
(the most sophisticated and extensive of the known examples), Gela, Syracuse, Megara Hyblea and Velia. We
shall discuss these western examples shortly (cf. below, p. 61). GINOUVES's hypocaust at Eretria (area Fin fig.
5) does not look particularly convincing and may be little more than a boiler heater like that in building II at
Olympia from about 400 BC, cf. KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, pp. 36 (description) and 70-71 (date).
I] 46

not a proven feature of Greek baths. the only solid examples coming from Gortys, which is an

unusual site.8 1

Apart from these features, ~a>--avE'ia had little else to distinguish them. Their other

rooms are mostly anonymous and have no immediately discernible function. Some of them may

have been latrines or changing rooms but the evidence precludes certainty. 82 What is more,

there is no clear order to the room arrangement. The only element of the Greek ~a>--avE'iov

that prefigures Roman baths would appear to be the hypocaust, and it has been suggested that

the Greek "annular" system. employing an underfloor heating corridor to heat parts of rooms.

was in reality quite different from the Roman suspensura. which heated the entire floorspace. 83

These two types represent the main forms of public baths in pre-Roman Greece. While

there would appear to be little doubt that certain elements of these establishments came to be

incorporated into Roman baths (e.g. swimming pools. sweat-baths. cold-water basins in the

form of labra. and the hypocaust). it is clear that these types of bath are not sufficient in

themselves. either individually or in combination. to explain the form of Roman baths. What

distinguished 1--ouTpa was cold-water washing in basins and the presence of sweat-baths, both

of which were either minor or optional operations in Roman baths (in the form of labra or
laconica). The distinctive hip-baths of the ~a>--avE'iov can nowhere be securely identified in

Roman structures. Conversely, the Roman sequence of heated rooms and communal immersion

in hot water are entirely absent in Greek establishments.84 These overall differences in form

between Greek and Roman baths reflect a more profound difference in bathing habits, whereby

the Greeks bathed for the most part individually at basins or in hip-baths or single immersion

8l It is not at all certain that the term IJ.clKTpa means cold immersion pool, as NIELSEN, Therm.,
1.8 asserts. It could also denote bot immersion baths, cf. GINOUVES, Balan., pp.l88-189.
82 GINOUVES. Balan.• pp. 210-212.

83
Cf. n. 42.
84 Although the Western Greeks may have been moving toward bot-water communal immersion in the
2nd century BC, see below, p. 61.
IJ 47

tubs, whereas the Romans bathed together in communal pools. Indeed, this very observation

leads Ginouves to assert that the Greeks bathed primarily for cleanliness, the Romans primarily

for pleasure. 85

The form of the Greek ;\mnpci and ~at..avda, then, does not support the contention

that Roman baths and bathing habits developed directly from Greek models. On inspection,

neither does their function in society. The gymnasia of the Greek world remained largely the

preserve of the upper classes, while Greek public baths were frequented by all sorts of people,

from kings (on occasion) and politicians to commoners.86 However, if the ~at-,avE'ia were in

this respect analogous to Roman baths, it can be said with confidence that they never attained the

same degree of popularity as their Roman counterparts and, for that reason, that they did not

play the same central role in daily life. Relatively few secular ~a;\avE'ia are known from Greek

sites (Egypt is an exception). 87 In addition, those that have been identified are universally

smaller than would be the case if they were designed with large numbers of bathers in mind. 88

85 Balan., pp. 101-102, 135,219, 229.

86 Cf. Polyb., 26.1.12-14 (Antiochos IV Epiphanes bathes among the people EV TolS OT)iJOOt01S
~ClAClVEtOlS) and ibid., 30.29.3-5 (the politicians Kallikrates and Andronidas bathe with people, although this
occurs during a religious festival); Athen., 2.244c (two Delphic Sophists were so malodorous they clear out the
~O)\a!JELO when they enter). For the clientele at these institutions see also GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 216-220
and for gymnasia in particular DELORME, Gymn., pp. 426-432,456-457 and the comments ofP. GREEN,
Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990), p. 319.
87 We should note here that, Olympia and Gortys apart, several other Greek "public" baths appear in
religious contexts, notably the baths just outside the sanctuary at Eleusis, and those at Morgantina, which lie in
close proximity to a sanctuary of Persephone (cf. H.L. ALLEN, "Excavations at Morgantina (Serra Orlando)
1970-1972: Preliminary Report XI," AlA 78 (1974), 361-383, esp. 381-382 where ALLEN suggests that the
baths' position indicates a religious function for the structure). Although these buildings have the same general
form as civic baths like Eretria's Harbour Baths or those at Gela, their function may have been quite different.
The Romans too were to equip sanctuaries with baths identical in form to their civic establishments, witness the
Roman baths at Olympia, Epidauros, Eleusis and Delphi among others.
88 For the number of sites, cf. GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 184-186 and the supplement in NIELSEN,
Thenn., 1.6, n. 7. The expected number of bathers can be roughly estimated by counting the number of hip­
baths, and the figures are always small: Gortys had only 9 (fig. 1); Eleusis had 30 in two rotundas; Gela had 26
surviving examples with room for a further 7 at most (cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., fig. 4); rotunda R 1 at the Piraeus
had 26 examples (GINOUVES, Balan., p. 193, fig. 157); Oeniadae's R2 had 17 with an indeterminate number in
R1 (ibid., pp. 193-194, fig. 156); Eretria 42 in two rotundas (fig. 5); and Cyrene had 28 originally, with two hip­
baths replaced by 1 immersion bath at a later date (ibid., fig. 103).
I) 48

All in all, the "Greek theory" is not very solid. There are major problems with the two

chief sites cited by its proponents (Gortys and Olympia), and while a review of "typical" Greek

baths can isolate elements that can be found later in Roman establishments, Greek and Roman

baths are essentially different in architectural form, method of use and social function. But some

positive points have emerged. Chief among these is that the Greeks used public baths in the first

place. In this respect Greek culture is unique among those with which Rome came into contact

prior to the 2nd century BC. Also, elements of Greek baths are indeed found in Roman

structures. Foremost among these is the hypocaust, but there are also the sweat-baths and cold­

water basins which, however, were not central to Roman practice. All this strengthens the

notion that some degree of transfer occurred between Greek and Roman practice. The questions

are, when, how and where? And in what degree?

Other questions remain. How do we explain those elements of Roman baths that are not

found in Greek examples (i.e. the series of rooms and communal immersion)? Where did they

come from? And where does the elusive Sergius Orata fit into the whole scheme, if at all? To

answer these questions a COJ?sideration of the earliest physical remains of Roman baths, the
j-
Stabian Baths at Pompeii;wittbe necessary. Clues from literary and epigraphic sources can be

sought. When taken in combination, this material can be added to our conclusions here, and a

clearer picture may be seen to emerge.

 CHAPTER II

THE STABIAN BATHS AND THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Introduction

The evidence from Italy clearly points to Campania as the place where Roman public baths first
made their appearance. We have already seen that the earliest remains of Roman baths come
from this region and that Sergius Orata is said to have invented his pensiles balineae (whatever
they were) there. I To this we can add further testimony. Livy claims that there were public
baths (balneae) in Capua in 216 BC, and a story told by C. Gracchus attests the presence of
baths in Teanum Sidicinum, Cales and Ferentinum at the end of the 2nd century BC.::!
Campania is therefore the place where the earliest Roman evidence converges.

There are other considerations to be taken into account in Campania's favour. 3 In the
3rd and 2nd centuries BC it was a prosperous region that took a lead in developing architectural
forms and building techniques later to be commonplace in Roman cities.4 What is more,
Campania had had extensive contact with Greek culture. The region had its share of Greek
settlements, stretching back to the foundation of Pithecusae followed by Cumae, Puteoli and,

1 These points have been discussed in detail in the previous chapter.

2 Livy, 23.7.3, 23.18.12, although this evidence may not be accurate; C. Gracchus cited in Aulus
Gellius, 10.3.3. See below, pp. 72-88 for a fuller treatment of these notices, as well as the other literary and
epigrapic evidence.
3 Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.25-26.
4 In particular, Campanians pioneered the use of concrete and tile in construction and developed
architectural forms such as the basilica and the amphitheatre. Cf. F. RAKOB, wHe1lenismus in Mittelitalien:
Bautypen und Bautechnik, wHIM (1974), pp. 366-386; J.B. WARD-PERKINS, "Taste, Tradition and Technology.
Some Aspects of the Architecture of late Republican and early Imperial Italy," in G. KOPCKE & M.B. MOORE,
Studies in Classical A.n and Archaeology (NY: Augustin, 1979), pp. 197-207, esp. 198-200. On Campania in
general in this period, cf. M. FREDERIKSEN (ed. N. PURCELL), Campania (Rome: British School at Rome,
1984), pp. 221-284.

49

II] 50

most powerful of all, Neapolis. 5 Flourishing Greek settlements were not far to the south at
Paestum, Rhegium and in Sicily. Campania therefore provides a suitable context for the
exertion of influence from Greek to Roman baths. In addition, a particular natural feature of
Campania may help in the search for the origins of communal bathing in hot water. This is the
volcanic activity which generates an abundance of spas and thermal springs in the Campi
Flegrei, the region roughly between Cumae and Naples. 6 These thermal pools show evidence
of human activity from an early date. 7 All in all, Campania is admirably suited to provide the

backdrop for the appearance of Roman-style baths: its population enjoyed the prosperity, natural
resources, ingenuity and necessary cultural influences for such a development.

The earliest known Roman baths in Campania are the Central Baths at Cumae, dated to
about 180 BC or earlier. Unfortunately, they have not been fully investigated and published,

nor are they fully preserved. They seem to have undergone a series of restorations and
extensions in antiquity, but the outline accounts provided in cursory reports indicate that the

earliest structure displayed the familiar linear arrangement of three barrel-vaulted rooms. 8 There
are also niches in the walls. That is about all that can be said until further work is carried out on
this structure.

Resort must therefore be had to the Stab ian Baths at Pompeii, the earliest set of fully
preserved Roman baths. These have been clearly published and much discussed. 9 Remarkably,
it has been claimed that they show a direct link between Greek and Roman bathing practice, in
that the flrst bath on the site has been reconstructed by some scholars as a Greek bath, which

5 Cf FREDERIKSEN, Campania, pp. 54-116.

6 Cf FREDERIKSEN, Campania, pp. 1-30.
7 Cf. Livy, 41.16 (bathing at Aquae Cumanae in 176 BC). See also NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.21; G.W.
HOUSTON, "The Other Spas of Ancient Campania" (forthcoming). Some useful information will undoubtedly
emerge from R. JACKSON, "Waters and Spas in the Classical World," in R.S. PORTER & W.F. BYNUM
(edd.), The Medical History ofSpas and Waters (Medical History supplement, forthcoming).
8 Cf NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.28-29 (where there is reference to earlier bibliography).

9 The main publication is ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn. Other discussions will be cited as they arise.

II] 51

was later supplanted by a Roman one. It is therefore an important, if not crucial site, which

merits detailed investigation here. As will emerge, however, the difficulties of interpreting this

building are such that it cannot be used as convincing proof that the first Roman public baths

were originally Greek in form.

(i) The Stabian Baths at Pompeii: from Greek to Roman?

H. Eschebach's scheme for the Stabian Baths' construction history is presented first. This has

recently been adopted in slightly modified form by I. Nielsen, and used as the basis for her

development scheme for Roman baths as a whole. Her views, therefore, receive separate and

extensive treatment in the subsequent section.

H. Eschebach 's Stabian Baths scheme

The Stab ian Baths occupy the south half of Insula 1, Regio VII at Pompeii. 10 The main

body of the building as it stands today is dated to the second half of the 2nd century BC (fig:/

6).11 However, H. Eschebach and his mentor and predecessor H. Sulze claim to have identified

far older underlying structures which push the origins of the bath building back to the 5th

century BC.l2 In fact, they see the 2nd century baths as phase IV of a building that is judged to

have had a total of seven construction periods. Phase V is dated by an inscription found on the

site, which records the work of the duumvirs C. Vulius and P. Aninius who constructed a

10 They are at VII.i.8/48/50, cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 5-7. The position of the Stabian
Baths in the city plan is indicated in fig. 18.1-3.
11 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 8-25 for a thorough building description.
12 The work of Su1ze is concisely summarised in ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. vii-ix.
II] 52

laconicwn and destrictariwn and renovated parts of the porticus and palaestra. 13 The inscription
dates to the early years of the Sullan colony, c. 80 BC. Unfortunately the earlier phases are not

so easily dated. Since the baths required some restoration and extension in 80 BC, the main

body (Phase IV) is reckoned to belong to c. 140-120 BC. This latter date is supported by

construction techniques and materials. Otherwise, it is difficult to assign precise dates for the

various phases. 14 This situation, however, does not deter Eschebach from identifying the main

periods of development and providing rough dates for each.

Eschebach's Phase I consists of a small bath, located under the curious arrangement in

the north-west corner of the site, featuring a series of hip-baths distributed among five bathing

cells, a large immersion pool and a deep well (fig. 7.1). The whole was built in connection with

a palaestra that occupied the rest of the site. 15 This, then, was essentially a type of gymnasium,

and the bath an athletes' bath. What is unusual is the combination of palaestra and hot-water

baths, not found in Greek gymnasia until Hellenistic times, and the presence of an immersion

pool which was a rarity in Greek bathing establishments of any kind 16 This building thus

shared characteristics with both types of Greek public baths -- cold-water bathing and a palaestra

taken from gymnasia, and the hip-baths taken from ~cxA.cxvEtcx. Eschebach dates this phase to

the 5th century BC, apparently by comparison with the hip-baths at Olympia. It was destroyed

by an eruption of Vesuvius in the latter part of that century.

13 The inscription (llLRP 648 = C/L 10.1635) reads: C. Uulius C. f., P. Aninius C. f. IIV(iri) i(ure)
d(icundo) I laconicum et destrictarium I faciund(a) et I porticus et palaestr(am) I reficiunda locarunt ex d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum) ex II ea pequnia quod eos e lege I in ludos aut in monumento I consumere oportuit. faciund(a) I
coerarunt eidemque probaru(nt).
14 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., p. viii: "(Die einzelnen Bauperioden] gehen vielfach ineinander
iiber, da absolut schliissige Beweise fur die zeitliche Abgrenzung der verschiedenen Phasen des Baugeschehens
nicht zu erbringen sind."
15 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 51-53, 64.

16
Cf. above, pp. 43-44 for gymnasia! baths. Cf. also NIELSEN's position on this combination,
below, n. 138.
IIJ 53

In the next phase (II), Eschebach sees the hip-baths replaced by five individual

immersion tubs in the bathing cells (fig. 7.2). The immersion pool is extended and the well

given a mechanical water-lifting device. The north wing of the palaestra gets some functional

rooms, including a cistern. The functions of the other rooms are not clear. 17 This is seen as the

first public bath on the site, and the house built to the north of the well-room was perhaps

intended to accommodate the personnel who worked there. It is assigned a date in the 4th or 3rd

century BC.

Phase III sees the construction of a domus-type house in the south-west section of the

insula, and the baths extended to the east (fig. 7.3). 18 Here a new room (II), which later

became the women's apodyterium, was added between the old well-room (I) and easternmost

room on the north wing of the palaestra (III). These three rooms were interconnected by

diagonal entranceways, testimony to the makeshift nature of the arrangement. Rooms I and II

had floors with elaborate rhomboid designs, as also perhaps did Ill. The bathing cells continued

in use to the west of room II. A terminu.'ii post quem for these alterations was provided by a

lekythos sherd, dated to the 4th century BC or earlier, found under the mortar base for room II.

These alterations are therefore probably to be dated to some time following this deposit, in the

4th or 3rd centuries BC.

If Eschebach's scheme is accepted, this phase would be most important, as the first

signs of an ordered room sequence appears in the arrangement of rooms I-III. Eschebach is not

sure what function these rooms served, but suggests that they may have been heated by braziers

of the sort found in the tepidarium of the Forum Baths at Herculaneum, or the one found in

17 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 54-55, 64.

18 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 56-57, 64-65.
III 54

room Qat the Stabian Baths (cf. fig. 6). 19 At this stage in Pompeii's history, the site was in

Samnite hands, but it is most unlikely that the inspiration for a progression of rooms came from

the Samnites. 20 In addition, by comparison with the clear sequence of rooms in the next phase

of the building's history. the arrangement here is rather loose.

In Phase IV, Eschebach presents the first recognizable set of Roman baths fitted with

hypocausts of the Roman type (fig. 7.4).2 1 Here, in the south-east wing of the insula, there is a

set of two caldaria grouped around a single furnace room, two tepidaria and two apodyteria,

presumably one set each for males and females. This suggestion is reinforced by the smaller,

northernmost set of rooms being closed off from the palaestra, which remained the preserve of

men. All of these rooms are barrel-vaulted. No frigidaria are attested for this period, but the

women's apodyteriwn may have had a cold pool in it, as it did later. That we are dealing with a

double set of baths here suggests that, although these are the earliest complete set of Roman

public baths to survive, they were by no means the first built. The sophistication of the

hypocaust,22 the placing of the twin caldaria flanking a single heat source, and the overall

smoothness of design surely indicate an architect familiar with the technology and requirements

of such a building.

The palaestra was encroached upon to provide room for these structures, and the portico

on its north side was extended to the east and south (the west side of the palaestra still abutted

the domus-type house). The east wing of the portico was fitted out with a sundial bearing an

19 This was not the intended location of the tray; it had been moved there by workers engaged in
repairing the building after the earthquake of AD 62/3. It was inscribed with the name ofP. Nigidius Vaccula.
ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., p. 25, s.v. "Q" gives full reference to publications of this object.
20 Cf. E.T. SALMON, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967),
pp. 50-186, esp. pp. 50-64 where public bathing is not an attested part of Samnite lite.
21 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., pp. 65-68.
22 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., pp. 40-47.
11] 55

Oscan inscription. 2 3 The north wing had a new cistern added on a second storey above the

bathing cells, and the latter apparently continued in use, providing apparent evidence for a

remarkable coexistence of old (Greek) and new (Roman) practice. As mentioned above, this

phase is assigned a date of 140-120 BC.

Phase V was marked by the alterations of Vulius and Aninius, when the palaestra and

portico were renovated and a laconicum and destrictariwn added (fig. 7 .5).24 By a close

comparison of its form with Vitruvius's prescriptions for a laconicum, Eschebach identified the

roundfrigidarium of the later building as the old sweat-bath.25 He placed the destrictarium
adjacent to it, in the area now occupied by the apse of the caldarium. South of the laconicum he

put a putative cold pool for the men's baths. Also, the timber-yard was built (VIII in fig. 6) .

These alterations in the east wing marked a further encroachment into the palaestra

The final stages of the building's history (Phases VI, VII and following alterations) saw

the absorption of the domu.~-style house and the construction of the west wing, the final closing

of the old bath in the north wing and the alterations to the east wing to create the building which

greets the visitor today (fig. 7.6).26 The dates of these various activities stretch from the

Augustan period into the 1st century AD.

Eschebach's scheme for the building history of the Stab ian Baths thus presents a

complicated palimpsest of building phases stretching from the 5th century BC to the 1st century

AD. He, following Sulze before him, was of the opinion that the "Roman" set of rooms in the

23 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 17, B, Taf. 23d and Abb. 5, 7. The find spot is indicated by
"x" on fig. 6.
24 For the inscription, cf. above, n. 13; ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 58-60, 68-69.
25 Cf. Vitruv., 5.10.5;; cf. H. ESCHEBACH, "Laconicum et destrictarium faciund .. .locarunt,"
Romische Mitteilungen 80 (1973), 235-242. His arguments for the identification of the .frigidilrium of today's
remains ~ith the laconicum of Vulius and Aninius find enthusiatsic support in HEINZ, Rom Therm., p. 34. Cf
also BRODNER, Rom Therm., pp. 15-16; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.31.
26 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 61-63, 69-72.
II] 56

east wing, phase IV, was the product of the influence of Greek culture and medical thinking on

the Romans,27 though this can hardly account for the presence of distinctly Greek-style baths on

the site beforehand. We would have to accept that the Greeks elsewhere had developed the

"Roman" type bath, and, from our investigation of Greek bathing above, this appears unlikely.

If anything, the development of the sequence of rooms -- clear in Phase IV, though also possible

in Phase III -- appears as a departure from the Greek practices he sees as already operative on

the site.

Eschebach's whole scheme has recently been challenged by L. Richardson, Jr. 28

Richardson advances both general arguments concerning Pompeii's early development and more

specific ones aimed at the Stabian Baths which, if accepted, would require the abandonment of

Eschebach's first three building periods, i.e. the Greek bath/palaestra. Looking at the history of

Pompeii as a whole, and drawing his conclusions from close study of the site and an analysis of

its overall architectural history, he comes to the following conclusions. Pompeii before the First

Punic War was "obviously a very inconsiderable place. "29 There was little magnificence to it,

and no urban core can be demonstrated before the 3rd century BC. The growth of Roman sea­

power in the wars with Carthage, and the acquisition of empire in the 2nd century BC, are

reflected in Pompeii's "golden age" of construction which saw the erection of many important

buildings, including the basilica, the Temple of Apollo, the main theatre and the Triangular

Forum, as well as several of the city's most magnificent private houses.3° The Stabian Baths

are to be placed among the buildings of this so-called "Tufa" period.

27 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., pp. viii, 65.

2S Cf. L. RICHARDSON, Jr., Pompeii: An Architectural History (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press,
1988).
29 RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 7; cf. xv-xxiii, and 3-27, for the city's history. As he points out in
these pages, investigation of the city's early levels had been restricted to key-hole glimpses through occasional
and scattered soundings until 1980-1982, when the need tor an electric cable tor the modem administrative
buildings led to the digging of a trench across the forum. The excavator, P. ARTHUR, reports in "Problems of
the Urbanization of Pompeii," AntJ 66 (1986), 29-44 that little or no sign of monumentality was found here,
where we would most expect it, before the 3rd century BC, and truly impressive buildings were all confined to the
following century.
30 Cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 67-127.
III 57

Turning to the baths themselves, Richardson contends that the whole structure, except

for the west wing, went up all at once in the 2nd century BC.3 1 There was no Greek bath on the

site at all. Because, for him, there was no city as such to go with it until the late 3rd/early 2nd

century BC, this is no surprise. To support his contention, Richardson points to the organic

nature of the bath unit as a whole, the consistent use oftufa framing for each of the baths' five

entrances (which points to a single construction operation), and the illogical nature of

Eschebach's building history. 32 If the north wing were an older part of the building, it was

completely rebuilt along the same lines as before when the east wing went up, which seems

unnecessary. In any case, why retain it, a relic of an outdated bathing practice, at a time when

the "new" baths in the east wing were available? Richardson instead sees the north wing as

erected contemporaneously with the east wing and serving a special purpose there, perhaps

providing water temperatures not available in the rest of the building. 33

Upon close inspection, there are some further difficulties of detail with Eschebach's

proposed Greek bath which should also be addressed. First, as Eschebach himself admits, no

other Greek bath is known which features hip-baths in individual bathing cells; rather they are

usually arranged around the walls of an open room.34 Second, as we have seen, early Greek

baths do not feature palaestrae in conjunction with hot baths. To find such a revolutionary

31 For what follows, cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 100-105.

32 ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., Taf. 33a presents his reconstruction of the growth in the number of
entrances to the building, from Pha-;es I (with one certain and 3 possible entrances) to VI (with the present-day 5).
Note also ibid., Taf. 3, from which the homogeneous nature of the Tufa entrances is clear.
33 RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 102. However, in discussion Prof. Richardson suggested to me that
the cubicles may have been for medicinal bathing This must be considered unlikely as other evidence (cf. below,
pp. 253-255) makes it clear that it was usual for the sick and healthy to bathe together. Of course, this may not
have been the case at Pompeii, so the cubicles may reflect this or some other quirk in local bathing habits. ln
this connection, the cubicle arrangement in the Sarno Bath complex, which were still under construction in AD
79 (cf. below, pp. 136-137), should be borne in mind.
34 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 51-52. The example of the hip-bath in a room at Gioia,
which ESCHEBACH adduces in partial support of his hip-bath cells, is not applicable. In the first place it is in a
bathroom in a private house and, secondly, it occupies only one comer of a far larger room, rather than fitting
snugly into cells, as in the Stabian Baths; cf. B.M. SCARF!, "Gioia del Colle," NSc 7.14 (1962), 1-283, esp.
142-144.
II] 58

combination at Pompeii during a period (the 5th century BC) when both gymnasia and
~a.~a.vE'ia. were still in their architectural infancy in mainland Greece is startling to say the

least. 35 Finally. Eschebach's reconstruction of the 5th-century hip-bath looks very strange and

hardly resembles the normal shape of Greek examples at this, or indeed any other date (fig.

8).36 Given these points, it is clear that the proposed Greek stage of the Stabian Baths' building

history presents us with a structure displaying several unusual features unparalleled in other

Greek baths even of a later period.

In short, then, there are several problems with Eschebach's building history for the

Stabian Baths. If Richardson's scheme for early Pompeii is accepted, Eschebach's Greek bath

would have been an urban structure without an urban context. Even if Richardson's general

arguments concerning Pompeii's early history are largely rejected, the Greek bath remains a

unique, if not revolutionary, structure in several of its particulars. With regard to the main

building itself, Richardson presents arguments which indicate that it was constructed in one

operation in the 2nd century BC. While Richardson's larger synthesis may not command

widespread acceptance, his observations concerning this building are cogent and raise serious

problems for Eschebach's scheme. 37 The only way to resolve these difficulties definitively

35 NIELSEN, ARID 14 (1985), 82-84 recognizes the revolutionary nature of this development, but
does not see it as a cause for suspicion regarding ESCHEBACH's scheme. Rather, she considers it a part of the
Italian contribution to the development of Roman baths. In asserting this she is certainly mistaken in claiming
that ~a./\ a.VEla. and gymnasia had reached "una forma architettonica definita" (ibid., 83) by this date, when the
only other examples of 5th-century BC ~a./\ a.vEta. we have (building I at Olympia and the earliest levels of the
Dipylon Bath in Athens) were exceedingly simple structures, and gymnasia were, until the Hellenistic period,
hardly more developed; cf. above, pp. 43-47.
36 In fig. 8 I present ESCHEBACH's reconstructed hip bath (8.1) for comparison with two roughly
contemporary examples from the Agora at Athens taken from GINOUVES (8.2). It will be seen that
ESCHEBACH's example ha.'i two benches whereas the Greek ha.'> only one; and the foot-end (with cupola) of his
hip-bath is a curious arrangement that slopes sharply away from the bather, wherea.'i in the Athenian examples it
either slopes toward the bather or remains level. Also, the cupola itself is framed in a strange U-shaped
arrangement, that would surely have made its use difficult. See also GINOUVES's other hip-bath illustrations as
listed inCh. 1, n. 76 (they are mostly later examples). Compared even to these, ESCHEBACH's hip-bath
remains an oddity.
3? Cf. e.g the review by R. LING in JRA 4 (1991), 248-256. Although he questions
RICHARDSON's "instant urbanization" of the site in the 3rd century (pp. 253-254), he does not cast doubt on
his arguments concerning the Stabian Baths.
II] 59

would be to excavate systematically the lower levels of the baths to see what was there, if
anything. As this is extremely unlikely to happen, the early phases of the baths (if indeed there
were any) are not likely to be clarified. All we can say for sure is that by c. 140 BC the baths
were in place and functioning.

However. the nature of the structure as it then existed is itself disputed. Eschebach sees
it (his Phase IV) as a fully Roman-style bathhouse with hypocaust and a double series of rooms.
Nielsen argues that it was in fact a largely Greek-style bath, with hip-baths arranged around the
walls of the rooms. As Nielsen's reconstruction of the Stabian Baths in this period is part of her
overall scheme for the early development of Roman baths in general, it should be presented in its
proper context, and her position examined closely.

I. Nielsen's bath-development scheme

Essentially, there are three interrelated parts to Nielsen's scheme for the origins and early
development of Roman baths. 38 First, she examines the Greek forerunners and rejects the
importance of local forerunners. 39 The former have already been examined above, and the latter
she characterizes as simple lavatrinae near kitchens in private houses, or swimming in the sea or
Tiber. As will emerge, however, these local forerunners, especially in Campania, should not be
so hastily overlooked. Second, she reinstates Sergius Orata as the inventor of the hypocaust.
Third, she looks at the earliest baths in Campania, focusing perforce on the Stabian Baths, and
reconstructs her periods of development from there. As the characteristics of Greek baths have
already been surveyed, and Nielsen has little new to add in this connection, we shall concentrate
on the second and third parts of her scheme.

38 She has laid out her detailed arguments in ARID 14 (1985), 81-112 and recapped them and given
them a general context in her Therm., 1.20-22, 25-36. As NIELSEN refers to her ARID article at relevant points
in her exposition in Therm., I shall refer to the latter.
39 Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.6-13 (Greek) and 13 (local).
Ilj 60

First. Orata. For Nielsen, the Roman literary tradition about Sergius Orata is correct. 40

She accepts that his pensiles balineae were a type of hypocaust found in later baths,41 and she

offers an explanation of the source of his inspiration: the fumaroles and thermal springs of the

Campi Flegrei in the area surrounding Baiae where he is said to have worked. She argues that

"natural" hypocausts are known to have been used in this area which employed the naturally

occurring steam to heat rooms directly or indirectly. Orata simply took the step of recreating

these conditions artificially. Nielsen's position. therefore, cannot allow the existence of truly

Roman-style baths before Orata.

Putting aside the difficulties of determining what precisely Orata invented, the chief

problem with this position is that Greek baths fitted with hypocausts, albeit of a different type,

existed long before Orata. Nielsen's response is simple. She argues that Orata's inspiration lay

in the Campi Flegrei, and she questions any direct connection between the "annular" hypocaust

found in Greek baths and the Roman pillar suspensura: "there is ... nothing to suggest that this

[Greek] system was in itself developed into the system with pillar hypocaust. "42 While this

observation carries some validity, it is surely asking too much to accept that there was virtually

no connection between the rudimentary Greek hypocaust and the developed Roman system,

even though both appear in bath buildings in the same general area (South Italy and Sicily) and

both share the same basic principle of underfloor heating. Her denial of a connection is all the

more difficult to credit when we recall Nielsen's belief that the Greek ~o:.f...o:.vE1ov is the true

forerunner of the Roman public bath. There is another problem. No evidence indicates that the

40 For what follows, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.20-22. See also above, pp. 24-29, for a discussion of
the general problems surrounding Orata's role in bath development.
41 NIELSEN, Therm., 1.161, s.v. "Hypocaustum, Suspensura etc" states that the term balineae pensi/es
"is already known in Cicero and is the earliest known designation for the system with hollow floors. • In tact, the
term does not appear in Cicero, and its connection with heated flooring is at the very best tentative, cf. above, pp.
24-29.
42 NIELSEN, Therm., 1.21. The extent of Greek influence, in NIELSEN's opinion, appears to have
been little more than the basic notion of underfloor heating, ibid., 1.20-21.
II] 61

"natural" hypocausts of the Campi Flegrei predated the "artificial" version. The earliest
archaeological evidence is Augustan (the Baths of Venus at Baiae) and the first literary reference
appears in the Quaestiones Naturales of Seneca, written in the early 60s AD. 43 From available
evidence, then, it would be possible that the "artificial" hypocaust generated the "natural"
version and not vice versa. These points make Nielsen's picture of Orata's role difficult, if not
impossible, to accept.

J. DeLaine has recently presented a far more convincing hypothesis, backed by

archaeological evidence, whereby the Greeks of Magna Graecia produced a system intermediate
between the mainland Greek "annular" hypocaust and the developed Roman pillar suspensura. 44
This intermediate system employed a series of channels to heat the entire floorspace of a room.
Orata's role is reduced to that of a salesman of a refined version of this system, in that he is seen
to have reduced and regularized the underfloor support elements, and produced an easy-to­
instal, almost prefabricated system utilizing tile pillars. 45 Regardless of Orata's role (to which
we shall return later), DeLaine's arguments establish the very connection between the Greek and
Roman hypocausts questioned by Nielsen.

Nielsen's bath development scheme presents us with not one but two parallel and
interwoven schemes of development for Roman baths.46 This is because she divides all Roman
public baths into two groups, thennae and balnea. These ill-understood ancient terms are

43 Cf. Sen. Quaest. Nat, 3.24.3; for the date of this work, cf. P. OLTRAMARE's comments in the
introduction to the Bude edition (1961), pp. vi-viii.
44 1. DeLAINE, JMA ( 1989), 111-125. DeLAINE sees examples of this intermediate tonn used at
Velia, Gela, Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea (116-117) which she sees echoed in the Republican Baths at Pom~ii
(120). She argues convincingly tor it being an exclusively Western Greek development (120-122).
45 In support of this contention, it must be pointed out that the pillar hypocaust only becomes
prevalent in the archaeological record in the course of the 1st century BC, that is after Orata (the original pillar
hypocaust of the Stab ian Baths, of the mid-2nd century BC, may have used stone pillars, cf. DeLAINE, JMA 2
(1989), 123, esp. n. 63). Cf. H. BROISE & V. JOLIVET, "Le ba.in en Etrurie a l'epoque hellenistque" in
Thermes, pp. 79-95 where the hypocaust is not attested in baths there (public and private) before the mid-1st
century AD, although evidence for baths in the region stretches back to the 5th century (at Marzabotto, for
example).
46 For what follows, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.25-36.
II] 62

adopted by Nielsen,47 and given modern definitions based on building typology. She then
presents seven stages of development for the former, and three for the latter. Because this
division between thermae and balnea is fundamental to her scheme, her definitions of what these
terms denote merit full quotation:

... Thermae designates a public institution which has a palaestra and thus consists
of a bathing block and a sports area. A building may also be assigned to this group
if it is sufficiently large, on a symmetrical plan and monumental, for instance if it
contains a large hall, a basilica thermarum, even if a palaestra has not been
demonstrated .. The term balnea here signifies a public bath without a sports area.
This bath can be large or small, but is often smaller than thermae and not so
monumental. It normally occupies only part of an insula. The bathing facilities are
usually not symmetrically arranged. 48

These are vague and nebulous criteria for assigning buildings to one group or the other. No
single element is exclusive to either type of building,49 and some criteria, especially those for
balnea, are so vague as to be virnlally impossible to apply realistically.so Furthermore, she
dismisses the ancient testimony about the use of these terms as "copious and often obtuse."
This approach causes her a variety of problems when she comes to present her two parallel lines
of development.

Nielsen starts with thermae, the early history ofwhich she divides into seven periods. 51
These periods follow closely Eschebach's scheme for the Stabian Baths, with some
modifications. As a result, the objections just raised against Eschebach apply here too. 52 A
further point can be added. Nielsen's first four periods rely exclusively on the Stabian Baths.
but are presented to the reader as representing a pattern applicable to all early baths (or at least

47 For a discussion of these terms, cf. above, pp. 8-10.

48 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.3.

49 NIELSEN admits on the same page (1.3) that the ancient sources can denote buildings with palaestrae

asbalnea.
50 Thus, "large or small," "not so monumental," "usually not symmetrically arranged."
51 These can be found at NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.26-28 (periods I-IV), 30-31 (period V), 31-34 (periods VI
and VII).
52 Cf. above pp. 55-59. Surprisingly, NIELSEN appears unaware of RICHARDSON's book and the
challenge it represents for her scheme.
IIJ 63

those that she considers themUle).5 3 To an extent this is not her fault; the archaeological

evidence for the early stages of the development of Roman baths is severely limited That said,

caution must be exercised in determining how much can be securely extrapolated from this one

building and considered representative of developments in other (as yet undiscovered)

contemporary structures. In any case, as seen above, there are major problems with the notion

of an early Greek bath on the site. These problems in turn cast grave doubt on the validity of

Nielsen's frrst three periods which deal with the alleged pre-2nd century structures and which,

for the sake of brevity, will be left aside. Her remaining periods are straightforward. Her

period IV (which is the same as Eschebach's Phase IV) is a Greek-type ~cx/\o:vEl.ov with hip­

baths, of which more below. Period V sees the installation ofthe hypocaust and is dated to c.

90-80 BC to accord with her belief that Orata invented the hypocaust. As a result, it has no

counterpart in Eschebach's scheme. Her last two periods correspond to Eschebach's Phases V

and VI, already treated above. 54

Aside from the problematic Greek bath of the first three phases, the most debatable

elements of Nielsen's scheme are IV and V. Period IV-- the same for both Nielsen and

Eschebach -- is the 2nd-century "Tufa" building. But the two differ in their conception of how

the establishment functioned at this time. Eschebach, as we have seen, reconstructs it as a

Roman-style bath with a sequence of rooms and hypocaust.55 Because Nielsen considers Orata

to be the inventor of the Roman sw.:;pensura, this position is untenable, and so she presents an

entirely different picture. 56 Observing the presence of double rows of niches in the walls in the

female apodyterium and traces of the same in the other bathing rooms of the east wing, she

53 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.26.

54 Cf. above, p. 55.

55
Cf. above, p. 54.
56 For what follows cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.27-28 (where she assigns hip-baths to the female
apodyterium in her period Ill and extends them to the bathrooms of the east wing which were added in period IV).
II] 64

argues that these rooms were originally fitted with Greek-style hip-baths. 57 This is because

Greek hip-bath chambers, where they are preserved to a sufficient height, feature rows of niches

located above the hip-baths. They were intended to accommodate the bathers' personal

belongings and/or bathing gear. 58 The niches in the walls in the Stabian Baths, according to

Nielsen, served the same purpose and so represent the main evidence for her hip-bath theory. 59

There are difficulties. First, although as many as 100 hip-baths or more may once have

graced the bathrooms of the Stabian Baths, not a trace of a single one remains. 60 Nielsen finds

this hardly surprising, since the rooms were later fitted out variously with benches or

hypocausts and tubulation.6 1 This argument, however, creates a second problem. That the

hypocaust could be installed secondarily is not in itself impossible and finds some support in

ancient evidence, but the difficulties lie in the mechanics ofthis operation and their implications

for the presence of hip-baths. 62 If the rooms received their hypocausts sometime after the hip­

baths had been in place, there are only two possibilities for the new heating system's

installation. Either the original floor level was raised by building the hypocaust on top of it, or it

57 This suggestion is also made independently by DeLAINE, JMA (1989), 117-119. Note also that the
Cumae baths also wen~ fitted with niches, cf. above, p. 50.
58 Such examples are rare but can nonetheless be found in the Greek baths at Gortys, Cyrene and the
Piraeus, as well as several Egyptian sites, cf. GINOUVES, Bolan., pp. 192-193 and his figs. 105 (Cyrene), 119
and 120-121 (Gortys) and especially 157-158 (Piraeus). Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.7, n. 23.
59 DeLAINE JMA ( 1989), 117 adds a further point: the addition of a water-wheel in Phase Ill implies
an increased use of water which, she contends, would be impossible to imagine at this time without the presence
of hip-baths. Two counter-arguments can be adduced: first, the very existence of the 3rd-century Phase Ill requires
acceptance ofESCHEBACH's development scheme, which is most unsure; and second, even if we accept
ESCHEBACH's scheme, the increased water supply may imply an increase in the number of regular bathers, and
does not necessarily demand the presence of hip-baths.
60 DeLAINE, JMA (1989), 118 suggests as many as 35 hip-baths stood in the later women's
apodyterium alone. As NIELSEN reconstructs 4 or 5 hip-bath chambers in period IV (Thenn., 1.27), a total as
high a<; 150 or more is possible for the whole complex.
61 So, for instance, the later women's apodyterium was fitted with benches and a cold pool, while the
later women and men's caldaria and men's tepidarium received hypocaust<; and tubulation (this work was not all
done at once, but carried out piecemeal during NIELSEN's periods IV, V and VII, cf. id., Therm., 1.28, 30, 33).
She also suggests (ARID 14 (1985), 86) that the hip-baths were made of terracotta and may have been movable.
Comparison with Greek examples in public baths makes this unlikely and, anyway, terracotta hip-baths can still
leave some trace of their presence, e.g. the Harbour Baths at Eretria (fig. 5).
62 Cf. e.g. JLS 5711 which mentions a benefactor who balneum suspendit, which may reflect the
installation of a hypocaust into an existing structure, although it could also mean he provided vaulted ceilings for
the structure.
Ill 65

was maintained by digging down the metre or so required by the suspensura's cavea, and then

building the hypocaust back up to the original level. Two observations point to the latter

possibility as being more likely. First, if the level below the hypocaust was the original floor

level of the hip-bath chamber, the upper niches would have been too high off the ground (as

much as 2.6m) for the bathers to use comfortably, all the more so when we consider that

Romans were small people by modern standards (see fig. 9). Second, if the floor level had been

raised by the hypocaust, the niches would have been brought closer to the floor than they

originally were. This does not seem to have been the case, at least for the tepidariwn and

caldarium niche arrangement as Nielsen presents them, where the niches are about one metre off
the ground, a height comparable to Greek examples (fig. 9). 63

Apparently, the hypocaust would have to have been installed in these rooms by digging

below the original floor level, a practice DeLaine has rightly called into question as it would have

involved weakening the foundations. The only other possibility is that the foundations had

originally been laid with the eventual installation of the hypocaust in mind, which is

incompatible with Nielsen's argument for Orata as the hypocaust's inventor: according to her

view, when these rooms were built, his discovery still lay some 50 years in the future. 64 It is

far more likely that the niches were installed contemporaneously with the hypocaust, in line with

Eschebach's picture of the building at this time, which sees the east-wing rooms and the

hypocaust as being built in one move. What practical function the niches served, if any, is

unclear but they could have been for the bathers' instrumenta balnei, or served as shelves for

63 According to the reconstruction NIELSEN provides (reproduced in fig. 9), the lower lip of the lower
niches would be 1m off the current hypocaust floor and 1.9m off the floor level on which the hypocaust stands.
The first figure corresponds roughly to the figures for niche height from floor level at Gortys (l.24m) and the
Piraeus (0.84m), cf. GINOUVES, Balan., p. 192 (Gortys) and fig. 158 (Piraeus). Cf. also ESCHEBACH, Stab.
Therm., Taf. 9-10 (men's tepidarium) and 12 (men's caldarium), 16-18 (women's tepidarium) and 19-20 (women's
caldarium). According to these drawings, the evidence for niches in the latter is slim.
64 DeLAINE, JRA (1988), 15. DeLAINE, who also accepts the presence of hip-baths in the Stabian
Baths (cf. n. 59 above), seems to think the hypocaust and hip-baths were utilized contemporaneously (JMA
( 1989), 119-120). This is highly unlikely. Not only do we have no other examples of hypocaust-heated hip-bath
chambers, but the heat generated by the hypocaust would have made the seats in the hip-baths virtually unusable.
llj 66

lamps or water jugs and the like. 65 Alternatively, they may have been a purely decorative

feature.

The third difficulty is with the niches themselves. In surviving Greek examples they are

in either single or double rows directly superimposed over the hip-baths. Nielsen points to the

double niches in the heated rooms and the women's apodyterium in particular in support of her

hip-bath hypothesis. However. the upper and lower rows of niches in the Stabian Baths are

separated by an area varying from between 0.35m and 0.55m. Such a gap between the niche

rows is not a feature of Greek examples.66 In addition, the lower lip of the lower niches in the

heated rooms is one metre off the current floor level. 67 However, in the women's apodyteriwn,

which never had a hypocaust installed, the lower niches, of which only two survive. are closer

to the floor (0.6m off the floor level). This difference in niche level is possibly to be explained

by arguing for the use of a different type of hip-bath in the women's apodyterium as opposed to

the heated rooms. But because not a trace of any hip-baths survives, this would be special

pleading. On the other hand, only two examples of the lower niches survive in the wall of the

apodyreriwn and they are in the side wall of the cold pool, so they may have served some
function connected with the pool rather than with any putative hip-baths. Finally, later baths

elsewhere can feature both hypocausts and niches in their hot rooms without there being any

suggestion of the presence of hip-baths. 68 Niches or shelves were a regular feature of

apodyteria in later baths.69

65 Note that the excavation of the Forum Baths in Pompeii yielded some 1,500 lamps, some in niches
in the walls of the tepidaria cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.136 (where these niches are called ftchannels"). For the
niches in the Forum Baths, cf. below n. 68.
66 The figures (measured from the ESCHEBACH illustration given in parentheses) are: women's
adodyterium: 0.55m (faf. 15); men's tepidarium: 0.4m (faf. 9); men's caldarium: 0.35 (faf. 12). By contrast, the
lower niches in the Piraeus are more or less directly below the upper ones, cf, GINOUVES, Balan., fig. 158.
67 Cf. above, n. 63.

68
E.g. the niches in the Central Baths at Cales (built c. 90-70 BC according to NIELSEN's catalogue,
C.35) which NIELSEN rather weakly claims were ftpresumably merely decoration adopted from the earlier
establishments at Cumae and Pompeiift (Therm., 1.32, n. 59). Other examples of niches in hypocaust-heated
rooms are found in Spain at Baetulo (C.lOO; 1st century BC). Los Baiiales (C.ll3; mid-1st century AD), and
possibly elsewhere, cf. id., Therm., 1.67 and 11.74, fig. 38. There are also niches on three sides of the walls in
the men's tepi.darium (without hypocaust) and on two sides of those in the women's tepidarium (with hypocaust)
IIJ 67

In summary, we must conclude that the presence of hip-baths in the Stabian Baths or any

other Roman establishment is largely conjectural, and certainly not proven. Aside from the

specific arguments adduced above, it remains strange that not the slightest trace of any examples

has been found in the east wing of the Stabian Baths. This is all the more curious given

examples of ~cxt.-cxv8cx elsewhere which underwent transformation into Roman baths by means

more drastic than those proposed by Nielsen for the Stab ian Baths, yet which still leave clear

traces of their former Greek appearance. 7° Also, why should the building display a clear room

sequence at this stage in its history, if all the rooms offered the same facilities, i.e. bathing in

hip-baths? Nielsen argues that this ordered room arrangement is simply a manifestation of the

Italic, as opposed to the Hellenistic influence upon the building,7 1 but it is more easily

understandable if viewed as a sign that the sequence of variously heated rooms was already in

place. It seems more likely that the east wing, along with its hypocaust and niches, were all

built in a single operation. 72 The niches in the heated rooms were later filled in either when the

tubulation system was installed, or because they had become unfashionable for such rooms.

They were retained in the women's apodyterium, and later built into the men's apod)terium, as

shelves for bathers' belongings.

in the Forum Baths at Pompeii, a feature which NIELSEN omits to report in her description of them, cf.
RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 149 (men's tepidarium) and 151 (women's tepidarium). Note also the shelf in the
caldarium of the private baths in the House of Menander, where there is no possibility of hip-baths. This
suggests some sort of functional purpose for the shelving, and so perhaps also for niches, cf. HEINZ, Rom
Therm., pp. 52-53 and esp. Abb. 57.
69 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.153, s.v. apodyterium. Note also that the apodyterium attached to the
palaestra in the Stabian Baths (room E in fig. 6), built in the early Augustan period or shortly thereafter, had
wooden shelves in it. cf. ibid. 1.33.
°7 Cf. the examples cited by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.101 (from Athens, Egypt and Pergamon); cf. id.,
Therm., 11.55, fig. 7 for an illustration of the example from Tell el Fara'in in Egypt where the hip-baths of the
~CXI\CXVELOV are clearly visible below the Roman structure. DeLAINE implies, but does not expressly suggest,
that the hip-baths may have been made of bronze (JMA [1989], 120). This would lend to the Stabian Baths, with
over 100 bronze hip-baths, an uparalleled degree of luxury for this period (2nd century BC). Also, bronze tubs
would have become uncomfortably hot if used in conjunction with a hypocaust, as DeLAINE seems to believe
they were, cf. above, n. 64.
71 Cf. Therm., 1.27, 28.
72 NIELSEN's arguments against ESCHEBACH's identification of the hypocaust as coeval with
erection of the east wing (Thenn., 1.28) are, as DeLAINE has pointed out (JRA 1 [ 1988], 15), not conclusive.
They may just as easily reflect a later refurbishment of the hypocaust.
II] 68

Nielsen's scheme for the development of thermae is thus riddled with problems. From

the questionable argument in favour of Orata as the inventor of the hypocaust, to straight

acceptance of Eschebach's problematic and curious early Greek bath under the Stabian Baths,

through to the highly debatable suggestion that the Stabian Baths were at one stage a Greek-style

~a.>--a.vE'iov with hip-baths, there is almost no facet of her position free of uncertainty.

Her three-stage balnea development scheme is no less problematic. Above all, it is

characterized by its chronic lack of evidence.73 For the frrst balnea period she can only cite the

unpublished Central Baths at Cumae as archaeological evidence. She admits that this building

bears a resemblance to the bathing section of the Stabian Baths (which she has already classified

as thermae due to the presence of a palaestra), and goes on to say that there may have been a

palaestra associated with it. If so, in terms of Nielsen's own classification criteria, the Cumae

baths may well have been thermae and not balnea at all. 74 Her only other evidence for the frrst

period of balnea development is the literary sources. Aside from Varro's comment that Rome's

frrst public bath (balneae) was a double building designed for separate use by men and women,

these sources give no hint at all of what these structures looked like, and as a result are useless

for the task Nielsen expects of them, i.e. identifying a particular type of bathing establishment.75

All she can say is that they use the term balneum and variants to describe bath buildings. As will

be seen shortly, when the uses of the terms thermae and balnea in Republican sources are

considered, this is hardly surprising.

73 The balnea scheme can be traced in NIELSEN, Therm., 1.28-30 (period 1), 31 (period II) and 34-35
(period Ill).
74 It is clear from Nielsen's catalogue of bath sites that she considers the presence or absence of a
palaestra decisive for identifying a building as a thermae or balnea establishment: of 172 securely catalogued
thermae, 125 (73%) are so classified due solely to the presence of a palaestra; conversely, 150 (88%) of 171
balnea are identified solely by its absence, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., II. 1-47 (these figures omit buildings of
uncertain classification, and those classified by means of non-palaestra criteria, even when a palaestra is cited as
well).
15 For consideration ofVarro's comment (ling. Lat., 9.68) and the other literary evidence, cf. below,
pp. 72-88.
II] 69

The situation does not improve for her two subsequent balnea periods. As there is no

evidence at all to illustrate her second period, Nielsen points to the bathing sections of the

Stabian and Forum Baths, buildings she has already classified as thermae. A bath in Musarna in

Etruria which does not conform to the developments she assigns to this period is uninformative

and so relegated to treatment in a footnote. 76 For her third period Nielsen can only cite

Vitruvius, whose picture, while useful, probably represents a theoretical or ideal bathhouse and

is restricted in any case to the heated elements alone. 77 Her archaeological evidence for this

period is again largely drawn from ambiguous buildings, structures which according to her

criteria could be either thennae or balnea.7 8 The early stages of the bath at Alba Fucens, which

she uses here, are not well preserved and can only allow the most general of observations. 79

In short, then, Nielsen's reconstruction for the development of balnea is weak and

marked by a severe lack of supporting evidence. I believe that her dismissal of the ancient

evidence for the uses of balnea I thennae terminology exacerbates her problems. As seen above,

and as Nielsen observes, ancient bath terminology is indeed confusing and would need a full­

scale philological analysis for clarification, but it is clear enough that the ancients, at least of a

later date, distinguished between what was a thennae establishment and what was a balnea. 80

One point emerges clearly from a survey of the evidence. Not a single Republican source,

literary or epigraphic, applies the term thennae to a bathing establishment. Even where we

should expect to find use of the term (such as in Varro, Cicero, Catullus, or inscriptions), there

is either silence or exclusive use of balnewn and its variants balneae and balnea. This surely

76 NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.31, n. 45.

77 Vitruv., 5.11.
78 I.e. the Central Baths at Cales, which are considered most likely thennae on 1.32, but possibly
ba/nea on 1.34. The other building cited here are the Cumae baths which, as we have seen (above, p. 68) are of
unsure classification.
79 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.35 where they are dated to the mid-1st century BC and therefore are too late
to be effectively deployed as evidence for the early period.
80 Cf. above, pp. 8-9.
Ilj 70

indicates that for Republican Romans, all baths were called balnea. Thermae, in fact, does not
appear until the 1st century AD, or perhaps in a Spanish inscription of possibly Augustan
date. 81

Thus even a superficial glance at the sources would indicate that as far as the Romans
were concerned, structures they considered thennae appeared after those they termed balnea and
did not develop parallel to them. The thennae can then be seen in all probability as a
development of the balnea. This means that the Stabian and other baths in Pompeii described by
Nielsen as thennae were very probably called balnea by their Republican users.8 2 However, it
could be argued that Nielsen's employment of these terms is based upon her modem definitions,
and not on ancient usage, thus making the current point irrelevant. But that is not so. Nielsen
employs the Republican literary testimony mentioning balnea to support her first balnea period.
As should now be clear, those sources can offer her position no support.

Nielsen's division of the earliest Roman baths into thermae and balnea therefore runs
contrary to the ancient evidence and creates more problems than it solves. These difficulties
evaporate if, following the lead given by the ancient literary and epigraphic testimony, all the
buildings covered by Nielsen are considered as a roughly homogeneous group of early baths,
called balnea. There is then no need to point, as Nielsen does, to buildings she classifies as
thennae to illustrate developments in her balnea; in reality, they were all the same sort of
building and seen as such by the Romans.

8! CIL 2.3542. (dated by letterform). The earliest literary reference to thermae I have located is in Sen.
Contr., 9.4.18 in reference to thermae built by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus during his consulship of AD 32,
apparently as part of his house, cf. PJ/(2 C.127. This accords with Sen. Dial., 9.9.7 and Ep., 122.8, which refer
to private thermae. Here the tenn seems to mean literally fthot-bathsft as opposed to a particular type of public
bathing establishment. The use of both terms (thermae and balneum) by the Tiberian/Claudian grammarian Q.
Remmius Palaemon (Ars, 546) may be roughly contemponrry with the notice in Seneca.
82 The dedicatory inscription for the Forum Baths, of c. 82-80 BC, unfortunately does not name the
building, cf. Ch. 3, n. 80 for text. ILS 5144 may describe the Forum Baths as ••[thenn)ae," but the text dates to
the mid-1st century AD and so is not reflective of Republican practice. NIELSEN. Therm., 1.3 concedes that the
ancient sources can apply the tenn balnea to buildings with palaestrae, which, in my opinion, greatly weakens the
validity of her chief criterion for distinguishing thermae from balnea, cf. above, n. 74.
II] 71

Nielsen's entire scheme is thus highly debatable at every stage. Her division of Roman

baths into thermae and balnea right from the outset causes her to divide the already slim body of

evidence between the two sorts of buildings, leaving one half (her balnea) severely

undernourished for material. The specific problems encountered with her position on several

issues -- the origin of the hypocaust, the early phases of the Stab ian Baths, the suggested 2nd­

century BC hip-bath complex in the Stab ian Baths, as well as the uses of the Pompeian evidence

as a whole -- have been presented. All this taken together forces the rejection of her scheme in

many of its particulars. However, it should not be thrown out entirely. The scheme correctly

identifies the centrality of Campania to the early history of Roman public baths and highlights

the Greek influence, albeit erroneously and in too great a degree.

Returning again to the Stabian Baths, we must unfortunately conclude -- after all we

have seen-- that this building cannot offer any secure evidence concerning the transition from

Greek to Roman baths. The evidence of the site is ambiguous and debatable, and short of total

excavation of the lower strata the picture is not likely to be clarified. It seems likely, however,

that these baths had acquired a "Roman" appearance by the second half of the 2nd century BC,

with a series of rooms and hypocausts and, in consequence, heated communal pools (Nielsen's

suggested hip-baths for this date are unlikely). There are indications in the confident hand of the

architect that these features had as yet unidentified predecessors of uncertain location and date,

but perll.aps reaching back into the early years of that cenrury. A detailed examination at some

future date of the Central Baths at Cumae may answer some of the questions which remain open

with regard to the early appearance of the Stabian Baths, but for now only uncertainty prevails.
II] 72

The archaeological evidence for the earliest Roman public baths has now been examined.
There is much that is ambiguous, disputed and uncertain. Only the broadest picture can be
painted. It suggests that by c. 140 BC, when the Stab ian Baths were erected, Roman-style
baths had evidently acquired their familiar form, at Pompeii at least. These baths probably had
predecessors and sister buildings elsewhere, but so far none has been found. It is therefore time
to look to the much-neglected early literary and epigraphic sources to see what they can
contribute.

(ii) The literary and epigraphic evidence

Two preliminary points need to be underlined. The literary and epigraphic material is not very
abundant for this early period, and its references are for the most part casual and give little or no
indication of what these early baths looked like. Therefore, this body of evidence is not
particularly helpful in determining the physical nan.rre of early Roman public baths. What it does
suggest strongly, however, is that the baths were a part of the Roman urban scene by the time of
Plautus.

We can divide the literary evidence into two groups: that which pertains to Rome and that
to other parts of Italy. In the latter category, the earliest mention of baths is found in Livy where

he reports the dastardly actions of rebel Capuans in the wake of Hannibal's victory at Cannae in
216 BC, when that city defected to the Carthaginian cause. Here, when the decision had been
made to go over to Hannibal, the Capuans seized the prefects of the allies and other Roman
citizens resident in the city and shut them up in the town's baths. They suffocated there in the
II] 73

extreme heat of the place. 83 Dio tells a similar story, setting it in Nuceria. Here it is the senators

of the town who are the victims, while Hannibal himself is the culprit. 84 It is conceivable that

Dio's story is simply the same as Livy's, with some alterations to details made by the later

historian.

The main problem is whether this story can be accepted at face value. Livy's source

cannot be identified with certainty. 85 Further, that the anecdote portrays the rebel Capuans as

murderers may be cause for suspicion -- the story could be Livy's invention, or that of a

predecessor, used to illustrate the evil character of those who defected to the Carthaginian side.

If this is indeed the case, the story may reflect conditions much later than 216 BC, and so be

useless as evidence for early baths in Capua. Unfortunately. there is no way of determining

Livy's accuracy on this point If the story is accepted as genuine, it is indeed instructive. It

shows that by the late tlr€3rd century BC there were public baths in Capua at least, and perhaps

elsewhere in Campania if not farther afield. 86 It also reveals that the baths were contained in a

building sufficiently large to hold the Roman captives, although we have no way of knowing the

numbers involved. 87 This anecdote, if accepted as accurate, is enlightening in some respects,

but many details about the baths in question cannot be recovered.

&3 Cf. Livy., 23.7.3: nam praefectos sodum dvisque Romanos alios, partim aliquo militiae munere
occupatos, partim privatis negotiis inplicitos, plebs repente omnis comprehensos velut custodiae causa balneis
includi iussit, ubifervore atque aesru anima interc/usafoedum ad modum exspirarent.
84 Dio, 15.57.3 (quoted in Zonaras, 9.3). The similarities in the stories may indicate a Wandermotiv.
Cf. above, p. 14 for the pitfalls involved in using such anectdotal evidence.
85 Livy's main sources for the third decade were Polybius and L. Coelius Anti pater. These in turn drew
from Q. Fabius Pictor and Silenus of Kaleakte (who accompanied Hannibal), both of whom are contemporary
sources, cf. E. BURCK, "The Third Decade," in T. DOREY (ed.), Livy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1971), pp. 26-28. Although Livy's use of his sources seems to have been such that fabrication on his part was
rare, we have no guarantee that his sources were accurate, cf. T.J. LUCE, Lily. The Composition ofhis History
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp. 139-184, esp. 156-157. The basic point is, however, that the
Capua story cannot be securely traced back to Pictor or Silenus. Uncertainty remains.
86 Livy goes on to mention (23.18.12) that Hannibal's men were ruined by making frequent use of the
luxuries at Capua, baths among them. This report is certainly suspect, as the motif appears as a commonplace in
Roman literature: cf. below, n. 88. For Republican Capua, cf. FREDERIKSEN, Campania, pp. 285-318.
87 The prefects of the allies may have numbered 6 or more, but the number of "other citizens, some on
military duty, some involved in private business" to whom Livy refers is impossible to gauge. What praefecti
sodorum were doing in Capua at this time is not sure.
II] 74

When Plutarch reports that Marcellus gave himself and his men over to luxurious living

in Campania in 209 BC, including the use of hot baths (6Ep~<l :>-.ouTpci.),88 he may be referring

to hot springs. Alternatively, this could be a hint of more widespread public bathing in the

region at this time, but certainty is not possible. 89

More secure reference to public baths in the Campanian area is found in a story told by

C. Gracchus cited in Aulus Gellius, almost a century after the setting for Plutarch's anecdote

about Marcellus. It tells of the arrogance of a consul's wife who, having cleared the men's

baths at Teanum Sidicinum of customers, complained of the slowness of the locals in evacuating

the premises and of the dirtiness of the baths themselves. As a result, the local quaestor M.

Marius was whipped with rods in the forum. 90 Gracchus goes on to say that a Roman praetor

acted likewise at Ferentinum, while the people of Cales issued an edict barring anyone from the

baths when a Roman magistrate was in town.91

These are informative incidents. Gracchus specifies that the events were recent (nuper),

so they may be placed sometime c. 130-122 BC. The stories indicate that public baths were to

be found in at least some Campanian towns by Gracchus's day, as the three towns mentioned

are all in that vicinity. It would seem, then, that the roughly contemporaneous Stab ian Baths at

Pompeii were not alone at this time. However, there is no way of knowing from the passage

88 Plut. Marc., 27.2. There allegation is put into the mouth of P. Bibulus who is trying to have
Marcellus stripped of command after the indecisive battle with Hannibal at Canusium. This motif of armies
ruined by warm baths recurs in e.g., Plut., Alex., 40.1, Luc., 7.5; Dio 27.94.2, 62.6.4; HA Av. Cass., 5.5,
Pesc. Nig., 3.10. In light of this, the notice should be accepted only with caution.
89 Cf. Livy 41.16 for bathing in springs in 178 BC.
90 Aul. Gell., 10.3.3: Nuper Teanum Sidicinum consul venit. uxor eius dixit u in balneis virilibus
lavari velle. quaestori Sidicino M Mario datum est negotium, uti balneis exigerentur qui lavabantur. uxor
renuntiat viro parum cito sibi balneas traditas esse et parum lautas foisse. idcirco palus destitutus in foro eoque
adductus suae civitatis nobilissimus homo M. Marius. vestimenta detracta sunt, virgis coesus est.
91 Ibid.: Caleni, ubi id audierant, edixerunt ne quis in balneis lavisse vellet, cum magistratus Romanus
ibi esset. Ferentini ob eandem causam praetor noster quaestores arripi iussit; alter se de muro deiecit, alter
prensus et virgis caesus est. For a consideration of the social implications of this notice, which says a lot about
who was expected to use a community's bathhouse, cf. below, p. 283.
II] 75

how common public baths were in Italy outside this region. Since the consul's wife at Teanum

wished to bathe in balneis virilibus, it is safe to suggest that there were also women's baths

available. Judging by the Stabian Baths. it seems likely we are dealing with a double building,

where the women's section was presumably less splendid than the men's (as in the Stabian

Baths, and as the story implies). Certainly Varro says the earliest baths in Rome were similar

structures with separate sections for men and women, and the bath Vitruvius describes is clearly

a double building.92 All this presents an interesting (and rare) convergence of literary and

archaeological evidence. Finally. it is notable that travelling Roman grandees would even want

to bathe in such modest places, suggesting that the bathing habit was firmly established among

them by the mid-late 2nd century BC.

Altogether, the Campanian literary evidence suggests that public bathing was a feature of

life in the region possibly from the late 3rd century BC; by the end of the 2nd century it was

apparently quite widespread.

For Rome itself there is no archaeological evidence with which to correlate the testimony

of our literary sources. The earliest references to public baths are to be found in the comedies of

Plautus which -- composed and staged in the late 3rd/ early 2nd century BC -- represent just

about the earliest body of Latin literature we have. These plays mention, for instance, slaves

waiting for their masters to return from the baths,93 the danger of having one's clothes stolen at

the baths,94 renegade slaves squandering their master's money on wine, food and baths,95 and

92 Cf. below, n. 112.

93
Plaut. As., 356-357: ego me dixi erum adducturum et me domi praesto fore; I ille in balineis iturust,
inde hue veniet postea; cf. Persa 90: /autum credo e balineis iam hie adfuturum.
94 Id. Rud., 385-388: etiam qui it lavatum I in balineis, cum ibi sedulo sua vestimenta servat, I ramen
surripiuntur, quippe qui quem illorum I observer falsust; I fur facile qui observat videt: custos qui fur sit I nescit.
See also Poen., 976-977: sed quae ilkuc avis est, quae hue cum tunicis advenit? I nummam in balineis
circumductust pallio?
9S Id. Trin., 405-408: Lesb.: Quid factumst eo? I Stas.: Comes~·um, expotum; exussum: elotum in
balineis .. .
li] 76

the existence of men known as balneatores, or "bathmen," the precise meaning of which is

unclear.%

Some of these references ought to be examined in more detail, to see what can be learnt

from them. The comments of the slave Trachalio in "The Rope" (Rudens) concerning the

presence of clothes-thieves at the baths are particularly enlightening, for here we get a glimpse of

conditions inside one of these early establishments.97 The most notable inference is that the

baths are full of people, for the bather does not know who to watch as a possible thief, while the

thief can easily spot the man who is watching. The clothes-thief can hide in the crowd and strike

when the bather is distracted. A fine comic situation, and one perhaps rooted in the audience's

experience for it to be effective. This in tum suggests that by Plautus's time, baths were

sufficiently populous establishments to allow such a situation to arise.

The squandering of money by Stasimus, the slave in the "The Threepenny Day"

(Trinummus) is also informative, for part of the money is spent on baths. 98 Thus baths

evidently charged for their services, an established fact in the case of later baths, and for this

period supported by some other references to baths used as investments by senators, considered

below.

96 Id. Rud., 257, True., 322-325. This term appears to be a direct translation of the Greek term
~ a.A. a. VELTY)S', itself a variant of ~a.A. a. VEU S', which is known from Aristophanes (eg. Knights, 1403, Frogs,
710). It is not clear if it refers to men who run baths (as it later did) or to slaves/personnel found therein. For a
recent discussion ofbalneators, cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.127-128.
97 Rud., 385-388, (text cited above in n. 94). The problem of thievery at the baths was perennial and
continued on into later times, cf. below, pp. 279-289. We should also note that this passage does not show, as
NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.27, n. 13 claims, that the scene takes place in a hip-bath complex because the bather brings
his clothes with him into the bathing room. In the first place, it is not specified that the man watches his clothes
while he is engaged in the act of bathing (as NIELSEN claims) nor is it clear where in the bathhouse the scene is
set, but we should probably imagine an apodyterium or some such area of the building. If the bather had put his
clothes in the niches above his hip-bath (which, after all, is one of the functions assigned to such niches), he
would surely not be worried about a thief, who would have to lean over him to get at the clothes. If, on the other
hand, the bather left his clothes in a fixed place (such as an apodyterium or wall niches in an open heated room)
and then went elsewhere or moved about to carry out his ablutions, he had every reason to be concerned for his
belongings. This interpretation, I believe, allows us to understand the setting of the scene more clearly.
98 Trin., 405-408. For text, cf. above, n. 95.
Ilj 77

Finally, there are the complaints of Dinarchius about the length of time women stay in

the bath. "Even fish, I believe," he moans, "who bathe as long as they live, don't bathe as long

as this Phronesium [a courtesan] here. If women could be loved for as long as they bathed, all

lovers would be bathmen. "99 It is not clear from the context if the baths here referred to are

public or private. However, the reference not only attests to the existence of bathmen and

implies a familiarity with them among the audience, it also reflects the existence of the bathing

habit.

Plautus, then, portrays the public bath as a place familiar to Romans of the 3rd-2nd

centuries BC, where bathers encounter balneaJores and spend money, but risk having their

clothes stolen. The impression left by these passages is that public bathing was very much part

of life at the time the plays were staged, and references to them are used as an easily

recognizable element of day-to-day life. The problem is: are they accurate? If not, the

inferences just drawn from them are invalid. Few scholars have asked this fundamental

question before, preferring to cite the notices without comment.

The chief difficulty here lies in the fact that Plautus based his plays on the earlier works

of Greek New Comedy. It is possible that these references are misleading therefore, and better

reflect conditions in the Greek rather than in the Roman world. What is more, Plautus's use of

the Greek derivative balineum (or balneum) to denote baths, rather than the more Roman

lavatrina, could be seen to support this. It could be argued that he found the Greek word in his
models and simply transcribed it. In short, is Plautus dependent on his Greek models for his

bath references, and so unreflective of contemporary Roman practice?

99 True., 322-325: pisds, ego credo, qui usque dum vivont /avant, minus diu lavare quam haec lavat
Phronesium si proinde amentur, mulieres diu quam /avant, omnes amantes balneatores sient.
II] 78

The problem is difficult to resolve satisfactorily. Some counter-arguments offer

themselves. First, Plautus, while deriving much material from his Greek models, was no mere

translator, but an adapter who gave his comedies a distinctly Roman character, not only in form

and language, but also in content by drawing on situations from specifically Roman daily

life. 1oo Lacking as we do all but one New Comedy play in full, the depth of Plautus's debt to or

deviance from the Greek originals is quite impossible to gauge.

Second, it would make little sense for Plautus to portray situations or institutions with

which his audience could not identify . 101 This point is especially cogent, because Plautus is a

playwright who shows a strong propensity for exploiting the comedic element in any set of

circumstances. 10 2 The scope for humour in a situation that the audience could not recognize

would be severely limited. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the audience could at least

recognize what Plautus meant by the terms balnea and balneator, and the circumstances

surrounding the spending of money at the baths or the presence of clothes-thieves there.

However, it is also true that Plautus makes occasional mention of gymnasia and palaestrae,

100 Cf. G. NORWOOD, Plautus and Terence (NY: Cooper, 1963), pp. 15-28, 54-99; M.
DELCOURT, Plaute et l'impartialite comique (Brussels: La Renaissance du livre, 1964), pp. 29-81; J. TATUM,
Plautu.s: The Darker Plays (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1983), p. 2. A recent example of the use of Plautus
as a reliable source for social conditions in the Roman world of his day is K.R. BRADLEY, Slavery and
Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 BC- 70 BC (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989), pp. 27-30.
10 1 While it is possible for audiences to identify with elements of foreign cultures with which they do
not have first-band experience-- for instance, Japanese customs as portrayed in films or plays-- many, if not
most, facets of that foreign culture will remain nonetheless unclear to the uninformed. I cannot imagine Roman
audiences of c. 200 BC were particularly well-educated, cf. Plut. Cato Maj., 20; Quint. 1.2. S.F. BONNER,
Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley; University of California Press,
1977) pp. 3-19 portrays the education of the period as firmly rooted in the family. His focus, of course, is
restricted to noble families; the lower classes, who made up the majority of Plautus's audience, must have
received a very limited education. Plautus mentions the baths in so casual a manner that an assumed familiarity
with them among his audience seems to stand behind the references. Also, that many Romans had served in
S.Italy and Sicily by 200 BC does not really contribute much to the argument - we do not know enough about
the constituents of Plautus's audience to make any solid judgements as to who had been where. Cf. the comment
by O.F. ROBINSON, "Baths: An Aspect of Roman Local Government Law" in Sodalitas. Scn·tti in onore di
Antonio Guarino 3 (Naples: Jovene, 1984), p. 1065: " ... There are references in Plautus which, although they
may stem from his Greek sources, suggest that Roman audiences would not find public baths unfamiliar."
102 Cf. E. SEGAL, Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautu.s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987,
2ed.),pp.l-14.
II] 79

neither of which were a feature of Roman urban topography at this time.103 Unfortunately, we

cannot say for sure how much more closely Plautus's audience could identify with a reference to

a balneum, rather than to a gymnasium. But a comparison of the balneum with the

gymnasium/palaestra references may provide a clue. Whereas the characters in the plays interact

directly with the baths (visiting them, spending money at them etc.), they do not do so with the

gymnasium or palaestra. The latter find mention only very fleetingly, or metaphorically, e.g., as

an element of a city a character describes travelling through, or as a metaphor for a brothel. 104

The impression is that the baths were a more familiar institution to contemporary Romans than

were gymnasia or palaestrae. An exception occurs in Bacchides when Plautus describes the

activities that took place in a gymnasium, most of which are Greek.tos In this case, however,

first-hand familiarity with a gymnasium is not necessarily inferred. The passage appears to be

an attack on the new, Greek-influenced education, centred on the gymnasium. 106 It would be

fair to suggest that the sorts of activities described in this passage would have been familiar to

Romans of the day, even if only through hearsay, due to the topicality of the subject.

Altogether, Plautus's bath situations, such as thievery and money-spending, leave a stronger

impression of first-hand familiarity with the baths on the part of his audience than do the more

fleeting mentions of gymnasia and palaestrae.

Finally in this connection, the question of bath terminology is a difficult one, and does

not allow simple conclusions based on Plautus's use of the Greek derivative balineum. 101 It

103 Elements of these buildings are identifiable in early bath remains (e.g. the palaestra in the Stabian
Baths) and in later buildings (notably, the extensive facilities of imperial thennae), but no purely Greek gymnasia
or palaestrae are known from Rome or other Italian towns; in fact, the palaestra as a structure independent of the
gymnasium has proven impossible to identify in the archaeological record, cf. e.g. KYLE, Athletics, pp. 66-70
who cannot adduce a single surviving example.
104 E.g. Amph., 1011: omnis platt>as pt'rpetavi, gymnasia et myropolia . .. in palaestras . .. ; Epid.,
197-198: per omnnn urbem quem sum dt>fessus quat>rere I pt'r mnlicina.s, per tonstrina.s in gymna.sio atqut> in
foro. See also the metaphoric uses in As., 297: gymnasiumflagri, sa/veto; or Aul., 410: ita me iste habuit
senex gymnasium; or Bacch., 66-67: aduluscens homo penetrem me huius modi in palaestram, ubi damnis
desudascitur.
105 Bacch., 419-434.

106 Cf. J. BARSBY, Plautus, Bacchides (Oak Parle Bolchazy-Carducci, 1986), pp. 133-137.

107 Cf. above, pp. 6-11.

II] 80

would be facile to deduce a Greek origin for Roman baths simply because the Latin word for

them has a Greek root.tos Varro, in his study of the Latin language, comments vaguely that the

"ancients used to call this [the bath] not a balnel.UTl, but a lavatrina. "109 Exactly when "the

ancients" lived, and when the transition to the Greek derivative occurred, remains open to

question.

In sum, Plautus's evidence is certainly problematic and open to dispute, but it does leave

the distinct impression that public baths were a part of life at Rome when the playwright lived

and wrote in the late 3rdlearly 2nd century BC. It is not possible to be more precise than this.

The evidence of Rome's other early playwright, Terence, is vitiated by the nature of his

work as a more-or-less straight translation of Menander. 11 0 When mentioning baths, Terence

prefers to use the Supine lavatum (in the sense of "bathing") instead of balinel.UTl, which he uses

only once. ttl In addition, it is generally not clear from the context of the references to bathing

whether private or public establishments are being indicated.

Varro, on the other hand, is explicit when he says that the frrst public bath at Rome was

a double structure with separate sections for men and women_l12 Varro gives no indication

when this bath was built. He implies, however, that the bath was the product of external

influence on Rome (cl.UTl introiit in urbem), and did not emerge from within the city. It is

108 This is nonetheless what NIELSEN does, cf. Therm., 1.30. Cf. the comments of DeLAINE, JRA
(1988), 16 on this sort of approach. In general it is difficult to determine what motivated the Romans to use
Greek or Latin terms for buildings.
109 Varro, Ling. Lat., 9.68: cum hoc antiqui non balneum, sed lavatrinam appellare. It should be
borne in mind here that Varro's interest is that of a grammarian, and may not reflect actual everyday usage.
110 This is admitted in the prologues to the plays themselves.
111 Cf. Ter. Phorm., 339 (balineum), Hau., 655, Eun., 592, 596, 600 (/avatum).
112 ling. Lat., 9.68: primum balneum (nomen est Graecum), cum introiit in urbem, publice ibi
consedit, ubi bina essent coniuncta aedificia lavandi causa, unum ubi viri, alterum ubi mulieres lavarentur.
Clearly Varro imagines here a single structure with two separate sections, as he goes on to explain how balneum
came to be applied to single (private) structures. Note also that Vitruvius's description of a bath assumes it is a
double building (5.10.1).
II] 81

possible, of course, that V arro is mistaken, or has fabricated this point as part of his attempt to

explain the different forms of balnea (which is the context of the notice), but there is no way of

checking. However, as already noted, his comment also agrees with the only archaeological

evidence we have from the 2nd century BC: the Stabian Baths, which was a double building.ll3

Given this, we should tentatively consider Varro's testimony as sound.

A statement in Nonius which has been attributed to Cato the Elder has also been used to

shed light on early bathing conditions at Rome. But there are problems. In the first place,

Nonius is not here citing Cato, but Varro's Catu.s de liberis educandis, a work in which Cato

was apparently used as an exemplum of a proper Roman upbringing.II4 Nonetheless, the fact

remains that the disembodied statement cannot be securely ascribed either to Cato, Catus or

Varro. Even if it is Cato speaking (as is possible), it is to be remembered that he grew up in

Tusculum, so he may describe here the situation in that town and not in Rome. Uncertainty

even surrounds the interpretation of the claim itself. It could mean that daily bathing was

generally uncommon in the boyhood of the speaker, us or it could be taken to apply only to the

speaker ("I did not bathe daily"), thus implying that the habit was common among others whom

he knew. A final point: it is unclear if the author here refers to private or public bathing.II6

These numerous uncertainties render the passage useless as evidence for this early period.

Three more authors provide evidence pertinent to the situation in Rome in the 2nd

cenrury BC. The poet Caecilius Statius (who died c. 168 BC) makes a passing and

uninformative reference to baths. 117 The most that can be said is that the word appears in a 2nd­

113 This is not a disputed feature of the 2nd-century Stabian Baths.

114 Nonius p. 108M (155L), s.v. "ephippium ": mihi puero . .. balneum non cotidianwn (the full text
is cited above in the Introduction to Section 1, n. 4). For the attribution to Cato, cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.29.
For Catus (whose dates are uncertain), cf. RE 86.1172-1277, s.v. "Terentius" (no. 84) [Dahlmann], esp. 1264.
115 Thus, NIELSEN, Thenn., loc. cit. in previous note.
116 &lnewn can mean lavatio, or "washing" (cf. Apicius, 9.8.5; OW, s.v., no. 3).
117 Fragment 98 (R) cited in Non., 194M (285L). s.v. balneae. His work was derived from Greek
originals, cf. Au!. Gel!., 2.23; cf. OCD, s.v., "Caecilius" (no. 1) [Williams]. Note also Front. Srrat., 4.26
II] 82

century context. Next, the Augustan historian Pompeius Trogus, as epitomised by Justin in the
3rd century AD, comments that the Romans introduced hot-water bathing to Spain after the
Second Punic War (218-202 BC).l 18 This would imply that the habit was common among the
Romans by that time. Unfortunately, as with Livy's Capuan anecdote, Trogus's source for this
notice cannot be traced, so it could conceivably be a retrojection of later practise.

The most infonnative of the three is Cicero. In two places, in the de Oratore and the pro
Cluentio, Cicero tells a story involving the orator L. Licinius Crassus (whom we have already
met as an acquaintance of Asclepiades of Bithynia and Sergius Orata) and his judicial opponent
M. Junius Brutus. 119 Cicero in both instances uses the story to illustrate the wit of Crassus. In
the de Oratore, Cicero relates how Crassus humiliated Brutus in court by making quips
concerning baths which his opponent had recently sold 120 It is plain from this passage that
Brutus had inherited the baths from his father, as Crassus makes lewd allusions to father and
son bathing together in these baths, a practice the Romans considered improper, 121 and tells us
that the estates (fundt) of Brutus's father, apparently including the baths, were registered in the
public records. The pro Cluentio version of the story is no different: the allusions to Brutus
sharing baths with his father, and the registration of the baths in public accounts are repeated.122

where a punishment in the army of 133 BC included being denied baths and banquets (L. Piso C. Titium ...
iussit . .. conviviis et balneo abstinere). The context would imply that the culprit was to be denied pleasure leave
(officers' mess in 133 BC can hardly have been a banquet) so these baths would seem to have been civilian rather
than military ones, but we should be cautious how much we extrapolate from this. In any case the campaign was
in Sicily, and so the baths referred to were probably those in the Greek communities there.
118 Justin, Epit., 44.6.2: aqua calida lavari post secundum Punicum bellum a Romanis didicere. For
Trogus, cf. RE 21.2300-2313, s.v. "Pompeius" (no. 142) [Klotz); for Justin, cf. RE 10.956-957, s.v. "Junianus"
(no. 4) [Kroll].
11 9 For Crassus, cf. above Ch. 1, n. 22; for Brutus, BROUGHTON, MRR, ll.41, 576, no. 51.
120 Cf. Cic. de Or., 2.223-224: quam multa de balneis, quas nuper ille [sc Brutus] vendiderat, quam
multa de amisso patrimonio [sc. Crassus] dixit! Atque ilia brevia, cum ille diceret se sine causa sudare, "minime
mirum," inquit, "modo enim existi de balneis." . .. "ubi sunt hi fundi, Brute, quos tibi pater publicis
commentariis consignatos reliquit? quod nisi puberem te," inquit [sc. Crassus], "iam hoberet, quortum librum
composuisset et se in balneis lotum cum filio scriptum reliquisset. "
121 See also de Off, 129; Plut. Cato maj., 20.5; HA, Gord., 6.4.
122 Cic., pro Clu., 141: quod si potuisset honeste scribere se in bolneis cum id oetotis filio fuisse, non
proeterisset; eas se tamen ab eo bolneas non ex libris patris sed ex tabu/is et ex censu quoerere.
II] 83

That these are public baths is indicated by a nicety of Ciceronian Latinity. Cicero is
absolutely consistent in his use of the feminine plural fonn balneae to denote public baths, and
the neuter singular balneum to indicate private.t23 In this story the baths are always referred to
in the plural, and once in the feminine plural fonn, making it plain that Cicero means a public
establishment.

The situation behind the story can be reconstructed as follows. In about the middle of
the 2nd century BC, Brutus's father had invested in a set of public baths, registered them in the
public records, and passed them on by inheritance to his son. The younger Brutus, Crassus's
opponent, subsequently resold them, giving rise to the orator's quips concerning "lost family
funds," registration of the baths, and his vulgar insinuation of impropriety in bathing practice
(which seems to have been a jocular metaphor for the younger Brutus having a hand in running
the establishment with his father). A senator inheriting a set of public baths and then selling
them, one presumes for profit, surely indicates that by that date at least public bathing had
become sufficiently widespread and popular for such a building to be an attractive economic
asset Note also that Cicero does not comment (as he might have) that Brutus's ownership of
baths was unusual or out of character for members of the senatorial class.124 It would perhaps
be dangerous to attempt to draw too much from this observation, but it is worth making
nonetheless.

123 So, for instance, he refers to private baths in villas using balneum (cf. Art., 2.3.4 [S-B, 23];
13.52.1 [S-B, 353); 14.13a.1 (S-B, 417]; Fam., 14.20.1 [S-B, 173]; 9.16.9 [S-B, 190]), while for public
establishments he uses balneae (cf. pro Cael., 61-62; pro Rose., 18). This, indeed, became a rule of Latin
grammar, but one evidently often ignored, cf. Varro, ling. Lat., 9.68: item reprehendunt analogias, quod dicantur
multitudinis nomine publicae balneae non balnea, contra quod privati dicant unum balneum. Cf. especially above,
p. 7-8.
124 Although officially frowned upon as unseemly, it is clear that members of the senatorial class did
indulge in speculative business ventures, property ownership among them, cf. P. GARNSEY, wurban Property
Investment" in M.l. FINlEY, Studies in Roman Property (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp.
123-136. Crassus, for instance, who was held up as a paragon of greed, earned his vast fortune from real-estate,
mining, skilled slaves (for rent), agriculture and inheritances, cf. A.M. WARD, M. Crassus and the Late Republic
(London: University of Missouri Press, 1977), pp. 68-78, esp. 70-77. Even the virtuous Cicero had real estate
interests in Rome, cf. Art., 14.9.1, 11.2.
II] 84

Plutarch's comment that "hot waters" featured among the several business investments

of Cato the Elder is also instructive. So safe and sure were these investments, declared Cato,
that not even Jupiter could ruin him.12s What u5cna. 8Epf16_ means here is debatable, but there

are really only two possibilities. Either it denotes "hot baths," or it means "hot springs." The

Loeb edition inconsistently translates the phrase here as "hot springs" but elsewhere in Plutarch

as "warm baths." 126 There is some support for the interpretation of the term as referring to

springs or spas.127 However, it is surprising that the Romans, even in later times, did not

greatly exploit hot water springs in the area of Campania. 128 To this extent, we would not

immediately think of them as a safe and profitable business venture. It is better to conclude that
the precise meaning of the term u5a.Ta. 8Epf16_ remains uncertain, but in the face of such

unexpectedly little evidence for extensive Roman exploitation of natural spring sites in Campania

at least, favour must lean towards the "bathhouse" translation. If so, Plutarch's story can be

added to Cicero's allusions to Brutus's bath investments as testimony for the popularity of baths

in the 2nd century BC.

The combined evidence of Cicero and Plutarch suggests that in the 2nd century BC

Roman senators were investing in public baths as economic assets.1 29 For this to be so, the

125 Plut. Cato Maj., 21.5:' ATITOf!EVOS' 5E: OUVTOVWTEpov noptaf!OV TY)v f!EV
yEwpyl.a.v fiCiA.t-.ov i)ydTO 5ta.ywyr)V 1) np6oo5ov, Eis 5' cio<j>a.t-. f) npci_yf!a.TCX. Ka.t
~E~Cna. Ka.Ta.Tt8Ef!EVOS' Tas; ci<j>Opf!aS' EKTa.To A.Lf!Va.S', u5a.Ta. 8Epf!ci_, ... ci<j>' ffiv a.unp
not-.A.a XPT1f!a.Ta. npom;)Et not-.t-.<X f!T)O'tmo t,l.os;, ws- <j>T)otv a.vTOS', ~A.a.~f)va.t
5uva.f! Evwv.
126 Plut. Sulla, 31.5, here we read of men who lost their lives in the Sullan proscriptions because they
owned fancy houses, gardens or UOa.Ta. 8Epf!ci,. The recent translation of the Life ofCato by D. SANSONE
(Warminster; Aris and Phillips, 1989) uses "hot baths," but offers no discussion in the accompanying
commentary.
127 Dr. G.M. Paul made the entirely valid point to me that all of Cato's other investments listed here
are natural rather than constructed. The Scaptopara petition to Gordian ill (AD 239-244) uses the phrase to mean
"hot springs," cf. CIL 3.12336, lines 14-15.
128 This is the conclusion ofG.W. HOUSTON, "The Other Spas of Ancient Campania" (forthcoming)
(I am indebted to Prof. Houston for providing me with a manuscript of this article). Elsewhere in the empire,
many hot- or mineral-springs were developed extensively, cf. HEINZ, ROm. Therm., pp. 157-174.
129 Any profit probably derived more from renting the establishment to a conductor than from takings
at the door, cf. ROBINSON, Sodalitas 3 (1984), 1070-1071. The investment by senators in urban property is
II] 85

practice of public bathing must obviously have reached a certain degree of popularity and

prevalence. Unfortunately, given the dearth of evidence, we cannot even start to estimate this

trend in quantitative terms. Nor can we say with any degree of certainty how many senators

invested in baths, and thus how representative the actions of Brutus's father and Cato the Elder

may have been.

Plutarch's account ofthe bloody events surrounding the death of C. Gracchus (121 BC)

includes the detail that Gracchus's chief supporter, Fulvius Flaccus, attempted to hide in a

"disused bathhouse" but was found and killed along with his elder son. 13° Unfortunately, it is

not explicitly stated in the story if this bath was public or private. Were it the former,

speculation might be invited as to how many such discarded structures the city contained. But

as it stands, the passing reference cannot be pressed further.

The next piece of evidence comes at the very end of the period under consideration here,

in a speech delivered by Cicero in 80 BC in defence of Sextius Roscius, who stood accused of

parricide. Cicero makes reference to the balneae Palklcinae, "the Pallacine baths," near which

Roscius's father was murdered.I3I Although nothing is known of this building, it was clearly

well enough known for Cicero to use it as the landmark by which the jury could place the

location of Roscius's murder. The baths seem to have been named after the street upon which

they stood, the Pallacinae Vicus.l32 In the pro Caelio, delivered 24 years later, Cicero makes

reference to the balneae Seniae, "the Senian baths," which are similarly unidentifiable today .133

well-known, though little investigated, cf. P. GARNSEY, "Urban Property Investment" in M.l. FINLEY (ed.),
Studies in Roman Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 123-136.
130 Plut. Gracch., 16.4: yEvo~EVT)S' 5E Tf1S' Tponf1s 6 ~Ev <t>ouA.WLO$ E't$ n
~a:\aVELOV i)~EA T)~EVOV KaTa¢uywv Kat ~ETa ~tKpOV cXVEVpE8EL$ K!XTEO¢ctyT) ~ETa
ToD TTpEO~lJTEpov nat56s- ...
131 Cic. pro Rose., 18: occiditur ad balneas Pallacinas rediens a cena Sex. Roscii4S.
132 Cf. RE 18.2.156-157, s.v. "Pallacinae vicus" (Wdin].
133 Cf. Cic. pro Cael., 61-62. It is not clear how these baths got their name.
II] 86

The size and nature of these buildings is not known, but that they have names familiar to the jury

suggests that public baths were common at Rome in the first half of the 1st century BC.

Finally, a brief examination of the epigraphic evidence down to Sulla's dictatorship is

called for. This will be mostly of Italian provenance (as it is here that Roman baths developed)

and so in Latin. The examination will perforce be brief, as the material is so slight. There are

only eight Republican inscriptions datable to the Sullan period or earlier which mention

bathhouses or parts thereof. Further, one of these is dubious, as it possibly does not refer to

baths at aU. 134 They mostly record the erection or restoration of baths or parts of baths, and

many are not precisely datable. Of those that are, the earliest stone dates to the late 2nd century

BC and comes from Aletrium in Latium. 135 It records that L. Betilienus Vaarus (sic) saw to the

construction of a whole series of public buildings and conveniences, and earned two local

censorships in return. Among them was a lacus balinearius.13 6 This means that our earliest

bath inscription is roughly contemporaneous with the Stab ian Baths in Pompeii. As a result, the

epigraphic material will throw no light on the earliest stages of bath development.

What does the term lacu11 balinearius mean? Lacus denotes any type of pool or pond,

natural or artificial, and is frequently used to mean public troughs, cisterns or reservoirs. 137

The adjective balinearius makes it clear that the structure was either part of the bathhouse at

Aletrium, or it served a bathhouse-related function. It may denote a pool in the bath building,

like the later piscina or naJatio. Alternatively, it could mean an open-air pool, unrelated to a

134 These are ILLRP 521 (Acurantia; post-Social War), 528 (Aletrium; 130-120 BC), 542 (Lacedonia;
post-Social War), 606 (Grumentum; Sullan?), 615 (fibur; Sullan?), 617 (lnteramnia; post-Sullan), 648
(Pompeii; Sullan), /LS 6356 (Pompeii; Sullan). The debatable one is 615 (/acus built at Tibur; post-81 BC). In
addition, there are three not securely datable, but nonetheless Republican, inscriptions: ILLRP 600 (Frigentum;
?), 755 (Delos; 1st century BC?), 1275 (Carpi, Tunisia; 1st century BC?). The first of the latter three may not
refer to a bathhouse, as it mentions only the construction of a solarium, cf. JURP 116 and 766 for mention of
solaria (note the sundial found in the Stabian Baths, above, pp. 54-55, and below n. 139).
135 NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.40, n. 25 dates it to 130-120 BC.
136 Cf. ILLRP 528 (= ILS 5348): L. Betilienus L. f. Vaarus I haec quae infera scripta I sont de senatu
sententia I facienda coir<1vit II ... horologium ... [l]acum balinearium, lacum ad [p]ortam ...
137 Cf. OLD, s.v.
II] 87

bathhouse, which was used for bathing purposes. This seems unlikely, as there is no known

example of such a facility from this or any other period. !38 A third possibility is presented by a

phrase occurring later in the text where a "/acus beside the gate" is mentioned, which probably

indicates a trough. Could the lacus balinearius have been a trough or a reservoir in the

bathhouse or its vicinity? It does seem, at least, that we are dealing with elements in a

bathhouse. Among the list of Vaarus's various constructions is a horo/ogium, or sundial.

While sundials are not necessarily part of a bath building, they have been found in that context,

notably the example from the east ponicus of the palaestra of the Stabian Baths, dated to about

the same time as this inscription. 139 It could be ventured that the horo/ogiwn and the lacw;

balinearius, the construction of which was Vaarus's responsibility, were new additions to
Aletrium's bathhouse, the main body of which would already have been built at an undetermined

date.

The other inscriptions, most of them probably of the Sullan era or slightly earlier, yield

little information but should not be ignored, as they attest to an interest in bathing at the various

places of provenance. One text of the 2nd/l st century BC from Grumentum in Lucania records

the construction of baths by duoviri from public money . 140 This text, as well as the Aletrium

inscription above, is striking for its commemoration of a local authority undertaking the task of

138 The famed depiction in the Tomb of the Diver of the 5th century BC has a natural setting, although
the diver is leaping off some sort of man-made construction, indicating at least partial development of the
environment. It has been suggested that the representation is symbolic, representing the deceased diving off life
into the unknown, cf. PEDLEY, Paestum, pp. 89-94 tor a recent discussion and illustrations. Note, however,
Dio's report (55.7.6) that Maecenas built a heated swimming-pool (KOAVIJ.~T'J8pa. 8Ep1J.OU Doa.TOS') in
Rome in 8 BC. The nature of this structure is no clearer than that being presently discussed, but it is possibly to
he identified with the calida piscina, known from later baths, cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., l.l56, s.v.
139 Its findspot is marked "x" on fig. 6. Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., p. 17 and Abb. 5, 7. An
undated Republican inscription from Carpi in Africa records the donation of a destrictarium (scraping-off room)
and solarium (sundial) there, cf. JURP 1275. The presence of baths here is indicated by the destrictarium
(compare the Vulius and Aninius inscription from the Stabian Baths in Pompeii, cf. above, n. 13). The word
could, however, indicate a gymnasium, although ·no examples are known from Africa, cf. H. JOUFFROY, La
construction publique en ltalie et dans /'Afrique romaine (Strasbourg: AECR, 1986), pp. 175-315.
140 JURP 606: Q. Pettius Q. f. Tro(mentina) Curva I C. Maecius C. f. Ouf(entina) pr(aefectores) I
duivir(i) balneum ex I d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) de peq(unia) pob(lica) fac(iundum) cur(averunt) II Q. Pettius Q. f.
probavit.
IIJ 88

building the baths for the local citizens. There is also a 1st century BC inscription from
Acurantia recording the work of duoviri in restoring a piscina .141

A laconicwn is mentioned in a text from Delos, and a destrictariwn from an inscription

from Carpi in North Africa.14 2 Although Delos was hardly a typical urban community, mention

of bath-related rooms here and across the Mediterranean in Africa may be taken to imply more
widespread public bathing in the Roman world of the early 1st century BC than the literary
evidence alone happens to indicate.

Relevant literary and epigraphic evidence for the period up to Sulla is thus slim, as one
would expect, but cumulatively suggestive nonetheless. It is certainly sufficient to put to rest the
claim that "before the baths of Agrippa we know of no public baths at Rome," if the term
"public" here means "open to the public" and not "publicly owned. "143 Such a claim is patently

untrue. In fact, the literary evidence allows us to trace public baths at Rome back to the late
3rd/early 2nd century BC, but no earlier, while for all their scarcity the epigraphic references to
baths or parts of baths leave the impression that they were a fairly common feature of Roman
towns by the end of Sulla's dictatorship.

141 JLLRP 521.

142 Cf. ILLRP 755 for the Delos inscription, which probably has more relevance to Greek than to
Roman baths, although we should note the involvement of Italians in this benefaction; on the so-called Agora of
the Italians, cf. N. RAUH, "Was the Agora of the Italians an Etablissement du sport?" BCH 1992 (forthcoming)
(I am particularly indebted to Dr. Raub for providing an off-print of his article before it was published, and
discussing it with me in person). The Carpi text is JLLRP 1275 and is discussed in n. 139 above.
143 The comment was made by P. CASTREN, in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 359. F. Rakob, commenting on Castren's presentation, raises doubts about
this claim, evidently taking CASTREN to mean "publicly accessible baths," cf. HIM (1974), p. 362.
 CONCLUSION

Roman public baths first made their appearance in Campania sometime in the 3rd century BC,
perllaps in the early-to-mid part of that century. By 216 BC Capua may have had a set, and by
the end of the century they were already a feature of the urban landscape of Rome, as the
testimony of Plautus suggests. We have no archaeological evidence of what these early baths
looked like, and the literary sources give few clues. However, Varro does make two notable
points. First, Rome's first baths were introduced to the city from elsewhere. Second, they had
separate sections for men and women. This corresponds with the early evidence from
Campania, e.g. the story told by C. Gracchus set in Teanum Sidicinum and its environs, and the
earliest fully preserved set to survive, the Stabian Baths at Pompeii (probably built in one
operation in c. 140-120 BC). Altogether, therefore, the likelihood is that the first baths in Rome
were the result of Campanian influence on the city. Because double buildings with sections for
men and women presuppose a familiarity with the technology involved in heating them, they can
be seen as a later development than single ones. Given this, we may suggest that the original
Campanian baths were initially single-sectioned structures and had been in existence some time
before double baths were introduced to Rome. I

None of this, however, sheds any light on the actual appearance of these early baths.2 It
has been suggested by some scholars that they more closely resembled Greek-style ~a.A.a.vE'ia

1 It is noteworthy that the Central Baths in Cumae (c. 180 BC) appear to have had only a single
section, but this building needs fuller investigation before its evidence can really be called upon. Also the
wording of Varro ling. Lat., 9.68 (ubi bina essent coniuncta aedificia lavandi causa) seems to reflect a second
stage of development: initially the "two joined buildings" (for men and women) may have been separate
structures.
2 Because Greek baths could also have sections for men and women, Varro's testimony does not provide
evidence as to what type of baths he was referring to, Greek or Roman/Campanian. For men and women's
sections in Greek baths, cf. the Harbour Baths at Eretria (fig. 5 where the letter AN (probably for ANL'..PEIOL: or
ANL'..PQN) are clearly visible at the entrance of Rl) and GINOUVES, Balan., pp. 197-198.

89

 90

than Roman-style baths, and while this is certainly possible, we have seen that severe problems

arise when the proposition is examined closely. No clear evidence for typical Greek baths with

hip-baths and rotundas is known from any Campanian sites, and Rome provides no physical

remains before the Baths of Agrippa, built in 26-19 BC. 3 The proposed Greek stages of the

Stabian Baths, be they Eschebach's 5th or 4th-century BC bath/palaestra, or DeLaine and

Nielsen's 2nd-century BC hip-bath complex, are severely problematic. Despite this, there are

definite hints of a Greek influence on at least certain elements of Roman baths. What was its

nature? And where did the form of Roman baths, already developed by the time the Stabian

Baths were built, originate? These are the next logical questions.

The Greeks were the only public bathers with whom Rome came into contact in the

period before baths are mentioned in a late 3rd-century BC context in Plautus and Livy. Baths

were a part of gymnasia, and Greek towns could also feature ~a?\ a vEta., public establishments.

Elements of both these institutions are to be found in Roman baths, notably the palaestra, cold­

water basins, round sweat-baths, as well as the rarer cold-water pool of the gymnasia, and a

developed version of the hypocaust underfloor heating system of the ~a?\avda.

However, in both form and function neither ~a?\avEl.a nor gymnasia, even in

combination, can be seen as the direct ancestors of Roman baths. Both lack several defining

features of Roman establishments - communal immersion in hot water, a clear room-sequence,

and a developed hypocaust. Ba?\avEl.a are characterized in particular by hip-baths, which are

not found at all in Roman baths. These differences in form reflect an underlying difference in

bathing practices. Whereas the Greeks bathed individually in tubs or at basins, the Romans did
so communally in large heated pools. Furthermore, in terms of function, ~a?\ a vEta are often,

3 The Hellenistic baths at Velia, south of Campania proper and dating to about 300 BC, should be
associated more with the other Greek baths from Magna Graecia than with the early periods in Campania, cf. W.
JOHANNOWSKY, "Considerazioni sullo sviluppo urbano e Ia cultura materiale di Velia," PP 37 (1982), 225­
246, esp. 243-246.
 91

but not always. found in religious contexts. and the gymnasia remained primarily centres of

athletic exercise and intellectual education for a select clientele. Roman public baths, by

contrast, were primarily secular, urban institutions open to all comers. Finally. ~a.>-.a.vda. are

not found in Greek towns with anything like the frequency with which baths feature in Roman

ones. At the very least, this indicates that public bathing among the Greeks never attained the

same degree of popularity as it did among the Romans. Given all this. R. Ginouves's claim that

the Romans drew their baths and bathing habits directly from the Greeks seems extreme.

I would suggest, however, that the Romans, or at least the Campanians, were probably

given the basic idea of building public baths by examples they could have seen in the Greek

communities of South Italy and Sicily. Certain elements of Greek baths and gymnasia also

formed a part of this transfer of ideas but, as with so much else in Rome's borrowings from

Greece, it was a process not of straight adoption, but of adaptation. And it is in this connection,

I believe, that the natural conditions in the Campi Flegrei come into play.

It is plausible to suggest that Campanians had long been used to bathing together in the
hot pools that abound in the Campi Flegrei. When the idea of building public baths occurred to

them, therefore, they developed a form that allowed the artificial recreation of their existing

bathing habits. The rudiments of a suitable technology were at hand in the form of the Greek

"annular" hypocaust. However, the system had to be altered to allow for the heating of larger

pools.4 This done, its extension for the heating of an entire room was not a major step. On this

hypothesis, it should be stressed that the hypocaust did not shape bathing habits, as previous

4 It is possible that the Greeks of Magna Graecia may have gone some way toward this development, in
that they may have been heating immersion pools in part of their bathing establishments, cf. DeLAINE, JMA
(1989), 116-117 where it is argued that hypocaust-heated rooms in the baths at Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse,
previously thought to be sweat baths, were in fact pools. These examples date to the late 3rdlearly 2nd century
BC, and it is not clear if they had predecessors. It is also not clear if all Western Greek baths had this facility.
Therefore, whether these developments directly influenced the Campanians, or whether it was even vice versa, is
not clear but, all in all, I feel the natural spas in the region provide a more likely impulse for the adaptation of the
hypocaust to heat pools in Campania.
 92

scholars have often assumed, but rather that bathing habits shaped the hypocaust. This

proposition is more in accord with the way the ancients used technology in general, in that it was

nearly always adopted or improved to meet an immediate need. 5 Progress for its own sake (on

the modem model) was not sought. and should not be assumed in the case of ancient cultures. 6

On this view, Italian baths had some form of hypocaust from the outset, as the system

was adopted to fit an already defined bathing practice-- communal bathing in hot water. The

mechanics of development from these beginnings to the fully evolved pillar suspensura found in

the Stabian and later baths are very unsure and obscured by a lack of evidence, particularly

physical remains. It is probable, however, that the hypocaust was used initially only to heat

pools, and later extended to heating the entire floor space.? Clear evidence is lacking for this

suggestion, as it is for all reconstructions pertaining to the appearance of early Roman baths;

unfortunately the Stabian Baths' development history is so troublesome and disputed that it

offers no clarification. For the present, then, this proposition must await the test of future

discoveries in the early levels of Campanian bath sites.

The problem of the origin of the room sequence remains outstanding. As some of the

rooms could be heated with braziers (examples have been found in the Forum and Stabian Baths

in Pompeii), the hypocaust cannot be seen as a requisite for such a sequence, though it most

certainly facilitated it. The sequence is probably to be seen as a part of Campanian bathing

practices, the origins of which are not clear. Greek influence may have played a part. as

5 Cf. K.D. WHITE, Greek and Roman Technology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), where this
is manifestly the case, cf. esp. p. 21 and 27-45. Cf. also M.l. FINLEY, "Technical Innovation and Economic
Progress in the Ancient World," Econ. Hist. Rev. N.S. 18 (1965), 29-45, esp. 31-35.
6 Cf. E.R. DODDS, The Andent Concept ofProgress (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), esp. pp. 1-25
where it is convincingly demonstrated that the very notion of progress, although not entirely unknown, was
largely alien to the vast majority of thinkers in the ancient world.
7 This is the sort of system seen in the 3rd/2nd century Greek baths in Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea as
DeLaine reconstructs them, cf. n. 4 above. It may also explain how later baths could be secondarily raised on
hypocausts (cf. JLS 5711 ?), presumably meaning the extension of the hypocaust to the rooms as well as the
pool.
 93

gymnasia had sweat-rooms combined with cold-water baths. It could be suggested that the
Campanians, for whatever reason, simply inserted into this simple sequence an extra room,
which was heated to an intermediate temperarure to produce the the laconicum-caldarium­
tepidarium progression. Again, it is a case of adaptation of a Greek model, not straight
adoption, but precisely why the Campanians should have invented the tepidarium remains
unclear.

Providing a time-frame for all this is speculative, but there are several indicators at our
disposal. The possible presence of balineae at Capua in 216 BC is the earliest and clearest
landmark. From this date, Campanian encounters with Greek baths might fairly be guessed in
the 3rd century BC at the latest. Ba.t-..a.vEl.a. did not really become a familiar feature of Greek

communities until the Hellenistic period, which increases the attraction of a 3rd-century
encounter. In addition, the studied hand of the architect of the Stabian Baths gives the
impression that their form had been in existence for some time before the mid- 2nd century BC,
when the building was erected. In short, I would propose an early-to-mid 3rd century date for
the first Campanian developments outlined above, with the baths being introduced to Rome by
the end of that century. By the mid-2nd century BC the baths had acquired the essentials of their
form, as the Stabian Baths make clear.

To conclude, it can be said that any theory as to the origins of Roman public baths will
inevitably be hampered by a lack of clear evidence. At least the reconstruction offered above has
several strengths lacking in others. It removes the need for attempts to prove the existence of
hip-baths in Roman establishments, while retaining a degree of Greek influence without over­
emphasizing it. It also provides a plausible origin for the Campanian habit of bathing
communally in hot-water, and explains why the hypocaust was adopted from Greek models but
significantly altered, a phenomenon that previous theories have left unaddressed by assuming
 94

the hypocaust gave rise to the bathing habits and not vice versa As a result, this proposed

scheme for the origins of Roman baths matches better the overall process of Roman adaptation

from Greek models, as amply attested in architecture and technology. With baths, as with so

much else, the Campanians ftrst. and then the Romans, took what they needed from the Greeks

and moulded it to suit their needs.

We can answer the questions posed above, then, by saying that the Greeks had a defmite

influence on the early development of Roman baths, but that it was neither as direct nor as great

as previous studies have proposed From the outset, Greek models were adapted to local tastes

and practices producing a form of bath quite different from the Greek original.

This early bath form was relatively homogeneous; there can be no question of separating

the buildings into thennae and balnea, as Nielsen does. Republican Romans called all baths

balnea; thennae did not appear until later. These balnea had the sequence of rooms, were
usually barrel-vaulted, and often featured two sections, one for men and one for women. 8 They

were small compared to what was to come in the 1st century AD, and not well lit. They could

also feature niches arranged along the walls either for decoration or to serve as shelves for

bathers' equipment or, considering their gloominess, possibly lamps.9 They often had a

palaestra associated with them.

Finally, we come full circle and return to Sergius Orata. What was his role in the

scheme of development, if any? He certainly did not invent the hypocaust per se: examples

predating him are known from Greece (e.g. Gortys) and Italy (e.g. the Stabian Baths). It is

8 In addition to the Stabian, Republican and Forum Baths in Pompeii, we can add the Central Baths at
Cales (possibly). Other 1st century BC baths are not especially useful, cf. Introduction to Section 1, n. 7.
9 This is a real possibility, as in some of the rooms in the Forum Baths it must have been difficult to
see anyone; over 1,500 lamps were found there (NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.136) which might suggest bathing at night
(as NIELSEN believes), but may also reinforce the impression of daytime gloominess.
 95

entirely possible that Orata's invention was used exclusively for fishfanning, and that it was
Asclepiades of Bithynia who adapted Orata's fishponds for human bathing. If so, these actions
of the doctor fit into a broader picture of the man as a promoter of bathing which is examined in
detail presently. 1o

Alternatively, if we tentatively accept that Orata's pensiles balineae were a form of

hypocaust employed in bath buildings, the most convincing reconstruction of his role is that
postulated by DeLaine, whereby he was a refmer and a salesman of an already existing system.
Whatever the case, tradition remembered Orata as the inventor. He does indeed emerge from the
sources as a shrewd businessman, and he may have encouraged the belief that he had invented
the entire system in order to heighten his commercial profile. It seems that Orata's refinement
was at least initially used in connection with his fishfanning and only secondarily applied to
baths when he installed it among the bathing facilities in private villas (if that is, in fact, what he
did). However, from there it was but a short step to the public establishments that, by Orata's
day, had already been a part of the Campanian scene for well over a century.

lO See Chapter 4.
SECTION TWO:

GROWTH

 INTRODUCTION

Now that the origins and early development of Roman baths have been examined, it is
appropriate to investigate the questions of when and why they became popular among the
Romans in the 1st centuries BC and AD. These important topics have so far been largely
glossed over or ignored by balneologists.

W. Heinz, when discussing the growth of public bathing at Rome, states that there was a
marked and sudden increase in the practice in the second quarter of the 1st century BC. As
evidence for this he points to the frequency of bath references in the writings of Cicero. 1
Although Heinz has recognized a phenomenon, I hope to show in the ftrst chapter of this section
that the date he favours is too early, and 25 years too limited a timespan for the process of
growth. A close examination of the literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence for the
period between Cicero and Martial will offer an alternative reconstruction.

The question of why the baths became popular among the Romans during the period
under consideration is more difficult to answer. Many factors may be seen to contribute, but
few explain why specifically baths were built. Written sources are largely silent on this topic.
In the second chapter of this section (chapter 4) the relevant evidence is examined, and an
intriguing possibility proposed - that the growth in medical knowledge, especially the ideas of
the doctor Asclepiades of Bithynia, exerted considerable influence on Roman behaviour.

1 HEINZ, Riim Therm., p. lO. Cicero's bath references are dealt with below, pp. 104-107.

97

 CHAPTER III

THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC BATHING, c. 80 BC - AD I 00

Introduction

The most striking feature of the late Republican/early Imperial written evidence for bathing
activity is its very scarcity. No surviving ancient author, of this or of any other period. wrote an
account of the development of baths. But several authors do mention them in an "indirect"
manner, i.e. in passing or casually. Resort must be made to inference in order to reconstruct the
assumptions which appear to stand behind individual statements, a dangerous process dependent
to a large extent on subjective interpretation. Nonetheless, an impression of growth can be
discerned, and the occurrence of casual references to baths in ancient authors of this period may
in itself be taken to indicate a high degree of familiarity with them among both the writers and
their audiences.

Another feature of the evidence, and one by no means applicable to baths alone, is its
Italic focus. Writers tend to reflect the situation in Rome and Italy, and little is available
concerning contemporaneous developments in the provinces.l To some extent, this imbalance is
redressed by the archaeological record, though much work needs to be done in collecting and
correlating extra-Italic evidence. In this respect at least, a preliminary overview can be gleaned

1 Something, of course, does emerge. Pliny the Younger provides vivid testimony of bath building in
Bithynia-Pontus at the turn of the 1st/2nd century AD (Ep., 10.23-24, 70.1, 3, 71 [Prusa] and 10.39.5-6, 40.3
[Claudiopolis]), while Tacitus implies that baths followed hard on the heels of the invading Romans in Britain
(Agr., 21), a situation confirmed by the remains of the lst century baths at Silchester (of Neronian date; C.l38)
or the Early City Baths at Wroxeter (c. 90 AD; C.147), cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.74, 81-83. Inscriptions also
help fill out the provincial picture.

98

IIIJ 99

from the figures provided by Nielsen's catalogue of bath sites. which reflect a general growth in

the number of provincial baths from the 1st centuries BC to AD, although the absolute totals are

remarkably smalJ.2 The whole topic of growth in the provinces requires a separate and more

detailed study than can be provided here.3 We shall therefore be forced to concentrate on Italy,

only occasionally drawing on the provincial evidence.

However, even within Italy the archaeological record for our period is far from

complete. Nielsen catalogues some 67 Italian bath sites. Of these, seven are to be excluded

because they are private.4 The figures for the remainder are instructive and correspond with

those for the provinces: there are six or possibly seven 1st-century BC baths and 16 or 17 1st­

century AD examples. 5 Ideally, we should have a series of sites from different parts of Italy, all

2 There are many reasons for these low figures. First, it must be borne in mind that NIELSEN's
catalogue is not comprehensive and includes only the best-preserved remains. This alone will tend to preclude
earlier sites which may not survive sufficiently well for inclusion. Second, most of the provincial baths will be
understandably of 2nd century AD date (cf. Ch. 6, n. 30). This was the period of greatest peace and prosperity in
the empire, and so represents the golden age of urban life in general, and of bath building in particular. What is
more, the baths only became widespread in Italy in the period discussed in this chapter, subsequently spreading to
the provinces. Finally, many of NIELSEN's early baths are military, private, gymnasia! or religious and so are
excluded from the figures below.
The figures, arranged into NIELSEN's four province-groups excluding Italy, are as follows (dates have
been assigned according to the catalogue entries in NIELSEN, Therm., ll.1-47):

Province-~roup 1st cent. BC 1st cent. AD

Western 6 19
Northern Border 1 10
North African - 1
Eastern - 9

REFERENCES AND NOTES: When NIELSEN assigns an uncertain date, the entry is nonetheless included in
the relevant period. Western: BC: C.98-99, C.lOO, C.llO, C.112, C.l35; AD: C.75-77, C.82-85, C.87,
C.90, C.l05, C.l09, C.lll, C.ll3-114, C.ll6, C.124-128, C.l30 (these figures exclude two Augustan baths
[C.lOl, C.l15] which maybe either 1st century BC or AD). Northern Border. BC: C.l89; AD: C.l38,
C.l47, C.l54, C.l56, C.l58, C.l64, C.l85, C.l97, C.l98, C.200 (the low totals here are mainly due to the
large number of military baths in these provinces). N. African: AD: C.212 (most baths in the this area were
built in 2nd century AD during the period of greatest prosperity). Eastern: AD: C.254, C.276, C.282, C.285,
C.296, C.304-305, C.327, C.360 (the Augustan baths at Pergamum [C.307) are excluded).
3 Mr. D. Jennings is currently investigating baths in Roman Gaul at St. John's College, Oxford.
4 These are baths in Imperial villas or palaces (C.12, C.32, C.35, C.54, C.55, C.56) and the balneum
of the Arval Brethren (C.9).
5 These are: 1st century BC: C.l, C.35, C.41, C.42, C.52, C.62. The possible 7th example is the
Forum Baths at Herculaneum (C.38) which NIELSEN, Therm., 1.39 considers to be of 1st-century AD date,
while in the catalogue she prefers an early Augustan date (i.e. 1st-century BC). 1st century AD: C.2, C.3,
Ill] 100

sufficiently well preserved and investigated to allow the documentation of bath development at

each from the Republic into the Empire. These sites could then be compared with one another to

gain as complete a picture as possible, taking into account regional variations and the particular

circumstances at each place. The reality falls far short.6 Only one site, Pompeii, allows analysis

of the growth of bathing for the period. 7 When this site is examined, it will be seen that its

testimony is unusual and indirect. As this town is unique in preserving a number of Republican

bath structures side-by-side with early Imperial ones, comprehensive comparison with similar

sites elsewhere is not possible.

There are difficulties also with the epigraphic record. As shown in the last chapter,

remarkably few bath inscriptions of the Republican period survive. In contrast. there are

hundreds from the ImperiaLs However, because the entire corpus of Imperial inscriptions far

outweighs its Republican counterpart (due in part to the spread of public patronage in the

Imperial period), the numerical disparity displayed by bath-related texts may not be taken alone

as an accurate indication of growth in bathing in the Imperial period relative to the Republican.

Inscriptions may be used to illustrate some facets of growth, but arguments based purely on

quantitative analysis, at least those covering the late Republican/ early Imperial period, are

vitiated by this consideration.

There are, then, some major difficulties with the evidence as it stands. What will

emerge, however, is that the combined literary, archaeological and epigraphic evidence leaves an

impression of a fairly rapid growth in public bathing, with a consequent heightening of its

C.l5, C.28, C.39, C.43, C.44, C.45, C.46, C.47, C.53, C.57, C.59, C.60, C.6l, C.63. The 17th example is
the bathhouse at Faesulae (C.58) of possibly Augustan date.
6 It is noteworthy that 25 of NIELSEN's 67 Italian baths come from Pompeii or Ostia alone, while a
further 13 come from Rome. The latter is a small number in relation both to the size of the city and the number
of baths there in antiquity, cf. ead. Therm., 138 and below, Ch. 5.
7 All the surviving baths from Ostia are of the 1st century AD date or later.
8 For Republican inscriptions down to Sulla, cf. above, pp. 86-88; cf. below, pp. 112-113 for a
consideration of the remaining Republican, as well as the Early Imperial evidence.
III] 101

profile in Roman daily life, over the period from Cicero to Martial. Rarely are we on solid

ground with precise figures. But, altogether, the cumulative effect of the surviving evidence is

suggestive.

(i) The literary and epigraphic evidence

The literary evidence can be divided by content into direct and indirect types, which are

presented and discussed in turn.

Direct literary testimony

In general, clear statements revealing the number of baths in a city at any one time are

lacking. Aelius Aristides' comment that 2nd-century AD Smyrna had "so many baths that you

would be at a loss to know where to bathe" is representative of the vagueness that prevails in the

sources.9 Rome is no exception: only one direct statement as to the number of baths in the city

survives. This is the entry in the Notitia Urbis Regionum that numbers thermae at 11, and

balnea at 856 (an exact figure not above suspicion). 10 As this document is of Constantinian

9 Ael. Aristid., 15.232 (trans. BEHR): ~OUTp<X. IJ.EV YE TooaS)Ta WOTE <inopr)oa1s iiv ou
~ovoaw ... The rhetorical context of the statement (a speech to a visiting governor) may justifiably raise
doubts as to its reliability. Note also the colourful apocryphal story that when the Arabs conquered Alexandria
they used the books of the library to keep the city's 4,000 baths heated for six months, cf. A.J. BUTLER, The
Arab ConquestofEgypt(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, 2nd ed.), pp. 401-405.
10 Cf. Notitia Urbis Regionum XIV(= FTUR 1.5 (1.98). The thermae are named: Traianiae. Titianae.
Commodianae. Antoninianae. Decianae. Sures. Agrippianae. AkXiJndrillnae. Diocktianae. Constantinianae.
Severianae. All but the baths of Severns and Commodus have been identified. (The Baths of Nero were renamed
Alexandrianae after a restoration by Severns Alexander, cf. HA, Sev. Akx., 25.3-7). As C. BRUUN has recently
pointed out, 856 is just over twice the number of vici in the city (423) and half the number of locus (1,352), so
the figure may reflect a scheme of two balnea and four locus per vicus, cf. id., The Water Supply ofAncient
Rome. A Study ofRoman Imperial Administration (Helsinki: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 93,
1991), p. 74, n. 48. However, the overall point of the evidence- that the city had hundreds of bathhouses­
cannot really be doubted (cf. the plethora of baths at Pompeii, Ostia, Timgad etc).
III] 102

date, it can shed no light on the growth of the public bathing habit in the 1st centuries BC and

AD.

Pliny the Elder, writing around the mid-1st century AD, makes a statement which, at

first glance, appears to record the number of baths at Rome in 33 BC, or at least provide a

minimum figure for them. He reports:

He himself [sc. Agrippa] adds in the memoir of his aedileship that he gave games
for fifty-nine days and offered 170 free baths, a number which has since grown at
Rome without limit. II

Dio corroborates Pliny's statement, but without the numerical precision:

Furthermore, he [sc. Agrippa] distributed oil and salt to everyone, and provided
free baths throughout the year, for the use of both men and women. 12

Pliny's statement in particular has generally been taken to show that in 33 BC, the year of

Agrippa's aedileship, the city contained at least 170 balinea. 13

However, the passage does not support this conclusion. Pliny says only that Agrippa

offered 170 free baths to the public, but does not indicate how the benefaction was administered;

the offers were not necessarily provided in 170 separate buildings. In fact, the phrase gratuitwn

balneum is a synonym for gratuita lavatio, or "free bathing," a benefaction which might be

11 NH, 36.121: adicit {sc. Agrippa] ipse aedilitatis suae conll'l£moratione et ludos diebus undesexaginta
factos et gratuita praebita balinea CLXX, quae nunc Romae ad infinitum auxere numerum Pliny's magnum opus
was complete by AD 77 (NH, praef. 3), but was evidently many years in composition, cf. RE 21.271-439, s.v.
"Plinius" (no. 5) [Kroll], esp. 299-300. The notice does not show, as NIELSEN, Therm., 1.35 and n. 79 claims,
that Agrippa increased the number of Rome's balnea.
12 49.43.2: Kctl TipOOETt Kctl Ef-.ctlOV Kctl at-.as nEiot OlEOWKE, TcX TE ~at-.avda
npo1Ka 5t 'ETovs Kat Tots civopciot Kat Ta.ls yuvaw'l t-.oDoeat nap€oxE.
13 Thus the LCL edition (trans. D.E. EICHHOlZ, 1962): "the bathing establishments were thrown
open to the public free of charge, all 170 of them, ... ";the Bude edition (trans. R. BLOCH, 1981): "ouvrit cent
soixante-dix etablissements de bains gratuits." Cf. also HEINZ, Rom Thenn., p. 24: ... ihre Zahl [i.e. der
Bader] wird fur 33 v. Chr. mindestens 170 biziffert ... ";MERTEN, &ider, p. 31: "Schon :rur Zeit Agrippas
betrug namlich ihre Zahl mindestens 170"; DUNBABIN, PBSR 57 (1989), 8, n. 12: "Even in the time of
Agrippa, there were already 170 balinea in Rome ... "; NIELSEN, Therm., p. 35: "Pliny the Elder, in particular,
states that in Agrippa's time there were 170 public baths in Rome ... ", cf. ibid., 1.133 (where NIELSEN seems
to believe that Pliny and Dio's statements refer to separate benefactions); BRUUN, Water, p. 73: • According to
Pliny, during Agrippa's aedileship in 33 BC there were 170 balinea in Rome ... "; Tusculum Edition (trans. R.
KONIG, 1992): "170 unentgeltliche Bader eingerichtet. •
III] 103

restricted to a single bathhouse.14 From this perspective, Agrippa's statement shows only his

generosity, but offers no concrete numbers for baths at Rome. Pliny's comment on the

subsequent growth of the numbers of free baths in the city (and perhaps also of games, if the

closing relative clause refers also to the ludi facti ) is understandable, given the existence of the

huge Baths of Agrippa and Nero, both of which served the public gratis. 15

Although Pliny's evidence cannot provide definite numbers. it does leave a strong

impression that the bathing habit increased markedly in popularity between Agrippa's aedileship

and Pliny's day. It is reasonable to suggest that this increase was reflected in a rise in the

number of the city's baths, but Pliny does not say this, and there is no explicit evidence that

such was the case. Nevertheless, Pliny's statement would seem to reflect a growth in the public

bathing habit in the Julio-Claudian period.

Such is the "direct" literary evidence. The majority of testimony is even vaguer than

Pliny's statement; it reflects the prevalence of public baths and bathing but gives no direct

indication of their number or frequency. Due to the nature of this evidence, it is not possible to

go through it comprehens}vely in chronological order, as it cannot be related to secure

'-<,.
quantities. 16 Rather, it will-be examined thematically, in terms of what sort of testimony these

references provide for the growth of public bathing from the late Republic to the early Empire.

The only chronological division made is the broad one between evidence for the late Republic,

and that for the early Empire.

14 For balneum meaning the "act of bathing, a bath" cf., OLD, s.v. (no. 3). Cf. no. 218 (Table 7)
where free bathing (lavatio) is provided in a specific bathhouse. In inscriptions, gratuita lavatio is the more
common phrase, cf. the "Work Done" column of Table 7A; but note especially nos. 216 (free bathing decreed by
decurions at Nemausus (in all the town's baths?) for a discharged soldier), 217 and 222 (balneum as "bathing"),
221 (gratuitum balneum for a community); 267 (gratuito balineo dato; . .. balinea . .. gratuita praestir).
15 The imperial baths appear to have been free, cf. MERTEN, Bader, pp. 6 and 11; NIELSEN, Therm.,
1.133-134. This was certainly the case with the Baths of Agrippa: Dio reports (54.29.4) that Agrippa bequeathed
his baths to the people, so that they could be used thereafter free of charge. This statement agrees with that in
Fronto Ep. Gr., 5 that publicly owned baths were free, while privately owned ones charged for entrance.
16 The sources for the following section are, bowever,listed chronologically in Appendix 1.
III} 104

Indirect literary testimony: the late Republic

The Republican evidence down to Sulla has already been presented, but its main feature
should be borne in mind here: baths and bathing were a familiar backdrop for casual asides in
authors from Plautus to Cicero. The present inquiry focuses on the evidence from Sulla to
Augustus's rise to power, c. 31 BC. This period, however, is notably lacking in extant authors,
the main evidence coming from Cicero. Given the subject matter of the surviving works of
authors such as Caesar, Sallust or Lucretius, this situation is understandable. The result,
however, is a considerable restriction on the scope of inquiry. Nonetheless, as with the pre­
Sullan authors, it is the off-hand nature of the language in these passages that is so revealing.
Baths and bathing are taken very much for granted.

We have already seen how in 80 BC Cicero can use a public bath, theBalneae
Pallacinae, as a landmark against which jurors can place the scene of a murder.17 Later, when
defending M. Caelius in April, 56 BC, Cicero again had cause to refer to a public bath, this time
in greater detail. 18

It seems the prosecution had charged Cicero's client with plotting to poison Clodia,
sister of Cicero's arch-enemy P. Clodius. The prosecutor, L. Herennius Balbus, had alleged
that a friend of Caelius, P. Licinius, was to give the poison to certain slaves of Clodia in the
Balneae Seniae, public baths whose location in Rome is unknown. When the plot was revealed
to Clodia by her slaves, she arranged for matters to proceed with a view to apprehending

Licinius red-handed.19 It is instructive that Clodia favours the baths as a rendez-vous for the

17 Cic. pro Rose., 18 and above, p. 85.

18 Cic. pro Cae/., 61-62.

!9 Ibid., 62.

III] 105

plotters, as there her slaves could publicly seize the poison, and Licinius with it.20 For this

scheme to be effective, the baths must have been crowded (which corresponds to Plautus's

earlier testimony about clothes-thieves there). We thus have an indirect indication of the

popularity at least of the Balneae Seniae at this time.

This indication is clearer when Cicero sets about making a farce out of the prosecution's

allegations. He portrays the scene in the baths, with the amici of Clodia skulking in ambush.

Especially revealing are Cicero's objections to the plausibility of the plot:

Why did she particularly decide on public baths, in which I can see no possible
hiding place for fully dressed men? For if they were in the vestibulum of the
baths, they would not be hidden. But if they wanted to pack away inside, it
would not be sufficiently easy for men in shoes and clothes to do so, and they
would perhaps not be admitted.21

Cicero makes it clear that the conspirators would find it difficult to hide in the ante-room

(vestibulum) of the baths. Why? Possibly the vestibule would be too open. But in the

surviving remains of Republican baths, the ante-room, when there is one, is a closed room.22

An alternative, more plausible explanation for the conspirators' difficulties of concealment is

simply that the vestibule would be too crowded, as the ante-room was the place where people

met and waited for friends to arrive. 23

On the other hand, Cicero continues, if Clodia's friends went beyond the vestibule into

the interior section of the baths, they would stand out unless they were naked -- a clear

20 Ibid., 62: sed ut venenum, cum a Lidnio traderetur, manifesto comprehendi posset, constitui locum
iussit balneas Senias. . . Cicero has indicated, however, that the Senian baths had already been chosen as the
rendez-vous place by the plotters, cf. ibid., 61.
21 Ibid., 62: cur enim potissimum balneas publicas constituerat? in quibus non invenio quae latebra
togatis hominibus esse posset. nom si in vestibulo balnearum, non laterent; sin se in intimum conicere vellent,
nee satis commode calceati et vestiti idfacere possent et Jonasse non redperentur ...
22 So with the Stabian Baths (room I in fig. 6) at Pompeii.

23 This and other social aspects of the baths are more fully examined in Chapter 7.

III] 106

indication that Romans of the time habitually bathed naked in public. It was the norm: shoes and

clothing would make the plotters conspicuous, and might even prevent their admission. 24

This section of the pro Caelio presents the baths of the mid-1st century BC as popular,

crowded places. There is nothing to suggest that they were "certainly not places of much social

respectability. "25 Had this been the case, Cicero would surely not have failed to exploit the

comic possibilities presented by well-bred friends of Clodia hiding in a place of ill-repute

waiting in ambush for the equally well-bred P. Licinius. Rather, his overall tone with respect to

the baths is neutral; they appear as a common and entirely unremarkable setting for a comedy of

errors. One fmal point: does the passage imply that Cicero himself was familiar with conditions

inside public baths? Presumably he was, and it was not something regarded as worth remarking

upon.

In Cicero's day, then, it can be inferred that public baths were an accepted and familiar

part of everyday life. Attitudes that would provide fertile ground for such a situation are

reflected in comments found in letters of Cicero to his family and friends, although they are

clearly in reference to private baths. Writing to his wife, he includes bathing among the

"necessities for life and health. "26 Elsewhere, Cicero makes another revealing comment, albeit

again in reference to a private bath. In a letter to Atticus dated December, 60 BC he looks

forward to the latter's arrival on a visit. He ends the letter, "1 shall have the bath heated. "27

24 Cf. Cic. Fam., 9.22.4 (189 S-B). Nakedness was generally the rule in later baths, cf. e.g. Sen. Ep.,
122.6; Martial, 1.23, 3.51, 3.68.11-14, 3.87, 12.83; Juvenal, 11.156-157; Petronius, SDtyr., 30, 73, 92.
Nakedness in baths is also assumed in such stories as Suet. Aug., 94.4.
25 J. CARTER in I.M. BARTON (ed.), Roman Public Buildings (Exeter: Exeter University Press;
1989), p. 47.
26 Cic. Fam., 14.20.1 (173 S-B): labrum si in balineo non est, ut sit; item cetera quae sunt ad victum
et ad valetudinem necessaria.
27 Cic. Art., 2.3.4 (23 S-B): balineum califieri iubebo.
lll] 107

This is reminiscent of a later letter to Paetus (47 BC), where Cicero asks the same to be prepared
for his own arrival at Paetus's house.28

The casual nature of these references is revealing. Offering a bath to an arriving guest
was apparently normal. if not expected, behaviour. Baths are even necessary for life and health.
Although these latter passages refer to private baths, there is no reason to suppose similar
attitudes were not extended to public facilities. 29

The only other contemporary evidence comes from Catullus when he likens the rapacity
of Vibennius to that of "the cleverest clothes-thief at the baths. "30 The reference not only jibes
with Plautus's comments written c. 150 years earlier, but also assumes a familiarity with the
phenomenon among Catullus's audience.

We have three other informative, though not contemporary, literary testimonies as to the
prevalence of public baths in Rome in the late Republic. In such cases, of course, it is not
absolutely clear whether the stories reflect actual Republican conditions, or those prevalent when
the author wrote or when the story became current (which would be at some stage between the
dramatic date and the author's day). Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to document the notices.
First, Plutarch tells how Jugurtha, upon being placed in the Tullianum, commented: "Goodness~

How cold your bath is! "31 The historicity of the remark is impossible to establish, but if it is
true, it reflects the bathing culture of the age. Second, Dio relates how Faustus Sulla, son of the
dictator, (among other benefactions) furnished free baths and oil to the people in 60 BC in

28 Cic. Fam., 9.16.9 (190 S-B): ego tibi unum sumptum adferam, quod balneum caljacias oponebit;
cetera more nostro. Note that Cicero expressly says the baths were expensive to heat ("one expense I shall put
you to"). Note also that Paetus does not seem to have offered this comfort to Cicero on every visit, "Everything
else as usual."
29 Cf. below, pp. 151-158 (baths and medicine) and Chapter 7 (their central role in daily life).
30 Cann., 33. l -2: 0 furum optime balneariorum. I Vibenni pater et cinaede fiJi.
31 Mar., t2.3:'HpaKA.ElS, ws- \)!uxpov'V~GJV To ~cxt-.cxvEl.ov.
Ill] 108

memory of his father.32 This comment receives some support from similar reports about
Augustus and Agrippa, entirely in keeping with expected imperialliberality.33 Note, however,
that for Faustus Sulla's generosity to be described as "brilliant" (1\cq..mpws-), the baths of the

city were presumably numerous, although it is conceivable that the greatness of Sulla's
generosity lay in opening fewer baths to greater numbers of people. On the whole, though, the
former interpretation is more natural. Sulla's benefaction is parallelled in inscriptions recording
the granting of free baths to Italian towns by civic-minded benefactors. 34

The third reference comes from Suetonius. He records that Atia, the mother of
Augustus, while she was bearing the future emperor in 64-63 BC, received a sign from Apollo
in the form of a serpent-shaped marking on her body. As a result, she avoided public baths for

the rest of her life. 35 Again, baths appear as an unremarkable backdrop for the anecdote, but in
this case there is particular cause for suspicion. The biographer claims he got this story from the
book of Theologwnena by Asclepiades of Mendes, a grammarian possibly of Tiberian date.3 6
Such an omen story as this was, in any case, most likely to become current when Augustus had
achieved greatness, and so is probably more reflective of the time in which the story arose than
that in which it is set. Even so, it can provide evidence for the currency of baths in early
Imperial Rome, and also appears to imply that for an upper-class lady of child-bearing age to
avoid public baths for the rest of her life was a notable act of self-denial.

32 Dio, 37.51.4: KQV T~a.vT0 TOUTCtJ xp6vc.p <t>a.DoTOS' 6 TOD 2:UAA01J TTCilS ciywva.
TE ~ovo~a.xl.a.s- ETTl T~ TTCiTpt ETTOtT)OE, KCit TOV of)~ov ACi~TTpws EioTl.a.oE, TaTE
A-ouTpO. Ka.l To €t-.a.wv npol.Ka. a.uTo'ls na.pEOXEV.
33 Dio, 49.43.2, Pliny, NH., 36.121 (Agrippa gives free baths throughout the year 33 BC), and Dio,
54.25.4 (Augustus gives free baths for one day in 13 BC). Nero provided free oil to senators and equites on the
dedication of his baths (Suet. Nero., 12.3). The giving of free baths is well-attested in Italian epigraphic sources,
some of Republican date, cf. next note.
34 Cf. Table 7, Section A, esp. the early examples at nos. 213 and 214.

35
Suet. Aug., 94.4: et statim in corpore eius exstitisse maculam velut picti draconis nee potuisse
umquam exigi, adeo ut mox publicis balineis perpetuo abstinuerit.
36 For Asclepiades, cf. RE 2.1627, s.v. "Asklepiades (no. 26)" [Schwarz]. Here Asclepiades is seen as
a possible contemporary of Seleukos, an astrologer and grammarian known to Tiberius, cf. RE 2, A 1.1248, s.v.
"Seleukos (no. 28)" [Stiihlin].
Ill] 109

The "indirect" evidence for the late Republic, scarce though it is, would indicate that by
the mid-1st century BC public baths were a common feature of life at Rome. When examined
cumulatively this evidence does allow a perception of the process of growth, albeit a vague one.
Despite the overall paucity of late Republican evidence, baths appear in marginally higher profile
in these sources than they do in earlier ones. The period from Sulla to Agrippa's aedileship
would seem to have been characterized by gradual growth. This process, as will be seen, is
corroborated by the archaeological evidence from Pompeii.

Indirect literary testimony: the Augustan period and the early Empire

The early Imperial period provides more "indirect" evidence. As before, we have to look
behind the individual statements of authors to discern the general situation they reflect.

Horace portrays baths as regularly-encountered facilities, and as characteristic of urban

rather than rurallife.37 He also mentions a "one-penny bathhouse," meaning a public
establishment that charged an entrance fee, and includes bathing (in a public establishment?) as
one of the regular elements of his daily existence. 38 It is instructive to compare the frequency of
bath references in Horace and in Martial. Both authors wrote works describing. and poking fun
at, contemporary society; the opera of both survive in comparable quantity. 39 Yet Horace
mentions baths and bathing seven times, Martial 49, a disparity which may reflect the greater
prominence of baths in the daily life of Martial's Rome than in Horace's. That said, caution is

3? Horace, Epist., 1.11.11-14: Sed neque qui Capua Romam petit imbre lutoque I Aspersus volet in
caupona vivere: nee qui I Frigus co//egit,fomos et balnea laudat, I Ut fonunatam plene praestantia vitam;
1.14.14-15: Tu mediastinus tacita prece rura petebas, I Nunc urbem et ludos et balnea vilicus optas.
38 Sat., 1.3.137-139: ne longum faciam: dum tu quadrante lavatum I rex ibis neque te quisquam stipator
ineptum lpraeter Crispinum sectabitur,. .. ; Sat., 1.6.125-126: Ast ubi mefessum sol acrior ire lavatum I
admonuit fogio Campum lusumque trigonem
39 The Teubner editions of the texts of these authors run to 311 pages for Horace, and 343 pages for
Martial.
Ill] 110

advised -- there are any number of reasons why one author may choose to refer to a bath, and

another not. Despite this, the disparity is nonetheless noteworthy.

Ovid, writing at the turn of the eras, refers to the "many baths" of Rome as rendez-vous

points for young lovers.40 Vitruvius, whose architectural treatise dates in all likelihood to the

30s or 20s BC, devotes a chapter to the construction of baths. 41 This passage gives a strong

impression that Vitruvius, and others like him, had inherited considerable accumulated

knowledge on how to erect baths. The medical treatise of the Tiberian author Celsus should also

be noted here. Baths feature prominently in his treatments, although it is not specified if they are

public or private.42 But this is a minor point As most Romans did not possess their own

baths, and Celsus's recommendations may be considered to refer to the act of bathing rather than

to specific types of structure, for most people who heeded his precepts the only option would

have been a public establishment.43

The moralistic diatribes of Seneca, written in the Claudian/Neronian period, provide

evidence for the growth in the popularity of public baths at this time. In several passages he

deplores the baths and the luxury and vanity he sees them as representing and promoting. 44 The

passage comparing the bath in Scipio Africanus's villa with the baths of Seneca's day is

particularly illuminating. In the course of it he says expressly that there were formerly (olim)

only a few, modestly appointed baths in the city, the implication being that precisely the opposite

was the case in Seneca's Rome.45 The philosopher provides neither firm figures nor dates, but

40 Ars Am., 3.638-640: [quid faciat custos . .. ] cum custode foris tunicas sen•ante puellae I celent
.furtivos balnea multa iocos?
41 Vitruv., 5.10. The date ofVitruvius's work is disputed, but he claims to have been known to Caesar
the Dictator (1 praef. 2), which might place the work in the 30s or early 20s, cf. for a recent discussion, B.
BALDWIN, "The Date, Identity, and Career of Vitruvius," Latomus 49 (1990), 425-434 which unfortunately does
not come to any definite conclusions.
42 For more on Celsus and baths in medicine, cf. pp. 152-157.
43 Cf. below, pp. 128-129 for the general dearth of baths in private houses.
44 The lengthiest is Ep., 86.4-12, but see also Dial., 7.73, Ep., 90.25, 122.6, 8.

45 Ep., 86.9: at o/im et pauca erant balnea nee u/lo cultu exomata.

III) 111

the context would imply that he is referring to the Republic. Of course, Seneca's evidence is
somewhat weakened by its overall moralizing tone: the author had an axe to grind and may well
colour or exaggerate facts for effect. But Seneca's implied growth in the number of baths agrees
with Pliny's more-or-less contemporaneous observation of a growth in the bathing habit, and so
deserves serious consideration. Whether or not Seneca's claims that he shunned the bath
throughout his life, or that he bathed only in cold water until ill-health forced him to use sun­
warmed water, can be taken seriously is not really germane to the current discussion. 46 Indeed,
Seneca's propensity for taking firm positions on any number of practices or topics makes
distinguishing his personal views from his authorial virtually impossible. But from his writings
it seems evident that public baths had become sufficiently common and popular to earn Seneca's
staunch opposition.

The Neronian novelist Petronius presents baths as a regular element of everyday life.4 7
Baths, particularly public ones, appear frequently in the Satyricon in a notably casual manner.
Characters meet at the baths, lose clothes and slaves there, sing poetry to the annoyance of the
other bathers, and complain of over-enthusiastic masseurs. 48 A similar attitude towards baths
is also clear from the writings of Juvenal and his contemporary Martial in the late 1stlearly 2nd
century AD. They refer to baths frequently in many different connections (which will be

46 Ep., 108.16, 123.4 (shuns baths), 83.5 (cold baths). Frugal or simple baths were ascribed to
upstanding or decent men, such as Homer (Ael. Arist., 51.423), Cato the Elder (cf. above, Introduction to Section
l, n. 4), or Augustus (Suet. Aug., 76.2). That some men did indeed bathe frugally by choice is clear from Pliny
the Younger's description of his uncle's simple bath, presumably drawn from personal observation, cf. Pliny,
Ep., 3.5.8. Seneca's claim of bath simplicity is perhaps to be doubted, given his apparent first-hand knowledge
of conditions within the more luxurious establishments. Note that Tac. Ann., 15.64 reports that the aged
philosopher finally found death by asphyxiation in a steam bath (presumably in his own bath-suite). M.T.
GRIFFIN, Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 41-42 accepts his
avoidance of baths, linking it with his medical beliefs.
47 The Petronian authorship and Neronian date of this work have been most cogently argued for by
K.F.C. ROSE, The Date and Authorofthe Satyricon (Leiden: J.J. Brill, 1971).
48 Cf. Satyr., 26-28 (meeting dinner party), 30 (clothes lost), 41 (massage), 72-73 (a private bath at end
of a party), 91 and 92 (poetry), 97 (slave lost), 130 (a private bath?); cf. also 53 and fr. 2.
III) 112

examined below), but the situation that lies behind these references is what should be noted here:

visiting the baths is portrayed as a common, frequent and popular pastime.49

Finally, we should look at a particularly informative comment by Pliny the Younger.

When describing his Laurentine villa in a letter to Gallus, he reports that in the vicus near the

villa there were no less than three public baths which he was not averse to using if his private

suite were not available. 50 The point to note is the presence of at least three bathhouses in a

place as small as a vicus . They were presumably sufficiently well appointed for a man of

Pliny's fastidious tastes to use. 5 1 However, if we try to go further and argue from Pliny's

comment that this is an indication of just how popular and widespread public baths were at this

time -- insofar as an unimportant vicus can have three or more public facilities -- scarcity of

evidence intervenes. It is impossible, given the current state of knowledge, to relate the figures

for this vicus to any others. 52 Indeed, the proximity of the village to Rome may have generated

a greater number of bathhouses than was normal for a place of its size.

The epigraphic evidence

The absolute number of bath inscriptions spanning the late Republican, Augustan and

early Imperial periods is pitifully small. For the Republic, only three stones securely dated to

49 So, for instance, Juvenal, 7.1-5, 232-233 or Martial, Ep., 1.59; 2.48; 3.20.15-16, 25, 30.4; 5.70;
7.32.7-12; 9.33; 14.60.
50 Ep., 2.17.26: suggerunt adfatim ligna proximae silvae; cereras copias Ostiensis colonia minisrrat.
frugi quidem homini su.fficit etiam vicus, quem una villa discernit. in hoc balinea meritoria tria, magna
commoditas, si forte balineum domi vel subitus adventus vel brevior mora ca/efacere dissuader. The text may
imply that the vicus contained more bathing establishments, but Pliny would only use three of them; if so, this
vicus was especially well-endowed with baths. A.N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Letters ofPliny, A Historical and
Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 199 reports that the site, vicus Augustanorum (CIL
14.2045), has been excavated and "has the buildings of a little town"; cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 69-70.
51 What Pliny expected of a bath is clear from his descriptions of the personal bath suites at his
l.aurentine (Ep., 2.17.11) and Tuscan (Ep., 5.6.25-27) villas.
52 However, we should note the 2nd-century evidence of Apuleius where we find baths in a castellum, a
country village in Greece, cf. Mer., 8.29; note also inscriptions recording baths in castella or vici: nos. 50, 52
(Table 3); 198 and note (Table 6). Cf. also AE 1966.356.
III] 113

the post-Sullan era definitely record bath-related activities. When added to the eight inscriptions
of roughly Sullan date or earlier cited above, the total for the entire Republican period is only
11. 53 Augustan and early Imperial inscriptions, with a total of 38, are more prolific. 54 As
argued above, too much store cannot be placed on this slight numerical disparity, as the total
number of imperial inscriptions far exceeds that of Republican ones.

Beyond that, little can be said. The greater geographical distribution of the Imperial
material is instructive. All but two of the Republican texts are of Italian origin, whereas the
Augustan and 1st-century AD stones come from a far greater variety of sources, stretching from
Spain, Gaul and North Africa in the West, to Thrace, Asia and Lycia in the East. This suggests
a marked spread in the Roman bathing habit outside Italy in the early Imperial period. Within
Italy, of course, the inscriptions attest continued activity with respect to baths. The most
suggestive evidence in this regard comes from the inscription from Pisa stipulating the procedure
for public mourning of C. Caesar's death in AD 4. Among the regulations (presumably copied
from Rome) is that the temples, public baths and taverns shall remain closed for the period
between the announcement of his death and the interment of his bones. 55 Clearly, Pisa had
several sets of balnea at this time though, typically, firm figures cannot be adduced.

53 Cf. Chap. 2, n. 134 for the pre-Sullan texts. The three texts are: JURP 575 (Croton; AE 1912.245
dates it to wfin de la Republiquew), 659 (Praeneste; post-Sullan), and AE 1967.96 (Herdonia; Caesarian?). Thc:se
figures exclude two post-Sullan texts recording benefactions of solaria, which may or may not refer to
bathhouses, cf. JURP 116 and 766.
54 These are (not counting multiple entries for single stones): nos. 1-4 (Table 1); 44, 57-59 (Table 3);
84-89 (Table 4); 120-122, 139-143 (Table 5); 186-187 (Table 6); and 213 ('?), 214 (?), 215 (?), 216,217,244 ('?),
245, 246 (Table 7). Add also: CJL 11.3010 (Ager Viterbiensis, bal1U'um mentioned; dated by NIELSEN,
Therm., 1.40, n. 25 to 1st cent. AD); 14.4711 (Ostia, balneum mentioned; dated by NIELSEN, loc. cit. to early
Augustan period); JLS 140, 21-24 (Pisa; AD 4); 5677 (balneum Clodianum bought by local authorities; dated to
the Julio-Claudian period by NIELSEN, Joe. cit.); 5770 (Capena; bath mentioned inc 90- 120 AD inscription);
possibly also CIL 2.3342 (Murcia; balneum built) which can tentatively be dated to the Augustan period.
55 JLS 140.21-24: .. ex ea die I qu[a eilus deces(s)us nuntiatus essetusqu[e] ad eam diem qua ossa
relata atque I co[nd]ita iustaque eius Manibns perfecta essent, cunctos veste mutata, templislqu(e d]eorum
immortalibus balneisque publicis et tabernis omnibus clausis ...
III] 114

The Republican literary evidence, when viewed cumulatively, would suggest a steady

growth in the number of baths in Rome from Cicero's day to that of Augustus. The statement of

Pliny the Elder, on the other hand, suggests a marked growth in the bathing habit (with a

concurrent growth in the number of baths?) at Rome between 33 BC and the mid-1st century

AD. This situation is reflected in other sources. No one of these "indirect" authors in isolation

provides decisive testimony. Rather, it is the impression left by their combined evidence that is

instructive. Seneca's vague assertion that "once baths at Rome were few and modestly

appointed," implying that in his own day they were not, fmds support in the frequent bath

references of writers like Petronius, Martial, and Pliny the Younger. All reflect growth, though

in a manner that precludes numerical precision. Their references are casual, assuming a

familiarity with baths as regular elements of the urban scene.

As a crude illustration of growth, I present here a chart showing the number of matches

located by the IBYCUS computer for the roots baln-, balin- and thenn- (excluding adjectival

uses of thenn- or references to people and places) in nine of the authors examined above, whose

works span the period under discussion: Catullus, Cicero, Horace, Celsus, Seneca, Pliny the

Elder and Younger, Petronius and Martial. I have not here differentiated between private and

public baths.
III] 115

100
100

90

80

70

60

50
40
30

20

10

0
Catullus Cicero Homce Celsus Seneca Pliny Pliny Petron. Martial
Maj. Min.

CHART 1: The appearance of baln-, balin-, and therm- roots in the works of
nine authors, c. 80 BC - AD 100

Caution is advised in using these figures for various reasons: the volume of the
individual authors' writings differs greatly; silence does not necessarily imply an absence of
baths; and some appearances may be grouped together in reference to a single building. In
addition, the appearance of only two authors for the late Republic distorts the picture for this
period relative to the early Empire. The high total for Celsus is due to the medical nature of his
surviving work -- baths were a panacea in Roman medicine, so they will naturally appear very
often. 56 Much the same can be said for Pliny the Elder, many of whose bath references are
medical in nature.

Despite all this, two features of the chart are noteworthy. First, the low overall total of
Cicero's bath references, despite the volume and variety of his writings (compare his total with
those of Seneca and Martial, whose surviving opera are much smaller). Second, the chart
illustrates the consistency with which baths feature in the major early Imperial authors. From
this perspective, the data presented in the chart lend further weight to the impression that baths
were more prominent in the 1st century AD than in the 1st century BC.

56 Cf. below, pp. 151-158.

III] 116

The epigraphic testimony is less informative, and relatively scarce. Its geographic
distribution, however, does seem to indicate more widespread bathing activity during the early
Empire than during the Republic.

The cumulative impression is that the already growing popularity of baths in the 1st
century BC received a strong impetus under the newly established Principate. This would fit
well within the framework of a general increase in Roman architectural endeavour under the
early emperors. 57 In particular, Rome received its first truly major set of baths under Augustus
(the Thermae Agrippae), which was later joined by another, more magnificent set built by
Nero.58 This building activity by the emperors further strengthens the impression left by the
written sources of a period of rapid growth under their authority. An examination of the
archaeological evidence is called for, to see what contribution it can make to the discussion.

(ii) The archaeological record

The inadequacies of the archaeological record have already been noted.59 Despite this, there is
sufficient material, at least from Italy, to test the picture of growth reflected in the literary and
epigraphic evidence.

57 This is clearly laid out in the early chapters of J .B. WARD-PERKINS, Roman Imperial Architecture
(London: Hammondsworth, 1981) or W.L. McDONALD, The Architecture of the Roman Empire 11 (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1982). Cf. T.W. POTTER, Roman Italy (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1987), pp. 56-57.
58 For a discussion of these buildings (with bibliography), cf. below. pp. 185-186 (Agrippa), 190
(Nero). The early baths of Rome appear to have been more modest structures, of the sort found at Pompeii or
Cales; the type seems to have continued to exist into the Imperial period, cf. below, pp. 248-249.
59 See above, pp. 98-100.
III] 117

No Republican baths at all are known at Rome, and at Ostia the earliest remains are

Julio-Claudian, although an inscription attests at least one late Republican or early Augustan

establishment.60 Elsewhere, the situation appears equally bleak; the principal urban sites in Italy

-- Rome. Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia-- continue largely to monopolize scholarly attention,

while others still need careful excavation, with correlation of results, before anything like a full

picture can begin to emerge.61 Nonetheless, it seems that several communities received their

flrst public bathhouse during this period.6::!

Remains of an early 1st century BC bathhouse have been found at Cales in northern

Campania 63 These are not fully preserved, but certain features are clear enough. There is an

apodyteriwn with a pool (so the room doubled as afrigidariwn), a tepidarium and two caldaria,
one of which was added later. 64 This would suggest that the original capacity of the baths came

to be viewed as insufficient. and so an extra hot room was added. In addition, there is a rotunda

with an adjoining room, most likely a laconicwn (sweat bath) and a destrictariwn (scraping-off

room).65 The establishment was of moderate size and was pleasantly, but not lavishly,

appointed.66 However, it stands rather in isolation: only one other bathing facility is known at

60 C/L 14.4711 (fragmentary inscription, now in the Horrea Epagathiana): [...]em I [Car]tilius I[..
ba]Ineum I [Cartiliu]s C.f Pobli[cola]; cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, p. 406. Since 1973, no new Republican baths seem
to have come to light, at least none are mentioned by MANDERSCHEID, Bib. or NIELSEN, Thenn ..
61 Cf. POTIER, Rom Italy, pp. 63, 77-78.
62 Cf. the figures for the archaeological record cited above, p. 100, and Appendix 2, Map 1.
63 Cf, MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 90, s.v. "Cales, Terme Centrali." NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.32, 34
(cf. C.35); HEINZ, Rom Thenn., pp. 58-60. It is dated to c. 90-70 BC (on the infirm basis of construction
techniques and decoration styles).
64 Cf. W. JOHANNOWSKY, "Relazione preliminare sugli Scavi di Cales: BA 46 (1961), 258-268,
esp. 260-263. NIELSEN, Thenn., I .51, n. 107 dates the addition of the extra ca/darium to c. AD 100.
65 Id, BA 46 (1961), 262; Heinz, Rom Thenn., p. 58.
66 JOHANNOWSKY, BA 46 (1961), 261-262 (statuary) and 263 (wall-painting).
III] 118

Cales.67 As a result, it is difficult to plot here (as elsewhere) any clear growth in the number of

bath buildings.6S

The exception is Pompeii, which will be examined shortly. Before doing so, however,

remarkable evidence from Velsen in Holland should be mentioned.69 This unpublished site was

a fort used by a cohort engaged in the German campaigns of AD 16-25. Near a stream outside

the fort there appears to have been a wooden bathhouse, as indicated by finds of strigils,

sculponea (wooden sandals used to protect feet from hot floors) and postholes for a possible

clay-coated wooden hypocaust. 70 If all this is correct-- and the evidence is very suggestive-- it

attests how deeply ingrained the bathing habit had become among Romans by the early 1st

century AD, insofar as soldiers on campaign in the north would rather build a temporary

wooden bathhouse than do without_?I

The public baths ofPompeii, c. 80 BC- AD 79

As with so many other aspects of Roman town life, Pompeii offers a unique window on

the past; the development of baths can be traced here from the late Republic to the town's

destruction in AD 79. This is the very period of growth reflected in the written sources, and so

67 This is the Terme Settentrionali, apparently of Imperial date, cf. ibid., 259; MANDERSCHEID,
Bib., p. 90, s.v.
68 So, for instance, at Alba Fucens where only one set of public baths has been identified, dated to the
mid-lst century BC, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., I. 35. Even here the construction history is complicated by later
rebuildings and alterations, cf. J. MERTENS, Alba Fucens, 3 vols. (Brussels: Centre beige de recherches
archeologique, 1969-1982). 1.69-72.
69 I am indebted to A.V.A.J. BOSMAN for the following information, gleaned from conversations
with him at the First International Conference on Roman Baths, Bath, March 30- Apri/4, 1992. An article on
his discoveries at Velsen will hopefully feature in the forthcoming publication of the conference proceedings.
70 The strigils were found near the bathhouse, but the sculponea were found some distance away in a
dumpsite in the harbour. Their presence strongly suggests the presence of a bathhouse in or near the fort (they
have no other function), and as yet BOSMAN's site is the only possible location for it.
71 By way of comparison, Mr. BOSMAN, an ex-UN soldier, told me how the Finns on duty in
Lebanon continued to take saunas, no matter how hot it was outside.
III] 119

Pompeii can be used as an archaeological testing ground for the evidence of the written sources.
A close examination will be necessary.

The earliest known establishment at Pompeii is the Stabian Baths. Their development
down to c. 80 BC has already been traced and discussed.72 By that date the baths had evolved
into a fairly large complex occupying half an insula, with two suites of bathrooms, one for men
and one for women,73 and, after the work of the duoviri Vulius and Aninius, a laconicum and
destrictarium. For the following period -- between 80 BC and AD 62 when an earthquake
damaged the building -- assignation of precise dates to the various building phases becomes
difficult. The overall characteristic of this period, however, is the steady growth and elaboration
of the establishment (fig. 7.6). Alterations were carried out in both sets of bathrooms in the east
wing, resulting in their enhancement and extension. 74

However, the most important changes took place in the west wing. Here a private house
was absorbed and its eastern section incorporated into the baths to provide an open-air
swimming-pool (natatio) with flanking pools or loggias,7S and a changing room (which,
incidentally, featured wooden shelves). These alterations are probably Augustan in date or
shortly thereafter, as it was under Augustus that Pompeii received its first aqueduct (an
extension of the Serino aqueduct which also fed Nola and Misenum), 76 thus providing a

72 Cf. above, pp. Sl-72. Cf. fig. 6 for a plan of this building.
73 As was the case with the baths at Teanum Sidicinum (Au! Gel!., 10.3.3) and the earliest baths in
Rome (Varro, ling. Lat., 9.68).
74 For this and what follows, cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 61-63, 69 (west wing) and pp. 58­
60, 69-70 (east wing). A full bibliography is provided in MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p.175 s.v. wPompeii, Terme
Stabiane" to which can now be added: RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 100-105; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.32-33.
75 These are rooms F and Gin fig. 6. ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., pp. 61, 62 and NIELSEN,
Therm., 1.33 see them as shallow pools; RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 104 as open loggias.
76 The precise date of the aqueduct is uncertain, but construction techniques indicate an Augustan date.
H. ESCHEBACH tentatively suggests that Agrippa, who had a villa in the area (Dio 54.28) and was responsible
for several hydraulic projects at Rome, may have initiated its construction, cf. id., wDie innerstadtische
Gebrauchswasserversorgung dargestellt am Beispiel Pompejis," in J.P. BOUCHER (ed.) Joumees d'etudes sur k>s
aqueducs romains (Paris; I..es belles Lettres, 1983), pp. 86-88.
III] 120

sufficient water supply for the maintenance of a natatio. 77 In addition, a paved "dromos"

stretched along the front of this wing which, due to the discovery of some stone balls on it, has

been interpreted as a ball-playing court, or sphaeristeriwn. 78 Sometime during this long period

the unusual north wing of the building, with its curious bathing cells, was closed down, except

for the latrine. Along this side of the palaestra three rooms were now opened, one of which (Q

in fig. 6) was an exedra, providing a place for rest and conversation.

By the time an earthquake devastated Pompeii in AD 62, the Stabian Baths had grown

into a large and impressive structure serving the centre of the city. It had two sets of bathrooms,

a latrine, a large porticoed palaestra, an exedra, an open-air pool with two flanking pools or

loggias, and a ball-playing court along the front of the west wing. The decoration was in

stucco, fresco and some marble work, the latter in particular for the bath tubs themselves.7 9 The

decor was skilful and attractive but not excessive, and displayed a moderation like that found in

the Central Baths at Cales. The main point to note for the moment, though, is the steady

expansion of the building's facilities in the late Republic, followed by a significant extension in

the Augustan period. To be sure, this may have been partly due to the purely practical stimulus

provided by the city's increased water supply following the construction of the Serino aqueduct,

but other factors may also have played a role. The most likely is the existence of baths

77 Cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 51-63, esp. 54-55 and 104. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.32 supports
this notion independently. The establishment's hydraulic needs had previously been met by the well in the north­
west comer of the building. Aqueducts were not a prerequesite for the existence of baths (cf. below, pp. 140-141)
but there must have come a point in a building's expansion when its size or range of facilities demanded one.
This topic is in need of further investigation, as is the whole subject of the uses to which aqueduct water was put,
cf. the preliminary investigation by H.B. EVANS, "Water Distribution: quorsum et cui bono?" in A.T. HODGE
(ed.), Future Cu"ents in Aqueduct Studies (Leeds: Cairns, 1991), pp. 21-28.
78 This "Tuffsteindromos" measures 33.90m x 2.48m. The pavement and one of the stone balls is
shown in ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., Taf. SSa, cf. pp. 17, 61 and 70. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.165, s.v.
"sphaeristerium" examines the literary evidence and concludes that the term denotes both halls and open areas
connected with the palaestra, which supports the identification of this "Tuffsteindromos" as a sphaeristerium
(although NIELSEN does not mention the Stabian Baths in her short entry). The use to which this area would be
put is made clear in the Gloss. lAt., ID.651.10: rape nobis pilam, ludamus in sphaeristerio.
79 For the decoration of these baths see the articles by H. MIELSCH on stucco, and A. & M. de VOS
on wall-painting in ESCHEBACH, Stab. Thenn., pp. 74-80 and 81-95 respectively. Note the absence of
mosaics and statuary, in c0ntrast to establishments of a later date.
III] 121

elsewhere which acted as a stimulus for imitation, and motivated the Pompeian authorities to use
some of their new water to extend the baths. The people may have come to expect more from
the baths, having been exposed to, or heard about, more luxurious establishments elsewhere.
As will be seen, among such model baths may well have been the Baths of Agrippa at Rome.

The Stabian Baths were not alone in serving the people of Pompeii. The Forum Baths
(fig. 10) were built around the time the community was granted the status of colonia in 80 BC,
perhaps as a reflection of this new status. 80 Richardson contends that they originally comprised
only a single set of rooms, as the second, smaller suite (presumably for women) appears
crammed skilfully but rather haphazardly into the north-west comer. Further, the construction
technique for the latter is different than for the rest of the building, and suggests an Augustan
date for this addition.8 1 Another argument in favour of this view can be adduced: the men's
tepidarium never received a hypocaust, while that in the women's section did. This is more
easily explicable if the women's section were built after the men's section, at a time when
tepidaria habitually had hypocausts.82 Nielsen makes no intimation that she holds this opinion,
though she records a major rebuilding of the Augustan period under her catalogue entry for the
structure.83 For the moment, it should be accepted that the Forum Baths were extended by the
addition of the women's section in the Augustan period.

80 These baths are located at Vll.v.2/8/24. Cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 173, s.v. "Pompeii,
Tenne del Foro" and RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 147-153; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.30-31,31-32,33-34. An
inscription (/l.S 6356), of Sullan date, probably from the Forum Baths (DESSAU comments: "Pompeiis, in
thennis, ut videtur"; but cf. CASTREN, Ordo, p. 88 where the text is confidently assigned to this establishment)
records that duoviri saw to a construction from public money (meaning the Forum Baths were built by the state).
The text reads: L. Caesius C. f. d(uum)v(ir) i(ure) d(icundo), I C. Occius M. f., I L. Niraemius A. f., I llv(iri), d(e)
d(ecurionum) s(ententia) ex peq(unia) publ(ica) II tac(iundum) curar(unt) prob(avit) q(uaestor?).
81 RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 151-152.
82 NIELSEN, Therm., 1.155-156, s.v. "Tepidarium," esp. 155: the suspensura was introduced to
tepidaria later, the rooms initially being heated with a brazier. This, however, is not a rigid rule, as the tepidaria
in the Stab ian Baths show.
83 NIELSEN, Therm., loc. cit. above inn. 80 and 11.7-8 (C.42, F).
Ill] 122

The details of this building are not important to the present inquiry, except to note that it
is smaller than the Stabian Baths, being about half the size; that it occupies an entire block
(excluding the shops along the north-east and south-east fronts), rather than half of one; and that
it was decorated with typical Republican moderation. Like the Stabian Baths, this building was
also extended in the Augustan period.

At about the same time as the Forum Baths were being built, or perhaps a little before,
yet another set were under construction on the Via dei Teatri, the so-called Republican Baths
(fig. 11).84 This was a double-building, smaller than both the Stabian or the Forum Baths, and
occupied only a section of a large insula It appears to have had a small palaestra and was
modestly decorated. The date is disputed. Maiuri, working from construction and decoration
techniques, puts it to about 100-80 BC, while Nielsen opts for a slightly later date, c. 90-80
BC. 85 The earliest date proposed for the building is that suggested by DeLaine. She argues that
the structure may date to the middle of the 2nd century BC, due primarily to the primitive form
of the hypocaust, whereby the floor is supported on continuous walls broken by diagonal
openings, rather than on pillars. 86 This proposition, however, must be seen against the
backdrop of her overall scheme for the development of the hypocaust in South Italy, outlined
above. 87 Until more attention is paid to this site, the excavator's date is to be preferred.

The circumstances surrounding the construction and later abandonment of the

Republican Baths are particularly noteworthy. They stand very close to the Stabian Baths, and

84 The main publication of these baths remains the excavation report of A. MAIURI, "Scoperta di un
edificio termale nella Regio VITI, Insula 5, Nr. 36," NSc 8.4 (1950), pp. 116-136, but cf. MANDERSCHEID,
&b., p. 174, s.v. "Pompeii, Terme Repubblicane" and NIELSEN, Therm., 1.32. The brevity of both the latter
scholars' treatment reflects the scant attention these baths have received since MAIURfs excavation.
RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 52 mentions them in connection with the presence of a well on the premises, but
not again.
85 MAIURI, NSc (1950), p. 130: "una terma... databile o agli ultimi tempi del comune italico di
Pompei o alia prima eta della colonia"; NIELSEN, Therm., II.7 (C.41, F).
86 DeLAINE, JMA 2 (1989), 120.
87 Cf. above, p. 61.
III] 123

appear to have been built roughly contemporaneously with the Forum Baths, perhaps a little

before. Why? They appear unnecessary, given that the Stab ian Baths were functioning when

they were built, and the Forum Baths perhaps so. Maiuri explains the relationship by

suggesting that, unlike the other two, this bath was the work of a private investor, the owner of

the neighbouring ~~casa della Calce. who for some reason saw an opportunity for a new
II

bathhouse open to the public.&& Perhaps the Stabian Baths had proven insufficient for the needs

of the central area of the city, or the investor perceived a growth in the practise of public bathing.

This new, privately owned set functioned until it was demolished, annexed by the neighbouring

~~casa della Calce. and used as a peristyle I triclinium complex. Maiuri, reasoning from the
II

construction techniques of the building that replaced the baths, dates their abandonment to the

first decade of the Augustan period.89 Why this happened is unclear, but Maiuri proposes that

the construction of the Augustan aqueduct put this privately run establishment out of business:

for some reason it could not adapt. Perhaps the refurbishment and extension of the Stab ian

Baths also played a role. The addition of the west wing with its natatio and flanking rooms,

may have made the renovated older establishment more appealing than its smaller, proximate

rival. In other words, the Republican Baths may simply have gone out of fashion. 90

A brief recap at this point will be helpful. By the early Augustan period, Pompeians had

at least three public baths available to them (fig. 18.1). The largest was also the oldest, the

Stab ian Baths, which had undergone renovation with the addition of the west wing. The Forum

Baths, perhaps initially comprising one set of rooms only, was located west of the Stab ian

baths, directly north of the forum. Both of these baths were publicly owned. A third, privately

88 That the Stabian and Forum Baths were publicly owned is suggested by inscriptions from both
buildings recording the work of duumvirs there: /LS 5706 (Stabian Baths), and /LS 5726, 6356 (Forum Baths).
No inscriptions from the Republican Baths survive, if even there were any in the first place. Cf. above, pp. 82­
85 where we have seen Roman senators investing in bathhouses as businesses.
89 Cf. MAJURI, NSc (1950), 130.
90 Note Seneca's bitter observation that once-fa'lhionable baths at Rome were immediately considered
antiquated as soon as wluxury has invented something new" in another establishment, cf. Ep., 86.8.
III] 124

owned set was opened to the public about the same time as the Forum Baths. This was the
Republican Baths, situated one block south of the Stabian Baths. These three establishments
served the city until the early Augustan period, when the Republican Baths were demolished and

their ground annexed to the neighbouring private house.

No new baths appear to have been built in the heart of Pompeii until after the earthquake
of AD 62.91 However, outside the city adjacent to the Porta Marina a large and well-appointed
establishment was erected in the Julio-Claudian period-- the Suburban Baths (fig. 12).92 The
building was ideally placed to attract visitors and travellers as they passed through the nearby
city gate.93 This is an impressive set of baths, with one series of rooms. There is also a caUda
piscina, and the bathing rooms have windows facing west. A hint of the new luxury that so
irritated Seneca can be seen in a nymphaeum with mosaic decoration adjacent to the natatio in the

frigidariunz.94 It seems that boats could dock against the north-west wall, suggesting that the
sea, or at least a canal, abutted the structure at this point. 95 The building is dated by

construction methods to the early years of the 1st century AD, possibly Tiberian. 96

91 It is possible that some public baths may lie as yet undetected in the unexcavated parts of the city,
but this suggestion must await the test of further excavation at the site.
92 These have been recently excavated, cf. L IACOBELLI, "Lo scavo delle Terme Suburbane. Notizie
preliminari," RSP 1 (1987), 151-154 and ead., "Terme Suburbane: stato attuale delle conoscenze," RSP 2 (1988),
202-208.
93 It seems that gateways, either inside or outside, were popular locations for baths, as the remains at
places such as Ostia or Timgad show: Ostia: the Porta Marina (C.25; Trajanic/Hadrianic) and Sullan Wall Baths
(C.l9; Hadrianic) at the Porta Marina; the Pharos (C.26; Trajanic) and Forum Baths (C.27; Antoninus Pius) at
the Porta Laurentina; and the Drivers (C.23; Hadrianic) and Neptune Baths (C.24; Hadrianic) at the Porta Romana
(cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, p. 418, fig. 30; NIELSEN, Therm., II. 4-6, C.15-31); Tungad: all four gates have baths
in their immediate vicinity: the Large (C.242; 2nd century AD) and Small North Baths (C.244; uncertain date) at
the North Gate; the Large East Baths (C.238; 1st half 2nd century AD) at the East Gate; the Large South Baths
(C.239; 1st half 2nd century AD) at the South Gate; and the "Sertius Market" Baths (C.247; uncertain date) at the
West Gate (cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 11.75, fig. 39). It is noteworthy that all the "gate baths" at Timgad are among
the earliest at the site, suggesting that the gates were regarded as prime locations for such buildings.
94 JACOBELLI, RSP 2 (1988), 203-204 and fig. 57. On the plan (fig. 12), the.frigidarium is room 6,
and the pool and nymphaeum are in the annex, room 9.
95 Id., RSP 1 (1987), 154, and 2 (1988), 202.
96 ld., RSP 1 (1987), 154, and 2 (1988), 207-208. NIELSEN, Thenn., 11.8, C.43 dates it as Julio­
Claudian.
III] 125

It has recently been suggested by A Koloski Ostrow that the Sarno Bath complex, on
the slopes south of the city and accessible from the Via delle Scuole and Via della Regina, was
built and functioning in the Julio-Claudian period before the earthquake in AD 62. 97 Further,
because the complex was at this time open to the adjacent Palaestra Baths, it has been proposed
that the latter was also operational. 98 If these propositions are correct, the Sarno and Palaestra
baths can be added to the number of Julio-Claudian baths serving Pompeii. There are, however.
problems. The fact that the Palaestra and Sarno complexes were mutually accessible at this time
does not prove the latter were functioning as baths, and is a somewhat tenuous reason for
deducing their operation at this time. Until more work is done on the Palaestra complex. their
respective periods of operation remain uncertain. Moreover, certain features of the Sarno Baths,
as Koloski Ostrow describes them. are curious. For instance, despite being built in the early
Imperial period, they featured no hypocausts, rather being heated with braziers.99 This would
make the baths wholly outmoded, considering that other (older) baths in the city had hypocausts
from the beginning. too This notion is all the harder to credit because Koloski Ostrow envisages
the Sarno Baths as being frequented by wealthy patrons and owners of the spacious apartments
located in other parts of the complex. tOt Would such people have preferred (and presumably
paid more for) such antiquated baths, when more modern amenities were available in the town's
other public establishments? It seems more likely that these rooms in the Sarno complex
originally had no bath-related function, but only later (in the post-earthquake period) underwent
conversion into a bathing suite. That the Sarno/Palaestra Bath complex was operational in the
pre-earthquake period is therefore unlikely.

97 A. KOLOSKI OSTROW, The Sarno Bath Complex (Rome: Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 47-49.
Without excavation precise dating is impossible, as KOLOSKI OSTROW admits (p. 46), but architectural
analysis of alterations to the building and construction materials allows her to determine 4 phases of development,
of which the current one is the second. For a fuller consideration of the Sarno Baths, cf. below pp. 135-136.
98 Ibid., p. 48. For the Palaestra Baths, cf. below, pp. 134-135.

99 Ibid., pp. 37-42, esp. 39; cf. p. 48.

100 E.g. the Stabian, Forum and Republican Baths.

101 KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 57-58.

III] 126

However, a set of extramural baths is attested in an inscription. The text. an

advertisement for the baths found outside the Porta di Ercolano, reads: "The Thermae of M.

Crassus Frugi with sea water, and the Balneae with fresh water. "102 No building has yet been

securely identified with this inscription though, as will be seen, one has recently been proposed.

It is clear that the baths were built and/or owned by a M. Crassus Frugi. but the precise date of

construction remains unclear.l0 3 In the absence of corroborative archaeological evidence, the

nature of the building itself is also unclear. Pliny the Elder's statement that a Crassus Frugi (the

same man?) owned hot springs in the Bay of Baiae that came from the sea itself, makes it

possible that at least part of this complex was a thermal establishment, assuming that Pliny's

comment refers to the thermae aqua marina of the inscription. 104 Alternatively, the aqua marina

may have been normal, non-thermal sea water.to5 But a feature of the inscription not

previously highlighted is the clear distinction drawn between the thermae aqua marina and the

baln[eae] aqua dulci. Whether the restored word is balneae, balnea, or balnewn, only two

possibilities offer. Either there were two separate buildings (the thermae, and the balneae or

balnea), presumably near each other, or there was a single structure with two distinct sections

(thennae with sea-water, balneum --meaning "bathing"-- with fresh water). Unfortunately. the

evidence makes it impossible to determine with certainty which possibility reflects reality.

102 JLS 5724: thermae I M. Crassi Fn1gi I aqua marina et baln(eae?J I aqua dulci. lanuarius l[ibertus].
An alternative reading would be to take baln. as baln[eum] which would mean "bathing with fresh water." The
freedman Januarius was presumably the conductor or balneator of the establishment.
103 Three M. Crassi Frugi were prominent in the early empire as consuls in AD 14, 27 and 64
respectively (cf. PJR2 L.l89, 190 and 191). Most commentators opt for the last as the inscription's subject,
though PIR suggests that perhaps he inherited the baths from his father. If so, the baths would be of Tiberian
date or thereabouts.
104 Cf. Pliny, NH., 31.5: Huius licinii Crassi aquae calidae in sinu Baiano in mari ipso vaporantes.
This notice comes in a section on the healing qualities of water, cf. Pliny, NH, 31.1-66. The thermae marinae at
Pompeii are considered "Heilbader" by both BRODNER. Rom. Therm., p. 61 and RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p.
305, apparently by identification with the springs mentioned by Pliny, though no evidence suggests Pliny's
notice and the Pompeii inscription refer to the same structure, cf. D'ARMS, Romons, p. 215. Crassus Frugi's
baths find no mention in either MANDERSCHEID's or NIELSEN's catalogues of the public baths of Pompeii,
though the latter is aware of their existence (cf. below, n. 107). On the medical uses of aqua calida marina, cf.
Celsus, 3.27.0-G.
105 Such a combination is attested in the private bath of Pollius Felix at Surrentum, cf. Stat. Silv.,
2.2.17-19: gratia primo loci, gemina testudine jumantl balnea, et in te"as occum"t dulcis amoro/ nympha man·;
and Suetonius's statement that Nero had baths supplied with sea- and sulphurous water (Nero, 31.2: balint'ae
marinis et albulisjluentes aquis).
III] 127

Nonetheless, on either possibility, the inscription reveals one or two sets of public baths serving

Pompeii at this time. If the sea baths were thermal and part of a larger complex, parallels for

such a coupling of spa-baths with a "conventional" set can be found at Bath in England or

Badenweiler in Gennany, for example.106 In this case, the Balneae Crassi Aqua Dulci should

be regarded as a set of public baths of early Imperial date serving the community at Pompeii. If,

on the other hand, the Thermae Aqua Marina used non-thermal sea water, the whole complex

(whether a single structure or two separate buildings) should be included among Pompeii's

public baths for this period.

Recently, both Jacobelli and Nielsen have suggested that this text may in fact refer to the

Suburban Baths.I07 Although the chronology corresponds, the identification is not entirely

convincing. The Suburban Baths have only one set of bathrooms housed in a single complex.

There is no indication either of a separation between fresh- and sea-water sections, or of another

building standing nearby, though this latter possibility cannot be completely ruled out and

deserves further investigation. That the inscription was found outside the Porta di F.rcolano, i.e.

at the other end of Pompeii, does not contribute to the discussion, as this was not its original

location (it was reused in a shrine). In all likelihood, the thermae and balnfeae?] of Crassus

Frugi should be placed somewhere on the littoral of Pompeii, i.e to the south and west of the

city, unless they were on the shore some distance away .tos For the moment, the nature of this

building must remain debated, but the above discussion should establish that the thermae er

baln[eae ?] Crassi Frugi, at least in part, ought to be numbered among Pompeii's public baths

106 Cf. B. CUNLIFFE, Roman Bath Discovered (London: Routlege & Kegan Paul, 1982) which is a
distillation and update of his more scholarly Roman Bath (London: Reports of the Research Comm. of the Soc.
of Antiquaries of London, 1969), pp. 89-147, esp. 128-131. See also HEINZ. Rom Therm., pp. 157-175, esp.
165-167 (Bath) and 169-175 (Badenweiler). This is also how CJL I3.1376n (cf. no. 150 (fable 5)) should be
interpreted, which refers to the "fontes Nerii et thermae p[ublicae" at Aquae Neri in Aquitania, apparently distinct
parts of the same spa complex.
107 JACOBELLI, RSP 1 (1987), 154 and NIELSEN, Therm., II.8, C.43 G says "thermae M. Crassi
Frugi may be this building."
108 Thus, D'ARMS, Romans, p. 215; KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, p. 58.
III] 128

serving the city in the Julio-Claudian period, though they cannot be securely identified with the

Suburban Baths.

Another extramural inscription from the area of the Nucerine gate may refer to an as yet

undiscovered bathhouse somewhere in the vicinity. The text simply reads balneus Agrippae. 109

The form balneus for balneum is not unknown, although rare. 110 A possible alternative is that

the word here is a transliteration of the Greek ~a/\ aVEVS' ("the bathman of Agrippa"), more

usually Latinized as balnearor. As Agrippa Postumus had a villa in the region (at Boscotrecase

in the outskirts of Pompeii), it is inviting to see here a reference to a private balneator attached to

the household, although the form balneus has no parallels in this connection. 1 I 1

The foregoing shows that for the Julio-Claudian period the city of Pompeii apparently

had only two public bathhouses in its centre, with a third directly outside the Porta Marina, and a

fourth, the facility or facilities of Crassus Frugi, in the vicinity of the town. The balneus

Agrippae adds a possible fifth. This hardly represents a superfluity of baths. It could be argued
that because the private houses of Pompeii were more frequently fitted-out with bath suites than
appears to have been the case elsewhere, as for instance at Ostia, 112 the city needed fewer public

facilities. This would be misleading. It is not clear how the ratio of public-to-private baths at

Pompeii compares to that at other urban sites, aside from Ostia which was not typical, or how a

109 C/L 4.3878. It is part of a longer graffitto that was scribbled on a tomb outside the Nucerine gate,
but the rest is illegible. NIELSEN. Therm., I.40, n. 25 includes it in her list of lst century BC testimonia for
baths, albeit tentatively.
11 0 Cf. /LS 5720: in [h]is praedis Aurel!iae Faustinianae I balineus, lavat(ur) mofre urbico, et omnis II
humanitas praestaltur; cf. Petron. Satyr., 41.
111 Private, slave ba/neatores are known from several texts, most notably the grave inscriptions of the
household of the Statilii Tauri at Rome (e.g. CJL 6.6243), or those of the Junii Silani (e.g. CIL 6.7601). For
other balneatores attached to the imperial or other households, cf. CJL 6.8742,9102 c.13, 9216,9217,9395/6.
All use the form balneator.
11 2 Some houses with private baths are (with page references to RICHARDSON. Pompeii in brackets):
Casa del Fauno (pp. 124-126, 168-170, 394); Casa del Menandro (pp. 159-161); Casa delle Nozze d'Argento
(pp.l55-159); Casa del Criptoportico (pp. 167-168); and Casa del Centenario (pp. 126-127). A map of the city
with the public and private baths marked can be found in PASQUINUCCI, Terme, pp. 70-71, fig. 56; in all some
21 houses have baths. In comparison, Ostia only has one private house with a bath suite, the House of the
Dioscuri, cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 259-260 (including plan at fig. 20); see also, ibid., p. 420.
III] 129

preponderance of one affected the other, if at all. In fact, given Campania's prosperity at this

time (as a resort for wealthy Romans) it may be expected that more people here could afford a

private bath suite in their townhouses than would have been the case elsewhere. In any case, it

would be a mistake to assume that because a wealthy person had private baths at home, he

would shun public facilities. Pliny the Younger was willing to use public establishments, and

Trimalchio is first encountered in the Satyricon while attending a public bath; both had their own

suites at home.II3 Finally, examination of the insulae at Ostia, Pompeii and Herculaneum has

shown that the living quarters of the lower and middle classes of these cities lacked many

amenities found in the bigger houses of the rich (e.g. kitchens, latrines and baths). For these

people, the majority of the population, public baths provided the only means for getting
clean.II4

Why Pompeii does not display heightened bath-building in the Augustan and Julio­

Claudian periods, the very time when the literary sources suggest a growth in bath popularity at

Rome, can only be guessed at. The "trickle-down effect," whereby it would take some time for

fashions current in the capital to reach lesser towns, offers a partial explanation. Perhaps as well

there were difficulties of siting, or acquisition of land for baths in the city centre. There may be

several indications of this. The Suburban Baths were built outside the gates. The Stab ian Baths

had to acquire a neighbouring house to provide space for their expansion. The same can be said

for the women's section of the Forum Baths where shops would have been bought to allow for

the construction of the new section. liS Finally, as will be seen, the destruction wrought by the

earthquake in AD 62 made land available, of which Pompeian bath-builders were to take full

113 Pliny Ep., 2.17.261 and above, p. 112; Petr. Satyr., 26-27 and 72. This in itself tells us
something of the attitude of the rich to using public baths, cf. below, pp. 258-263.
11 4 Cf. J.E. PACKER, The Insulae ofImperial Ostia (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 31, 1971),
esp. pp. 72-74; id. "Middle and Lower Class Housing in Pompeii and Herculaneum: A Preliminary Survey," in
B. ANDREAE & H. KYRIELIS, Neue Forschungen in Pompeji (Essen: A. Bongers, 1975), pp. 133-146.
115 There is later written evidence for this sort of activity, cf. ILS 8996; Pliny Ep., 10.70.1;
MERTEN, Biider, pp. 11-15.
III] 130

advantage. There are, however, purely practical reasons that can be used to explain, at least in

part, all but the last of these circumstances. Gateways were evidently desirable places to build

baths, so the siting of the Suburban Baths outside the Porta Marina may have been voluntary

rather than enforced.l16 As natationes and loggias were adjuncts to the palaestra, the expansion

of the Stabian Baths was perforce to the west, as there was no other suitable space to the north,

south, or east.II7 Finally, as it was desirable to heat the women's caldarium with the same

praefurnium as heated the men's, 118 the location of the new section of the Forum Baths was in
part undoubtedly determined by practical considerations. These points do not completely

demolish the land-acquisition theory, but they do limit its application. All that can be said is that

difficulties of siting and/or acquisition of land possibly played some role in restricting the

number of baths in the centre of Pompeii at this time.

Most suggestive, however, is the burst of bath-building activity in the wake of the

earthquake, the next period to be considered It provides dramatic evidence for the increased

prominence baths had gained in Roman daily life by the late Julio-Claudian period, although in

an unusual and indirect manner.

The damage caused by the earthquake in AD 62, provided an opportunity for new

construction projects. Baths featured prominently. Between AD 62 and 79 no less than four,

possibly five, public baths had either been built or were under construction. In addition, the

damaged Stabian Baths were being repaired, improved and redecorated with a view to their

116 As is clear from Timgad, cf. above, n. 93.

117 To the south lay the street, to the north part of the women's section (notably the apodyterium) and
to the east the main bathing wing.
118 Thus Vitruv., 5.10.1: et item est animadvertendum, uti caldaria muliebn·a et vi1ilia coniuncta et in
isdem regionibus sint conlocata; sic enim effi cietur, ut in vasa ria et hypocausis communis sit eorum utrisque.
III] 131

complete renovation.t19 The men's section of the Forum Baths was also quickly put back into

service. 12°

But the Pompeians had more in mind than the repair of their two existing public

facilities. About one block north of the Stab ian Baths on the Via Stabiana the town was building

a whole new set, the Central Baths, when work was permanently interrupted in AD 79 (fig.

13). 121 These were to be the largest, most luxurious baths the city had yet seen. They were a

single-building type (no men/women sections), and occupied an entire insula. They had all the

requisite bathrooms, a laconiclDn, an open-air natatio, and a large palaestra with exedrae for

relaxing and conversation. There was also a large latrine in the south-west corner. At the time

of the eruption they were still unfmished, and so undecorated; given the increased luxury in bath

decoration at this time, the adornment would probably have been magnificent. In terms of

construction, they used the latest techniques in brick-faced concrete and bath design, featuring

large windows along the west wall of the bath suite to maximize the sun's role in heating the

rooms. Richardson proposes -- considering the large size of the palaestra, the absence of a

discernible women's section, and the relative rarity of areas for relaxation and idling --that these

baths were intended for the active young men of Pompeii. 122 This is questionable, as the baths

were unfinished when the volcano buried them, and what other amenities might have been added

can only be guessed at. Further, exedrae for relaxation are present off the palaestra, as are other

rooms of unsure function which may have been for loitering and socializing. Had the Central

Baths ever been fmished, Pompeii could have boasted a large and thoroughly up-to-date facility.

119 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Stab. TMrm., pp. 70-72. It seems the women's baths were in use, at least
partially, but the male section not so, cf. A. MAIURI, L'ultimafase ediliva di Pompei (Rome: lstituto di studi
romani 20, 1942), pp. 70-72.
120 Cf. MAIURI, L'u/timafase, pp. 73-74.
121 The Central Baths are at IX.iv.S/18. Cf. MAIURI, L'ultimafase, pp. 74-77; MANDERSCHEID,
Bib., pp. 172-173, s.v. "Pompei, Terme Centrali"; RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 286-289; NIELSEN, Therm.,
1.47-48; cf. alsoP. BARGELLINI. "Le terme centrali di Pompei" in Thermes, pp. 115-128.
122 RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 289.
Ill] 132

So, after the earthquake the Pompeian authorities set about not only repairing the existing
publicly owned baths, but adding a third, larger and more modern set. This is instructive.
Obviously the people of Pompeii felt that the two, antiquated, though renovated public
establishments -- by AD 60 the Stabian Baths were about 200 years old, the Forum Baths 140 -­
were no longer sufficient for their needs, even less, perhaps, for the dignity of their city. In this
connection, inter-city rivalry of the sort that generated the violence between the Pompeians and
their neighbours from Nuceria in AD 59 should not be discounted.l23 At Herculaneum, for
instance, large and impressive baths were built roughly contemporaneously with, or a little
before the Central Baths at Pompeii - the Forum and Suburban Baths.I24 These were spacious
and luxurious establishments. The Suburban Baths in particular had large windows overlooking
the ancient shoreline and a heated swimming pool (calida piscina) (CPi in fig. 14)_125 With their
neighbours building baths of this sort, the Pompeians were not about to be left behind.

The building activities of private individuals further strengthen the proposition that the
Pompeians were reacting to external stimuli. In the eastern end of the city, in a sparsely
populated area mostly given over to small businesses, stand the Praedia Juliae Felicis (fig.
15).126 It features a series of rooms and services, among them a bathhouse, labelled by an
inscription the Balneum Venerium et Nongentum.t27 The precise significance of the epithets is

123 Cf. Tac. Ann., 14.17; on the role of inter-city rivalry as a motivation for bath-building, cf. below
pp. 237-238.
124 For these, cf. NIELSEN, Themz., 1.47-48. The Forum Baths date either to the Augustan period, or
the Claudio-Neronian era (cf. ibid., ll.7, C.38 where NIELSEN opts for the Augustan date), while the Suburban
Baths are Julio-Claudian, about coeval with the Central Baths (ibid., Joe. cit., C.39).
125 These features are reminiscent of Seneca's complaints about new-fangled facets of luxury in baths,
and the desire that the bathers have increased light and impressive views from the bathing rooms, cf. Ep., 86. 8.
For calidae piscinae, cf. NIELSEN, Themz., 1156, s.v.
126 This occupies the whole insula II.iv, with the baths at ll.iv.4-7. Cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib.,
pp.173-174, s.v. "Pompei, Terme Praedia Iuliae Felicis"; RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 292-298; C.C.
PARSLOW, The Praedia Iuliae Felicis in Pompeii (Durham, NC: Dissertation, Duke University, 1989).
127 JLS 5723: in praedis luliae Sp. f. Felicis llocantur 1balneum Venerium et nongentum, tabernae,
pergulae, I cenAcula ex idibus Aug. primis in idus Aug. sextils ann6s continuos quinque. 1 S(i) q(uinquennium)
d(ecurrerit) l(ocatio) e(rit) n(udo) c(onsensu).
III] 133

unclear, but they appear primarily to advertise the luxury and distinction of the establishment.128
The baths themselves were moderate in size and had all the usual amenities, with a laconicwn
added later.129 Noteworthy is the absence of a palaestra. Instead there is a small peristyle just
inside the entrance with recesses for relaxation. This may indicate that at this establishment
patrons tended more towards luxury and socializing than to strenuous and sweaty exercising.
This impression is heightened by the large open-air pool in the eastern part of the balneum and
the luxury of the surviving decoration.130 When the other facilities of the Praedia are considered
in combination with the baths -- i.e. its taverns, dining and reception rooms, garden and
nymphaeum -- the whole reveals itself as a sort of social centre open to the public, offering
dining/bathing facilities, but with the baths as the focal point . 13 1 From this perspective, the
Praedia Juliae Felicis may have been attempting to provide on a smaller scale many of the

128 Several attempts have been made to explain these terms. R. ETIENNE, La vie quotidienne a
Pompei (Paris: Hachette, 1977, 2nd ed.), p. 366 believes that Venerium indicates the name of a group of youths
who used the baths, while nongentum means "gentlemanly"; this implies that the whole bath was used by a club
of well-to-do young men. This position has recently been supported by P. GINESTET, Les organisations de Ia
jeunesse dans /'Occident Romain (Brussels; Collection Latomus 213, 1991), p. 99 and 225, no. 42 who argues
for a collegium iuvenum Veneriorum at Pompeii; but for him nongentus is the number (900) of members of the
Pompeian iuventus. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 293 concedes that Venerium may indicate the people who
frequented the baths, but he does not think they were a club, as there is no mention of a collegium in the text.
DUNBABIN, PBSR 57 (1989), 16 includes the balneum Venerium et Nongentum among baths named after
deities, and suggests that statues of the pertinent divinities (in this case Venus) probably stood in prominent
positions in such establishments. More recently A. VARONE, "Voices of the Ancients: A Stroll Through
Public and Private Pompeii" in Rediscovering Pompeii (Exhibition Catalogue, Rome: Bretschneider, 1990), p.
31 translates the term as "the baths of the Venerii and the judges" but offers no explanation as to what this may
mean. KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, p. 58, n. 93 believes the name indicates the exclusiveness of the clientele:
Venerium meaning "elegant," nongentum, "the best people." Surprisingly, PARSLOW, Praed., does not address
the problem of the bath's name directly. It is perhaps worth noting that Venus was the patron goddess of
Pompeii but, that said, note that a balneum Veneris existed at Liternum (ILS 5693 =no. 41 [Table 2)) and a
cistem(am) Veneri(s) at Lepcis Magna (/RT314, cf. 315a). Venus had associations with luxury and comfort, so
the reference may be to the elegance of the establishment, while simultaneously evoking the patronage of the
city's chief goddess. Nongentum is more difficult. Pliny NH, 33.31 reports that nongenti were equites who
supervised ballot boxes at elections. As there were elections in progress in Pompeii when the inscription was
painted, nongentum may well have had some connection with that event; its use here may have been topical (note
that the text was painted, not carved onto the wall). There may have been a collegium of nongenti who frequented
these baths, though there is no corroborative evidence for the existence of such a collegium at Pompeii.
Alternatively, the term may mean something like "a bath fit for the use of nongenti," i.e. important and high­
ranking officials at election time. Whatever the case, there can be little doubt that both epithets ultimately aimed
at advertizing the pleasantness of the baths; cf. above, n. 110 for another advertizement for baths in praedia which
extol the establishment's comfort and facilities.
129 They are described in great detail under room-name rubrics in PARSLOW, Praed., pp. 84-166.
130 Ibid., Joe. cit. discusses the decoration as each room is described.
131 Ibid., pp. 431-436.
III] 134

amenities available in the large Imperial baths at Rome, at that time numbering two: the Thermae

AgripJXle and Neronianae.132

At the other end of Pompeii one or more private individuals, who remain anonymous,

were erecting a large complex similar to the Praedia Juliae Felicis when disaster struck.133 The

Palaestra Baths/Samo Baths complex is a large, complicated and unfinished series of rooms,

featuring dining-rooms, taverns, reception rooms and two sets of baths on two levels (figs. 16,

17).134 The relationship between the buildings is unclear and requires further study.l35 For the

moment, they are treated separately.

The Palaestra Baths were accessible directly from the street, the Via delle Scuole,

through a narrow fauces (fig. 16).136 This led into the palaestra, the smallness of which would

imply it was not for exercise proper, but possibly only for limited physical activity and/or ball­

games, in which case it was a sphaeristeriwn. There were three exedral rooms off this area, of

unclear function. A set of bathrooms occupy the south flank and south-eastern comer of the

building. A noteworthy feature here is the presence of a balcony, beyond the bathrooms and

accessible from them, presenting the visitor with a scenic view of the valley south of the city.

As with the Balnewn Veneriwn et Nongentwn, there is a distinct impression here of a facility

132 Although it must be stressed that the imperial thermae did not feature dining rooms or anything
comparable, cf. below, p. 294.
133 KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 55-57 proposes that a woman mentioned in a libellus (CIL
4.1.409-411) found in one of the exedrae of the Palaestra Baths, Dicidia Margaris, was the owner of that complex;
if so, the owner of the Sarno complex remains anonymous.
134 This is located at Vill.ii.l?-24. Cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 174, s.v. "Pompei, Terme del
Sarno e Palestra" and RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 298-307, esp. 299-301 (Palaestra Baths) and 303-305
(Terme del Sarno); NIELSEN, Therm., 1.45 (Sarno); there is no extensive treatment of the Palaestra Baths in
NIELSEN's book. The Sarno element has recently been published fully by KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno.
135 RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 298,301 sees the whole as conceived as a unit for which it was
planned that the Palaestra area communicate with the neighbouring Sarno complex, but the doors bad not yet been
knocked through when the volcano erupted. KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 27, 48,55-58 takes the opposite
view: the blocking came after a period during which the two complexes communicated and reflect a shift in the
pattern of ownership in the area. Of the two positions, the latter is the more tightly argued.
13 6 This is at VIII.ii.23. For a description, cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 299-301.
III} 135

designed more for the idler than the athlete. This establishment was functioning when the
eruption occurred.

Adjacent to the Palaestra Baths is an area, much of it in disarray, with a series of rooms
apparently intended to be apartments, reception halls and dining areas (fig. 17.1 ). 137 This is
level 1 of the Sarno Bath complex. Below lies an unfinished labyrinth of rooms and corridors,
arranged in four levels on three terraces against the natural gradient of the ground. The fourth
level contained a set of baths, the Sarno Baths (fig. 17.2). 138 These are quite small and were
still under construction in AD 79. They contain the usual set of rooms, featuring windows
overlooking the valley to allow sunlight to assist in heating the complex. The most remarkable
feature of this establishment is the row of seven vaulted rooms opening onto a corridor running
east from the main suite of bathing rooms. The function of these rooms is unclear, but
Richardson suggests that they are individual cubicles for thermal/mineral water treatment, and
indeed a series of such rooms is found at some spa-resorts like Baiae or Badenweiler. 13 9
However, no hot or mineral springs have been located in or near the Sarno Baths, and these
rooms retain no trace of any plumbing. The Baths of Faustina at Miletus, constructed about a
century after the Sarno Baths, also feature a long corridor with cubicles off them. 140 Here they
are considered to be changing rooms or lecture and conversation rooms, the latter derived from

137 The main entrances to this area are VIII.ii.l8-21. Cf. KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 15-46 for
a detailed description; RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 301-303.
138 These were accessible from the street via the long corridor that leads from VID.ii.17 (indicated in
broken lines in the upper portion of fig. 17.1). For a description of these baths, cf. KOLOSKI OSTROW,
Sarno, pp. 37-42. Cf. also above, p. 125.
139 Cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 305. For the row-of-rooms forms at the sites mentioned, cf.
HEINZ. Rom. Therm., p. 162 (the so-called "Sosandra Baths" at Baiae, cf. Abb. 163, 166 no. 2). p. 171
(Badenweiler).
140 Cf. MANDERSCHEID. Bib., pp. 149-150, s.v. "Miletos, Thermen der Faustina"; NIELSEN.
Therm., II.38, C .306.
III] 136

the Greek stoa.141 In all likelihood, the rooms served some functional or social purpose

associated with the baths, but for which no archaeological evidence is likely to remain.142

The whole Palaestra/Sarno Bath complex offered, whether in conjunction or in

competition, the same sort of facilities to the western end of the city as those provided in the east

end by the "Premises of Julia Felix." There were dining rooms and reception halls, balconies

and taverns, and two sets of baths. In both cases, the complexes were social centres probably

attempting to reproduce the facilities of the larger imperial thennae at Rome, at least in part.

Finally, we tum to the small baths in the Casa di Giuseppe II, several doorways down

the Via delle Scuole.1 4 3 Here a large private house had been converted into an apartment/shop

complex. On a lower level, overlooking the valley to the south of the city, there was a set of

baths with the usual rooms, but no laconicwn. Due to the elaborate nature of the facilities, and

the evidence for a bread-making outlet adjacent to the prae.fumium of the baths, Richardson

contends that these may be considered at least "semi-public" baths, although this term seems like

fudging.l44 It is possible that they were a rather exclusive set of baths, with access perhaps

restricted to tenants in the apartment complex of which they were a part and their guests. 145

14 1 Cf. HEINZ, Rom Therm., p. 104. Of course, this does not mean the Sarno Bath cubicles are
necessarily to be so interpreted. NIELSEN, Therm. throws no light on such cubicles.
142 This is the position of KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 94-95 who offers two possibilities: the
cubicles were for massage and/or sex, or they were for changing and storing belongings of more aft1uent patrons.
For sex at the baths, cf. below, pp. 296-299.
143 These are at VIII.ii.39, cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 234-240, esp. 239-240. NIELSEN,
Therm. does not mention them.
144 Ibid., p. 240.
145 However, baths as integrated parts of apartment blocks are a rarity, even at such well preserved sites
as Ostia, cf. PACKER. Insulae ofOstia, pp. 5-42 (where Ostian insulae are surveyed; none have built-in baths)
and pp. 72-74 (where baths are one of the services the Ostian must seek in public facilities, as there were none at
home). In fact, as PACKER, points out (ibid., p. 74), •At no point in the city, was the Ostian more than tive
minutes walk from a bathing establishment." This fact vitiates somewhat KOLOSKI OSTROW's talk of
insulalbalnea complexes (she points to the proximity of certain insulae at Ostia to the Baths of Buticosus and the
Seven Sages, Sarno, p. 92): since Ostia was so small in area, and had so many apartment blocks and baths, it is
hardly surprising that occasionally baths will be found in proximity to residential insulae. Rather, it is more
striking that baths and apartments were not more regularly integrated into single units. The Baths of the
Philosopher, integrated fully into insula V.ii at Ostia, were most likely open to the public, though it may have
been operated (and predominantly used by?) an Ostian guild, cf. l. BOERSMA, Amoenissima Civitas. Block
III] 137

There are hints of the existence of baths like this at Rome, though not necessarily as part of an

apartment building. 146 If so, they would be better regarded as private, in that they were not

open to all comers.

The Suburban Baths were undergoing renovations in the post-earthquake period, though

they do not seem to have been functioning. It is not clear whether the baths of Crassus Frugi

outside the walls were operative when the volcano struck.

To sum up, Pompeii offers a picture of growth in the prominence of public bathing

facilities over the period from Sulla to the city's destruction in AD 79.147 In about 80 BC,

Pompeii had three public establishments; when the volcano erupted in AD 79 it had at least

seven, possibly ten. More precise periodization of this growth falls roughly into three phases:

late Republican, Augustan to pre-earthquake, and post-earthquake.

The Sullan colonists added another bath to the cityscape in about 80 BC, matching the

already functioning Stab ian Baths. This may suggest that at this time baths and bathing had

achieved a greater importance among the incoming Roman elements, in the form of the

colonists, than among the native Pompeians already in the city. This would indeed be an irony,

as it seems likely that the roots of Roman bathing habits lay originally in Campania. Around the

same time a third set, the Republican Baths, was erected, possibly by a private individual, close

to the Stabian. These three facilities then served the city until the Augustan period (fig. 18.1).

V.ii at Ostia: Description and Analysis ofits Visible Remains (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), pp. 35-47, 120-137,
196-198.
146 Such as the Baths of Etruscus, which appear to have catered to an upper-crust clientele, cf. Martial,
6.42,; Stat. Silv., 1.5. Cf. below, p. 278 for baths with a "regular" set of customers.
147 Cf. fig. 18.1, 2, 3 where the city's baths are illustrated in three periods, stretching from the late
Republic to its destruction in AD 79.
III] 138

Early in the Principate, perhaps in the 20s BC, the Republican baths closed down. No

new set was opened in the city centre to replace them. Why this was the case is unclear, and any

answers are speculative. However, given the increased bath-building ofthepost-earthquake

period and the several ancillary points discussed above, it was possibly the result of difficulties

in acquiring suitable sites. The building of the Surburban Baths slightly outside the city, as well

as the Thennae et Baln[eae?] Crassi Frugi, was evidently considered sufficient (fig. 18.2).

After the earthquake of AD 62, a considerable number of public establishments was built

or planned. The Stabian and Forum Baths were being repaired. and a whole new and larger set

were under construction when the disaster struck. In addition, at least four, possibly five,

smaller, privately-run facilities were being provided for the city (fig. 18.3). 148 This whole post­

earthquake period provides archaeological corroboration for the literary testimony we have seen

above, though in an indirect way. The picture is not one of a steadily growing number of baths

at Pompeii, neatly and evenly divided into specific periods. Rather, there is a period of relative

quiet (Augustus to the earthquake), followed by one of markedly heightened bath-building

(post-earthquake). This suggests that in building so many public bathing facilities the

Pompeians were responding to external trends. In thus taking advantage of the constructional

possibilities the earthquake had provided, they appear to be have been attempting to bring their

city into step with the latest tastes; public baths evidently featured conspicuously. 149 The

14S That is, if we include the so-called "semi-public" baths of the Case di Giuseppe II. I do not include
the baths of Crassus Frugi, which may or may not have been operative after the earthquake.
149 It is not sufficient to argue that the new public facilities were simply put up to replace the private
ones lost or damaged in the earthquake. We have already seen the difficulties with this general argument (see
above, pp. 128-129). Further, it seems that many of the owners of the bigger houses moved out of town after
AD 62, and their houses were transformed into apartment or shop complexes, as with the Casa di Giuseppe II.
Also, baths like those in the Premises of Julia Felix, were clearly luxury complexes and not stand-in
replacements. Finally, the building opportunities presented by the earthquake were exploited to create many
public baths, and not simply to repair private ones. Looking especially at the Premises of Julia Felix and the
Palaestra Baths!fenne del Sarno complex, it seems that a new attitude to bathing was being introduced to the
urban life of the Pompeians.
III} 139

implication is therefore that public bathing had come to enjoy a heightened profile in Roman life

generally in the preceding period, and the Pompeians were responding to that development.

Elsewhere, the remains of baths from the late Republic to the early Empire are scarce, or

clustered at certain sites or in certain periods. At Ostia, for instance, most of the baths are of

2nd-century date or later, and all three major baths --the Forum Baths, the Baths of Neptune,

and the Maritime Baths-- span the period from Trajan to Antoninus Pius. 150 As seen above, the

earliest surviving set are of Julio-Claudian date.15 1 The city is therefore not very useful for

tracing the growth of bathing in our period. However, Ostia provides good evidence for the 2nd

century and beyond, because by the Late Empire it had no less than 17 identifiable public

establishments, covering every district of the city.l52 The situation at Ostia is corroborated

elsewhere, especially North Africa, where many 2nd-century foundations feature baths

prorninently. 153 A good example is Timgad, a city with 13 public baths in or around the urban

core. 154

Finally, aquick glance at Rome itself.l55 No examples of the numerous small public
baths survive here, but it seems likely that they far outnumbered their larger Imperial

counterparts. 156 Of the more massive Imperial sets some remains still stand as gaunt witness to

150 For full bibliographies, cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 160, s.v "Ostia, Terme del Foro"; p. 161,
s.v. "Ostia, Terrne Maritime"; p. 162-163, s.v. "Ostia, Tenne di Nettuno": MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 407-416 treats
each set in turn.
151 Cf. above, p. 119.
152 Cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 471-479, and fig. 30 (plan of Ostia showing bath distribution). As the
relative chronology of the baths of Ostia remains problematic, determining a clear line of progression here is not
yet possible.
153 Cf. H. LEZINE, Architecture romaine d'Afrique (Tunis: Publications de l'Universite de Tunis,
1961), pp. 9-35.
154 Cf. the plan ofTimgad, NIELSEN, Thenn., 11.75, fig. 39 where some 13 baths, ranging in date
from the first half of the 2nd century AD to the Byzantine period are numbered, cf. ibid., II. 30-31, C.238-250.
155 The baths of Rome are covered in more detail below, Chapter 5.
156 Note the figures in the Notitia Urbis Regionum: I 1 thermae, and 856 balnt•a. Although the exact
ratio may have differed, the general situation reflected by these numbers probably pertained in earlier periods as
well. For the smaller baths of Rome, cf. below, p. 199-203. Of these establishments, some 31 (not all from the
period under consideration here) can be assigned names from literary and epigraphic sources, cf. E. De
III] 140

their fonner splendour. The first large imperial-type baths were built in the Augustan and Julio­

Claudian periods: the very period, as shown in the preceding pages, that the written and

archaeological records suggest a marked growth in the bathing habit. The Thennae Agrippae

were erected in the Campus Martius between 25 and 19 BC. 15 7 The example so given was

followed over half a century later by Nero, whose baths were built about AD 62. 158 Successive

emperors, as is well known, built ever increasingly huge and elaborate public establishments for

the people of Rome.159 Between them, these Imperial baths, along with their smaller satellite

balnea, serviced nearly every quarter of the city.

Before leaving Rome, however, an important issue needs to be addressed. It has been

argued above that the 1st century BC saw a growth in public bathing, which would logically

imply a rise in the number of the city's baths. Although no explicit evidence for such a

numerical increase exists, it can reasonably be expected. If this is accepted, how do we explain

that no aqueducts were built to serve the city between the Aqua Tepula (in service c. 125 BC)

and the Aqua Julia (operative in 33 BC)? 160 Surely baths need water? While the answer to the

latter question is an emphatic affinnative, it must be stressed that water for baths need not

necessarily have come from aqueducts. The whole question of water supply for baths is a

complex one and in need of further investigation, but it is clear that smaller baths could function

without a conduit.1 6 1 Instructive evidence comes from Pompeii. Here, the absence of an

RUGGIERO, Divonario epigra.fico di Antichita romane (Rome: 1898), p. 970, s.v. "Balneum"; Appendix 2,
Map 2, s.v. "Rome." See also Appendix 4.
157 Cf. below, pp. 185-186. A full bibliography is supplied by MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p.l79-180,
s.v. "Roma, Terme di Agrippa."
158 Tac. Ann., 14.20-21, 47, 15.29.2; Suet. Nero, 12.3, 31.2.
159 For bibliographies of these buildings, cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp. 180-187, where they are
listed in alphabetical order. Missing from these bibliographies, but useful for plotting the growth in the size,
design and grandeur of the Imperial baths is the survey of HEINZ. Rom. Therm., pp. 52-141, esp. 60-67
(Agrippa's Baths), 68-71 (Nero), 75-77 (Titus), 89-90 (Trajan), 112-117 (Diocletian), 122 (Constantine), and 124­
141 (Caracalla).
160 Cf. T. ASHBY, The Aqueducts ofAncient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935), esp. pp. 159-160
(Tepula), 162-66 (Julia); more recently, A.T. HODGE, "Aqueducts" in I.M. BARTON (ed.), Roman Public
Buildings (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1989), pp. 128-149.
16 1 Cf. the examples cited by BRUUN, Water, p. 73, n. 43. Cf. also B.D. SHAW, "The Noblest
Monuments and the Smallest Things: Wells, Walls and Aqueducts in the Making of Roman Africa" in A.T.
III] 141

aqueduct did not prevent the erection of three bathhouses (Stab ian, Forum and Republican) fed
by wells or cisterns.I62 There is no reason to presume that the situation was different at Rome,
supplied with aqueducts from the late 4th century BC and containing small, modest Republican
baths on the Pompeian model. 163 In all likelihood, such baths lacked large natationes and
constantly running water. Establishments on the scale of those of Agrippa were not possible;
indeed that facility (with its many pools and stagnum) required an aqueduct to supply it.
Furthermore, as will be seen, the evidence suggests that the city's Republican baths were all
privately owned and operated, and so they could conceivably have been fed from wells or
cisterns on private property, or perhaps from private water conduits (although instances of the
latter appear to have been rare).164 Owners of such public facilities would presumably have

preferred to tap their own sources, as they would have had to pay for aqueduct water. In short,
while the presence of aqueducts made the construction of baths easier, it was not a prerequisite:
modest baths could function without aqueduct-supplied water.

The evidence reviewed in this chapter indicates that there was a growth in the practice of
public bathing in the 1st centuries BC and AD. Comparison of the maps of Italy in Appendix 2
shows this clearly enough. From the 2nd to the 1st centuries BC the number of attested baths in
Italy rises considerably. The trend continues into the 1st century AD, as does the increasing

HODGE (ed.), Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies (Leeds: Cairns, 1991), pp. 63-91, esp. pp. 63-73 where it is
argued that aqueducts often came late in a city's development, and even largescale bath buildings could function
without them (as at Thuburbo Maius).
162 On Pompeii's water supply, cf. H. ESCHEBACH, wDie innerstadtische Gebrauchswasserversorgung
dargestellt am Beispiel Pompejis, win J.P. BOUCHER (ed.) Journies d'itudes sur les aqueducs romains (Paris; Les
belles Lettres, 1983), pp. 81-132, esp. pp. 81-86 (on the city's wells); RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 51-63;
note especially ibid., fig. 3 (p. 52) where the city's numerous deep wells are indicated on a map.
163 Wells and cisterns are known from Rome, cf. BRUUN, Water, p. 97 (esp. n. 2).
164 Cf. ibid., pp. 63-76. His discussion of whether privately owned baths can be shown to have been
fed by private conduits (ibid., pp. 72-76) is inconclusive due to lack of clear evidence. On the ownership of
Rome's non-imperial baths, cf. below, pp. 202-203 and Appendix 4.
III] 142

spread of baths throughout the peninsula. More and more communities were equipping

themselves with public baths, sometimes two or more.

This growth, as it can be discerned from the literary, epigraphic, and archaeological

evidence, would seem to fall into two phases. Although the evidence is scarce, the first phase,

covering the 1st century BC down to Augustus, can be characterized by a growth in the baths'

role in daily life; a consequent rise in the number of Rome's bathhouses is likely, despite no

increase of aqueduct-supplied water. Public baths feature more prominently in literary and

epigraphic records, and archaeology shows many communities building their frrst public

establishment at this time. Growth in the second phase, stretching roughly from Augustus's rise

to power to the end of the 1st century AD, is more rapid, and coincides with the establishment of

the Principate. More writers give reference to baths and bathing; more inscriptions attest their

existence; and more communities extend, elaborate or build them. It is now time to seek

explanations for this phenomenon.

 CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY GROWTH OF BATH POPULARITY:

GENERAL EXPLANATIONS AND THE ROLE OF

ASCLEPIADES OF BITHYNIA

Introduction

The question of why Romans of the 1st centuries BC and AD became increasingly attached to

baths has been largely and inexplicably ignored by modern scholars. This chapter attempts to

redress the omission, but confines itself for the most part to the first phase of the process, that

covering the 1st century BC. The question of the Imperial authorities' impact on bathing is

treated in the following chapter.

There are difficulties with the source material. The present inquiry must rely on written

evidence. Archaeology is largely mute as to why people went to the baths, though some clues

offer. This said, it must be admitted that even the written sources are largely silent as to reasons

for bathing. So, Pliny the Elder can point to the growth in the bathing habit at Rome, but says

nothing by way of explanation. 1 Likewise, Seneca can rail at the popularity and luxury of

public baths in Julio-Claudian Rome, but remains uninformative with regard to reasons for this

popularity. If anything, he would imply that people went to the baths simply out of a degenerate

love of luxury, a moralizing Stoic topos that ought not to be accepted at face value. 2 The silence

I NH., 36.121 (cf. above, pp. 102-103).

2 Ep., 86.6-13, cf. Dial., 10.12.7. Compare the opposition in 1761 of the Protestant ministers of
Philadelphia to a proposed public bath in the city on the grounds that it would only promote the people's
"Immoderate and Growing Fondness for Pleasure, Luxury, Gaming, Dissipation, and their concommittant Vices,"
cited in M.T. WILLIAMS, Washing "The Great Unwashed": Public Baths in Urban America, 1840-1920
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991), p. 10.

143

IV] 144

of the sources is perhaps explicable, insofar as the baths became so integral a part of everyday
life: offering explanations for their popularity would have been to state the obvious. But for the
1st century BC, lack of source material can also help to explain this silence.

The nature of the sources, then, precludes a straightforward explanation of the growth of
bath popularity, clearly traceable and well documented. Rather, it forces an evaluation based on
an analysis of trends and processes current in late Republican Rome. As is seen, however, a
case can be made for one remarkable man wielding a particular influence on the process of
growth, but before examining him in detail, attention must be paid to the generalities; it is against
this backdrop that the activities of the doctor Asclepiades of Bithynia must be assessed.

(i) General contributing factors

Several observable trends in the late Republic combined to produce a fertile environment for the
promotion of baths and bathing among all classes at Rome. 3

TechJW!ogical, social and economic factors

There was an improvement in building technology. 4 Concrete (opw;; caementicium)

increasingly came to be used to create ever larger structures. 5 The improvement in vaulting

3 Sketches of late Republican society can be found in E.S. GRUEN, The Last Generation ofthe
Roman Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974); M. BEARD & M.H. CRAWFORD, Rome in
the lAte Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985), and E. RAWSON, Intellectual life in the lAte Roman Republic
(London: Duckworth, 1985).
4 Cf. A. BOETHIUS, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (London: Penguin, 1978, 2nd ed.), pp.
137-140.
5 A good example is the vast sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, completed in c. 80 BC, cf.
ibid., pp. 169-174; for improvements in concrete construction, cf. M.E. BLAKE, Ancient Roman Construction
IV] 145

techniques, itself aided by increasing confidence with the medium of cement, allowed larger
interior spaces to be roofed. These constructional developments were essential to the process of
growth as they gave Roman architects the means to erect larger and more elaborate baths, though

before the Baths of Agrippa, there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a really magnificent
establishment at Rome (or anywhere else, for that matter). At the very least, though,
improvements in building technology made the construction of baths easier.

Another general trend was the increase in wealth and public ostentation. The 1st century
BC was the age of rich dynasts such as M. Licinius Crassus, C. Julius Caesar and Cn.
Pompeius Magnus, whose wealth far exceeded anything that had come before. 6 These men,
and others like them, owned numerous estates and properties in Italy and abroad. The increase
in the number, luxury and extent of the private dwellings of the rich further illustrates this
point. 7 Indeed, the number of villas owned by wealthy Romans in Campania increased
markedly in the period from Marius to Cicero. 8 Another indication of this trend is the increase
in table luxury and consumption of exotic foods and wine, which, although it seems to have
risen sharply in the Augustan period,9 was clearly underway in the late Republic. 10

in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute Publications, 1947), pp.
324-352, and also the sections on concrete facings, pp. 227-275 (opus incertum to opus reticulatum), and 281­
307 (brick and tile); W. L. MacDONALD, The Architecture ofImperial Rome I (New Haven, Yale University
Press), pp. 1-19.
6 The wealth of Crassus in particular was proverbial (e.g. Cic. Fin., 3.75, Tusc., 1.12; Sal!. Cat.,
48.5; Pliny, NH, 33.134; Plut. Crass., 11.1, Pomp., 22.1), but the fortunes of Caesar and Pompeius came to
rival it, cf. E. BADIAN, Roman Imperialism on the lAte Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971, 2nd
ed.), 81-83, 89-90.
7 Cf. BOETHIUS, Etruscan, pp. 183-195. It was especially at this time that the Palatine hill became
the most exclusive residential area in Rome, with houses owned by Cicero, Crassus, Hortensius and Catullus,
among others, cf. G. LUGLI, The Roman Fonun and Palatine (Rome: Bardi, 1956), p. 84; T.P. WISEMAN,
Catullus and his World: A &appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 25-26.
8 Cf. D'ARMS, Romans, pp. 18-72. In Catalogue 1 (pp. 171-201) D'ARMS identifies some 44
owners of villas or houses on the Bay ofNaples for the period 75-31 BC, compared to a handful from the 2nd
century BC (cf. ibid., pp. 1-17).
9 Tac. Ann., 3.55: luxusque mensae a fine Actiaci belli ad ea arma quis Servius Galbo renun adeptus
est, per annos centum projusis swnptibus exerciti, paulatim exolevere.
° 1 Cf. L. FRIEDLANDER, Darstellung aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1964
(repr. of 1924 Leipzig lOth edition)), 11.285-315. On wine consumption, cf. N. PURCELL, wwine and Wealth
in Ancient Italy," JRS 15 (1985), 1-19, esp. 6-9 and 13-15.
IV) 146

This taste for the lavish was not confined to the private sphere. Through increased

public patronage, displays of wealth in the form of games, buildings or spectacles were not

uncommon. Pompei us sponsored some of the most extravagant gladiatorial combats Rome had

yet seen, and built the frrst stone theatre in the city, surrounded by gardens and a portico

decorated with famous Greek statuary and paintings.11 Caesar is reported to have had an

extensive building plan for the city.12 In the previous century, marble had been introduced as a

building material for public structures in Rome, but it was in the 1st century BC that its use

became widespread. 13 Pliny the Elder in several places offers the opinion that the extravagance

of the late Republic exceeded that even of his generation. 14

The period, then, is marked by increasing luxury in both the public and private spheres.

Such an atmosphere, where society is becoming more accustomed to the presence of luxury,

provides a suitable backdrop for the growth of a public bathing habit. In particular, extravagant

public building was on the rise, as was the willingness of ever richer leaders to spend money

providing such. 15 However, a word of caution is required in this connection. There is no

evidence that any of the powerful dynasts of the 1st century BC directly promoted bathing by

building baths for public use, in the manner that the emperors would in the next century . 16

11 Cf. BOETHIUS, Etruscan, pp. 205-206; P. GREENHALGH, Pompey: The Republican Prince
(London: Weideofeld & Nicolson, 1981), pp. 52-57 (theatre), 58-61 (spectacles).
12 Suet. Caes., 44.
13 Cf. BOETHIUS, Etruscan, pp. 137-138. The marble quarries at Luna were only exploited in the
Augustan Age (Pliny NH, 36.14).
14 NH, 36.8 (luxury of L. Crassus's dwelling (95 BC] rare in Pliny's day) and 36.113 (the temporary
Theatre of M. Scaurus outdoes even the extravagance of Gaius or Nero). But note also ibid., 36.110 (M. Lepidus
house, reckoned the finest in Rome in 78 BC, did not even make the top 100 35 years later).
15 Cf. P. VEYNE. Le pain et /e cirque: sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique (Paris: Editions
du Seuil, 1976), pp. 469-537. Note, however, that Crassus, the richest of the lot, is hardly representative: he is
reported to have said that men given to building need no enemies -- they'll ruin themselves (Plut. Crass., 2.6).
Not surprisingly, no public buildings at Rome are attributed to Crassus.
16 Note the partial exception of Faustus Sulla's benefaction of free bathing to the populus in 60 BC, cf.
Dio 37.51.4 (cf. above, pp. 107-108). L. Licinius Lucullus is reported to have erected "new-fangled buildings"
in his retirement, among them baths (Plut. Luc., 39.2, Mor., 785F). Unfortunately, it is unsure if these baths
were open to the public: the context can be interpreted either way (Plutarch includes them among collections of
art, banquets and ambulatories (TTEpl..TTCtTOl..), all of which can be either public or private).
IV] 147

Rather, baths seem to have been built by individuals as businesses or investments. Evidence

surveyed above suggests that senators may have participated in this activity as well as humbler

private persons,l7 but it is noteworthy that neither Sulla, Crassus, Pompeius nor Caesar (the

four most wealthy and powerful men of the first half of the century) are clearly attested in any

source as bath builders. 18 Of course, neither Sulla nor Crassus were major builders in the first

place, which is readily understandable at least in the case of Sulla, who displayed little interest in

pandering to the masses.

A further contributing factor was the rise of the city's population. Naturally, the more

people there were, the greater would have been the demand for public amenities, including

baths. Unfortunately, the sources do not allow an assessment of precise quantities. That the

population of the city did rise in the 2nd-1st century BC, however, seems clear enough. 19

Given the living conditions of most of the city's population at this time, it is also likely that they

would have sought refuge from domestic squalor in public places. 2° These two circumstances

in conjunction are probably to be seen as contributing in some measure to the growth in the

popularity of baths.

The role of Asclepiades of Bithynia, soon to be considered, requires mention of one final

general factor: the increased Hellenization of Roman society in the 1st century BC. This

17 E.g. the baths as investments of M. Brutus, cf. above, pp. 82-83.

18 But note the existence of a Balneum Caesaris in the Notitia; however, the name may be due to its
dedication to Caesar or a later emperor, or to some decorative feature on the premises, cf. appendix 4, s.v.
19 Dio, 38.1.2-3; Cic. Att., 2.3.4. Cf. P.A. BRUNT, Italian Manpower (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1971), pp. 376-388, esp. 383-384; GRUEN, Last Generation, pp. 358-365; J.P.V.D. BALSDON, Romans and
Aliens (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1979), pp. 12-13; O.F. ROBINSON, Ancient Rome: City Planning and
Administration (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 8-9 estimates a population of 750,000 in the late Republic.
Overcrowding, promoted by overpopulation, clearly stands behind the living conditions of the plebs described by
Z. YAVETZ, "Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs in Republican Rome," Latomus 17 (1958), 500-517 (:;::: R.
Seager, The Crisis ofthe Roman Republic [Cambridge: Heffer, 1969], pp. 162-179). Note Frontinus's comment
(Aqu., 1.7) that the Marcian aqueduct was built in 143 BC "since the growth of the city seemed to demand a
greater water supply" (quoniam incrementum urbis exigere videbatur ampliorem modum aquae); Agrippa was
responsible for two more aqueducts in 33 and 19 BC (Front. Aqu., 1.9, 10).
20 Cf. YA VETZ, op. cit. in previous note. Cf. P.A. BRUNT "The Roman Mob," in M.l. FINLEY
(ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974), pp. 74-101, esp. 84-95.
IV] 148

provides the immediate backdrop for Asclepiades' career. The process of Hellenization is a

large topic, but it need here only be noted that by the 1st century BC the Roman elite had been

exposed to and influenced by Greek culture for some two centuries.2 1 Greek language,

philosophies, and customs had penetrated deeply, though not without opposition.22 By the 1st

century BC. Greek intellectuals had long been associated with Roman aristocrats, as tutors.

companions and slaves, and could even exercise a limited influence over them. though this latter

point should not be overestimated.23 Greek culture was fashionable. Romans of the period, in

fact, had an ambivalent attitude towards the Greeks, feeling obliged to denigrate them publicly as

a conquered people, while being familiar with, and harbouring admiration for. Greek cultural

achievements. 24

A more vexed question is how deeply this Hellenization had penetrated to the lower

classes, if at all. Modem scholars naturally confine their discussions to the acquaintance with

Greek culture among the governing class, as it is to this group that the majority of our evidence

relates. The impression is therefore strong that Hellenic culture touched only that governing

2! BEARD & CRAWFORD, Rome in Late Republic, pp. 20-24 characterize the 1st century BC as a
"cultural explosion • of Hellenism at Rome, the culmination of a long process of infiltration stretching back into
the 3rd century BC.
22 Cf. E. S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming ofRome (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1984), pp. 250-272 covers the process from beginnings to the late 2nd century BC. See also
J.L. FERRARY. Philhellenisme et imperialisme. Aspects ideologiques de la conquhe romaine du monde
hellenistique (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran'raises d'Athenes et de Rome 271, 1988), pp. 495-615 for cultural
and political philhellenism in 2nd century BC Rome. On Roman knowledge of the Greek language, cf. N.
PETROCHILOS, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens: S. Saripolo's Library 25, 1974), pp. 23-33.
23 Note in particular the association of men such as Polybius and Panaitios with the Scipionic circle.
BALSOON, Romans, pp. 54-58 lists 49 identifiable Greek intellectuals attached to 25 Roman noble houses in
the 3rd-lst centuries BC. Cf. ibid., pp. 30-54 for interaction between Greeks and Romans in this period. Cf.
also M. CRAWFORD, "Greek Intellectuals and the Roman Aristocracy in the First Century BC," in P.
GARNSEY & C.R. WHITIAKER (edd.), Imperialism in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1978); H.D. JOCELYN, "The Ruling Class of the Roman Republic and Greek philosophers," BRL 59
(1977), 323-366.
24 Cicero's writings provide ample evidence. The relevant passages are cited and discussed by H.
GUITE, "Cicero's attitude to the Greeks," Greece & Rome 31 (S.S. 9) (1962). 142-159. See also
PETROCHILOS, Roman Attitudes, passim; A.E. ASTIN, Cato the Censor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), pp.
157-181.
IV] 149

class.25 While this undoubtedly holds true for certain aspects of the Hellenization of Rome
(especially for theories of philosophy and rhetoric, and for literature), it need not apply across
the board: humbler Romans would have constantly come into contact with facets of Greek
culture, either as represented by Greek members of the urban lower classes, or as manifested in
the behaviour of their social superiors. 26 The tendency of the less privileged to ape the rich and
powerful can only have aided this process; and when it is combined with the influx of humbler
Greeks such as craftsmen, teachers and artisans into Rome in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, it
may well have ensured at least a superficial acquaintance with some aspects of Greek language
and culture among society's lower echelons.27

At the very least, Greek works of art had been displayed to the masses in triumphs from
the 3rd century BC on, and could be seen gracing public buildings, such as the Theatre and
Portico of Pompeius.28 Comedies based on Greek originals had been staged at Rome by

25 BEARD & CRAWFORD, Rome in lAte Republic, p. 20 claim that only the elite were Hellenized:
"The vast majority of Romans were excluded [from participation in this cultural explosion] (except as onlookers);
they could neither read nor write, nor afford to decorate their homes. This restriction must be constantly borne in
mind."
26 Many ex-slaves (and perhaps more slaves) were of Eastern origin, often captured in the course of war
(e.g. the Mithridatic Wars), cf. S. TREGGIARI, Roman Freedmen during the lAte Republic (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1969), pp. 1-11, cf. pp. 246-249.
27 Cf. Cl. NICOLET, Rome et Ia conquete du monde mediterranien (Paris: PUF, 1977), pp. 207-227.
The plebs are presented as a multiracial multitude in the sources, cf. [Q. Cic.] Comm. Petit., 54; App., BelL
Civ., 2.120; GRUEN, Last Generation, pp. 359-361; BALSDON, Romans, pp. 12-16. The influx of foreigners
is reflected in their sporadic expulsion (often of Greeks in particular) from Rome starting with Macedonians in
171 BC, which affected large numbers (Pol., 27.6; Livy, 42.48.3; App. Bell Civ., 11.9), and was followed by
subsequent expulsions of peregrini such as that stipulated by the lex Papia in 65 BC (Dio 37.9.5; Cic. Arch., 10,
Balb., 52. Att., 4.18.4, Off, 3.47) and another (possibly the lex Papia) mentioned by Pliny, NH, 29.16; on
expulsions cf. BALSDON, Romans, pp. 98-102. On a more positive note, Caesar enfranchised doctors and
teachers at Rome, most of whom were probably Greek (Suet. Caes., 42.1 ). The presence of Greeks in the
Republican city is attested by inscriptions featuring Greek names, cf. e.g. IURP 828, 877, 880,925,928,931,
935, 963, 965 and the numerous Greek names in the index (ibid., 11.434-452); the Jews of Rome apparently
spoke Greek, cf. HJ. LEON, The Jews ofAncient Rome (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society of America,
1960), pp. 75-92. On cultural exchange among the lower-clases, note RAWSON's comments (Intellectual Life,
p. 53) that "Greek (of a kind) might be picked up, in Rome and some other towns at least, from Greek-speaking
residents or slaves.... And if it is true, as many historians hold, that there was much underemployment, urban
as well as rural, in the Roman economy, many poor men would have leisure for listening to argument." See also
BALSDON, Romans, pp. 116-145 on multilingualism in the Roman world.
28 Cf. e.g. Florus, 1.13.27 (Tarentum triumph, c. 270 BC) and Livy 25.40.1-3, 26.21.6-8, Plut.
Marc., 21.1-3, Cic. Verr., 2.1.55 (Syracuse triumph, 211 BC). The 2nd century saw several triumphs earned in
the East which featured dazzling displays of Greek art, cf. GRUEN, Hellenistic World, pp. 259, 290. Cicero
IV] 150

Plautus and Terence. Further, certain Greek intellectuals gave public lectures at Rome. The

most celebrated was Cameades and his colleagues, whom Cato the Elder, fearing the effects of

their philosophical presentations on the attitudes of the youth, had expelled from the city in 155

BC.29 Was Cameades' audience composed entirely of members of the elite? The sources give

no hint either way. Of course, since Cameades spoke in Greek, his lectures may have been

largely unintelligible to any commoner who may have been present, unless interpreters were

used. 30 In short, determining how well acquainted the lower classes at Rome were with Greek

culture and language remains difficult, but that there was some familiarity, however vague, with

the culture which was so infecting their social superiors is a reasonable supposition.

All these trends are to be seen as running concurrently. A simple linear causality is not
discernible, but rather they should be viewed as parallel and interconnected processes which

influenced one another in ways that are not often clear. They provide the context for the growth

in bath popularity, and contributed to it, but they do not in themselves explain why baths became

popular. For instance, it is reasonable to note that improved building technology made

construction of baths easier, but that does not explain why the technology was used on baths.

Likewise, increased ostentation may have heightened the people's expectations of the appearance

of public structures, but it offers little insight into why specifically baths were built.

Where did the demand for baths come from in the first place? A possible answer, one

that seems almost too obvious, is that the Romans simply enjoyed bathing. Once introduced to

baths, they took to them; the resulting increase in popularity would itself have generated a

remarks (Verr., 2.4.126) on the plethora of monuments at Rome decorated with Greek works of art. For
Pompeius's theatre, cf. above, p. 146.
29 Plut. Cato, 22.4-5; Pliny, NH, 7.122; Quint., 12.1.35.
30 Carneades had addressed the Senate in Greek, with an interpeter C. Acilius, at hand, cf. Plut. Cat., 3;
Quint. 12.1.35. However, this was in keeping with the provision that state business be conducted exclusively in
Latin. There is no evidence for widespread use of interpreters in public lectures, though they do appear
sporadically in official contexts (during treaty or peace negotiations and the like), cf. Lib. Or., 1.156; BALSDON,
Romans, pp. 137-145. On the unclear nature of public lectures, cf. RAWSON, Intellectual life, pp. 51-52.
IV] 151

demand for more establishments. This process, however, is impossible to document and

quantify. and in general the role of popular demand in motivating public construction is difficult

to establish. 31 Further. the evidence reviewed in the previous chapters suggests that baths came

to Rome relatively early (by the late 3rd century BC), but did not become markedly popular until

the last century of the Republic. Why the rise in popularity in this period specifically? The

increase in Rome's population and the deplorable living conditions of the plebs may account in

part for the phenomenon, but the evidence reviewed in the previous chapter suggests that not

only the number of baths. but also their prominence in daily life increased over the 1st century

BC. Why?

BaJhs and medicine

An answer is at hand. It seems that, in later sources at least. baths and medicine enjoyed
a close association. The sources break their general silence regarding reasons for bathing when

they recommend the baths as preservers or restorers of health (or both). People went to the

baths because they felt it was good for them, because it was healthy. This surely represents a

very direct and understandable explanation for bath popularity.32

There are four types of evidence for the persistent connection between baths and

medicine, some deriving from the 1st century BC: the recommending of bathing by medical

writers; references to bathing as a healthy activity in non-technical authors; the prevalence of

health-associated deities in bath decoration; and the possibility that doctors worked at the baths.

31 Cf. below, p. 235.

32 Compare, for instance, the situation in 19th-century America. Here, the popularity of hydropathy in
the 1840s and 1850s provided a tremendous stimulus for the regular bathing habit, cf. WILLIAMS, Washing, pp.
12-13.
IV] 152

Medical writers constantly recommend taking or avoiding baths, either hot or cold, not

only as remedies for all sorts of ailments but also --more interestingly -- for the maintenance of

health. The vast corpus of Galen's writings is peppered with references to baths and bathing

for medical purposes.33 Galen was, of course, writing in the 2nd century AD when baths were

already well established in Roman society, but 1st-century AD authors such as Cornelius

Celsus, Scribonius Largus and Pliny the Elder, anticipate him in recommending baths for

medical reasons. So, for instance, Celsus, writing during the reign of Tiberius, refers to baths

56 times in a remedial connection, 11 times in a preventive one. The range of ailments for

which baths are prescribed is impressive: fevers, inflamed intestines, liver complaints, small

pustules, eye complaints and, rather distressingly, diarrhoea, to take but a cross-section. 34

Antonius Musa, a follower of Asclepiadean practices, used cold bath treatments on members of

the Imperial house with varying success. 35 It is reported that Hadrian reserved certain hours at

the public baths at Rome for the ill, which reflects the popular perception of their therapeutic

value. 36

Whatever the remedial benefits of baths, their perceived preventive value is of more

interest. Celsus sketches the Roman gentleman's health regimen, or at least that which a doctor

might prescribe. If for some reason a man has become fatigued, to maintain health he should

33 No collection of such references exists, but they feature particularly heavily in the De sanitate tuer!da
(6.1-452 Kuhn). Note also that Libanius had baths prescribed for him by his doctors, cf. Or., 1.200.
34 Cf. Celsus, 2.17.2-10, 3.6.13-14, 3.12.3-4 (fevers); 1.7.1 (inflamed intestine); 4.15.4 (liver
complaints); 5.28.15d (small pustules); 6.6.17, 27d, 34b, 38 (eye patients); 4.27.2 (diarrhoea). The unpleasant
picture all this paints for the hygienic conditions in at least some public baths is graphically presented by A.
SCOBIE, "Slums, Sanitation and Mortality in the Roman World," Klio 68 (1986), 399-433, esp. 425-427. For
a discussion of the physical conditions at the baths, cf. below, pp. 245-256. For Celsus' date, cf. RE 4.1273­
1276, s.v. "Cornelius" (no. 82) [Wellmann].
35 He cured Augustus in 23 BC (Pliny NH, 25.77; Dio 53.30.3, Hor. Epist., 1.15), but was less
successful with Marcellus a few years later (Dio 53.30.4).
36 HA, Hadr., 22.7: ante octavam horam in publico neminem nisi aegrum lavari passus est. It is not
clear to how many or to what sort of baths this regulation applied, cf. below, pp. 252-254 for a fuller discussion
of the sick and healthy at the baths. It might be argued that the regulation aimed at protecting the healthy, but if
so, such an attitude has no basis in surviving literature: no writer, medical or non-medical, suggests separate
bathing for the sick. The real point to note is that the restriction shows sick people were attending the public
baths in such numbers to justify the regulation. There is no reason to doubt the HA's trustworthiness in
reporting this, cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 51, 71-72 where she questions its veracity.
IV] 153

rest a while, then take a bath or, in its absence, instead warm himself either by a fire or in the

sun.37 Bathing, in fact, was part of the dietetics of the classical world which also included

recommendations for diet and exercise. It had a heritage stretching back to Hippocrates,

although the role of bathing only became prominent in the Roman period.38

That medical ideas such as these filtered into the lay population is provable at least for the

upper classes. Even someone as ostensibly inimical to baths on moral grounds as Seneca can

acknowledge their medicinal value. 39 Many other authors also express the belief that bathing

was conducive to health, most notably for our immediate purposes Cicero. 40 What is more,

Pliny the Younger, when describing the daily routine at his Tuscan villa as well as the regimen

of his model, Spurinna, follows more or less exactly the prescriptions set down by Celsus

outlined above. 41 These references in lay authors to the health-promoting qualities of bathing

constitute the second type of evidence for a connection between baths and medicine. 42

37 Celsus, 1.2 and 1.3.4-5, cf. 1.3.9-10, 32. Also note Apul. Met., 1.6 where a character takes a bath
precisely to relieve fatigue, cf. ibid. 1.23; 5.15; 8.7.
38 Cf L. EDELSTEIN, "The Dietetics of Antiquity," in 0. & C.L. TEMKIN, Ancient Medicine:
Selected Papers ofLudwig Edelstein (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1967), pp. 303-316. A comprehensive
study of baths and bathing in ancient medicine is lacking, but for introductory surveys, cf. M.T. FONTANILLE,
"Les bains dans Ia medicine greco-romaine" in A. PELLETIER (ed.), La Medicine en Gaule: vi lies d'eau.x,
sanctuaires des eau.x (Paris; Picard, 1985), pp. 15-22; R. GROS, "Les thermes dans Ia Rome antique," Histoire
des Sciences Medicates 21 (1987), 45-50; as well as the outlines found in the general works by J.
SCARBOROUGH, Roman Medicine (London: Thames & Hudson, 1969), pp. 76-93; R. JACKSON, Doctors
and Diseases in the Roman Empire (London: B.M. Publications, 1988), pp. 48-50.
39 Ep., 95.22: anti qui medici ... nesciebant sanguinem mittere et diutinam aegrotationem balneo
sudoribusque laxore ... ; cf. 22.1: non potest medicus per epistulas cibi aut balinei tempus eligere; vena tangenda
est; 68.7: ii, quorum pedes dolor repetit, aut vi no aut balineo abstinent.
40 Fam., 14.20.1: labrum si in balineo non est, ut sit; item cetera quae sunt ad ~ictum et ad
valetudinem necessaria (to his wife Terentia, 1 Oct., 47 BC). There are many other passing references in other
authors to the value to health of hot water, sweating and heat (all of which were obtained at the baths), for
instance: Suet., Aug., 82.2; Pliny Ep., 2.8.2, 7.26.2; Plut., Mor., 42B, 122B-137E passim, 956F; Athen.,
2.45d; HA, Tyr. Trig., 12.7. Note also that in books 20 to 35 of Pliny the Elder's NH there are 38 references to
baths in medicine.
4! Ep., 9.36.3 (Pliny) and 3.1.7-8 (Spurinna); compare Celsus 1.2, 1.3.4-5, 9-10.
42 Of course, immoderate bathing, or bathing in certain circumstances, was considered dangerous to
health: e.g. Celsus 1.3.6-7; Pliny NH, 7.183 (eating after a bath); Sen. Dial., 6.22.6, 7.7.3; Pliny NH, 29.26;
Plut. Mor., 20A, 69B, Lye., 10.1-2; HA Comm., 11.5 (immoderate bathing injurious to health and promotes
weakness). The alleged effeminacy and enervation induced by warm bathing was a moralistic topos stretching
back to Classical Greece (cf. e.g. Aristoph. Clouds, 1044-6), cf. KYLE, Athletics, pp. 70-71; Romans, familiar
with their Greek predecessors, perpetuated it: e.g. Livy, 23.18.12; Plut. Mor., 785F Lye., 10.1-2; Dio 27.94.2,
62.6.4; HA Av. Cass., 5.5, Pesc. Nig., 3.10, Sev. Alex., 53.2.
IV] 154

The third is provided by their decoration. In Manderscheid's 1981 catalogue of

surviving sculpture from baths, statues of Asclepius and Hygieia, often found in conjunction,
come third in frequency after Aphrodite and Herakles. 43 More recently, he seems to have
changed this opinion, stating that the most common gods found in baths were Asclepius and
Hygieia, followed by Bacchus and Venus. 44 Whatever the case with regard to exact numbers, it
seems clear enough that for at least those parts of the empire which have yielded a significant

quantity of bath statuary the healing deities Asclepius and Hygieia feature prominently. Because
sculpture did not become common in baths until the 1st century AD, and most dates to the
following century, this Asclepian sculpture from baths should be dated for the most part to the

2nd century AD. 45 Of all the statues so far known to have once stood in the Baths of Caracalla
in Rome, by far the largest was a gilded colossus of Asclepius, of which only the head remains,
and which was probably accompanied by an equivalent statue of Hygieia, now lost. 46 Lucian's

description of a bath names specifically only these two deities as part of the decoration expected
there. 47 In addition, these deities, and others associated with health-promoting properties,
feature in late Imperial bath mosaic decoration and epigrams.48 Finally in this connection,

4 3 H. MANDERSCHEID, Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thennenanlagen (Berlin: Gebr.

Mann, 1981), the table between pp. 34 and 35: Herakles, 71 examples; Aphrodite et al, 54 examples; Asclepius
and Hygieia, 43 examples. Note that the list comprises for the most part baths not found in Asclepian
sanctuaries; bathing played a major role in the cult's ritual (cf. Ch. 1, n. 46). His catalogue is not definitiw,
deriving its data from North Africa, Asia Minor and Italy, as these places have yielded the most numerous
examples of bath sculpture. It is therefore uncertain to what extent his findings can be applied to the whole
empire. Despite this, his figures are noteworthy. Hygieia, a mythical daughter of Asclepius, wa<; long associated
with her father, though she enjoyed her own worship as well, cf. H. SOBEL, Hygieia. Die Gottin der Gesundheit
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), esp. pp. 9-12.
44 H. MANDERSCHEID, "Romische Thermen. Aspekte von Architektur, Technik und Ausstattung"
in Geschichte der Wasserversorgung, Band 3: Die Wassen•ersorgung antiker Stiidte (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1988),
pp. 101-125, esp. p. 120.
45 Cf. MANDERSCHEID, Skulpturen., pp. 80-89 and table between pp. 10 and 11. He says (p. 9)
that 70% of all known bath sculpture dates to the 2nd century AD. Because he provides no dates for individual
catalogue entries, it is not possible to determine whether Asclepius and Hygieia were popular in baths from the
outset or became so at some later date, cf. ibid., pp. 66-131.
46 M. MARVIN, "Freestanding Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla," AJA 87 (1983), 347-384, esp.
363-364. The head is 49cm high, and the original statue estimated at 4m.
47 Hippias, 5.
48 Cf. DUNBABIN, PBSR 57 (1989), 6-46, esp. 12-33. Most of the material reviewed here is late
Imperial.
IV] 155

inscriptions record the setting up of statues of Asclepius and Hygieia in bathhouses, or their part
in ensuring that water healed thankful dedicators; one tells of the restoration of a bath to fulfil an
oath to the healing god.49 It is clear that the baths were strongly associated with these two
deities, and so with health and healing.

The final, most direct indication of a connection between baths and ancient medicine is
the possibility that doctors practised at the baths. It is known that medical masseurs (iatraliptae)
could be found there, as could other staff, 50 but there are no direct references to physicians
actually working at the baths in the literary or epigraphic sources. 51 The evidence for their
presence comes rather from archaeology. In a small room at Xanten's main bathhouse, five
medical instruments, including two scalpels, were found in a deposit dated to the late 3rd
century AD. 52 This has been taken to indicate that not only was a doctor present, but that he
performed complex operations. Other instruments of a possibly medical function have been
found in the Barbarathermen in Trier, and at Weissberg in Bavaria, but many could have been
for cosmetic rather than medical use. This cannot be said in the case of a collyriwn, an oculist's
unguent and instrument box, found at the Barbarathermen and inscribed with the name of its
owner, C. Attius Victorinus.53 Such collyria are also known from several thermal sites in Gaul,

-------------
49 E.g. JLS 9259a: Aesculapiu[m] I L. Acilius I Granianus I L. Iulio Ianullrio socero suo at
exorlnatione[m] I balinei I dono dedit. ILS 9259b has precisely the same wording except that it begins "Hygiam."
Both texts are undated. That the statues are given "as a present" to a relative for the adornment of baths would
imply that we are here dealing with a private establishment. Cf. ILS 3846, 5461, IRT 396, JGBulg. 3.2.1664;
and note IGLS 4.1685 where' Yy£a. is present even in a Christian inscription; see also BE 1961, no. 805. JRT
263 (=AE 1925.1 05), from Lepcis Magna, where we read of cur(atores) refectionis thermarum ter[ ... ] I deo
Aesculapio v(otum) s(oluerunt).
50 LSJ (s.v.) defines a ta. Tpa.A. El TITT)$' as a "surgeon who practises by anointing, friction and the
like." Pliny NH, 29.5 reports that such treatment was first devised by Prodicus, a disciple of Hippocrates. L.
ROBERT (BE 1976.661) connects the practice with gymnasia in 4th-century BC Greece, so its transference to the
related environment of the Roman bath would seem natural enough. See further, M. WISSEMANN, "Das
Personal des antiken romischen Bad," Glotta 62 (1984), 80-89, esp. 88; cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 126-129;
NIELSEN, Therm., 1.128-131.
51 Indeed their absence from people found at the baths mentioned in Seneca's celebrated description
(Ep., 56.1-2) may be noted.
52 E. KUNZL, "Operationsraume in romischen Thermen," Bonner Jahrb. 186 (1986), 491-509.
53 Cf. ibid., 495-498.
IV] 156

indicating that eye doctors at least could be found at such places. 54 Finally, some teeth from the

baths at Caerleon in Wales may have been the result of dental surgery, but this remains open to

question. 55

The proposition that doctors worked at the baths thus has some support in archaeology,

though it is rather thin and, so far, confined to frontier or military establishments. Furthermore,

determining a common, empire-wide practice on the basis of five instruments in a small room in

a set ofbaths in Germany, and some possibly medically related implements elsewhere, would be

hasty to say the least. Since it is unclear how the instruments came to be deposited in the room

at the Xanten baths, claims that this was an operating theatre lack certainty. There is only the

possibility. As no medical finds have turned up at the major bath sites in Rome or Italy (notably

the Campanian towns buried by Vesuvius), it remains uncertain how widespread the practice of

doctors working at the baths may have been. 56

Despite these problems with the evidence, the proposition that they did so is given added

weight by some general considerations. In the absence of hospitals on the modem model, the

question of where ancient doctors saw their patients and performed complex operations has

proven a vexing one. That they operated on patients at home is unlikely, as most people lived in

small, cramped and crowded apartments, lacking running water and abounding with possible

distractions for the doctor (in any case, such people may not have been able to afford a

54 Cf. C. SALlES, "Les cachets d'oculistes" in PELlETIER, Med. en Gaule, pp. 89-102, cf. also C.
BOURGEOIS & E. SIKORA, "Medecine des yeux dans la sanctuaire de l'eau de Pouille (Loir-et-Cher)" in ibid.,
pp. 103-110.
55 Three of the teeth were from children (i.e. the first "milk" dentition), while two were from adults;
they were found in deposits in the drain of the .frigidarium covering 3 periods, from the 1st to the 4th centuries
AD. According to the dentist who examined them, all may have been lost naturally, and none show signs of
having been subjected to instruments, cf. J.D. ZIENKIENWICZ, The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon II:
The Finds (Cardiff; Welsh Historic Monuments, 1986), p. 223.
56 While baths could be found in Asclepieia, there is no evidence that physicians practised there, or that
they took part in temple healings at all (cf. EDELSTEIN, Asclepius, ll.l58). For temple medicine at
Asclepieia, cf. ibid., ll.138-180.
IV] 157

"professional" doctor in the flrst place). 57 Treatment at the doctor's house is another possibility,

but unproven: nothing in the ground-plan of proposed doctors' houses (e.g the Houses of the

Surgeon, Apollo, Centaur, or Doctor at Pompeii) suggests treatment rooms; rather, the houses

have the same lay-out as any other domestic dwelling. The identification instead relies on finds

of medical instruments on the premises. 58 Because, as will be seen below, medical knowledge

was a standard (if not expected) element of a Roman gentleman's education, these flnds of

medical instruments in apparently normal dwellings may be little more than Roman first-aid kits,

and so not indicative of the presence of a "professional" doctor at all. 59 However, that treatment

in a doctor's house was not unknown is indicated by a reference in Plautus,60 but that it was a

regular and widespread feature of Roman medical treatment requires more proof. Finally, the

tabemae medicinae or iatreia which doctors used as workplaces appear from surviving testimony

to have been little more than consultation rooms, and not places for performing complicated

operations.61

57 Cf. KUNZL, Bonner Jahrb., 186 (1986), 491; it must be said that the dimensions of the proposed
operating theatre at the Xanten baths hardly compensate in terms of size for operating on a patient at}wme, and
the baths would hardly be a quieter or less distracting environment in which a doctor could work. KUNZL (495)
says that the Hadrianic decree setting aside certain hours at the baths for the sick would clear the place of
distractions: at these times doctors could work in quiet. This sounds like special pleading, as it is not clear if the
regulation was empire-wide (cf. above, n. 36; below, pp. 253-254). For the absence of hospitals in the Roman
world, cf. R. HARIG, "Zum Problem 'Krankenhaus' in der Antike," Klio 53 (1971), 179-195. Doctors could,
however, make house calls, as Mart. 5.9 clearly shows, though no serious surgery was required in this case (cf.
below, n. 104).
58 Cf. H. ESCHEBACH, Die Arzthiiuser in Pompeji (Antike Welt, Sonderheit 15, 1984). All the
houses he lists as Artzhiiuser are identified by finds of medical, or possibly medical, instruments, cf. the catalogue
pp. 6-66. The examples cited above are covered on pp. 6-10 (Surgeon), 10-14 (Apollo), 26-38 (Centaur), 38-41
(Doctor). He does propose the existence of "Kliniken" at Pompeii on the basis of certain medical finds in the
House of the New Doctor I (pp. 45-47) and the House of Acceptus and Euhodia (p. 50). That patients were treated
at doctors' houses, indeed the very identification of such houses, is doubted with some justification by HARIG,
Klio 53 (1971) pp. 186-187. Even ESCHEBACH admits these difficulties, cf. ibid., pp. 3, 6.
59 When I made this point in conversation with R. Jackson, he pointed out that many of the
instruments were designed for use in serious surgery, and so less likely to be the property of the average
household owner. Of course, this position assumes that performing complex surgery was restricted to a
"professional" class of doctors, which may not have been the case at all in the ancient world, cf. below, pp. 172­
174. .
60 Men., 946-950: Sen: obsecro hercle, medice, propere, quidquid facturu's face. I non vides hominem
insanire? I Med: sdn quid fadas optimum est? ad me face uti deferatur. I Sen: itane censes? I Med: quippini? ibi
meo potero curare hominem.
61 Cf. HARIG, Klio 53 (1971) 182-186.
IV] 158

In the absence of defmite centres of medical treatment, then, the baths certainly offer

themselves as a natural alternative. Not only was running water available there, but their

prominence in Roman medical thinking, as noted above, would make them likely theatres for

medical activity.62

In short, it is certainly possible that doctors practised at the baths. A little archaeological

evidence, backed by some general considerations, make this possibility somewhat stronger, but

whether it was a regular and widespread practice remains to be established. Given the nature of

the evidence -- finds of medical instruments in baths -- we cannot really hope for decisive proof

in this regard.

Such are the general factors that can be seen as contributing to the growth of the

popularity of baths in the 1st century BC. Social, economic and technological developments in

the period created an environment that facilitated and contributed to an increase in public bathing,

but do not in themselves explain why specifically baths were built. The association of baths and

medicine offers a clue: if people thought it was healthy to frequent the baths, it would be natural

to find them in demand. However, the evidence so far adduced derives largely from the

Imperial period. To uncover the origins of the medicinal bath precept among the Romans, we

have to look back into the late Republic, to the growth of "professional" medicine in Roman

society, and in particular to the career and doctrines of one physician who gained great fame in

the city in the late 2nd/early 1st century BC, Asclepiades of Bithynia. In so doing, the reader

will do well to keep the later connection between baths and medicine in mind.

62 Thus JACKSON, Doctors, p. 48 (but cf. pp. 65-67 where he omits the baths from his description of
places of treatment); cf. his recent comments in "Roman Doctors and their Instruments: Recent Research into
Ancient Practice," JRA 3 (1990), 5-27, esp. 11 where baths are considered natural workplaces for ancient doctors.
IV] 159

(ii) Asclepiades of Bithynia and the growth of bath popularity

Pliny the Elder, in his scathing indictment of Greek medicine at Rome, asserts that the Roman
people had lived for 600 years without physicians until Greek-style medicine started to wreak its
exorbitant havoc among them. 63 This traditional Roman medicine, as discernible in the further
writings of Pliny as well as in Cato, Columella and Varro, was marked by a self-help approach
within the household, where the paterfamilias, alongside his other requisite skills, had to have
knowledge of medicine for curing the herds and members of his familia. 64 The main method of
treatment was herbal, accompanied by magical and mystical elements designed to placate the

supernatural forces seen as the cause of illness.65

As contact with the Greek world increased in the 3rd century BC, Romans came into
contact with a medical system that had developed along entirely different lines to their own.
Here they encountered not only the developed healing cult of Asclepius, but also the Hippocratic
approach to healing. The latter was based on rational analysis founded in theory incorporating
observation, diagnosis and treatment. Roman reaction to Greek culture is too broad a topic to be
tackled in detail here, but we may note how it was the mystical aspect of Greek medicine that

63 Pliny NH, 29.1-28, esp. 11: ceu vero non milia gentium sine medicis degant nee tamen sine
medicine, sicuti p. R. ultra sexcentiesimum annum ... Cf. ibid., 29.28.
64 For what follows on early Roman medicine cf. SCARBOROUGH, Rom. Med., pp. 15-25;
JACKSON, Doctors, pp. 9-11.
65 It seems that the large collection of herbal remedies collected by Pliny NH, books 20-27, reflects in
no small measure aspects of this traditional Roman medical system. Pliny claims much of it derived from Cato
the Censor's commentarium of recipes which he used to treat his son (NH, 29.15). For Cato's antagonistic view
of Greek medicine, see below, n. 68. This may also be the case with some of Scribonius Largus's pharmaceutical
handbook, Compositiones, composed in AD 44-48, but the influence here of Greek pharmaceutics is not to be
ignored. For the date of the Compositiones, cf. S. SCONOCCHIA's introduction to the 1983 Teubner edition,
pp. v-viii.
IV] 160

ftrst gained acceptance at Rome, in the form of a temple of Asclepius on the island in the Tiber

(292 BC).66

After the introduction of the Asclepian cult, the Hippocratic system had to wait 73 years
before being represented at Rome: in 219 BC the Senate invited Archagathos the Peloponnesian
to live in the city, and provided him with a practice and a salary. Despite getting off to a good
start, Archagathos's brutal methods and fondness for the knife and cautery earned him the
nickname "The Executioner" (camijex) and he left Rome in disgrace, or so Pliny reports. After
this experience, Pliny continues, all physicians at Rome "became objects of loathing. "67
Although Pliny is most probably exaggerating the disrepute incurred by doctors due to
Archagathos's failure-- immediately after this statement, he launches into a diatribe against
Greek doctors in general, cuing it with an uncompromising quote from Cato the Censor68 -- it
must be said that there is no evidence for the presence of Greek doctors at Rome for most of the
2nd century BC.69 This does not of course mean they were entirely absent, but it would imply
that they maintained a low profile, or at least that none among them earned any great fame.

66 SCARBOROUGH, Rom Med., pp. 24-25. For the background of Greek medicine, ibid. pp. 26-37
and the survey ofE.D. PHILUPS, Greek Medicine (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973); more recently,
JACKSON, Doctors, pp. 12-31 provides a concise overview with reference to ancient and modern works.
67 NH, 29.12-13 (the career of Archagathos). The extremity of Pliny's views of Greek medicine at
Rome are examined and partially countered by V. NUITON, "The Perils of Patriotism: Pliny and Roman
Medicine," in R. FRENCH & F. GREENAWAY (edd.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder,
His Sources and Influence (London: Croom Helm, 1986), pp. 30-58; note esp. pp. 38-39 where Nutton
convincingly moderates the story of Archagathos. See also J.H. PHILUPS, "The Emergence of the Greek
Medical Profession in the Roman Republic," Trans. & Studies of CoiL ofPhysicians ofPhiladelphia N .S. 3
(1980), 267-275, esp. 269, although she takes a somewhat Plinian view of Archagathos's brief Roman career.
68 Cf. NH, 29.14: quandoque ista gens [i.e. Graeci] suas litteras dabit, omnia conrumpet, tum etiam
magis, si medicos suos hoc mittet. iurarunt inter se barbaros necare omnes medicina, et hoc ipsum mercede
faciunt ut fides is sit etfacile disperdant. nos quoque dictitant barbaros et spurcius nos quam alios opicon
appellatione foedant. interdixi tibi de medicis. Cf. the translation and discussion in A.E. ASTIN, Cato the
Censor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), pp. 170-171.
69 PHILLIPS, Trans. & Studies CoiL Ph. Phil., N.S. 3 (1980), 269, 271.
IV] 161

With Asclepiades of Bithynia the darkness brightens somewhat.7° Not much is known

about his life, but the date of his death is firmly ftxed by a reference in Cicero, where L.

Crass us, with whose circle Asclepiades was associated, is made to speak of him in the past

tense in a passage whose dramatic date is 91 BC.7 1 There can be no doubt that Cicero's

testimony is to be preferred above Pliny's vague statement that Asclepiades lived "in the time of

Pompey the Great," which would place him maybe thirty years later and which probably results

from a confusion with Asclepiades the grammarian.7 2 The earlier date also ftts with the story

that Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus invited Asclepiades to be his court physician, but was

refused.73 This is more likely to have taken place before Mithridates' relations with Rome

became irretrievably embittered about 90 BC and led to the First Mithridatic War (89-83 BC).

Asclepiades' city of origin was probably Prusias-on-the-sea in Bithynia.74

The question of Asclepiades' education is pertinent. Pliny's inimical account of his life

claims he was initially a teacher of rhetoric who suddenly turned to medicine out of a desire for

70 A comprehensive study of the life and works of Asclepiades, with a collection of his fragments, is so
far lacking, though the forthcoming article on Asclepiades in ANRW Il.37.i by J. T. VALLANCE will
undoubtedly fill this lacuna; the same author is preparing a complete collection of fragments, cf. J .T.
VALLANCE, The Lost Theory ofAsclpeiades ofBithynia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), p. 1, n. 2. In the absence
of these publications, we must make do with what is at hand. The main ancient source is again Pliny NH,
26.12-20 and some passing references elsewhere. Modern treatments, aside from accounts of his life and work in
the general books on Roman medicine noted above, are: RE 1.1632-1633, s.v. wAsk.lepiadesw (no. 39)
[Wellmann]; M. WELLMANN, "Ask.lepiades aus Bithynien von einem herrschenden Vorurteil befreit," Neue
Jahrbucher fordas klassische Altertum 21 (1908), 684-703; and RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982), 358-370.
71 de. Orat., 1.62: neque vero Asclepiades, is quo nos medico amicoque usi sumus tum cum eloquentia
vincebat ceteros medicos, in eo ipso, quod ornate dicebat, medicinae facultate utebatur, non eloquentiae. Cf.
RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982), 360-361. This observation had been made as long ago as the 18th century by A.
COCCHI, cf. the translation of his "Life of Asclepiades," R.M. GREEN, Asclepiades. His life and Writings
(New Haven: E. Licht, 1955), pp. 8-12. See also, WELLMANN, N. Jahrb. 21 (1908), 691.
72 NH, 26.12: aerate Magni Pompei. For Asclepiades the grammarian, cf. RE 2.1.1256-1257, s.v.
wAsklepiades" (no. 28) [Wentzel].
73 Pliny NH, 7.124. B. McGING, The Foreign Policy ofMithridates VI Eupator, King ofPontus
(Lei den; E.J. Brill, 1986), pp. 89-108 studies Mithridates' propaganda in the 90s BC and sets the invitation
against this background. In particular, he sees it as part of Mithridates's attempt to project an image of himself as
a patron of the arts and sciences, cf. ibid., p. 93.
74 WELLMANN, N. Jahrb. 21 (1908), 691 andRE 1.1632 places him at Prusa, but RAWSON, CQ
32 (1982), 359-360 argues convincingly for Prusias-on-the-sea.
N] 162

profit, although he had absolutely no training whatsoever in medical matters.7 5 At the other

extreme is the view held by W ellmann that he came from a medical family, and had extensive

training, gained in part by travels and study in Athens and Parion. 76 The truth may lie

somewhere in between. The nature of medical education in the ancient world, as will be seen,

was radically different from that common today, as it was more closely linked with what passed

for science in antiquity, i.e. physical philosophy. Asclepiades' teachings display derivation

from atomistic ideas, indicating some general training in that sphere, and his eloquence,

commented on acidly by Pliny but with appreciation by Cicero, bespeaks a rhetorical aspect to

his education. 77 That he had some medical training is really not to be doubted, but how broad

and deep this was is impossible to say.

Unfortunately, the precise details of Asclepiades' career at Rome remain uncertain. We

know for sure neither when he arrived nor how long he stayed, what brought him there, nor

how he came to be associated with L. Crassus. All these details would be revealing. It is,

however, possible to make an infonned guess as to the duration of his stay. Pliny records that

he died from a fall down stairs "in extreme old age" which, in Roman conditions, would mean

(say) his 70s.78 If he came to Rome as a youth, he may well have been there for the 50 years

envisaged by Cocchi,79 but his travels to Parion and Athens would surely have occupied him for

some time. If he came to Rome even relatively late in life, in his 40s or early 50s, he can still be

75 NH, 26.12. This account may in part be due to Pliny confusing Aslclepiades the grammarian with
Asclepiades the doctor, cf. above, n. 71.
76 WELI..MANN, N. Jahrb. 21 (1908) 689-691. Cf. the reservations of RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982),
365.
77 Cf. WELI..MANN, N. Johrb. 21 (1908), 684-687 (the philosophical background to Asclepiades'
theories) and 693-702 (Asclepiades theories); cf. more recently VAll.ANCE, Theory. On his eloquence, cf. Pliny
NH, 26.12-13 and Cic. de Orat., 1.62 where he is included among other eloquent exponents of technical matters,
and is said to have "overcome other doctors with his eloquence" (eloquentia vincebat ceteros medicos). On the
later connection between rhetoric and medicine, cf. G. BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists in tfu! Roman Empire
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), pp. 67-68.
78 Pliny NH, 7.124: supremo in senecta lapsu sea/arum examinatus.

79 Cf. GREEN, AsclepiaJes, p. 27.

IV] 163

reckoned to have spent about 20 years or more in the city. As his death occurred shortly before

91 BC he may reasonably be placed in Rome for the period c. 110- c. 91 BC, if not earlier.

A most important fact about Asclepiades' career for the current investigation is that he

achieved great fame at Rome in his lifetime. Pliny makes several allusions to this, as do some

other writers. Pliny goes so far as to claim that it was Asclepiades who was responsible for the

subversion of traditional Roman medicine, a view followed by many modern scholars. He goes

further: "Asclepiades brought around to his view almost all the human race, just as if he had

been sent as an apostle from heaven. "80 Strong testimony indeed. Even allowing for

exaggeration, there can be no doubt that Pliny perceived Asclepiades' fame as towering.

Celsus, Scribonius Largus and others all make mention of his fame and prominence among

doctors at Rome, and the very fact that his ideas were still being vilified centuries after his death

is testimony to his lasting posthumous influence. 81 This situation was helped in no small

measure by the prominence of Asclepiades' pupils and disciples after his death, notably

Themison of Laodicea, who extended and radicalized his teacher's ideas to found the Methodist

system of medicine, and Antonius Musa, who achieved fame by curing Augustus of a near-fatal

illness in 23 BC. 82

80 NH, 26.13 (Loeb trans.): universum prope humanum genus circwnegit in se non alio modo quam si
caelo demissus advenisset. Cf. NH, 7.124 where Asclepiades is the most famous doctor known to Pliny,
indicating that his fame was no short-lived phenomenon. See also Celsus, proem. 11 where Asclepiades is
responsible for changing Roman minds with regard to medicine. For modem views, cf. e.g. SCARBOROUGH,
Rom Med., pp. 38-42; PHILLIPS, Trans. & Studies Coil. Ph. Phil., N.S. 3 (1980), 271, 273; and H.M.
KOEBLING, "Le medecin dans Ia eire grecque," Gesnerus 46 (1989), 29-43, esp. 31.
81 Cf. Celsus 4.4.3, 4.9.2; Scribonius Largus, proem, 3; Apul. Florida, 19 (where Asclepiades is said
only to be superseded by Hippocrates himself); and Asclepiades' contemporary, Antiochos of Askalon in Sext.
Empir., adv. log., 1.201: E:v tcnptK~ OVOEVOS OEVTEpos. Cf. RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982), 358.
82 Cf. Cael. Aurel. Morb. Chron., 1.142, Morb. Acut., 2.37 (Tbemison a pupil of Asclepiades); Hor.
Epist., 1.15.3; Suet. Aug.• 59; Dio 53.30; Pliny NH, 25.77 (Musa; note that the doctor used hydrotherapy to
effect the cure of the princeps). Cf. A. KRUG, Heilkunst und Heilkult. Medizin in der Antike (Munich: C.H.
Beck, 1985), pp. 208-209 for a brief biography ofMusa, and RAWSON, Intellectual life, pp. 176-177 for
Aslcepiades' successors, esp. Tbemison.
IV] 164

So far it has been seen that Asclepiades of Bithynia worked at Rome, probably in the

late 2nd/early 1st century BC; that he had powerful and influential associates/ patrons (e.g. L.

Crassus); that he was responsible for successfully introducing Greek-style medicine to Rome;

and that, most importantly, he gained huge fame at Rome in his lifetime. All this provides the

essential background for what is the most instructive point about Asclepiades for the present

inquiry: he emphasized and advocated bathing as both a preventive and remedial measure against

illness.

Asclepiades' system of treatment was largely generated by his theory of physiology,

which we can treat briefly here, as fuller accounts have already been written. 83 Basically,

Asclepiades held a corpuscular notion of the human body and its ailments. He saw the body as

comprised of units called oyKot (corpuscles) which were separated by spaces or ducts called

n6pot (pores). The free movement of these units was what kept a person healthy, but
hindrance of their movement by over-widening or blocking of the pores caused illness. In such

a system as this, the effects of hot and cold, dry and wet -- fundamental elements long held by

philosophers and doctors as having an effect on matter -- are obvious. Should the pores be too

wide, cold water would help close them; should they be too narrow, sweating and hot water

would help open them. The baths provided the perfect environment for procuring the desired

climate: hot or cold, dry or wet. 84

The plainest and most direct expression of Asclepiades' emphasis on baths in his

treatments occurs in Celsus. After commenting on the usefulness of baths for treating fevers,

83 The most complete is VALLANCE, Theory. For earlier accounts, cf. WELLMANN, N. Jahrb. 21
(1908), 693-702; G. HARIG, "Die philosophische Grundlagen des medizinischen Systems des Asklepiades von
Bithynien," Philologus 43 (1983), 43-60; RAWSON, Intellectual life, pp. 172-174. Note also that among
Asclepiades' writings was a work entitled Salutaria Praecepta (Cael. Aurel., Morb. Acut., 1.112). Like all of his
writings, this is now lost. It would be interesting to know what Asclepiades had to say here with regard to the
preventive qualities of bathing.
84 Cf. FONTANILLE, in PELLETIER, MetL en Gaule, pp. 15-17.
IV] 165

Celsus adds: "The ancients used it [i.e. the bath] more timidly, Asclepiades more boldly."8 5

Pliny elucidates, albeit with strong negative overtones. He tells us that one of the reasons for

Asclepiades' success at Rome was the pleasant nature of his therapies, among which featured "a

system of hydropathy, which appeals to people's greedy love of baths, and many other things

pleasant and delightful to speak of ... "86 This hydropathy included cold-water treatment -­

indeed Varro, quoted by Pliny, says Asclepiades liked to be called "Dr. Coldwater-Giver. "87

Asclepiades is also reported to have used pensilia balnea, which Pliny labels " a treatment of

infinite attractiveness. "88 Other aspects of his treatments included wine-drinking, swinging

beds, diet control, carriage rides and exercise.

Asclepiades' use of the baths deserves closer scrutiny. The problem of what the term

"hanging baths" means has already been discussed in connection with the activities of C.

Sergius Orata, where it was (tentatively) decided that it denotes heated tanks of some sort89

This would fit with what we know of Asclepiades' therapies, which involved hydropathy,

sweating, and hot water, all elements of balnea.90 J. Benedum explains why Asclepiades is

known in the sources as a cold-water doctor, but not explicitly as a hot-water one.9I He argues

that we do not hear of Asclepiades' hot-water treatments in other medical writers precisely

because they were generally accepted and in widespread use. Ancient medical authors, like their

counterparts in other fields, were given to sharp polemic against both predecessors and

85 Celsus, 2.17.3: antiqui timidius [sc. ba/neo J utebantur, Asclepiades audacius. That Celsus is here
talking about hot baths is clear from ibid., 2.17 .1-2.
86 NH, 26.14: iam balneas a\'idissima hominum cupidine instituendo et alia multa dictu grata atque
iucunda . . . Note here in passing that mankind is considered naturally inclined to baths.
87 NH, 26.14: ipse cognomina se frigida danda praeferens, ut auctor est M Varro.
88 NH, 26.16: tum primum pensi/i balinearum usu ad infinitum blandiente.
89 Cf. above, pp. 24-29. As mentioned above (p. 28), Orata and Asclepiades were both associated with
L. Crassus, so some connection between them with regard to the pensilia balnea is plausible, if not likely,
although it is impossible to be precise about it: cf. RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982), 361.
90 Celsus, 2.17.1-3, where it is expressly said (2.17.3, cited above, n. 85) that Asclepiades emphasized
baths in his treatments. Asclepiadean remedial methods are reflected in some ofCelsus's therapies, e.g. 1.3.9-10
(hot and cold bathing, wine drinking, sweating and eating). BENEDUM, Gesnerus 24 (1967), 93-107, arguing
that pensilia balinea are hypocausts, comes to the same conclusion.
91 BENEDUM, Gesnerus 24 (1967), 102-106.
IV] 166

contemporaries. If an author mentioned another doctor it was usually to criticize him and,

conversely, any remedies prescribed were presented in such a way that they appeared to be the

author's own; there was no acknowledgement of contributions made by others to the field.

Benedum uses Caelius Aurelianus (jl. c. AD 450) as an example. This writer frequently

prescribes Asclepiadean remedies (including hot baths), but never mentions their source-- the

impression is that they are Caelius's own therapies. His polemics against Asclepiades are

instead aimed at other treatments, i.e. treatments Caelius himself would not use.92 Benedum

concludes that, despite the predominant silence of the sources, Asclepiades' remedies often

included as much hot as cold hydrotherapy.

Although he employs an argwnentwn e silentio, I believe Benedum is correct. To his

negative evidence can be added the positive reference in Celsus that shows Asclepiades to have

employed baths (balnea, which usually denotes hot baths) "more boldly" than his predecessors.

Caelius Aurelianus himself says at one point that Asclepiades was known as a heating and

cooling doctor and that his pupil, Themison, whom Caelius criticizes harshly, was not rid of his

master's precepts, among which was bathing.93 Pliny the Elder's comments about

Asclepiades' use of "hanging baths" in a context that implies hot baths, would add further

confirmation that the Bithynian used such baths extensively in his treatment system, and was

remembered for doing so. The problem of the meaning of pensiles balineae plays a role here,

but in the case of Asclepiades' use of them, the only convincing interpretation is that they were

heated baths of some sort, possibly only tanks. In fact, as has been suggested above, it is

possible that it was Asclepiades, and not Sergius Orata, who first applied them to human

bathing.94

92 Cf. ibid., 103-104 which cites the pertinent passages of Caelius. For Caelius's date etc., cf. RE
3.1.1256-1258, s.v. "Caelius" (no. 18) [Wellmann].
93 Cael. Aur., Morb. Acut., 2.231, 237; cf. Morb. Chron., 1.142, 179.
94 Cf. above, p. 28.
IV] 167

To sum up. Asclepiades of Bithynia advocated a type of medical treatment, both

remedial and preventive, that placed great emphasis on hot and cold water treatments and

sweating, in short, on use of the baths as they already existed at Rome. When this is added to

what is known about Asclepiades' career-- his presence in Rome for maybe two decades, and

the great fame he acquired there -- a possibility begins to emerge. Did Asclepiades' medical

precepts emphasizing bathing induce the Romans to bathe more frequently. and do so in such a

way as to give added impetus to the growth of bath popularity? Even if it did, how broad a

diffusion could his message have attained among the Roman population, and how great could

his influence have been?

(iii) The role of Asclepiades?

One of the major problems in putting Asclepiades into perspective is the lack of a clearly defined

cause-and-effect relationship between his actions and the growth of bath popularity. Did

Asclepiades initiate the process, or did he adapt his medical precepts to a trend he saw already in

progress around him? Did he act alone in advocating baths, or were others in his profession

doing likewise? Straight, documented answers to these questions cannot be offered. That said,

what slim evidence there is -- and is not -- allows a convincing answer to at least the first

question, and would seem to indicate that Asclepiades was a contributor to, rather than the

initiator of, the growth of bath popularity.

In the first place, had baths become truly popular only in the wake of Asclepiades'

career, some notice to this effect could reasonably be expected in the sources, e.g. the anti-bath

diatribes of Seneca, or the anti-Asclepiadean passages in Pliny. This is not the case. Although
IV] 168

this is an argument from silence, it is a telling one. Furthermore, Pliny provides some positive
testimony. When mentioning Asclepiades' use of baths, he says that such treatment "appealed
to people's greedy love of baths. "95 The implication is that bathing was already popular among
the Romans, but Asclepiades' prescriptions offered a convenient rationalization for the practice,
and may have encouraged it. This fits with our previous fmdings, demonstrating a place for
baths in Roman daily life from the late 3rd/early 2nd century BC. It has also been seen that
baths were not a particularly common feature of Greek urban life, nor of Greek medicine,
though they were known to both. This suggests that Asclepiades' emphasis on bathing in his
precepts for health, while of course stemming in a large measure from the corpuscular nature of
his physiological theory, may be seen at least in part as a response to conditions he encountered
at Rome. There may even have been an element of cunning: advising the Romans to do more of
what he saw they enjoyed doing in the first place would have helped ensure his wide popularity.

A further positive point can be added. The growth in bath popularity in the 1st century
BC, so far as it can be discerned from a frustratingly small evidential base, seems to have been
gradual rather than sudden, and certain general conditions of the age can be seen to have
contributed to the process.% In view of this, Asclepiades' influence cannot have been
dramatically decisive. The question is rather one of degree. As E. Rawson has stated, "There is
a case for arguing that the most influential Greek thinker at work in Rome in the first century BC
was the doctor Asclepiades of Bithynia. "97 While this may be true for the elite, it cannot
unfortunately be proven for Asclepiades' role in assisting the baths' entry into popular culture.
But given what we have seen of Asclepiades' career and medical doctrines, his influence should
not be discounted entirely. In attempting to demonstrate that influence, it is necessary to sketch
the nature of ancient medicine. It will be seen that the "profession" as it existed in Roman

95 NH, 26.14 (cf. above, n. 86 for text).

96 Cf. above, Chapter 3 (growth) and pp. 144-158 (general factors).

97 Intellectual Life, p. viii

IV] 169

times, combined with the pre-industrial conditions of the ancient world's largest city, make it

entirely possible that Asclepiades' ideas reached the lower classes of the city.

There is no doubt that, in general, medical thinking could influence social behaviour in

the ancient world as well as the modern. With reference to bathing practices in particular, Pliny

tells how the doctor Charmis of Massilia (who was a contemporary of Seneca) advocated taking

only cold baths so that even in the depths of winter "We used to see old men, ex-consuls,

actually frozen stiff in order to show off ... "98 This refers to upper-class behaviour. Could

the lower classes too have been influenced by medical precepts current among their social

superiors? Four interconnected characteristics of ancient medicine in particular make this a

distinct possibility: public presentations by doctors; the unspecialized nature of ancient medical

education; the lack of controls on physicians; and the dissemination of medical knowledge.

It was common among Hellenistic doctors to give public presentations in the form of

lectures, demonstrations or discussions. This was because most of the profession's

representatives were wandering practitioners, as had been the case in Classical Greece, and open

lectures were one method of attracting attention, and so patients, in a new city. 99 This tradition

98 NH, 29.10: videbamus senes consulares usque in ostentationem rigentes. . . People bathing
moderately for medical reasons are also attested in the sources: Suet. Aug., 82.2; Pliny Ep., 3.5.8; Petron.
Satyr., 130; HA Sev. Alex., 30.4-5. See also above, p. 153 where the penetration of medical precepts concerning
baths into upper class culture has been noted. Pliny complains (NH, 29.26) that doctors have persuaded "us"
(meaning, presumably, the Romans) to anoint themselves when heathly and take "boiling baths" (balineae
ardentes). For Charmis, cf. RE 3.2175, s.v. "Charmis" [Wellmann]. Here he is said to be a contemporary of
Nero.
99 The best evidence comes from the inscription discussed in BE 1958, no. 336 where an Istrian doctor,
Diokles son of Artemidoros, on the strength of his public lectures at Cyzicus, is appointed public doctor there in
the 2nd century BC. On lectures, presentations and the like, cf. Dio Chrys. Or., 33.6; Plut. Mor., 71A; lib. Or.
1.55; H.M. KOEBLING, Ant und Patient in der Antike (Munich: Artemis, 1977), pp. 132-133, 136-138; and
SCARBOROUGH, Rom. Med., 27-28. Doctors were not alone in giving open or public lectures: philosophers,
historians and other knowledgeable persons had long done so in Greek cities, cf. the references in BE Joe. cit. for
lectures by grammarians, philosophers and architect; cf. also Athen., Deipn., 3.98c. The public lectures of
Carneades in Rome in 155 BC have already been mentioned (above, p. 150). On the itinerant nature of the
IV] 170

continued into the Roman period. In particular, it is clear that Asclepiades gave lectures at
Rome.IOO But vital questions remain unanswered: where were these lectures held? who
attended them? for how long during his stay in Rome did Asclepiades deliver them? If, as
seems likely, these presentations followed the Hellenistic model, or were similar to those
delivered later by Galen at Rome, they would have been very much open affairs delivered in
some public place. 101 If the general populace could and did attend such lectures, they would
represent a very direct way for medical ideas to filter into the populace. However, that the plebs
did attend, or would have understood what was being said even if they had, remains unsure.
For the moment, though, it seems fair to suggest that these public lectures, even if only attended
by representatives of the elite, would have allowed Asclepiades' medical precepts to reach a
broader public than if he had merely treated patients.

The next characteristic of ancient medicine that deserves attention is the laxity of
educational standards that pertained for medical practitioners. 102 Despite the existence of
recognized centres of medical learning, such as Kos, Knidos, Smyrna or Alexandria, there was
no compulsion or requirement that practitioners undergo "professional" training there or
anywhere else: institutions for dispensing proofs of competence (such as degrees) were
unknown.I03 Training (where it existed at all) by practical apprenticeship with less emphasis on

ancient doctor, cf. PHILLIPS, Greek Med., 182-196 or more recently, KOEBLING, Gesnerus, 46 (1989), 173­
176. This seems to have been a feature of the profession right from the start: cf. Herodotus, 3.125, 129-38 for
the story of Demokedes, the 6th/5th century doctor who moved from Croton to Aegina to Samos to the Persian
court and back to Croton in the course of his career, the earliest recorded.
IOO Cic. de Orat., 1.62 and Pliny NH, 26.12 refers to his eloquence displayed in lectures, so
RAWSON, CQ 32 (1982), 364; ibid. Intellectual life, pp. 51-53.
IOI Note that the Istrian doctor's lectures at Cyzicus were given in the gymnasium there (which would
presumably mean to the gentry), cf. above, n. 99. For Galen's lectures at Rome, cf. Galen de libr. Prop., 2
(19.16-35 Kuhn).
I02 For ancient medical education, cf. J. KOLLESCH, • Arztliche Ausbildung in der Antike," Klio 61
(1979), 507-513; KRUG, Heilkunst, pp. 190-193; SCARBOROUGH, Rom. Med., pp.l22-133; JACKSON,
Doctors, p& 58-60.
1 3 For the fame of these places, cf./GR 3.534, 4.1087 and below, n. 105. Galen, who spent twelve
years training, and in the process visited Smyrna, Corinth and Alexandria, appears to have been the exception to
the rule: cf. G. SARTON, Galen ofPergamon (Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1954), pp. 15-24, esp. 17­
19. Here Sarton insists upon using the misleading terms "undergraduate" and "graduate" (pp. 18,30 and 40),
although such words carry connotations of specialization and academic training entirely absent from ancient
IV] 171

philosophical theory was more common.104 As a result, a doctor's success depended more on
his reputation for effectiveness than on his educational pedigree though, of course, a physician
coming from one of the famed medical centres might enjoy something of an edge over
competitors.1os Medical education was thus not specialized, and the scope, depth and
comprehensiveness of a doctor's education depended entirely on himself, as is clearly shown by
the assertion ofThessalos ofTralles, living in Nero's day, that six months was sufficient
education for a doctor.106

This leads to a third point: there were no controls on who practised healing in the ancient
world. Pliny can complain, with some justification, that "the medical profession is the only one
in which anybody professing to be a physician is at once trusted, although nowhere else is an
untruth more dangerous. "107 Note that the term "physician" here includes self-professed
practitioners. V. Nutton has shown that the only requirement for being a doctor was that one
participated in healing; anybody who claimed to be a healer, employing whatever means, was
entitled to style himself "doctor. "1°8 One result of this situation was an abundance of quacks,

medical education. KRUG, Heilkunst, p. 192 is very much in the minority in asserting Galen's training to be
reflective of the norm, cf. J. KOLI.ESCH, wGalen und die Zweite Sophistikw in V. NUTION (ed.), Galen:
Problems and Prospects (London: Wellcome Institute, 1981), pp.1-11, esp. 2-3.
104 Cf. the nice tale of Martial's doctor Symmachus who visited the poet with a retinue of 100 icy­
palmed apprentices: Mart., 5.9: languebam: sed tu comitatus protinus ad me I venisti centum, Symmache,
discipulis. I centum me tetigere manus Aquilone gelatae: I non habui jebrem, Symmache, nunc habeo.
Apprenticeship had been a feature of Greek medical training, and was enshrined in the opening lines of the
Hippocratic Oath, cf. PHILLIPS, Greek. Med., pp. 185-186. For the oath and a discussion of its evidence for the
daily life of the practitioner cf. KRUG, Heilkunst, pp. 188-190.
105 Cf. the famous case, recorded in an inscription (/Cret., 4.168) where the Gortynians on Crete sent
to Kos for a doctor. They got one Hermias who practised among them for five years with great success.
Conversely, note the story told by Galen of the young Alexandria-trained doctor who, because of one failure in
Pergamon faced a ruined career, cf. Galen Comm. in Epid., in CMG 5.10.1.401-402. Note also the inscriptions
from Kos, set up by foreign cities, praising Koan physicians, cf. J. BENEDUM, wGriechische Arztinschriften aus
Kos," ZPE25 (1977), 265-276; L. ROBERT, "Decret pour un medecin de Cos," Rev. Phil., (1978), 242-251 (=
OMS 6.438-447).
106 Cf. Galen, Meth. Mend., 1 (10.4-5 Kiihn). Thessalos's date is fixed by Pliny NH, 29.9; cf. RE
6A.1.167-182, s.v. "Thessalos" (no. 6) [Diller].
107 NH, 29.17 (Loeb trans): in hac artium sola evenit ut cuicumque medicum se projesso statim
credatur, cum sit periculum in nullo mendacio maius. Note also the comment of Scribonius Largus, proem. 10:
sic ut quisque volet,jaciet medicinam. (Trans. and commentary, J.S. HAMILTON, BulL Hist. Med., 60 [1986],
209-216).
108 NUTTON in R.S. PORTER (ed.), Patients and Practitioners: lAy Perceptions ofMedicine in Pre­
Industrial Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 23-53, esp. pp. 26-38. Note particularly the
IV] 172

charlatans and tricksters who earned the undying contempt of trained physicians. 109 The
success of such "doctors" rested, of course, on the twin pillars of the effectiveness of their cures
and the gullibility of their patients; and there was apparently no shortage of the credulous in the
ancient world. ItO

The final characteristic, one that pertains directly to the question of whether the precepts
of "professional" doctors reached the masses, is the dissemination of medical information
throughout Roman society. It has already been noted how medical knowledge was common
among the upper-classes who could read and study the medical treatises written by the experts,
and so incorporate it into their general education. III But did the average people in the street

passage in the Digest (50.13.1) where guidelines are provided for a magistrate to determine the eligibility of
doctors for tax-immunity; all types of specialists are allowed, but the line is drawn at chanters, prayers and
exorcists (non ramen si incantavit, si inprecatus est, si, ut vulgari verbo impostorum utar, exorcizavit). The
authorities are entirely unconcerned with a healer's competence, but only with classification for tax purposes. Cf.
P. Oxyr., 40.
!09 Note the comments of Pliny on the Magi, NH, 26.18-20 and the study of "mountebank" doctors in
ancient Rome by F. KUDLIEN, "Schaustellerei und Heilmittelvertieb in der Antike," Gesnerus 40 (1983), 91-98.
The latter deals mostly with at least partly educated herb sellers and the like whose trade can be seen as almost
legitimate. As yet the out-and-out charlatans have escaped modern scholars' notice. Cf., however, the methods of
trickery documented in Arab sources cited by G. KARMI, "State Control of the Physicians of the Middle Ages:
an Islamic Model" in A.W. RUSSELL, The Town and State Physician in Europe from the Middle Ages to the
Enlightenment (Wolfenbiittel: Wolfenbiitteler Forschungen 17, 1981), pp. 64-65. Some limits were imposed, as
illustrated by the three senatus consulta passed against poisoning, the first being the lex Cornelia de sicariis et
vene.ficiis of 81 BC (cf. Dig., 48.1.1, 8.1; Cic. pro Rose., 64-65), followed by two undated imperial consulta
specifying punishments for sellers of poisonous herbs and fatal fertility drugs, cf. R.J.A. TALBERT, The Senate
of Imperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 455, nos. 191 and 192. On the use of drugs,
cf. also J.M. RIDDlE, "Oral Contraception and Early-term Abortifacients during Classical Antiquity and the
Middle Ages," Past & Present 132 (1991 ), 3-32; id. Quid Pro Quo: Studies in the History ofDrugs (Ash gate:
Variorum, 1992).
IIO Effectiveness, or lack of it, was (and is) a problem faced by all practitioners engaged in healing
activities, cf. above, n. 105 for Galen's story of the young doctor ruined at Pergamon because his treatment failed.
Presumably, these charlatans were at least able to convince people they had been cured, a phenomenon not
unheard of today (e.g. the controversies over faith healers, medicine men and "psychic surgeons" whose patients
all swear to the efficacy of their cures). The credulity of the population at large stands clearly behind Lucian's
Alemnder ofAbonoteichus, but note especially the comment (Alex., 6) that Alexander and his accomplice,
Cocconas, "used to travel about 'fleecing the fat' -- for this, in the traditional terminolog¥ of magicians, is what
they called the masses" (TIEpl.."DEOO:.V ... TOU$' rra:.xE1s TWV a.vepwrrwv- OlJTW$' ya.p mhot
TlJ rra:.Tpltp TWV ~a.ywv ¢wviJ TOU$' rrot-.f-.OU$' ovo~ci.(O"UOlV- QTfOKElpOVTE$'); cf. also the
disparaging comments about the stupidity of the public at ibid., 9, 15, 17, 20,42 and 50 (though note that even a
well educated consular, P. Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus (cos. suff. AD 146; PJR2 M.711), can be victim to
superstition, ibid., 30-31). Cf. also the comment in Luc. Peregr., 13 that Christians were especially easily duped
by tricksters.
Ill For medicine in upper-class culture, cf. KOEBLING, Gesnerus 46 (1989), 34-35; NUITON in
PORTER, Pat. and Pract., pp. 31-32 who asserts: "Medicine was part of upper-class culture" (p. 32). Cf. The
IV] 173

have medical knowledge? V. Nutton is firmly of the opinion that they did, in some form or

other. He points to some general considerations -- the general availability of medical

knowledge, and the absence of a specialist medical vocabulary -- as facilitating this situation,

and cites some specific examples from the ancient sources where blacksmiths, cobblers, barbers

and even barmaids are shown to turn their hands to medicine if required. 112 H. Eschebach, in

his survey of the "Arzthauser" of Pompeii, includes barber shops (tonstrinae) as places of

medical treatment.ll3

Using this sort of evidence, however, raises the problem of typicality. Did all barbers,

or even a majority of them, actually practice a bit of medicine? If so, how often and how

effectively? Would the average ailing Roman go first to the local barber/blacksmith, or to a

"professional" physician? Questions such as these are not readily answerable, given the nature

of our evidence. So while Nutton's portrayal of widespread medical knowledge among the

lower classes is plausible, and fits what little evidence we have from the ancient world, the

specificity of that evidence does not allow concrete conclusions for the situation in general. It

can be suggested, however, that the perilous living conditions of the Roman world, where death

could come suddenly and unexpectedly from any number of sources, would have generated an

medical topics frequently raised throughout Pliny's NH and Plutarch's Moralia. Note especially Aul. Gell., AN,
18.10 where medical knowledge is expected of the educated man. The 2nd century AD doctor Rufus even wrote a
book entitled Medicine for the Layman (DpOS' '!OlWTCXS') which survives only in Arabic fragments, cf. M.
ULLMANN, Die Medi'lin im Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), p. 74, n. 10. Celsus himself is an example of
this sort of medically aware cultured Roman. It is generally agreed that he was not a practising doctor, but that he
had used medicine for practical purposes himself, cf. the loci collected by W.G. SPENCER in the Loeb edition of
Celsus, l.xi-xii. Celsus's 6 books on medicine form the only extant portion of a larger encyclopedic work
covering agriculture, warfare, philosophy, rhetoric and jurisprudence, cf. RE 4.1273-1276, s.v. "Cornelius" (no.
82) [Wellmann]. That only the medical section survived is perhaps noteworthy.
ll2 NUITON, in PORTER, Pat. and Pract., pp. 30-37, esp. p. 33: "This great variety of evidence for
the participation in medicine by men (and women) of all classes throughout the ancient world proves beyond all
doubt that medical knowledge was by no means confined to those who called themselves doctors." He goes on to
conclude that what separated the "professional" doctor from the layman was not a knowledge of medicine, but of
rhetoric. Given the state of our evidence, this distinction may be too rigid.
ll3 Cf. ESCHEBACH, Anzthiiuser, p. 3 and Abb. 2, pp. 4-5 where the tonstrinae are located at:
YII.viii.l4, VII. xi.1, Yl.4.1 and one known by an inscription at the Grand Palaestra. Unfortunately, he omits
these tonstrinae from his descriptive catalogue. We may also note that the first two barber shops are in the
vicinity of baths: down the street from the Forum Baths in the case of YII.viii.14 and opposite the entrance to the
Stabian Baths in the case of YII.xi.l.
IV] 174

interest among all classes in ways of maintaining and restoring health.' 14 These conditions
would have made it likely that medical knowledge among the upper classes spread, at least
partially, into the population at large: whereas the plebs had no inherent interest in learning about
philosophy or rhetoric, they did when it came to medicine; and knowledge of complex
philosophy or rhetoric was not a prerequisite for adhering to medical precepts. IIS A vested
general interest in medicine may also partly explain the incorporation of medical knowledge into
elite culture.

So, could Asclepiades of Bithynia really have exerted a significant influence on bathing
behaviour among the Romans? Although certainty is impossible, I believe enough evidence has
been presented to make this a strong possibility. Several interconnected characteristics of
ancient medicine need to be considered: its extraordinarily open nature meant that anyone who
felt like trying could become a doctor; unspecialized medical education lacked a set or even
requisite curriculum; the absence of controls for monitoring competence left the door open for
many forms of "popular" medicine, sometimes administered by tricksters; and, finally, the wide
dissemination of medical knowledge, certainly among the upper classes and probably among the
less privileged, reflects a general interest in medical matters that is understandable given the

114 Life-expectancy among the Romans has been calculated at at between 20 and 30 years, probably
slightly less in urban environments, cf. R. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure arul Scale in the Roman Economy,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 93-104; these findings are largely in accord with those ofK.
HOPKINS, Death and Renewal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 69-99 (esp. 69-74), 146­
149; more recently, cf. the comments by S.L. DYSON, Community arul Society in Roman Italy (Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 180-182. Note also the horrendous urban hygienic conditions sketched
by SCOBJE, Klio 68 (1986), 399-433. An interesting argument supporting the notion of widespread medical
knowledge among humbler Romans is presented by EDELSTEIN, Asclepius, Il.l64-167. He argues that the
medical detail of many dreams experienced by suppliants at Asclepieia is explicable precisely because medical
knowledge was so well disseminated among the people: "The main features of these visions are clear reflections of
the patients' every-day experiences" (ll.165).
115 An instructive parallel is provided by the survivals of classical Arabic medicine among illiterate
peasants in present-day villages in Syria and Jordan, see G. KARMI, "The Colonisation of Traditional Arabic
Medicine," in PORTER, Pat. arul Pract., pp. 315-339.
IV] 175

perilous conditions of the age. When what is known about the career of Asclepiades is set

against this background -- that his teachings and treaunents emphasized hot and cold baths, that

he gave lectures at Rome, that he achieved extraordinary fame in his lifetime, and that his ideas

persisted after his death -- it seems entirely possible, if not likely, that his bathing precepts could

have quickly disseminated into the population at large and affected Roman bathing habits. Other

contemporaneous doctors, of whatever quality, may have been advocating the benefits of

bathing but, if so, Asclepiades is the only one of whom we hear. This, of course, does not

necessarily mean he was alone: he may have been the most eminent (and controversial)

representative of a broader trend. All these considerations are to be placed against the density of

the urban population at Rome.lt6 In such an environment swift oral transmission of

information -- especially of a medical nature in which all had an interest-- would have been

relatively swift and easy.

Rome in the 2nd-1st century BC was a city undergoing transformation. It was

experiencing rapid change not only in economics, politics and social life, but also in intellectual

activity. The city's population was growing, Greek culture was becoming increasingly

fashionable among the elite, and Greeks and other nationalities were to be found among the

plebs in greater numbers than before. Wealth, luxury and ostentation were on the rise, both in

the private and public sphere. New construction technologies (especially ever more confident

use of concrete) were being developed and would soon find expression in the building

programmes of Caesar, Augustus and the emperors. Into this environment stepped the

Bithynian doctor Asclepiades. His career and the context in which it is to be placed make it

116 Cf. K. HOPKINS, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 96­
98; G. HERMANSEN, "The Population of Imperial Rome," Historia 27 (1978), 129-168. Of course, precise
numerical estimates are very uncertain, but the density of Rome's population is Cicero's day is clear enough, cf.
Z. YAVETZ, I.Atomus 17 (1958), 500-517 (=SEAGER, Crisis, pp. 166-179) esp. 500-501; SCOBIE, Klio 68
(1986), 399-433. Note also R. MacMULLEN, Roman Social Relations (London: Yale University Press, 1974),
pp. 62-63 who points out that Rome, with an estimated 200 people per acre, was far more densely populated than
would be regarded as acceptable today. Cf. R. DUNCAN-JONES, The Economy ofthe Roman Empire
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, rev. ed.), 276-277.
IV} 176

possible that his bath-related teachings, while perhaps initially gaining exposure only among the

upper-classes, filtered down to the less well-off. His ideas about the remedial and preventive

uses of baths may even have been part of a wider trend in medical thinking at Rome. But if so,

nothing is known of it. In the life-threatening conditions of the ancient city, everyone, high or

low, would have had an interest in means for the maintenance of health. Asclepiades' simple

message that baths, already available to the Romans at large, were not only pleasurable but

healthy, would surely have had a contributing effect on the growth of their popularity in the 1st

century BC. Even if the degree of that contribution cannot now be gauged precisely, it would

seem rash to deny it altogether.

 CONCLUSION

The literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources converge in suggesting that the practice of
public bathing among the Romans grew in popularity in the period roughly between Cicero and
Martial. Although the evidence is for the most part lacking in quantifiable data, and much work
still needs to be done in drawing together and correlating archaeological information from
different sources, enough exists to leave a strong impression of growth. From the statement of
Pliny the Elder suggesting growth in the bathing habit in the Julio-Claudian period, and the later
numerical testimony of the Notitia Urbis Regionum, it seems probable that the number of baths
at Rome increased in the early years of the Principate and continued to grow in the following
centuries. The "indirect" evidence of others -- especially, Cicero, Pliny, Seneca, Petronius and
Martial - supports this picture, whereby baths are everyday backdrops to anecdotes and quips,
or the targets of moralistic diatribes.

This literary testimony is especially well matched by the archaeological evidence of

Pompeii, where a rise in the number of public baths over the period is clear, but not in a steady
and even pattern. A period of growth in the late Republic is followed by a lull until after the
earthquake of AD 62; then there was a fluny of bath-building and repair. By the time of its
destruction in August, AD 79 Pompeii could boast at least seven, and possibly more, public
facilities either operative or under construction. This post-earthquake burst of activity would
suggest that the popularity of bathing had grown considerably in the period before the
earthquake, and that when the volcano erupted the Pompeians were attempting to make their city
conform to the most modern tastes by increasing the number and variety of their public facilities.
Until more comprehensive work is done on Republican/early Imperial baths at other Italian sites,
the typicality of this activity will remain untested. However, at some neighbouring sites (e.g.

177

 178

Herculaneum) bath-building can be demonstrated at or prior to this time, and several Italian

communities built their first baths more or less contemporaneously . 1 Despite this, no other site

illuminates so well as Pompeii the growth of popularity of baths over this period. Sites such as

Ostia and Timgad illustrate the continued growth of public baths into the 2nd century, the real

golden age of bath building.2

Explanations for this phenomenon are difficult to pinpoint, as the sources are largely

silent as to why people went to the baths. But the general conditions in Rome in the 1st century

BC, with its increased population, wealth, public and private luxury and ostentation, and

improved building technology provided fertile ground for a growth in bath popularity. These

circumstances, though, do not fully explain the phenomenon.3 The prominence of baths in

Roman medical thinking provides the clearest surviving indication as to why people bathed.

Careful consideration of the nature of medical practise at Rome in general, and the career of

Asclepiades of Bithynia in particular, raises the possibility that it was initially for medical

reasons that Romans went more frequently to the baths in the 1st century BC. Of the early

doctors known to us, Asclepiades laid the greatest emphasis on the therapeutic value of baths.

The assimilation of medicinal baths not only into Roman medical philosophy (e.g. Celsus,

writing under Tiberius), but also into non-technical upper-class culture (e.g. Cicero's comment

that baths are "necessary for life and health") can be demonstrated.

The main question is, could this essentially elite body of knowledge have reached the

general populace and affected their actions? I believe the answer is affrrmative. Medical

knowledge was not as specialized as it is today, but was more widely disseminated throughout

society. High mortality and susceptibility to disease gave everybody, rich or poor, an inherent

1 Cf. Appendix 2, Map 2. For the baths at Herculaneum, cf. HEINZ, Rom Thenn., pp. 72-75, cf.
MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 121, s.v. "Herculaneum, Terme del Foro & Terme Suburbane."
2 Cf. Ch. 6 n. 30.
3 The question of who built baths is considered in the next section.
 179

interest in medical developments and ideas, especially for the maintenance of health, which was

always preferable to falling sick in the first place.4 A variety of types of doctor operated among

the masses; official controls were lacking; medical education, where it existed at all, was

unfocused and, further, not compulsory. In such a climate as this, the simple message of

Asclepiades, a doctor who achieved great fame in the city, that bathing was healthy and

beneficial could well have penetrated into the general public. Baths were already a standard

feature of Rome's urban topography, so Asclepiades must be seen more as contributing to their

popularity rather than initiating it. Indeed, people may beforehand have recognised the general

health-promoting qualities of cleanliness, but Asclepiades provided it with a "scientific" (and

fashionable?) justification and respectability. In addition, we cannot tell if contemporary doctors

echoed Asclepiades' message. On the other hand, his pupil, Themison, did stay on in Rome,

and a disciple, Antonius Musa, enjoyed a high profile later. 5

Altogether, in the light of these arguments, it seems reasonable to suggest that the

medical precepts of Asclepiades, whether he was a lone pioneer or a representative of a broader

movement favouring baths, contributed in some measure to the growth of bath popularity in 1st­

century BC Rome. A simple linear causality cannot be established between Asclepiades'

activities and the rise to prominence of baths in Roman daily life, but the general circumstances

of the age, the clear connection between baths and medicine in later Roman sources, and the

particulars of Asclepiades' career make it likely that his role was formative.

The first phase of the growth in bath popularity (that of the 1st century BC) has now

been examined. The second phase, from Augustus to c. AD 100, coincides with the

establishment of the Principate and leads to the broader question of the Imperial authorities'

4 Cf. JACKSON, Doctors, p. 22: "In an age with so little control over disease once it bad struck,
considerable endeavour was channelled into preventive medicine based on the concept of positive health."
5 Note also the "reactionary" doctrines of Charmis who advocated only cold-water bathing in the Julio­
Claudian period, cf. above, p. 169.
 180

involvement in promoting baths, which in turn leads to other social questions. These topics

should therefore be treated separately next.

SECTION THREE:

SOCIAL ASPECTS

 INTRODUCTION

It has often been said that baths were social centres of Roman daily life. 1 This claim is more
fully investigated here through an examination of bath builders and maintainers (chapters 5 and
6), and of the baths as social centres (chapter 7). The main evidence is provided by written
sources and, especially for builders and maintainers, inscriptions. The latter represent a
voluminous yet largely untapped body of evidence for bath history .2 Many hundreds of texts
recording the erection, repair, extension or adornment of baths survive from all parts of the
empire. As contemporary documents, they represent an invaluable source for throwing light on
the sorts of people (or authorities) who undertook the task, and, in some cases, on their
motives. Tables of such texts have been assembled at the end of this section, and are referred to
frequently. 3

A word on the texts in the Tables. The sample has been assembled from thermae lbalnea
and ~a.t-.a.vEtov 1 t-.mnp6v (and variants) index entries in several collections of inscriptions. 4

The sample does not therefore pretend to be comprehensive, but enough inscriptions have been
assembled to be representative. Included are only those inscriptions which are sufficiently full

1 This point has been made by several authors. To refer to just some examples: MARQUARDT,
Privatleben, pp. 269-297, esp. 297; CARCOPINO, Daily Life, pp. 277-286, esp. 285-286; DAREMBERG &
SAGUO, DAGR, s.v. wThermae" pp.214-219, esp. 216, [BENOIT]; BALSDON, life and Leisure, pp. 26-32,
esp. 27; HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 142-146, esp. 142; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.1, 135; EJ. OWENS, The City in
the Greek and Roman World (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 155; A. ROOK, Roman Baths in Britain (Princes
Risborough: Shire Archaeology, 1992), pp. 18, 20-21.
2 Modern scholars have not ignored the epigraphic evidence completely, but they have tended to use it
sparingly, or at best unimaginatively, cf. e.g. HEINZ, Rom Therm., where a handful of texts is used throughout,
or NIELSEN, Therm., where masses of inscriptions are assembled in monumental footnotes (e.g. 1.40-41, nn. 25
and 26) as basic illustrations of information distribution for construction, repair work etc.
3 Guidelines for the use of the Tables are listed on pp. 307-308.
4 They are: AE, BE, C/L, /GLS, IGR, II, JK, /LAlg, ILTun, ILS, IRT, OGJS, SEG, SIG and several
individual site-particular collections.

182

 183

in content or, if fragmentary, preserve enough information to allow reasonably certain

identification of the agent and work done. 5

In examining the bath building activities of the central authorities, a distinction must be
drawn between Rome and the rest of the Empire. It was natural for the princeps to benefit the

capital with public monuments, as that was part of what he did and what he was expected to
do.6 In this respect, the emperor treated Rome very much as a rich benefactor was expected to
treat his native city. 7 If emperors built baths at Rome, this should not cause much surprise. The
same cannot be said for Italy and the provinces. Here, despite sporadic visits, the emperor and
his agents appear for the most part to have been distant entities in the daily lives of the people, an
essentially reactive authority whose interest in specific localities was often only stimulated by
embassies from, or extraordinary disturbances in, those localities.s If the central authorities are
seen to promote public bathing by direct benefaction in Italy and the provinces, this is indeed
notable. In consequence, the situation in Rome is treated separately from that in Italy and the
provinces.

5 Individual cases where this criterion has been applied are discussed in the notes to the Tables. A great
many inscriptions have been omitted due to uncertainty as to their content, or because they were too fragmentary
to be coherent. Such texts are nonetheless useful, in that they attest the existence of baths at the places where
they were found. For examples, drawn only from AE for convenience, cf 1981.783 (local individual honoured in
inscription found in baths); 1979.156 (= C/L 10.617*: very fragmentary (and previously considered a forgery)
with the word thermas preserved but leaving obscure what was done); 1979.323 (tlu>rmae aestivae restored and
water supply improved by some agent or other); 1978.864 (fragmentary inscription commemorating a bath
restoration found over entry to Forum Baths at Belalis Maior in Africa with agent unclear); 1973.470 (verse
inscription recording building of a piscina ; not clear if it derived from a private or public bath); 1934.133
(apparently a curator rei publicae and decurions working together, but too fragmentary to be sure).
6 This is the implication of sources like the Res Gestae, Suetonius or the HA, which habitually list the
emperors' building activities (usually in the capital, Ostia or Latium) without offering explanations. Cf. the
seminal work of VEYNE, Pain, pp. 469-537; cf. also F. MILLAR, The Roman Empire and its Neighbours
(London: Duckworth, 1981 2nd ed), pp. 15-21; id., The Emperor in the Roman World (Duckworth: London,
1977), pp. 133-201, 368-375.
7 This tradition had arisen in the Hellenistic period, cf. VEYNE, Pain, pp. 209-271, 298-327. More
recently, cf. P. GAUTHIER, Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (Paris: BCH Suppl. 12, 1985).
8 Cf. MILLAR, Emperor, passim.; cf. also MILLAR's comments on the central government in "The
World of the Golden Ass," JRS 71 (1981), pp. 63-75, esp. 66-69; id. Neighbours, pp. 52-80, esp. 52: "The
Roman Empire had no Government" (!). The distance of the central government is also reflected in R.
MacMULlEN, Roman Social Relations (New Haven; Yale University Press, 1974), esp. pp. 1-27; see also
JACQUES, Libeni, pp. 668-757; P. GARNSEY & R. SALLER, The Roman Empire. Economy, Society and
Culture (Berkeley; University of California Press, 1987), pp. 20-40.
 184

As to the baths as social centres, certain relevant aspects of this topic have been fully
investigated in previous studies, such as male/female mixed bathing, bath personnel, hours of
operation, entrance fees, management etc: it is not my intention to traverse again this already
well-trodden territory.9 Instead, an attempt will be made to elucidate the place of the public
baths in the general social environment.

9 Discussions (of varying scope and quality) of most of these topics can be found in the works cited
above (n. 1), but note in addition: MEUSEL, Verwalrung, passim (for admission fees, management etc);
MERTEN, Bader, pp. 59-78 (opening hours), 79-100 (mixed bathing), 114-131 (various "Badegepflogenheiten,"
such as eating and drinking, number of daily baths, personnel etc); M. WISSEMANN, "Das Personal des antiken
romischen Bades" Glotta 62 ( 1984), 80-89 (an investigation not only of the types of personnel, but also of their
social status).
 CHAPTER V

BUILDERS AND MAINTAINERS OF PUBLIC BATHS 1:

ROME

Introduction

At the conclusion of the last section, an explanation for the rise in the number of baths at Rome

in the Julio-Claudian period remained outstanding. It is partly in response to this problem that

the present inquiry has been undertaken. However, the issues addressed here force a

consideration of broader social questions about bath builders and maintainers during the

Principate and Later Empire. Because the growth of the bathing habit at Rome (and in Italy)

coincided with the establishment of the new regime, it is pertinent to examine frrst the role of the

emperors and others in bath construction at Rome, and then to tum to their activities

elsewhere.

(i) Emperors

The dedication on 9 June, 19 BC of the Baths of Agrippa represents a landmark in the history of

baths at Rome. 1 The Thermae Agrippae stand as the first in the long series of large, lavishly

1 The dedication date is provided by Frontin. Aqu., 1.10. On this structure, cf. F.W. SHIPLEY,
"Chronology of the Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Augustus," MAAR
9 (1931), 7-60, esp. 50, 51; id,. Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome (St. Louis: Washington University
Studies N.S. 4, 1933), pp. 47-55; HEINZ, ROm Therm., pp. 60-67; MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp. 179-180.
s.v. "Thermae Agrippae"; E. NASH, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 2. vols. (London: Thames &
Hudson, 1968, rev. ed.), 11.429-433, s.v. "Thermae Agrippae"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.43-45, 11.2 (C.l).

185

V] 186

appointed imperial bath buildings of the capital.2tJt seems likely that Agrippa in this instance, as

in others, undertook the construction with Augustus's full approval: if not at his instigation.3

They can therefore be seen as the first public baths at Rome built under the aegis of the central

authorities. 4 ,

This point draws attention to the remarkable fact that, !!troughout the entire period of the

Republic, no bath is known to have been built by the city's authorities, either senate or

magistrates. Although public baths did not become especially popular at Rome until the 1st

century BC, they had been a familiar feature of the urban landscape for at least a centu~~fore

2 They are generally agreed to have laid the architectural foundations for the later "Imperal"-type baths
(especially in their size and decoration), although they lacked some features basic to that sort of building (most
notably symmetry), cf. HEINZ and MANDERSCHEID, locc. citt. in previous note. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.45
prefers to see the Baths of Nero as the first truly "Imperial"-type estabishment. What name the building
originally bore is not clear. Dio calls it variously TO TTL!ptcnr')pwv TO 1\0:.KWV'LKOV (53.27.1), TO
~o:.A.o:.VElOV TOV 'Ayp£TTTTOLJ (53, table of contents, s.v. 'L) and yv~ vaowv (53.27.1). The earliest
references to it in literature occur as late as Pliny the Elder, who consistently uses Thermae Agn'ppae (NH, 34.62;
35.26 and 36.189); Martial also calls the building by this name (3.20.15, 3.36.6). The marble map of Rome (G.
CARRETONI et al, lA pianta marmorea di Roma antica, Forma Urbis Romae (Rome: n.p., 1960), frg. 40; cf.
CJL 6.36662) labels it [Th]ermae [Agrip]pae. The HA describes it asl.Avacrum Agrippae (Had., 19.10) while
describing other imperial bath complexes as Thermae (cf. Sev., 19.5, Sev. Alex., 25.3, Prob., 2.1). A
restoration inscription (CJL 6.1165) of AD 344-345 describes the building only as termae. This confusion
illustrates well the apparent chaos that reigns in ancient bath terminology. Given the current state of the
evidence, it is doubtful whether the building's original name is recoverable.
3 Suet. Aug., 29.4-5 states clearly that Augustus urged other leading men to undertake public building
in Rome, M. Agrippa among them: sed et ceteros principes viros saepe hortatus est, ut pro fa cultate quisque
monimentis vel novis vel refectis et excultis urbem adornarent . .. multaque a muftis tunc extructa sunt, sicut ..
. a vero Agrippa complura et egregia. The seriousness with which Augustus took his own building activities in
the city, a list of which occupies 6 chapters of his Res Gestae (§§19-24), reflects this fully.
4 NIELSEN's belief, made explicit on several occasions (Therm., 1.45, 46, and 47, n. 78), that the
baths were originally not open to the public but were for private use, must be rejected. She does not explain her
reasoning, but it appears to be based on a misinterpretation of a statement inDio (54.29.4) that in his will
Agrippa bequeathed his baths to the people, so that they could use the facilities free of cost: Ka.l TOTE yoDv
Kr)nov~ TE o¢wt Ka.l To ~a.A.a.vE'iov To E:m6w~ov a.\noD Ka.TEAtTTEV, woTE npo'iKa.
a.VTOV~ t..oDoea.t, xwp(a. nva. ES TOVTO T~ AvyouoT~ oou~. The passage says only that
Agrippa passed the baths over to public ownership; they had previously been his private property, which does not
necessarily mean they were for private use (as NIELSEN seems to believe; cf. pp. 3-4 for the meanings of the
term "public"). That Agrippa left estates so that the people could use the baths free of charge implies that the
people had previously used the baths for a price. A general consideration makes NIELSEN's position all the more
difficult to credit: is it likely that a princeps such as Augustus, who placed great emphasis on ostensible
moderation in the behaviour of the ruling class, would have allowed his right-hand man to construct such a vast
and luxurious bath for his personal use?
V] 187

that, and their total absence from the annals of publicly funded construction is noteworthy. 5

There is no evide!lce that even the military dynasts, who showed an interest in public building

(witness the Theatre of Pompey, the Forum Julium or Basilica Julia), and made steps in other

areas towards becoming public patrons, planned, let alone constructed, a public bath for the

city. 6

Information about who did build the baths of Republican Rome is meagre: two casual

comments made by Cicero, one of which refers to a bath named after the street on which it

stood, the other to a building probably named after its unidentifiable builder (and owner?).? In

all probability, until the Thermae Agrippae the construction of baths was left to wealthy

individuals, senators no doubt among them, probably as business investments. 8 Plutarch's

report that Lucullus, towards the end of his life, spent his time erecting costly edifices, including

baths, perhaps reflects this situation.9 Unfortunately, it is not clear if these facilities were public

or private. This lack of bath-building by the authorities at Rome is all the more unusual since it

is known from archaeology and epigraphy that communities in Italy were erecting baths at public

expense at least from the late-2nd century BC onwards. to

5 Cf. the list of public buildings constructed at Rome between 200 and 78 BC compiled by F.
COARELLI, "Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla," PBSR 45 (1977), 1-23, esp.
20-22. In contrast to the absence of baths, listed here are 43 instances of the erection, extension, adornment or
restoration of temples, or the taking of a vow for such activity. The senate had long taken an interest in funding
public building, it being among the duties of the censors and aediles, cf. D.E. STRONG, "The Administration of
Public Building in Rome during the Late Republic and Early Empire," BICS 15 (1968), 97-109.
6 Cf. Suet. Caes., 44 for Caesar's planned building activities in Rome and elsewhere: baths are absent;
cf. also E. RAWSON, Intellectual life, pp. 100-114; VEYNE, Pain, pp. 469-537; above, pp. 146-147. Note,
however, the Balneum Caesaris mentioned on the Forma Urbis Romae (cf. Appendix 4, s.v.). However, the
name may derive from the building's dedication to Caesar or a later emperor, or perhaps a statue of Caesar or some
other member of the imperial family that stood in the building.
7 These are respectively the Balneae Pallacinae (pro Rose., 18; cf. above, p. 85) and the Balneae Seniae
(pro Cael., 61-62; cf. Appendix 4, s.v.). For other named baths at Rome (though not necessarily of Republican
date), cf. Appendix 2, Map 2 (no. 2), and Appendix 4.
8 For Republican senators as bath-owners, cf. above, pp. 82-85. Note that the Baths of Agrippa may
have charged an entrance fee until 12 BC, cf. above n. 4.
9 Luc., 39 .2.
10 E.g. The Stabian (c. 140 BC) and Forum Baths at Pompeii (Sullan) have not left us any inscriptions
commemorating their initial construction, but that they were at least publicly owned is indicated by the activities
of duumviri in extending and adorning them (cf. JILRP 648 (Stabian), ILS 5726 and 6356 (Forum)). Other
inscriptions from elsewhere in Italy explicitly state that baths were erected or restored "with public money," or by
representatives of the local authorities: IILRP 521 (piscina restored at Acurantia; post-Social War); 528 (lacus
V] 188

Why did the city's authorities not build baths at Rome during the Republic, when those

in other Italian communities did? Certainty is impossible, but some possibilities offer which,

when viewed in combination, may explain the situat~on. Perhaps it was felt improper for the

conservative senators to be seen to encourage officially such vehicles of luxurious living as

baths. II Conservatism in architectural taste and tradition may also apply . 12 The baths, which

employed new architectural techniques and technologies, may have been considered too "new­

fangled" for the attention of the central authorities, whose traditional building activities focused

for the most part on truly monumental public edifices (temples, basilicas, places of assembly

etc.), as well as the more functional ones (aqueducts, bridges, roads, and walls); each of the two

categories of building had its own traditional architectural aesthetics, and the baths fitted neither

neatly. 13

Another possibility is that the activity of the private bath benefactors was considered

-~ufficient for the city's needs. Rome, the capital of an empire, would have been home to a

greater proportion of wealthy men than smaller Italian communities. As long as such men

voluntarily built baths as business investments, there was simply no need for the authorities to

balnean·us built at Alatrum; late 2nd century BC); 575 (balneum built at Croton; no precise date); 606 (balneum
built at Grumentum; no precise date); 659 (balneae restored at Praeneste; post-Sullan).
11 Note Cic. de Off, 2.60 where Cicero follows Greek predecessors in regarding only utilitarian
buildings (walls, docks, aqueducts etc.) as worthy of patronage, while porticoes, theatres and the like are not:
atque etiam il/ae impensae meliores, muri navalia,portus, aquarum ductus omniaque, quae ad usum rei publicae
pertinent . .. theatra, porticus, nova temp/a . .. sed doctissimi non probant. The absence of baths in Cicero's
lists of buildings may be due to his following Greek sources. Luxurious and easy living were associated
especially with Eastern/Greek failings, cf. E. RAWSON, "Roman Tradition and the Greek world," CAH 8 (1989,
2nd ed.), pp. 422-476. Hot baths were most likely viewed with suspicion by conservative Romans, as they
certainly were at a later date (e.g. by Seneca; cf. above, pp. 110-111 ), and probably earlier as well (note Cato the
Elder's comment that he did not bathe daily as a boy, cf. above, p. 81).
12 Cf. J.B. WARD-PERKINS, "Taste, Tradition and Technology. Some Aspects of the Architecture of
late Republican and early Imperial Central Italy," in G. KOPCKE & M.B. MOORE, Studies in Classical Art and
Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen (New York: Augustin, 1979), pp. 197-204.
13 Cf. ibid., p. 202: "There was then, in late Republican and early Imperial Rome ... two distinct
canons of aesthetic values and proprieties, one of them felt to be applicable to the traditional categories of
representative public architecture, the other to the more utilitarian and commercial types of building, both public
and private." Ironically, according toWARD-PERKINS (ibid., pp. 203-204), the baths later assisted in breaking
down this aesthetic prejudice, though it was only with the Baths of Agrippa that a real turning point was reached.
V] 189 ~

do so. It may also have been felt that supplying publicly built baths was an inappropriate use of

the city's public water. Such (privately owned) baths as were already in use did not enjoy a

public water supply. Frontinus reports that "among the ancients," by which the context would

imply the period of the Republic, all water entering the city via aqueducts was designated for

public use only (in fountains, troughs and sewers etc); baths and fulleries were granted special

dispensation to use run-off water from public troughs, and only then for a price. 14

' While all these possibilities are suggestive, it has to be admitted that the actual reasons

for the Republican government's inactivity remain elusive. Whatever the case, when viewed

against the background outlined above, the Thennae Agrippae really mark a new departure in the

history of public baths. at Rome and elsewhere. Their size and the lavishness of their decoration

(they are the first known to have featured statuary) were to stand as models for subsequent bath

builders, while their construction by a man so close to the princeps brought responsibility for

building public baths at Rome within the ruler's ambit. It is possible that the relative lateness of

their construction -- at a time when Italian communities had already been erecting baths at public

expense for over a century -- may be a further indication that public baths were originally an

import to Rome, but it is not decisive. If Rome had thus far lagged behind the Italian towns in

bath building, the Baths of Agrippa mark the moment at which the capital seized the initiative

and became the model to be followed elsewhere. ,

After the Thennae Agrippae, there was a hiatus in imperially sponsored bath building at

Rome. Not until Nero did an emperor again benefit the city with a bathing establishment The

l4 Aqu., 2.94: et haec fsc. caduca] ipsa non in alium usum quam in balnearum aut.fullonicarum dabatur
Immediately after this passage, Frontinus goes on to describe aediles and censors implementing water laws
(2.95-98), thus providing a Republican context for the whole section. It is clear from the coupling of baths with
fulleries in this passage that the law aimed at governing the use of public water for private commerce. The
inference is that these baths were privately owned and run as businesses (like the fulleries), further supporting the
impression gained above that Rome's Republican baths were primarily private enterprises rather than publicly
provided services. By way of an aside, note what the use of run-off water in baths implies for the quality of water
in Republican establishments at Rome.
V] 190

hiatus is not difficult to explain. Tiberius was no prolific builder;15 Gaius Caligula's reign was

too short for any of his building plans to reach fruition (though he planned to construct two new

aqueducts for the city); !6 Claudius's conservative nature would have militated against his

constructing something as innovative as a major new bath complex, and he was not a

particularly prolific builder at any rate.t7

With Nero all this changed. The architectural exuberance of the age, and the provocative

and popular bent of the reign, provided the perfect backdrop for Rome's first truly "Imperial"­

style set ofbaths. 18 On so lavish a scale and so richly ornamented were they, that Martial could

pose his famous question, "What is worse than Nero? What better than Nero's Baths?"l9

They seem to have acted as a stimulus for his successors. The Notitia Urbis Regionum

mentions a Balneum Torquati et Vespasiani in Region I of the city.20 Nothing else is known of

this structure, in fact it is not clear if this was one building or two, and Vespasian' s part in

erecting it (if he had one at all) remains unclear. Given Vespasian's financial difficulties, and his

15 Suet. Tib., 47.1: princeps neque opera ulla magnifica fecit; cf. F.C. BOURNE, The Public Works
ofthe Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton: n.p., 1946), pp. 31-37; B. lEVICK, Tiberius the Politician
(London: Thames & Hudson, 1976), p. 123.
16 Front. Aqu., 1.14. Suet. Cal., 21 only makes mention of one aqueduct. Cf. BOURNE, Public
Works, pp. 38-41; A.A. BARRETT, Caligula (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 192-212.
17 Suet. Claud., 20 where his public works are considered "more great and useful than many~ (opera
magna potius et necessaria quam multa), refering to the haroour at Ostia and the drainage of the Fucine Lake (on
the labour involved in the latter, cf. M.K. & R.L. THORNTON, Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A
Quantitative Study in Political Management (Wauconda, II...: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1989), pp. 57-76). On
Claudius's building programmes in general, cf. BOURNE, Public Works, pp. 42-74; B.lEVICK, Claudius (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 108-111. For a recent assessment of imperial building programmes
from Augustus through Claudius, cf. THORNTON, ibid., pp. 41-55.
1S They were dedicated in AD 62, cf. Tac. Ann., 14.20-21, 14.47, 15.29.2; Suet. Nero, 12.3, 31.2.
For this building, cf. HEINZ, Rom. Thenn., pp. 68-71; MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 185, s.v. "Terme di
Nerone~; NASH, Diet., ll.460-464, s.v. ~Thermae Neronianae~; NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.45-46, Il.2 (C.2). Their
dimensions are given by HEINZ (op. cit., p. 68) as 190m x 120m. Some confusion bas arisen over Suetonius's
comment (Nero, 12.3) that he built a set of thermae and a gymnasium. Suetonius seems to have confused the
Neronian name for the building (gymnasium) with its later. Flavian name (thermae) to produce the statement that
Nero erected both thennae and a gymnasium, i.e. separate buildings (dedicatisque thermis atque gymnasio senatui
et equiti oleum praebuit); cf. B. TAMM, Neros Gymnasium in Rom (Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in
Classical Archaeology Vll, 1970), pp. 11-13.
19 Ep., 7.34.4-5: quid Nerone peius? quid thennis me/ius Neronianis?
°2 Cf. FTUR, 8.3. For a full discussion of the possibilities of this building, cf. below, p. 201-202.
V] 191

need to restore damage done after the civil wars of AD 68-9, it is perhaps unlikely that he would

have embarked on a major bath-building project.

But his son, Titus, did. He not only restored the Thermae Agrippae after they burned in

AD 80, but he erected a large-scale bathing establishment near the Flavian Amphitheatre. 21 Two

points are worth noting in connection with these baths. Martial and Suetonius report that they

were built in haste.22 Why so? Titus may have wanted to draw attention away from the Baths

of Nero, as well as to destroy parts of the Domus Aurea, over part of which they were built.

The second point is that their dedication, contemporaneous with the opening of the Flavian

Amphitheatre, was accompanied by lavish gladiatorial games. This is the first recorded instance

of such activities marking a bath dedication at Rome, and seems again to indicate that Titus

wanted to draw attention to his work.23

Trajan added a fourth set, the biggest yet, in AD 104-109, in the process discreetly

covering the last remnants of Nero's Domus Aurea. 24 With this building, Rome had acquired

21 Dio, 66.24.2 (Agrippa restoration); 66.25.1 and Suet. Titus, 7.3 (Titus's baths). Cf.
MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp. 185-186, s.v. "Terme di Tito"; HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 75-77; NASH, Diet.,
TI.469-471, s.v. "Thermae Titi"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.46-47, TI.2 (C.3). HEINZ provides no dimensions for the
Baths of Titus, though their area, including the palaestra, is given as 10,500 sq. m. by NIELSEN, Joe. cit.
22 Suet. Titus, 7.3: thermis . .. eeleriter exstruetis; Martial Speer., 2.5.7: hie ubi miramur, velocia
munera, thermos.
23 The giving of games or other benefactions to mark the dedication or opening of baths is known from
inscriptions, some of which predate or may be contemporary with Titus, e.g. the games given by Cn. Alleius
Nigidius Maius at Pompeii, probably on the re-opening of the Forum Baths after the earthquake of AD 62 (/LS
5144); cf. C/L 2.5489 (meal and sportulae at Murgi, Baetica, Flavian); JLS 5512 (meal and spectacles given, at
Cartima, Baetica; Flavian?); AE 1979.352 (circus given at Tagilium, Baetica, late 1st/early 2nd century); AE
1979.156 (circus games and theatrical games given at Teanum Sidicinum, AD 151); CJL 2.5354 (circus at
Burgvillos, Baetica, mid-2nd century); CJL 9.1665 (gladiatorial games at Beneventum, reign ofCommodus); CJL
8.897 (games at Villa Magna, Africa, late 2nd/early 3rd century); ILS 5695 (meal given at dedication, Narona; AD
280); ILS 5713 (theatrical games and meal at Turca, Africa, 3rd century); C/L 12.4388 (sportulae at Narbo, no
date); AE 1969nO.l78 (meal given at San Nicola al Torone; no date).
24 Cf. Dio 69.4.1; Fasti Ostienses, AD 109 (= E.M. SMALLWOOD, Documents Illustrating the
Principates ofNerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), no. 22 (p. 31) =FTUR,
10.461). HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 89-90; MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp.186-187, s.v. "Terme di Traiano";
NASH, Diet., ll.472-477, s.v. "Thermae Trajanae"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.50-51, 11.2-3 (C.4). These baths
measured 330m x 315m. Their date of dedication is recorded in the Fasti Ostienses, cf. loc. cit. above. See also
AE 1940.40, an inscription from a pipe from the baths recording the work of imperial freedmen in the laying of
the pipes.
V] 192

three new and progressively larger sets of baths in just over 50 years. Various sources also

make mention of a bath called the Balneum or Thermae Surae. 2 5 This would appear to be the

work of Trajan's favourite L. Licinius Sura, although Aurelius Victor says Trajan himself built

the establishment to honour Sura.26 Either way, it can be included here as an example of a

person close to the emperor, if not the emperor himself, building a public bath.

After the Baths of Trajan, no new "Imperial" sets are known at Rome until those of

Caracalla, built between AD 211/212 and 216 in the southern section of the city, near the Via

Appia. However, some ancillary bath construction by emperors and their associates is attested

in non-archaeological sources. Hadrian repaired the Thermae Agrippae. 27 Cleander, the rich

chamberlain of Commodus, put up baths in about AD 186 either in his own name or in that of

the emperor, but no trace of the building survives.28 The Historia Augusta also makes mention

of Thermae Severianae and Thermae Septimianae, both the works of Septimius Severns, but

little is known of the former structure, and the latter is reported to have collapsed shortly after

completion.29

25 Forma Urbis Romae, fr. 21 depicts a colonnaded courtyard with the inscription bal[ ... ] Surae; cf.
the restoration of the structure by a Gordian attested in an inscription, NSc (1920), 142. Various other sources,
including the Notitia, tenn these baths Thermae Suranae, cf. FTUR, 1.177 (Notitia; called Thermae Sures), 1.5
(Curiosum; called Thermae Syranae), 1.6 (Pol. Silv., called Thermae Suranae). Cf. NASH, Diet., ll.467-468,
s.v. "Thennae Suranae"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.38-39, 11.3 (C.S).
26 Aur. Victor, Caes., 13.6, cf. Dio, 68.15.32 (where the baths are called a "gymnasium"). For Sura,
cf. PIR2 L 253. Cf. also RE 13.473-483 s.v. "Licinius" (no. 167) [GROAG] where it is suggested (481-482)
these baths later became known as the Thermae Decianae after a restoration in the 3rd century. However, the
name Thermae Suranae (and variants) appear in 4th century sources (such as the Notitia) alongside the Thermae
Decianae, which strongly suggests separate structures. See also MERTEN, Biider, pp. 22-23.
27 HA Hadr., 19.10.
2S Dio 72(73).12.5; HA Comm., 17.5, 20.3; cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 20-23 where it is shown that
Cleander's baths are possibly to be identified with the Thermae Commodianae known from other sources, cf.
FTUR, 8.151-164, esp. nos. 154-159.
29 Sev., 19.5 cf. the other sources cited by MERTEN, Biider, p. 24 and FTUR, 19.413, 414 (Hieron.
Chron. and Cassiod. Chron. respectively).
V] 193

The Baths of Caracalla, being the most completely preserved set at Rome, have
understandably attracted exceptional attention from modem scholars. 30 Their work need not be
repeated here. Suffice it to say that the building followed the same general format as its
predecessors, only on a still larger scale.

Almost a century after Caracalla, the next major public baths were built under Diocletian,
between AD 298 and 305/306.31 They were larger than any that had come before, and today
remain the largest Roman bathing establishment known. Their ruins, along with those of the
Baths of Caracalla, stand as stark and impressive testimony to the seriousness with which
certain emperors took bath building in the capital.

Miscellaneous information on bath projects undertaken by intervening emperors between

Caracalla and Diocletian survives. Most derives from the HL'iitoria Augusta, and so is at best of
dubious quality. Severns Alexander is reported not only to have built thermae adjacent to the
Baths of Nero, but to have added balnea to any region of the city lacking them. 32 It is unclear
from the passage if Severus Alexander's thermae was an entirely new building or an addition or
extension of the Baths of Nero, nor even if the alleged construction of balnea denotes only the
construction of buildings from foundations or includes restorations (though the use of the verb
addere seems to support the former). Indeed Merten, looking at the movement of imperial
building away from Rome to Constantinople in the years following Constantine, and the
continuance of private and church benefactions in Rome thereafter, argues that this report about

30 HEINZ, Rom The17TI., devotes an entire chapter to them, pp. 124-141; cf. the length of the article
for them in MANDERSCHEID, &b., pp.lS0-182, s.v. ~Terme di Caracalla"; NASH, Diet., II.434-441, s.v.
~Thermae Antoninianae (Caracallae)"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.53-54, II.3 (C.8). Their dimensions alone are
impressive: the central building is 220m x 140m while the outside wall stretches for 337m x 328m.
3 1 Their dedication between 1 May, 305 and 25 July, 306 is recorded in an inscription /LS 646; cf.
HEINZ, Rom Therm., pp. 112-117; MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp. 183-184, s.v. "Terme di Diocleziano";
NASH, Diet., II. 448-453, s.v. "Thermae Diocletianae"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.55-56, II.J-4 (C.ll). The
dimensions of the central building were 250m x 180m and the outside circuit runs for 380m x 370m. Cf. ITUR,
14.377.57 (Chronogr. A. 354).
32 Sev. Alex., 25.3-4: thermos nominis sui iuxta eas quae Neronianae .fuerunt; and ibid., 39.3-4:
balnea omnibus regionibus addidit, quae forte non habebant.
V] 194

Severns Alexander's balnea is "to be seen at the very least as a tendentiously coloured
exaggeration" which nostalgically evokes "the good old days" of imperial munificence. 33 The
Thennae Decianae are presumably to be dated to the mid-3rd century, but little is known of
them. 34

The Historia Augusta also reports that Gordian III restored the Baths of Trajan and built
some balneae, which were meant for private persons and fitted out accordingly. 35 A curious
statement, characteristic of the sort of obscurity that pervades this source, it seems to imply that
Gordian built baths to be used by certain people, implying that they were not open to the general
public. If so, why were they built, and who were the "private" people? Merten argues that this
passage reflects a restoration of the Balneum Surae carried out by Gordian as attested in an
inscription, but this does not fit with the Historia Augusta's wording.36 Altogether, this notice
remains a mystery, a strange statement typical of this source; it should perhaps not be taken
seriously. The same source adds that Gordian planned a complex of thennae aestivates et
hiemales, which never came to fruition.3 7 Finally, it claims that Aurelian built thennae hiemales
in the Transtibertine region, and that the emperor Tacitus destroyed some of his own buildings
to erect public baths.38 None of this can be checked against any other source.39

33 MERTEN, Biider, pp. 31-34, esp. p. 34: "Zumindest die erste [Nachricht der vita Severns Alexander]
mu13 als tendenzios gefarbte i.ibertreibung angesehen werden."
34 Cf. FTUR, 1.5 (Curiosum).
35 Max. et &lb, 1.4 (frajan); Gord., 32.5: sed balneae privatis hominibusfuerunt et ab eo in usum
privatum exornatae sunt ...
36 MERTEN, Biider, p. 23 (esp. n. 41). The inscription is AE 1921.73, but it may commemorate a
decoration (according to the editors of AEs restoration).
37 HA Gord., 32.7; cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 34-48 on "summer and winter baths" in general, and ibid.,
pp. 34-38 on Gordian's plans in particular.
38 HA Aur., 45.2, cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 41-42 (Aurelian); Tac., 10.4; cf. MERTEN, op. cit.,
pp.ll-15 (facitus).
39 Though note the mention of the balneum ex disciplina d. n. Aureliani in no. 201 (fable 6).
V] 195

The last Imperial set of baths erected at Rome were those of Constantine, built c. AD

315, and executed on a much more modest scale than those ofDiocletian or Caracalla 40

Maxentius constructed thermae "on the Palatine," but they were undoubtedly part of the Palace

and not open to the public. 41 An inscription reports that Constantine's wife, Helena, restored a

set of baths that had been part of a palace of Heliogabalus; it is not clear, however, whether the

baths were then open to the public. 4 2

It is clear that the emperors and their families displayed considerable munificence with

regard to bath building at Rome, but, as in so many other areas of imperial activity, no

systematic "bath policy" is detectable. Rather, their constructions were sporadic, with long

intervening periods when emperors did not build baths in the capital at all. In the absence of

ancient testimony, what motivated individual emperors to construct individual bathing

establishments, or for that matter not to construct them, remains largely a matter for conjecture,

ifhardly for puzzlement as most of the time emperors tended to act ad hoc. 4 3 Heinz suggests.

for example, that Caracalla built his baths near a poor part of town in an attempt "to win the

lower classes for himself. "44 While plausible enough, such a claim is at best speculative. It

could just as easily be argued that these baths, being adjacent to the Via Appia, were built for the

benefit of travellers, or to impress newcomers to the city.

40 Aur. Viet., 40.27. Cf. HEINZ, Rom Therm., p. 122; MANDERSCEHID, Bib., pp.182-183, s.v.
"Terme di Constantino"; NASH, Diet., 11.442-447, s.v. "Thermae Constantinae"; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.56, II.4
(C.13).
4 1 Cf. F1V~ 19.444 (Chronogr. A 354); NIELSEN, Therm., 1.56, II.4 (C.12) where the poorly
preserved baths are considered part of the Imperial Palace.
42 C/L 6.1136 (= 6.31244); cf. NASH, Diet., 11.454-457, s.v. "Thermae Helenae"; NIELSEN, Therm.,
1.54-55 considers them to have been private.
4 3 An apparent exception is the comment in the HA (Aur., 45.2) that Aurelian planned to build winter
baths in the Transtibertine region "because there was a lack of cold water there" (quod aquae .frigidioris eopia illie
deesset). The precise meaning of the clause is a matter for dispute (cf. MERTEN, &Jder, pp. 38-42), but its main
point is surely to explain why Aurelian planned to build specifically winter baths, and not baths per se. On
summer/winter baths, cf. MERTEN, op. cit., pp. 34-48; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.138-140.
44 HEINZ, Rom Therm., p.124: "Durch dieses aufwendige Bad am Rande der Stadt wollte Caracalla die
unteren Bevolkerungsschichten fur sich gewinnen."
V] 196

Resort must therefore be had to general explanations. Public building was simply part of
what the emperor did and was expected to do. 45 But why baths in particular? Were they built in
response to popular demand? This is a possibility, though in general it is hard to prove that
emperors undertook any building projects primarily to please the people.46 It may even have
been the case that emperors' building activities helped generate demand for baths; once lavish
baths existed, people would surely require little spur to use them. On the other hand, why
should emperors undertake to build such vast, essentially functional structures unless it was
anticipated that they would be used? Perhaps it was a mixture of the two: popular demand
encouraged imperial bath building, which in turn encouraged public demand. But all this is
speculation; other, interconnected factors need to be considered.

One such factor is what we may term "dynastic rivalry." A discernible pattern in
imperial building is that of certain emperors attempting to outdo their predecessors. The
construction of a building by one emperor might be viewed by a successor as a challenge to do
better. The process is reflected in the succession of imperial fora, and in the emperors' palaces
and villas.47 But the baths illustrate this phenomenon most clearly. From the Baths of Agrippa
to Diocletian, each new set was bigger and more luxuriously appointed than its predecessor.

45 Cf. the comment in Dio's Speech of Maecenas, that Augustus (by which Dio means any good
emperor) should adorn Rome as a matter or course, Dio 52.30.1. The RG (§§ 19-21) and Imperial biographers
(e.g. Suet. Jul., 44, Aug., 28.3-30, Cal., 21, Claud., 19, Vesp., 8.5-9.1) list the various opera publica of rulers
without comment: it was expected imperial behaviour, part of what VEYNE terms "le style monarchique" (Pain,
pp. 542-543, 622, 639).
46 That there was a demand for baths is clear from the evidence reviewed in the previous chapters. In
most cases, building works of emperors are listed without comment (as in the relevant sections of Suetonius's
Lives, or the Res Gestae,19-24); as just noted, building was simply part of what the emperor did. An exception
is Suetonius's comment (Aug., 29) that Augustus's forum was built due to a need for more market space. It is
not clear, however, whether that need was brought to the emperor's attention by popular demand, and whether the
construction of the forum was in response to that demand.
4 7 For the forum buildings, cf. WARD-PERKINS, Roman Imperial Architecture, pp. 28-33 (Forum
Augustum), 66-67 (Templum Pacis), 77 (Forum Transitorium), 86-95 (Forum/Markets of Trajan); note ill. 6 (p.
30) for an overview of the fora. The imperial palaces and villas are too numerous to document in detail here, but
note, for instance, how the palatial plans of Caligula were outstripped (twice) at Rome by Nero and then by
Domitian. On palaces and villas, cf. A.G. McKAY, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World (London:
Thames & Hudson, 1975).
V] 197

Imperial propaganda, itself a disputed notion, may also have played a role. 48 Whether

imperial construction projects were propaganda, in that they attempted to generate a certain

perception of the state in people's minds, or whether they were merely an expression of an

already existing perception, is not germane to the present inquiry. On either view, construction

by the emperor at the very least symbolized the benevolence of his rule, the permanence and

power of the state (as embodied by the emperor) and the ruler's concern for the welfare of his

subjects (whether or not it was genuinely felt).49 From this perspective, the baths provided an

especially apt manifestation of these combined concepts. Surely, when compared to other public

buildings erected by emperors such as temples, basilicas or arches, the baths had a particularly

direct message. An arch may beautify the city, a temple may express the emperor's piety (which

was certainly important for the state's welfare), but a bath was a primarily functional structure,

allowing the citizens to get clean and relax in often magnificent surroundings. Although the

emperors did provide other public utilities -- markets, aqueducts, roads etc. -- the baths were

arguably one of the most direct architectural expressions of imperial concern for the welfare of

the masses. Like other utilitarian imperial structures, people would have used them regularly,

but unlike other structures baths interacted more directly with their visitors, and so would have

enjoyed a higher profile in the users' perceptions. This point makes the progressively larger

48 Cf. M.P. CHARLESWORTH, "The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: the Creation of Belief," PBA
(1937), pp. 105-133 who argued that propaganda, or the creation of goodwill towards the ruler, was essential to
the empire's survival; buildings are included as a vehicle of such propaganda (pp. 109-11 0), but the chief medium
was coinage. This view has been called into question by VEYNE, Pain, pp. 661-665 who, without direct
reference to CHARLESWORTH, denies the existence of propaganda at all: there was no desire to create a belief in
the majesty of the state, only one to express it, cf. also A. W ALLACE-HADRILL, "The Emperor and his
Virtues," Historia 30 (1981), 289-323. The most recent defence of an "imperial propaganda" is N.
HANNESTADT, Roman An and Imperial Policy (Arhus: Aarhus University Press, 1986), esp. pp. 9-15. In my
view, however, it is difficult not to see propaganda purposes behind the construction boasts of the Res Gestae:
Augustus is clearly highlighting his benevolence and generosity as manifested in his building activity.
49 For these functions of imperial euergetism, cf. VEYNE, Pain, pp. 621-660 and esp. 675-701. It is
noteworthy, however, that despite a considerable volume of evidence baths never feature as coin types, although a
wide variety of utilitarian imperial buildings -- such as aqueducts, castella, roads, fountains, and bridges --were
commemorated (and advertised?) in this way, cf. P.V. HILL, The Monuments ofAncient Rome as Coin Types
(london: Seaby, 1989). It is not clear why the baths should be omitted. Die-casters could undertake
representations of such complex structures as the Domus Flaviorum (ibid., no. 198 [pp. 102-104 ]), so it seems
unlikely that the buildings were too difficult to render; in any event, symbolic representations were always
possible, as for the Via Traiana (ibid., no. 186 [p.96]), and legends could easily be used to identify specific
structures.
V] 198

dimensions of the imperial baths more understandable: the increase in size reflected each
successive bath-building emperor's greater concern for the public good (while simultaneously
overshadowing the efforts of predecessors).

These two points lead to another possibility that has not been previously pointed out.
Looking at the overall pattern of imperial bath building in the capital, it is noticeable that most of
the large-scale thermae were put up by emperors or their associates close to the start of a new
dynasty, on the occasion of a shift in the nature of the succession, or at the end of a civil war. 50
Is this coincidence, or were these emperors trying to symbolize the stability of the new age, and
the concern of the new rulers for their people, by erecting the very structure which best
symbolized peace, prosperity and imperial benevolence?

The claim that the Romans built baths out of a "concern for the general welfare of the
public at large" appears exaggerated. 51 While the perceived therapeutic value of baths is not
really to be doubted, the claim gives the impression that baths were part of a Roman "health

50 So Agrippa for Augustus; Titus for the Flavians; Trajan and Licinius Sura for the Antonines;
Commodus and Cieander for the transition from adoptive to blood dynasty; Septimius Severns and Caracalla for
the Severans; Diocletian for the restoration of order after the chaos of the third century; and Constantine after the
civil war with Maxentius. The exception to this scheme is the Baths of Nero, the construction of which may
well have been due to that emperor's desire to be popular among the masses, cf. M.T. GRIFFIN, Nero: The Eruf
ofa Dynasty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 104-105, esp. 104: "Nero had always found it
congenial to strive for popularity with the Roman plebs ... " Note, by way of comparison, it was just such
occasions as those listed above that prompted the Athenians to set up statues of emperors or members of the
Imperial family, cf. D.J. GEAGAN, "Imperial Visits to Athens: The Epigraphic Evidence" in Tipa.KTLKa. TOll
H '.6.tE8VODS' :2:DVE5pwD EA.A.EVlKT)S' Ka.t /\a.nvtKT)S' Emypa.¢tKT)S', A8T)va., 3-9
OKTW~ptoll 1982 (Athens: Ava.TDTTO A TO~Oll, 1984), pp. 70-78, esp. 71-72.
Sl Cf. e.g. SCARBOROUGH, Rom. Med., pp. 78-79; similar sentiments are expressed in ibid., pp. 94
and 134. A.R. HANDS, Charities aruf Soda/ Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968),
p. 144 compares the construction of Roman baths with that in 19th century London. For this, and the rise of the
public bath in American cities in 1840-1890, cf. WILLIAMS, Washing, pp. 5-40; in both cases, the authorities,
at both the national and local levels, took the lead. Such notions persist for the ancient period. albeit in a diluted
form. O.F. ROBINSON, Ancient Rome: City Plonning and Administration (London: Routledge, 1992), pp.
111-129 talks of the Roman authorities' "promotion of public health" (p. 111), despite a disclaimer that the
Romans lacked even the concept of public hygiene (pp. 111-112). She makes statements such as, "Public baths
were a very suitable way for promoting public health" (p. 116), which leaves a strong impression of conscious
intent on the part of the Roman authorities in building them.
V] 199

plan" (which did not exist); in general, to credit that the central authorities undertook bath

construction solely out of an altruistic concern for public welfare is to take too narrow a focus.

One final point The imperial baths of Rome reflected the emperors' special relationship

with the citizens of the city; Veyne has called the capital the emperor's court, where the plebs

were effectively his clientes. 52 An emperor would feel more motivated to provide for the

Romans than for citizens of other Italian or provincial cities. The annona is a good example: it

was provided at imperial expense only for the Romans, not for any other city in the empire. The

emperor's behaviour at Rome cannot be expected to be repeated in the provinces, and, as shall

be seen shortly, the baths illustrate this point admirably.

(ii) Imperial officials and others

Because the capital was primarily the emperor's preserve, 53 it would be surprising to find there

evidence for extensive public construction by imperial officials. During the Republic,

triumpluuores traditionally earned the right to build opera publica with the spoils of their
victories (manubiae), but after Augustus there were no triumphatores other than emperors. The

last case of "private," non-imperial public building attested in the sources is the restoration and

adornment of the Basilica of Paullus by M. Lepidus in AD 22.54

52 Pain, pp. 689-701.

53 Cf. VEYNE, Pain, pp. 685-689.
54 Tac. Ann., 3.72. Tacitus's comments on this incident: "at that time, public munificence wa~ still
customary" (erat etiam tum in more publica munificentia). The implication is that such was not the cao;e in
Tacitus's Rome.
V] 200

In the case of baths, however, some buildings are known, the names of which suggest

they were owned, and possibly built, by high-ranking imperial officials; others are known

which seem to have been built by otherwise unattested private citizens, evidently of some means

(such cases are listed in Appendix 4).55 The main problem is that the buildings tend to take their

name from the cognomina of their builders/owners, so often several identifications offer

themselves. 56 It is entirely possible that none of the men listed as builders or owners had

anything to do with the baths that shared their names, although in some cases (e.g. the Balneum

Tigellini or Clo.udii Etrusci) the connection appears secure.

Additional problems of interpretation arise. For example, a Balnewn Bolani et

Mamertini and a Balnewn Abascanti et Antiochiani are listed in the Notitia in Region I of the
city. 57 Do the names denote two buildings or four? If the former, the doubling up of names for

each structure may be a consequence of repairs or extensions bearing a later builder's name.

Lugli, however, favours the separate structure interpretation, and lists a separate balneum for

each of the four names. 58 Despite the unusual mode of expression used in the Notitia (we

should expect Balnea Bolani et Mamenini etc.),59 he is supported in this view by the parallel

entry in the Curiosum where only a Balneum Abascantis et Mamertini is mentioned, with no

sign of Bolani or Antiochiani. As the names are here crossed, it seems likely that the Curioswn

made two omissions, or that the Balneum Bolani had ceased to function (or exist) in the

intervening period. If this is accepted, the names probably denote separate buildings.

5 5 It must be stressed that the identifications offered there are tentative. Very few names are known
from the ancient world, especially from the lower ranks of society. However, because building a bathhhouse
required substantial financial resources, it can reasonably assumed that bath builders would not usually herald from
the anonymous lower social echelons. Given this, it remains possible that the senatorial identifications listed in
Appendix 4 are at least plausible, if not secure. As for the others, they remain mostly obscure.
56 Cf. Appendix 4.
57 FTUR 8.3.
58 Ibid., 8.147-148 (Abascann); 8.149 (Antiochianz); 8.150 (Bolam) and 8.165-166 (Mamertim). Cf.
also De RUGGIERO, Diz Epigr., 1.970, s.v. "Balneum" where the buildings are listed separately.
59 Compare the balinea Sergium et Put{inium] at Altinum (no. 87 (Table 4)).
V] 201

A further point in favour of this interpretation is the possible identities of the

builders/owners. First chronologically isM. Vettius Bolanus, suffect consul in AD 66. 60 After

him, in chronological order, come: T. Flavius Abascantus, a freedman of Domitian;6 1 M.

Petronius Mamertinus, Praetorian Prefect in AD 139-43;62 and Flavius Antiochianus, consul in

AD 270, and Prefect of the City in AD 269-270 and 272.63 If these men were indeed

responsible for the balnea mentioned in the Notitia and Curioswn (which is, however, far from

certain), their chronological distribution would suggest separate structures.

Another such difficulty is presented by the Balnewn Torquati et Vespasiani (listed only

as Balnewn Torquati in the Curioswn).64 If the arguments presented in the preceding

paragraphs are accepted, these would be separate structures: a Balnewn Torquati and a Balnewn

Vespasiani.65 A possible builder for the former is D. Junius Silanus Torquatus who was consul
in AD 53.66 The Balnewn Vespasiani (mentioned only in the Notitia) is more interesting. As

the cognomen is not attested for any other individual, it seems that the emperor of that name is

the strongest candidate for ownerlbuilder.67 However, a bath built by him is not mentioned in

any other source, which is not necessarily conclusive, but noteworthy. 68 Its listing as a

60 Cf.RE 2.8A,2.1857-1858, s.v. "Vettius" (no. 25) [Stattmann]. Another possibility here is the son
and namesake of this Bolanus (cf. ibid., s.v. "Vettius" (no. 26)) who was ordinary consul in AD 111. The baths
are mentioned in neither article.
61 Cf. PJR2 F 194, where these baths are attributed to him. However, recent research has cast doubt
upon this particular identification. The name was a particularly common one-- a total of 221 Abascanti are
known from Rome, many of them ( 125) of uncertain social status, and so possibly builders or owners of balnea;
cf. H. SOLIN, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, 3 vols., (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982),
11.844-847, s.v. "Abascantus."
62 Cf. RE 19.1217-1219, s.v. "Petronius" (no. 44) [Hoffman]. Although the baths are not mentioned
in this article, it is worth noting that he was a colleague of M. Gavius Maximus, who built baths at Ostia, cf.
no. 22 (Table 2). Another possibility isM. Valerius Mamertinus, rival of Herodes Atticus in the mid-2nd
century (cf. RE 14.951, s.v. "Mamertinus" (no. 1) (Stein].
63 Cf. PJR2 F 203. The baths are not mentioned in this article.
64 Cf. above, n. 20.
65 They are so listed in FTUR 8.178-179 (Torquatl) and 8.180 (Vespasianz).
66 Cf. PJR2 I 837. The baths are not mentioned in this article.
67 Cf. RE 2.8A,2.17ll, s.v. "Vespasianus."
68 E.g. Suet. Vesp., 8 does not mention such a building in his account of the emperor's constructional
activities; cf. L. HOMO, Vespasien, l'empereur du bon sens (Paris: Albin Michel, 1949), pp. 365-378; RE
6.2623-2695, s.v. "Flavius" (no. 206) [Weynand], esp. 2688-2690 for his buildings.
V] 202

balneum suggests a fairly modest structure in comparison with the two larger imperial thermae in
the city (i.e. those of Agrippa and Nero). Is it possible it was built before Vespasian's

elevation, when he was still a private citizen?69 Or afterwards, as a foil to the extravagant

Nero's huge thermae? This latter possibility is perhaps weakened by the continuing popularity

of the Baths of Nero; for Vespasian to have deliberately opened a smaller set might have risked

disfavour with the masses (among whom he appears to have suffered a miserly reputation)_?O

There are other possibilities: the bath was dedicated to the emperor, or named after a statue that

stood inside, and so in no way reflects construction by Vespasian. Certainty proves elusive.

The majority of the balnea discussed above were without doubt privately owned

establishments, run as business investments. Many may have been built or run (or both) by

people of relatively low social standing. 7 1 But if so, such builders/owners must have been of

sufficient substance to construct or buy an urban bathhouse, which would have been well

beyond the means of the average shopkeeper or craftsman. Such men, then, are likely to have

been at least economically prominent in their area of the city.

If even some of the various identifications with known senators, equites and imperial

freedmen and officials proposed above are correct, these baths represent a continuance of the

Republican tradition whereby wealthy citizens were responsible for providing the city with its

69 He was suffect consul in AD 51 (Suet. Vesp., 4.2) and had been in the imperial seiVice for some
time, cf. PJR2 F 398. Cf. J. NICOLS, Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae (Wiesbaden: Historia Einzelshriften
28, 1978), pp. 1-12 for a summary ofVespasian's pre-Imperial career. The bath finds no mention here. His
family was of moderate means (Suet. Vesp., 1.2-4), and he himself was not oustandingly rich as a private citizen
(ibid., 4.3). On the other hand, he must have been of some means to follow a senatorial career. As a result,
whether or not he could have afforded to build a bathhouse, even a balneum run for profit (which would certainly
be in accordance with his rumoured avarice, ibid., 16, 19.2), before becoming emperor remains a moot point.
Another possibility is that his brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, who was praejectus urbi for 12 years (fac. Hist.,
3.75) and apparently more generous with his money (ibid., 3.65) built the bath and named it after Vespasian, but
this is speculation.
70 Suet. Vesp., 16, 19.2.
71 Such is the case, in all likelihood, with the balnea A.bascanti, Fortunati, Polycliti, Stephani, and
A.mpelidis listed in Appendix 4. Many of these names appear to have had SeJVile origins, e.g. of the 221
examples of"Abascantus," 78 denote slaves or freedmen (SOLIN, Namenbuch, ll.913), similarly of 236 attested
"Stephani," 87 are of seiVile origin (ibid., ID.ll86).
V] 203

baths. It might seem to the modem reader that such places could not hope to compete with the

luxury available free-of-charge in the Imperial baths, but certain evidence suggests that these

more modest establishments could on occasion offer splendour (albeit on a lesser scale) to rival

the Imperial best. 72 In addition, many people are more likely to have lived nearer a local

balneum than an Imperial thermae, the convenience of which would have attracted custom.
Perhaps, as well, the smaller (less salubrious) facilities attracted a regular set of patrons. 73 The

pubs of the British Isles offer a comparison: regular customers will willingly pass up more

comfortable surroundings in favour of their "local. "74 Whatever the case, the figures in the

Notitia -- 856 balnea to 11 imperial thermae -- attest to the enduring popularity of these Imperial
descendants of Republican Rome's modest public establishments.

72 Cf. below, pp. 245-246; note esp. the &lneum or Thermulae Claudii Etrusci, cf. Stat. Silv., 1.5,
Mart. 6.42. For free admittance to imperial thermae, cf. Fronto Ep. Grec., 5.1 (ed. Van Den ROUT [Teubner,
1988], p. 244); HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 23-24; MERTEN, &ider, pp. 6-11; NIELSEN, Therm., I. 133-134.
Note also that Gloss. Lat., lll.651.10 includes the (unanswered) question, ad thermas aut in privato? If the
privato is taken to mean a privately owned facility open to the public, the question may indicate that the thermae
were free (which presumably would be the chief distinction between the thermae and privati). Alternatively.
privato may denote a private bathing suite at home, but this is unlikely: the party is clearly about to go out to
bathe. When the scene shifts to the bathhouse, an entrance fee is paid and change received -- da balnitori
nummos, accipe reliquum (ibid., 652. 10) --but it is not clear if the place is thermae or (balneum) privatum.
73 For the more unpleasant baths available to the ancient public, cf. below, pp. 247-249.
74 For "regulars" at Roman baths, cf. Ch. 7, n. 145.
 CHAPTER VI

BUILDERS AND MAINTAINERS OF PUBLIC BATHS II:

ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Introduction

Although emperors cannot be expected to have built baths in Italy and the provinces as a matter

of course, their doing so is not unheard of. Such cases are treated first, along with those

credited to imperial officials. However, the main questions addressed in this section are: Who

built and maintained the majority of the baths of the empire's towns and municipalities? From

what social strata did bath builders originate? What motivated their actions? The epigraphic

testimony assembled in the Tables proves pivotal, though other sources are employed where

applicable.

The epigraphic sample comprises 267 entries (including the addendum). This is not a

particularly high total, given the area and the timespan covered, so results are to be treated with

reserve. Nonetheless, something can still be learned from an analysis.

(i) The central authorities

The limited role of the central authorities in bath construction and maintenance illustrates

the distant nature of the imperial authorities' role in provincial life.

204
VI] 205

Emperors'

Only five inscriptions from Italy and the provinces unequivocally record an emperor
erecting public baths for a local community. 2 The earliest is a bath "given" by Augustus to
Bononia, which probably means "built": as the baths were restored by a later emperor (Gaius or
Nero) the implication is clearly that Augustus erected the original structure.3 Baths were built
by Vespasian for two Lycian communities, Cadyanda and Patara.4 At Ostia, Antoninus Pius
completed an establishment promised by Hadrian, the latter perhaps acting in the capacity of
honorary duovir.5 This building is also a special case, because Ostia's proximity and
importance to Rome probably ensured a greater degree of Imperial attention here than
elsewhere. 6 Finally, an inscription records that Constantine built baths at Reims. 7

These five inscriptions may be supplemented by other texts. One of the empresses,
Faustina, is credited with baths at Miletus, but such acts of munificence by members ofthe
imperial house other than the emperor can be regarded as private benefactions. 8 There is an
inscription from Volubilis recording the restoration of a domus cum balineo by Gordian 111. 9 It

1 Number references in this section are to Table 1, unless otherwise indicated.

2 Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8 15.

3 Cf. nos. 1 and 2 and notes.

4 Nos. 3 and 4 and notes.

5 No. 8. These are probably the Baths of Neptune, cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, p. 409; NIELSEN, The1m .•

ll.5 (C.24). On Hadrian's possible duovirate at Ostia, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., p. 88, n. 4; MEIGGS,
Ostia, pp. 175 and 409 offers little support. Emperors, members of the Imperial family, or other magnates could
be so honoured by municipalities; when they were, their duties were discharged by a locally appointed praefectus
Caesaris, cf. L.A. CURCHIN, The Local Magistrates ofRoman Spain (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1990), p. 35.
6 Cf. nos. 17, 18 (Table 1); 20, 22,28 (Table 2). It is noteworthy that the cost of this bath at Ostia, at
HS2,000,000, outstrips by far the other known bath-costs in Italy or Africa, cf., R.P. DUNCAN-JONES, The
Economy ofthe Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 2nd ed.),
nos. 29-31 (p. 91) (Africa) and 439,443,444, 445,447,450 (p. 157) (Italy). Cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 51-78.
7 No. 15.
8 Nos. 100 (Table 4) (Faustina); cf. 199 (Table 6) (Vibia Gallia).
9 AE 1922.57: Imp. Caesar M. Antonius I Gordianus Pius Felix, Invictus I Augustus domum cum
balineo I vetustate conlapsum II a solo restituit curante I M. Ulpio Victore v.e., pore. (sic) I pro. legato
VIJ 206

is far from clear what type of structure is being referred to here; it may be a private house or

palace with a bath, or it may be an unidentifiable public building which had a bath attached to it

such as a mansio. IO

Several baths in Italy and the provinces were named after emperors.l 1 It might be

conjectured, in light of the custom of naming baths after their builders, that the relevant

emperors were responsible for their construction. While this may be true in some cases, caution

is advised. Naming a bath after an emperor was one way of displaying loyalty to the regime, as

well as perhaps being fashionable -- if Rome can have Thermae Antoninianae, so can

Nicomedia The dedicatory inscription of the Balinewn Hadrianwn at Apamea, which would

have stood over or near the entrance to the building, expressly says that the bath was built by the

local government from public money and dedicated to Hadrian, his wife, the imperial house and

the Senate and People of Rome.I2 Finally, it is possible that emperors may lie hidden among

bath constructions whose builders remain anonymous due to the fragmentary nature of the

surviving texts. 13 All that can be said for sure is that our corpus, covering the entire empire for

10 Baths are a habitual feature of mansiones, cf. above, Introduction, n. 6 (pp. 4-5).

11 For instance :

- Balineum Hadrianum: ILS 314 (Apamea) =no. 45 (fable 3)

- Thermae Commodianae: ILS 5511 (Beneventum) = no. 205 (fable 6)

- Thennae Severianae: ILS 5478 (Liternum) =no. 39 (fable 3)

-Thermae Antoninianae: ILS 613 (Nicomedia) =no. 13 (fable 1)

- Thennae Gallienianae: AE 1913.180 (Thibursicum Bure) =no. 51 (fable 3)

- Balneum Aurelianum: ILS 5687 (Caesena) =no. 127 (fable 5)

- .6.1.0KA T)TtaYOV ~O:.AQVWV(sic): AE 1932.79 (Palmyra).

- Thennae Licinianae: ILTun.1500 (Dougga) =no. 164 (fable 5)

- Thennae Constantianae:ILS 5704 (Ephesos) =no. 29 (fable 2); CIL 10.4599 ( Trebula) =no.

170 (fable 5)
- Thennae Gratianae: JLS 5701 (Segusio) =no. 69 (fable 3)
-To ~o:.A.o:.vEl.ov TOU/TWV 2:E~O:.OTOUIWV:IGR 4.1519 (Sardis), SEG 27 (1977), 746
(Ephesos).
12 No. 45 (fable 3) and note. See also JK 4.16 (dedication of a bath to Julia, probably the daughter of
Augustus, at Assos in Asia); AE 1909.136 (dedication of baths to Claudius at Miletus); AE 1934.80 (dedication
of baths to Commodus at Siga, Africa); JGR 1.854 (dedication of a bath to Severns and Caracalla at Olbia,
Sarmatia).
13 Cf. e.g. CIL 8.12274, 8.23293, 11.1433.
VI] 207

a period spanning several centuries, reveals only five public baths that were defmitely built or

directly funded by emperors. Of these, two are in Italy, two in Asia, and one in Gaul.

What of other bath-related construction? Did the emperors help directly in the

adornment, restoration or extension of baths? The evidence here is fuller than for bath building,

but not especially impressive on its own terms. Only 13 restorations are known to be the work

of emperors, all but three from Italy .' 4 Marcia Aurelia, the concubine of Commodus, restored

baths at Anagnia. 15 Three texts record the extension of baths by emperors, all late, and all in

conjunction with restorations; such extensions coupled with restorations can be regarded as a

single act of beneficence.I6 S~ven inscriptions record the adornment of baths by an emperor, all

but one in conjunction with other work.l7 Another from Thamgudi dated to Caracalla's reign

may record a decoration by the emperor. IS

In total, the corpus provides only 19 separate instances of constructional bath

benefactions by emperors in Italy and the provinces. This is remarkably few, and a likely sign

that, whatever their bath-building activities in the city of Rome, the emperors did not regularly

personally extend this benefaction to the empire at large. When they did, Italy was the main

beneficiary. Such a situation is fully in keeping with the "distant and reactive" model of the

emperor's place in provincial life. It is also likely that behind many of these bath constructions,

restorations, and extensions lie embassies from local communities asking for an imperial

benefaction, though the texts are not likely to reflect this expressly.1 9

14 Cf. nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.
15 JLS 406, for Marcia, cf. PJR2 M 261. It seems that she came from Anagnia (her father appears to
have been the imperial freedman Aurelius Sabinianus Euhodius, cf. no. 148 (fable 5)).
16 Nos. 13, 18, 19.
17 Nos. 4, 7, 8, 14, 18, 19 (decoration in conjunction with other work) and no. 11 (decoration alone).
18 CJL 8.2370 (cf. p. 951).
19 Cf. MILLAR, Emperor, pp. 363-463, esp. 420-434 where it is shown that the embassy/imperial
audience was a main mode of communication between emperor and subject community. See also JACQUES,
Liberti, pp. 322-324.
VI] 208

Imperial officiafs20

Before examining this category of benefactors, two classificatory distinctions employed

in Table 2 must be highlighted. First, included here are only those cases of imperial officials
who appear to have acted in an "official capacity" when making the benefaction, i.e. men who
benefited a community in the area under their jurisdiction, as opposed to their native
communities (in which case their actions are classified as those of a private, local benefactor).
This may be a somewhat misleading distinction, as it is not clear whether Roman bathers would
have drawn it. But for the purposes of the present inquiry, which distinguishes separate classes
of benefactor, there is a difference. It was not expected of imperial officials to build or restore
baths (or other public buildings) for communities under their jurisdiction, and when they are
found to do so, it is pertinent to ask why.

But caution is advised. Vigilance is required to distinguish the "official" from the "local"
benefactions. This last point is illustrated by the massive benefactions conferred on the Spanish
city of Castulo by Q. Torius Culleo, procurator of Hispania Baetica, among which featured the
giving of ground for the construction of a public bath.2 1 This would appear to be a
straightforward case of an imperial official benefiting a city with a bath. However, Castulo lay
in Hispania Tarraconensis, not in Culleo's province of Baetica, and the lavish scale of the
combined benefactions, estimated at between HS 10-20 million, would indicate that Cull eo was a
native of Castulo benefiting his hometown. In other words, Cull eo, although an imperial
official, was acting as a private benefactor favouring his native city in much the same way as
Pliny the Younger favoured his hometown, Comum.22 Such acts ought to be distinguished

20 All references to Table entries in this section are to Table 2, unless otherwise indicated.
21 JI..S 5513 (=no. 260 (Table 7] and note).
22 For Pliny the Younger's benefactions to Comum and elsewhere, cf. JI..S 2972 and esp. DUNCAN­
JONES, Econ., pp. 27-32.
VI] 209

from benefactions conferred by imperial officials on communities under their authority, which
was only temporary in any case.

The second point concerns curatores rei publicae. They are normally considered external
officials, appointed by the emperor to oversee the finances of one or more communities.23
While this may be largely true for the Principate, by the late Empire the nature of the office had
changed to that of a local magistracy: curators were drawn from local stock, and were chosen by
the local authorities, although still ultimately appointed by the emperor.24 In light of this
development, curators of the Principate are classified as imperial officials, and so considered in
this section, while those of the Tetrarchic period or later are classified as local magistrates, and
are treated as such below.25

Only one inscription clearly identifies an imperial official as the builder of baths, and that
is a curator r. p. at Verona, while three others most probably reflect the building of baths by a
praejectus Jab rum, a praetorian prefect, and a rector Samnin·cus respectively.26 ( An inscription
from Catania in Sicily records a proconsul doing something to the baths there, but the crucial

23 Thus, for instance, R.P. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 170; cf. R. DUTHOY, "Curatores rei publicae en Occident
durant le Principat," AncSoc 10 (1979), 171-239; ; W. ECK, Die staatliche Organisation Ita liens in der hohen
Kaiserzeit (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1979), pp. 190-246, esp. 198-205; F. JACQUES, Les curateurs des cites dans
/'occident romain (Paris: Etudes prosopographiques 5, 1983); id., liberte, pp. 282-300.
24 Cf. G.P. BURTON, "The Curator Rei Publicae: Towards a Reappraisal," Chiron 9 (1979), 465-488,
esp. 477-479, though the shift had been noted before, cf. RE 4.1806-1811, s.v. "curatores" (no. 10) [Kornemann].
Some curators of local stock are known as far back as the early 2nd century AD, continuing into the 3rd. (cf.
JACQUES, Curateurs, pp. 249-393) though the majority had taken part in the imperial service (usually the
military) before being appointed. BURTON's point is that by the 4th century, the office had become wholly
local. There may have been exceptions. CURCHIN, Magistrates, p. 166 (no. 298), cf. pp. 35-36 cites C.
Aufidius Vegetus at Burgvillos as a 2nd-century locally appointed curator r.p. (he had been duovir twice; cf. no.
63 [Table 3]). However, the text does not specify what Aufidius's cura was: he is not expressly said to have been
a curator r. p.
25 It is clear from the titulature of the men involved that this distinction is valid. and offers further
support for Burton's position. Compare, for instance, the imperial careers of nos. 23 and 24 with the local ones
of 68 (Table 3), 162 (Table 5).
26 Cf. nos. 21 (praefectusfabrum), 22 (praefectus praetorio), 23 (curator), and 40 (rector) and notes.
VI] 210

word explaining his activity is missing.)27 Four is not a high total, and in the case of the curator

r. p. at Verona, money was given for the completion of a project already begun. Note also that

three of the four constructions belong to the Principate, with only one falling in the late Empire.

All but one were carried out in Italy. It seems safe to conclude that imperial officials, like

emperors, did not frequently build baths in Italy and the provinces. As noted above, since

construction for communities in their provinces did not normally feature among imperial

officials' duties, this is not surprising. All the less so, when the expense and length of time

required to build baths are taken into account. Despite this, the variety of officials attested here

is noteworthy, from the modest position of praejectus fabrum, to the more lofty consular

curator, and a praetorian prefect.

The situation for restorations, extensions and adornments is not much different,

although, as with the emperors, there is slightly more evidence. Thirteen inscriptions clearly

record the restoration of baths or parts thereof by imperial officials. 28 Another may record the

restoration of baths by a legatus pro praetore in Dalmatia in the third century, but the name is too

fragmentary to be absolutely sure. 29 Of the 13 texts, all but three are of Italian provenance, and

all but one are late. As many communities would initially have built baths during the prosperous

days of the 2nd century, and since the upheavals of the 3rd century would have left many public

amenities neglected, this is to be expected. 30 That most of the restorers were officials with

2? C/L 10.7018: Q. Lusius ll.abertus I proconsul I thermas II[--]. The inscription is from the
architrave blocks of 4 Corinthian columns, a fifth apparently bearing the missing fecit or dedit or refecit or
whatever.
28 Nos. 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42. Possibly also the undated CIL 5.8807
from Acelum where baths that burned down are restored curante P. Acilio P. j Domo Rofma] curatore rei
publicae. However, the fragmentary text does not make clear whether the work was paid for by the local
authorities (with Acilius supervising), or whether he paid for it himself, so it is excluded. Full text: [--)
[b]alineum vi ignis conla[psum] I curan[te] I P. Acilio P. til. Domo Ro[mano?] I curatore rei publicae
29 C/L 3.10054. The name as it survives is L. Do( ... ) I Ga,l( ... J and the suggested restoration is
L. Domitius Gallicanus, leg. pr. pr. in the 3rd century (he lived during the reigns of Gordian I and Philip the
Arab, cf. CJL 2.4115 and PJR2 D 148).
30 In this regard, cf. H. JOUFFROY, La construction publique en ltalie et dans /'Afrique romaine
(Strasbourg: AECR, 1986), pp. 125-129 where "le siecle des Antonins" sees more bath constructions in Italy
than any other period. Note also that of the 387 baths catalogued by NIELSEN, Therm., ll.l-47, some 152
(40%) are dated to the 2nd century AD; of the 67 Italian examples, 28 (41 %) are of2nd-<:entury date.
VI] 211

localized powers (correctores, rectores, consulares) reflects the conditions in the late Empire,
with its fragmentation of the Principate's larger administrative units. 31 Building activity by
governors (praesides), however, is not unknown.32

Only two inscriptions clearly record the extension of baths by imperial officials: the
addition respectively of an atriwn and aqueduct. 33 Both are late and extra-Italic. Six
commemorate the adornment of baths by imperial officials, one of which was coupled with
another benefaction (an extension).34 All are late (with one undated), and all but one are of
Italian provenance. A fragmentary inscription from Africa may record the adornment of baths
by a proconsul and curator r. p. 35 An African text throws light on how a curator r. p. could
operate. It tells how the council of Thibursicum Bure imported four marble statues from "a
lonely and rocky place already overnanging" to the apodyteriwn of their baths, and did so "with
the urgent foresight of Aurelius Honoratus Quietanus, curator rei publicae ."36 Here, the curator
r. p. apparently suggested the movement of the statues, while the local government carried out

the actual task.

The total for constructional bath benefactions by imperial officials is 24. Like the
emperors, imperial officials did not build or maintain baths in any great numbers; also like the
emperors, they tended to benefit Italy more than the provinces ( 18 Italian benefactions to 6
provincial). Although the more localized officials predominate, governors, procurators and even

31 Cf. A.H.M. JONES, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative
Survey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp. 366-410.
32 E.g. nos. 27, 35, 38; note also the procurator (no. 25) and proconsul (no. 29).
33 Nos 29 (atrium) and 38 (aqueduct).
34 Nos. 20, 26, 30, 39, 43 (adornments only) and 29 (extension and adornment).
35 CJL 8.25845; The text is too fragmentary to be sure what work was carried out (although at least an
adornment is clear enough). The proconsul Hilarianus Hesperius, whose name is in the nominative, had some
hand in the activity, but his role (and that of the curator) is not entirely clear. As a result, the text is excluded
form the Tables. For Hesperius, cf. PLRE 1 Hesperius 2 (pp. 427-428). The text reads: [Valente Gr]atiano et
Valentin[iano I Augu]stis thermis aestivis [--]I orna[t]us constitue[r]u(nt I[--] Hil]rianus Hesperius v. c. proco(s]
ll(cu]ratore r. p. et Minucio Mu[--].
36 No. 115 (Table 5) and note.
VI] 212

a praetorian prefect are attested. However, imperial officials could show an interest in public
bathing other than constructional: they appear to have frequented the public baths in their
provinces, even held court there. 37 A text from Villa Magna in Africa commemorates a
benefactor who finished off and dedicated a pool (among other parts?) sub administratione
proconsulis p(rovinciae) A(fricae).38 This may mean simply "during the administration of the
proconsul," but the absence of a name for the proconsul in question makes this unlikely. More
likely it means "under the managementldirection of the proconsul," in which case it suggests that
the governor ordered the completion of an unfinished bath, the sight of which must have been
uncomplimentary to the community, and the work was then carried out by Stulinus, the
benefactor named in the inscription. Such a duty was not unusual for a govemor.39 Pliny the
Younger -- effectively doubling as governor and curator r. p. -- reported that the baths at Prusa
in Bithynia were "old and filthy" and in need of repair; the locals were to be responsible for
carrying out and paying for the restoration.40

Why did these imperial officials benefit cities and communities in their provinces at all?
These, after all, were communities to which the benefactor owed no loyalties or obligations.41
From this perspective, the distinction between imperial officials acting in an "official capacity"
(i.e. while on duty in a particular area), and those acting as private, local benefactors (i.e.
benefiting a hometown before or after a stint in the imperial service) is clear. Many of the

37 Cf. below, pp. 260. Cf. D. FEISSEL & J. GASCOU, "Documents d'archives romains inedits au
Moyen Euphrate (llle Siecle apres J.-C.)," CRA/1989, 535-561, esp. 545-557 where the governor Julius Priscus
hears a petition "in the Baths of Hadrian" (EV TCt.lS 'A5pwvciis 8Ep~Ct.lS; compare HA Aur., 10.3,
13.1).
38 No. 196 (Table 6) and note.
39 Cf. Dzg., 1.16.7.1 (proconsuls and legates should inspect subject communities' public buildings and
recommend any repairs); ibid., 1.18.7 (praesides to do likewise).
40 Pliny, Ep., 10.23 and 24. The hath is described as et sordidum et vetus. Note also JLS 5615 where
Trajan orders the locals ofRicina to repair their bath and squares (platias) which had been left to the town in the
will of a local benefactor. Clearly there wa<; imperial concern for the appearance of municipalities, even if there
was a reluctance to intervene directly. On Pliny's position in Bithynia, cf. R.J.A. TALBERT, "Pliny the
Younger as Governor of Bithynia-Pontus" in C. DEROUX (ed.), Studies in lAtin literature and Roman History
11 (Brussels: Collection Latomus 168, 1980), pp. 412-435, esp. 423-434.
41 Note, for instance the considerable benefactions of Fabius Maximus (nos. 31-33 and note) to
Samnium, or Cecina Alhinus (no. 34 and note) to Numidia.
VI] 213

motives that can be surmised for local authorities and benefactors therefore do not apply here.
There is no direct evidence. Possibly they wished to reflect well on themselves to obviate any
potential discredit arising from other of their actions, or they may have acted out of a desire for
greater prestige, or out of altruism, or a mixture of the two. But all of this is conjecture; beyond
such generalities, the matter remains obscure.42

Overall, our corpus provides only 43 instances of construction, restoration, extension or

adornment of baths by emperors or imperial officials in Italy and the provinces. This is a
remarkably low total, considering the geographical area covered and the timespan involved, and
leads to the conclusion that the central authorities did not actively promote bathing in the
provinces by direct benefaction. Of the benefactions listed, Italy attracted a greater degree of
official attention than did the provinces: 31 (72%) out of 43.

These observations support the "distant" model of imperial administration, namely that to
his subjects (especially those living outside Italy), the emperor and his agents were detached
entities whose interest in local conditions was largely restricted to matters of imperial security
and revenue.43 It is worth noting that in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan from Bithynia, the
emperor's interest in local conditions is minimal, at least for those circumstances that did not
bear directly on the smooth administration of the region. 44 Likewise, imperial concern with
bath-related matters in the Digest is superficial: for the most part, baths appear in cases
illustrating broader legal principles, such as transfer of property and ownership, criminality and

42 Note the extraordinary outlay of7 million drachmas (HS28,000,000) ofHerodes Atticus and his
father for the bath-gymnasium at Alexandria Troas (NIELSEN, Therm., 11.36 [C.292]) when Herodes was
corrector Asiae in AD 134/5 (cf. Phil. Vit. Soph., 2.1.3; W. AMELING, Herodes Atticus (Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1983), pp. 54-56). However, Herodes was an extraordinary euergete in his own right (Phil. Vit Soph.,
2.1.1), and his behaviour at Alexandria should not be taken as typical for imperial officials. Cf. Lib. Or., 1.82.
43 Cf. above, p. 183.

44 Cf. below, pp. 223-224.

VI] 214

personallitigation.45 There is no concern for dictating who is to be responsible for bath

construction, or regulating how they should be built. Evidently, the provision and maintenance
of public baths was, in the eyes of the central authorities, not their responsibility. The
possibility that they reflect imperial concern for the health and welfare of the general populace
therefore becomes more remote.46

(ii) Local authorities and private benefactors

The relative infrequency of imperial construction in Italy and the provinces requires that
municipal authorities (in the form of local councils, magistrates and officials) and private
benefactors account for the majority of public edifices. 47 Baths were no exception. 48
Compared with the 43 benefactions credited to the central authorities, 163 are attested from local
sources.49 The ratio is almost 4:1 in favour of locals. This situation reflects the relative
autonomy of the municipalities in running their own affairs. The two main types of agents, local
authorities and private benefactors, should not be sharply differentiated: as Duncan-Jones has

45 Cf. Dig., 7.1.13.8, 7.1.15.1 and 12, 8.5.8.7, 9.2.50, 13.6.5.15, 30.41.8, 32.55.3, 32.91.4,
33.7.13.1 and 17.2, 34.2.40.1, 35.2.80.1, (property and ownership); 1.15.3.5, 2.4.20, 3.2.4.2, 47.17,
48.5.10(9).1 (criminal activity); 16.3.1.8, 17.1.16, 19.2.30.1 and 58.2, 20.4.9, 43.21.3.7, 47.10.13.7 (personal
litigation). In most of these cases the baths are taken as an example to illustrate a larger principle of law
regarding transfer of property in a will, usufruct etc. (I am indebted to Prof. R.J.A. Talbert for these Digest
references).
46 Cf. above, p. 198-199.
47 A comprehensive work devoted to the question of responsibility for public buildings in the Roman
Empire has yet to be written, hut cf. H. JOUFFROY, "Le financement des constructions publiques en ltalie:
initiative municipale, initiative imperiale, evergetisme prive," Ktema 2 (1977), 329-337; her findings here are
expanded in the "Les constructeurs" sections of ead., Construction, pp. 59-61, 105-108, 137-140, 152-153, 169­
171, 197-199,233-237,279-283,311-314. Cf. also R. DUNCAN-JONES, "Who Paid for Public Buildings?" in
F. GREW & B. HOB lEY, Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western Empire (CBA Research Report
59, 1985), pp. 28-33 which has largely been repeated in id., Structure, pp. 176-184. In all these works, local
authorities and benefactors stand out as the chief builders of the empire.
48 Cf. the very brief survey of bath builders in NIELSEN, Therm., 1.119-122, which mostly deals with
related topics such as cost, benefactions of free bathing etc.
49 Nos. 44-206 (Tables 3-6) inclusive.
VI] 215

pointed out, in the long run the money generally came from the same pockets anyway. 50 Since
decurions, municipal magistrates, and private benefactors all stemmed for the most part from
among the local wealthy landowners, this proposition gains weight. 5 1 In this section, the
activities of the "public and private sectors," to borrow modern terms, will be considered
together under the rubrics of type of construction, though the two types of agent are separated in
the Tables for ease of reference. Motives are treated after a survey of non-constructional
benefactions and the social status of the benefactors.

Baths built

There are some 29 texts recording baths built by local authorities, either in the form of
councils or senates, or of magistrates or other officials (mostly sevin). 52 Of these, town
councils (usually identified as the municipiumfcolonia or respublica) account for 10, and
magistrates and officials for 16; 3 were built by men described only as patroni.53 It is
noteworthy that only one of the town-council texts derives from Italy. 54 As to chronology, the
earliest is Flavian and the latest dates to AD 413, but most fall in the High Empire.

When a local magistrate is credited with building a bath, it is often difficult to decide
whether he was acting as an agent of the council, or on personal initiative. The texts can specify
that the work was carried out "(entirely) at his own expense," making it clear that the official

50 Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure, p. 184: "The distinction between public and private financing can
be pressed too far. When a municipal building was paid for with public money, a large part probably still came
from the pockets of the propertied class through the summa honoraria." Summae honorariae, however, may not
have been universally used for construction: it seems that in Italy they were usually spent on games or sportulae,
cf. JOUFFROY, Ktema 2 (1977), 335. Despite this, DUNCAN-JONES's main point still holds.
5 1 For the social status and wealth of local decurions and magistrates in Spain (which is probably
representative of the West), cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 71-84 and 103-114.
52 Nos. 44-72 (fable 3) inclusive.
53 Cf. Table 3, sections A, Band C respectively. For patroni, cf. note to Table 3C.
54 No. 49 (Table 3).
VI] 216

was acting alone, but sometimes they offer no such clarification. 55 As funding public
construction was not an official duty of any local magistracy, such work when carried out sua
pecunia was tantamount to a private, voluntary benefaction. 56 The distinction between local
office-holder and private benefactor therefore becomes blurred, but by listing the offices he held,
a benefactor was declaring that he had acted as a participant in local affairs, and wanted to be
remembered as such. That is enough for our present purposes.

A wide range of local offices is represented, from the highest posts of duovir and
quattuorvir iure dicundo, to a vague position of mag(ister) or mag(istratus). 57 There are three
seviri. 58 That the latter should undertake a bath construction is an interesting testament to the
financial power of the individuals concerned, and may reflect the freedperson's eagerness to
acquire status in the community. 59 Cost may also explain why none of the baths are said to
have been built ob honorem, or as a promise of office. 60 Evidently. the cost of a bathhouse was
considered far too great a price for local office.6t

55 Cf. nos. 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67 (sua pecunia or equivalent), 56, 57, 62, 68, 69 (no
clarification).
56 For the duties of magistrates, cf. CUR CHIN, Magisn·ates, pp. 58-70. Although some municipal
charters stipulate that magistrates were expected to make some personal outlay -- such as aediles, who had to fund
spectacles, at least partly, cf. the lex Ursonensis, 71 (= JLS 6087.71) --none expressly assigns the cost of public
building to holders of local office. Of course, this shows only that it was not a legal requirement of office­
holding: it may have been generally expected nonetheless (this is investigated more fully in the "Motivation"
section below).
57 Cf. nos. 55, 60, 62, 63, 66 (duovin); 65 (quattuorvir i.d.); 61 (OTpCXTT")YOS"); 58 (quaestor); 57,
64 (yu~ VCWlci.PXOl); 67 (AOYlOTCU); 68 (curator r. p.); 69 (magistratus'!).
58 Nos. 54, 56, 59.
59 On the social difficulties facing se~'iri (for the most part freedmen, though descendants of freedmen
could also hold the position), and their ambitions as reflected in munificence, cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 71­
73.
60 Benefactions ob honorem were virtually liturgies, in that they were the expected munera of a local
magistrate. Promises, po/licitationes, were made while campaigning for a local office. Cf. VEYNE, Pain, pp.
20-29; JACQUES, Libene, pp. 668-757, esp. 699-707, 722-757. The closest we come to hearing of a bath
construction ob honorem is from Aquae Neri in Aquitania where a father and two sons complete porticoes "which
surround the springs and public baths" (porticus, qui bus fontes Nerii et thermae p(ublicae? cinguntur ... )) ob
honorem jlamoni, cf. no. 150 (fable 5).
6! For bath costs, cf. Au!. Gel!., AN., 19.10.1-4 where Cornelius Fronto plans to build a bath (public
or private is not specified), and is quoted a price of HS300,000 by one architect, while a friend says a further
HSSO,OOO will be required. According to the figures provided by DUNCAN-JONES, Econ . the average cost of a
bathhouse in Africa (p. 91) and Italy (p. 157) would be HS200,000 and HS234,000 respectively (this latter figure
excludes the HS2 million provided at imperial expense for baths at Ostia, cf. no. 8 (fable 1)). This is
VII 217

Finally in this regard, note that three baths were built by men designated only as
pa1roni. 62 These would be eminent individuals (of local origin or residence) coopted by the
municipal council, though the position does not seem to have carried with it an expectation of
large-scale munificence.63

With a total of 42, the constructions of private benefactors are slightly more numerous
than those of local authorities.64 They are mostly men of local origin, but not necessarily:
compare the bath benefaction of Pliny the Younger to his native Comum, to the considerable
gifts of Opramoas, a citizen of Rhodiapolis, to four Asian communities, Telmessos, Oenoanda,
Gagae and Xanthos. 65 An interesting inscription from Corfmium records a private benefaction
that seems to have become something of a white elephant for the town, and illustrates how thin
was the line between public and private outlay .66 A local consular benefactor erected and roofed
baths for the town on his own ground at his own expense. When he died with the job
unfinished the possessores of his estate contributed a further HS 100,000 to the work,

considerably higher than the overall median building cost in Africa, which is HS43,500 (ibid., p. 75; no median
figure is provided for Italy). Juvenal's figure of HS600,000 for the (private?) baths of a rich man probably
represents an exaggeration, cf. Sat., 7.178-179. On this subject, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.121-122.
62 Nos. 70-72 (fable 3); cf, also note to Table 3C. Another man was a magistrate and patronus (no.
66)
63 For this information I am indebted to C.F. EILERS, of Brasenose College, Oxford, who is
researching imperialpatroni. The topic is too large to go into in detail here, but note the figures for Africa
Proconsularis gleaned from G. WESCH-KLEIN, Liberalitas in Rem Publicam. Pril•ate Aufwendung zugunsten
von Gemeinden im romischen Afrika his 284 1L Chr. (Bonn: Habelt, 1990), pp. 55-280, 362-405: of 342
benefactions (not all constructional), only 21 mention a patronus, and only 11 identify the benefactor as a
patronus.
64 Nos. 73-114 (fable 4) inclusive.
6 5 Cf. nos. 90 (fable 4) (Pliny); 96, 97 (fable 4) (Opramoas). The grand private benefactor of the
Principate must be Herodes Atticus, whose building activities stretched from Asia to Italy, cf. AMELING,
Herodes, pp. 84-94.
66 No. 92 (fable 4) and note. The size of these baths and the extent of Dolabella's initial outlay are not
known, but the establishment must have been either quite large or very luxuriously decorated (or both) to have
cost so much. It is also possible that the inscription reflects a sharing of responsibility for the construction of
the baths, agreed upon from the outset between Dolabella and the local authorities, cf. P. Oxy 43.3088 where a
bath is built in c. AD 128 EK TE TWV T)5T) 0'\JVEl.AEYIJ.EVWV XPT)IJ.!XTWV, WS <l>etTE, KCXt E~ ffiv
av ... which probably went on to mention (and name?) individual contributors, cf. A.K. BOWMAN, "Public
Buildings in Roman Egypt," JRA 5 (1992), 495-503.
VI] 218

presumably from the estate (it is not clear if each man gave HS 100,000, or if the figure
represents the sum of their combined donations). This was not enough, because a further
HS 152,000 was required from public funds. The whole affair seems to have stretched over
some time, perhaps a decade. 67

Many local benefactors have no distinguishing titles; only their names appear.68 Strictly
speaking, such men cannot be defmitely identified as private benefactors; their status is unclear.
Some caution is required here. The absence of a title does not necessarily mean the benefactor
did not have one: he may have been so well known that no titles were needed. For instance,
although Opramoas's titles and offices are omitted from certain texts, he is attested elsewhere as
a Lyciarch, among other offices.69 Opramoas is perhaps an exceptional case, a man of
outstanding euergetistic stature whose fame may have preceded him, and in general it is most
unlikely that a benefactor (especially of local origin) would omit mention of a local or imperial
office, or an honorary title (e.g. egregius vir) from an inscription recording his munificence.7o
Since it is scarcely conceivable that people wealthy enough to build a bath would have no
connection with the decurial class (if not higher), we ought to regard these "name-only"
benefactors as members of the local aristocracy. In this connection, note also six instances of
bath construction by women, most scions of the local gentry. 71 An equal number were built by
women jointly with men_72

67 Ser. Cornelius Dolabella, the original benefactor, was consul in AD 113 (PJR'l C 1350), and the
wording of the inscription would imply that work was begun when he was still alive, although we do not know
when he died. A viola, one of the possessores, was consul in AD 122 (PJR'l A 50); Bradua's (the other possessor)
consulship fell in AD 108 (PJR'l A 1302).
68 Nos. 73, 74, 76, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 95, 99,102, 103, 104, 111,112,113, 114 (Table 4).
69 E.g. TAM 2.905.II.Al cf. /GR 3.736, 738.
70 Cf. Table 3B and nos. 77 (egregius vir), 78 (cXTTEI-..EU8EpOS'), 79 ("l!TTa.TlXr)), 85 (praefectus
Aegypn), 88 (primipilaris, tribunus), 90-2 (coss), 94 (avT)p a~t6t-.oyos-), 98 (cos), 105 (clarissimae
memoriae vir, cos), 106 (clarissima et nobilissimafemina) 107 (vir c/arissimus) (Table 4).
7 1 Nos. 75, 79 (a woman of consular family), 89, 101, 106 and 109 (Table 4); no. 100 is a bath built
by the empress Faustina.
72 Nos. 78, 85, 86, 94, 108 (Table 4).
VI] 219

In total, some 71 bath constructions can be assigned to local agents, of which 42 (59%)

were the work of private benefactors. However, as noted above, the public/private distinction

should not be drawn too sharply. If the "imperial" constructions (i.e. baths built by emperors

and imperial officials) are factored in, the local agents are seen to predominate with 71 (89%) of

a total of 80 bath constructions.

Barhs restored, exrended or adorned

When we turn to restoration, extension and adornment, the situation is somewhat

different. Unlike building, local authorities account for the majority: 62 (67%) out of92

(including private benefactions).13 Of these 62 instances, local councils are responsible for 15,

magistrates and officials for 44, 3 of which were the work of patroni. 74 It seems that local

authorities took a slightly more active role in restoration than they did in initial construction. As

with construction by magistrates, a wide spread of 21 offices is represented, ranging from

duoviri andjlamines to decuriones and even a dictator.15 One or two features are worth
particular mention. For instance, whereas no baths were built ob honorem, two were restored

and extended to mark the acquisition of office, and two others pro honore. 76 Because the cost

of restoration was presumably less than that of initial construction, it was evidently considered

an acceptable expenditure for securing an office (honor). Also there are seven cases where baths

are restored, extended or adorned by men omnibus honoribw;;juncti.11 These acts of

73 Cf. nos. 115-206 (fables 5 and 6) inclusive.

74 Table SA (councils), 5B (magistrates and officials), 5C (patrom).
7 5 Citing only the highest rank from long careers, the offices are (with reference to entries in Table 5 in
brackets): decurio (153, 157); quaestor (168); aedilis (133); duavir (130, 131, 147, 158); quinquennalicus (142);
quattuorvir (141, 156); praefecti (132, 143); curator r. p. (160, 163, 167, 171, 173); principalis (165); decemvir
(148); maglstratus? (166); dictawr (137);jlamen (144, 145, 146, 150, 151, 159, 162, 164); sacerdos (134, 140);
omnibushonoribusfuncti(135, 154,155,161,169,170, 172);sevir(136);patroni(174-176);ypa.IJ.IJ.a.TEUS'
(149); Cipxwv (152); not specified (139). Cf. also below, Chart 3.
76 Nos. 136, 150 (ob honorem); 130, 146 (pro honore) (fable 5).
77 Cf. above, n. 75.
VI] 220

munificence can be seen as the crowning benefaction on careers in local politics that had
included all the available magistracies (and priesthoods?).78

Taking a broad perspective on the bath-related constructional work of local authorities

(whether building, restoration, extension or adornment), a distribution of responsibility for such
work among the representatives of local government emerges.

25

20

15

10

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

KEY: 1= councils 7= quattuorvir 13= dictator 19= logistes

2=decurion &=prefects 14= flamen 20= grammateus
3= quaestor 9= curators 15= sevir 21= archon
4=aedile 10= principalis 16= sacerdos 22= gymnasiarch
5= duovir =
11 decem vir 17= omnibus h.f. 23= patronus
6= quinquennalis 12= magistratus? 18= strategos 24= not specified

CHART 2: The distribution of responsibility for bath construction,

restoration, extension and adornment among local authorities

Although most officials are represented with at least one benefaction, the local councils
predominate, and there are peaks for duoviri, curatores (mostly rei publicae, with one instance

78 For the meaning of the title, cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, p. 39.

Vlj 221

of curatores rejectionis),jlamines, omnibus honoribus juncti and patroni. This is to be

expected, as these represent the most prestigious appointments in the local cursu'\ (or, as in the
case of the omnibus honoribus juncti, men who had held every position), and so more likely to
be marked by an expensive benefaction.79 The same holds true for patroni, who would be
eminent men of local or other origin singled out for particular recognition, although outstanding
munificence does not seem to have been expected of the honour.8o It is worth comparing these
findings with Curchin's inquiry into municipal magistrates' benefactions in Spain (he does not
include priesthoods, parroni and seviri). He finds that in the constructional sphere, duoviri had
a hand in 19 out of 25 benefactions, with two aediles, a prefect, an honorary decurion, a
quinquevir, and quindecimvir also represented.81 Since all of these offices, excepting the
aediles and honorary decurion, represent the highest position in their respective communities,
Curchin's findings coincide broadly with ours, whereby those who reached the uppermost
echelons of local office tended to spend the most money on benefactions.

Private benefactors account for 30 individual benefactions. 82 As with construction texts,

the majority are identified by name only, without any distinguishing titles. 83 These figures for
restorations etc. by local agents indicate that local authorities took a slightly more active role in
maintenance than in initial construction, where private benefactors tended to dominate.

A consideration of the role of women is in order. In all, 26 instances of constructional

benefaction involving women are attested (building and restoration etc.), representing 16% of

79 Cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 21-57.

°8 Cf. above, n. 63.

81 Ibid., p. 109, Table 5. Note also ibid., p. 111, Table 6 where duoviri and one quattuorvir are
responsible for 6 of 8 spectacle benefactions (a decurion and honorary decurion furnish the other two).
82 Nos. 177-206 (Table 6).
83 Nos. (all in Table 6) 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196,201,
202,203, 205. The men with titles are: nos. 188 (cos), 193 (av?)p cX~lO/\oyos), 200 (ducenarius). In
addition, there are two benefactors whose names are lost: nos. 190, 204.
VI] 222

the 163 total.84 If we exclude Faustina (the empress) and Vibia Gallia (daughter of the emperor
Trebonian) as exceptional, the total for the rest is 24 (15%). 85 Quantitatively, this may not be a
significant proportion of the overall total, but given the low profile of women in public life
relative to men, it is understandable. Noteworthy, though, is the number of lone women who
are credited with bath benefactions: 13 of the 24; the rest are associated with their menfolk.86
Six of the 13 women involved undertook the expense of building a complete bath, including one
construction and adornment, and one balneum muliebre; only one held office (sacerdos
perpetua) and she carried out an adomment.87 These observations lend support to scholars'
conclusions about the participation of aristocratic women in public life as benefactors, and so as
prominent and visible members of their communities. 88

At this point, a summary of some general conclusions about responsibility for bath
construction may prove helpful. Given the detached and reactive nature of imperial
administration, it is hardly surprising that the central authorities are not found responsible for
much local bath construction and maintenance: 43 instances for emperors and imperial officials,
compared with 163 for local sources. Of the latter, private benefactors and local authorities have
an almost equal share of responsibility: a total of91 (56%) for the authorities, 72 (44%) for the
benefactors. These figures are not far off Duncan-Jones' findings for public building in North

84 These are: nos. 54, 56, 60 (Table 3); 75, 78, 79, 85, 86, 89, 94, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109 (Table 4);
140, 145 (Table 5); 177, 180, 183, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199,206 (Table 6).
85 Cf. nos. 100 (Faustina) and note, 199 (Vibia Galla).
86 The lone women are: nos. 75, 79, 89, 101, 106, 109 (Table 4), 140 (Table 5), 177, 180, 183, 197,
198, 206 (Table 6). Those associated with menfolk are: nos. 54, 56 (sevirs & wives), 60 (duovir & daughter), 78
(imperial freedman & wife), 85 (praef. Aegypt., his mother & wife), 86 (benefactor & wife), 94 (benefactor &
daughter), 108 (benefactor & wife), 145 (flamen & wife), 191 (benefactor, wife & daughter), 193 (benefactor &
wife).
8? Construction: nos. 75 (balneum muliebre), 79, 89, 101, 106, 109 (Table 4); sacerdos perpetua: no.
140 (Table 5).
88 Cf. R. MacMULLEN, "Woman in Public in the Roman Empire," Historia 29 (1980), 208-218, esp.
210-212, 216-217; more recently, cf. M.T. BOATWRIGHT, "Plancia Magna ofPerge: Women's Roles and
Status in Roman Asia Minor," in S.B. POMEROY (ed.),Women's History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill:
UNC Press, 1991), pp. 249-272.
VI] 223

Africa, for which he proposes an approximately equal divide between public and private

funding.89 In any case, the public/private distinction at the municipal level is slight, and should

not be over-emphasized.

Much of this is reflected in Pliny's letters to Trajan from Bithynia. The imperial envoy

consults the emperor about bath projects planned or underway at Prusa and Claudiopolis. 90

Two points stand out. First, at both Prusa and Claudiopolis it is assumed by Pliny and Trajan

that the local authorities will fund and see to the construction. Second, both Pliny and Trajan's

interest in matters governing the construction of the baths is minimal, save in the anticipated

financial outcome. This is perhaps understandable in the case of Trajan, who was at some

distance from the conditions on the ground. When Pliny proposes a site for the Prusan bath,

Trajan's response is terse; he is far more concerned that the Prusans do not interfere too greatly

with their finances to help fund the construction.9 1 This is again understandable: a disastrous or

over-ambitious project might cut into the central authorities' revenues from the city.

It is interesting to note the financial resources the cities were proposing to use: at Prusa,

the recalling of public debts from private citizens, and the diversion of funds for the provision of

oil in the existing (publicly owned?) baths to the new construction.92 At Claudiopolis, where

the locals were erecting a huge bath (ingens balinewn) on an ill-advised spot, swnmae

honorariae (money paid to the public fisc by incoming councillors and magistrates) were to
provide the principal funds.9 3 Also at Prusa, the local authorities were planning to replace their

89 Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure, pp. 183-184.

90
Cf. Ep., 10.23, 24, 70.1.3, 71.1 (Prusa); 10.39.5-6, 40.3 (Claudiopolis).
91 Cf. Ep., 10.70.1.3 (Pliny's proposed site), 10.71.1 (Trajan's perfunctory reply); compare the latter
with Ep., 10.24 where Trajan is more explicit about how the Prusans should fund the project.
92 Ep., 10.23: erit enim puunia, ex qua fiat, primum ea, quam revocare a privaris et exigere iam coepi,
deinde quam ipsi erogare in oleum soliri parari sunt in opus balinei conferre. It is not clear whether the fund for
oil provided a permanent availabilty of oil in Prusa's baths, or whether it was employed only on certain days, e.g.
festivals or holidays. Cf. Table 7C for oil distributions.
93 Ep., 10.39.5: ex ea pecunia, quam buleutae addiri beneficio tuo aut iam obtulerunt ob introitum aut
nobis exigenribus conjerrent. Only one inscription in our corpus explicitly states that a bath is to be built with
summae honorariae, cf. no. 49 (Table 3), though the practice probably lies behind two other benefactions: nos.
VI] 224

old and decrepit bath with a new one, a rare piece of direct testimony for the motives for bath

building (a topic examined more fully below). 94 The correspondence emphasizes the local

responsibility for bath (indeed, all public) construction.

Before examining the difficult question of motives for bath construction by locals in Italy

and the provinces, there is a need to consider the social status of bath benefactors, and the range

of non-constructional bath benefactions.

(iii) Social status of benefactors, and non-constructional bath benefactions

Social staJus

What class or classes of people carried out bath benefactions? This is best investigated

by examining the epigraphic sample to determine, where possible, social status. In doing so,

the information of Tables 2-7 is reviewed to give as clear a picture as possible. 95 Because the

benefactors themselves are the focus of the present inquiry, double benefactions by single

individuals listed in separate Tables are counted as one (this is especially true of many entries in

Table 7). Although they may hail from different social classes, lone women, to minimise

confusion, are grouped together under the rubric "women"; their individual social statuses are

discussed in the appropriate section below. Joint benefactions, where more than one benefactor

124 (fable 5) and 261 (fable 7). On summae honorariae, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., pp. 82-88, 154 (fable
6). It was not unusual, it seems, to put these sums towards public construction, cf. id. Structure, pp. 175-178.
94 Ep., 10.23 (Pliny's request), 10.24 (frajan's reply). There is little evidence for SHERWIN-WHITE's
suggestion (Letters ofPliny, pp. 592-593) that the Prusans were here replacing their old Greek-style bath with a
more elaborate Roman-style one. That Pliny uses the same word (balineum) for both structures argues against
this proposition. However, Greek-style baths are known to have continued in use into the Roman period
elsewhere, especially in Egypt, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.101.
95 Emperors are a class unto themselves, and so are excluded, as are the benefactions of the imperial
family members, Faustina and Vihia Gallia.
VI] 225

contribute to a single act, will be presented in a separate chart; by their very nature, the activities
of local councils will fall into this category.

In determining the social status of individual benefactors, some problems inherent in the
evidential basis should be mentioned. The status of a truly famous person (such as Pliny the
Younger), or someone active in the imperial service (such as a governor) is bound to be more
easily traceable than that of an obscure private benefactor who never left his patria, nor even
took part in local politics (though such cases are probably rare). The criteria for assigning this
or that individual to a particular class should therefore be discussed.

Senators and equires reveal themselves through the imperial offices they held, and/or
their titles, e.g. vir clarissimus, eques Romanus, vir egregius etc.96 Equiles are divided into
two classes according to the criteria laid out by R. Duthoy in his discussion of imperial patroni:
"functionary"(those whose careers were predominantly in the imperial service), and "honorific"
(those who remained in municipal politics, though a brief sojourn in the imperial service might
have been undertaken).97 Identifying the status of members of the local aristocracy is more
difficult. Some local magistrates could advance to equestrian positions in the imperial service
(usually the military); some could return from such service to hold a local magistracy. 98 Where
evidence for such social mobility exists, I have taken it into account and assigned the individual
to the equestrian, rather than decurial, class, but where it does not I have been forced to make
the assumption that holders of local office are, unless otherwise specified, representative of the

96 On such titles and their association with social strata, cf. H.G. PFLAUM, "Titulature et rang
social sous le Haut-Empire" inCl. NICOlET, Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l'antiquite classique
(Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S, 1970), pp. 159-185.
97 R. DUTHOY, "Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie sous le Haut-Empire," AncSoc 15­
17 (1984-1986), 121-154, esp. 123-127.
98 Note, for instance, the quaestor and quinquennalis who served two terms as a tribunus militum (no.
58 (Table 3); the local praefectus who had an extensive military career (no. 143 (Table 5) and note); and the
quattuorvir (?)who is specified as an eques (no. 156 (Table 5)).
VI] 226

local aristocracy. 99 For private benefactors, we are on even more uncertain territory. As seen

above, the majority are not identified by any title or office. As it is likely that persons rich

enough to carry out a constructional bath benefaction would in some way be connected with the

community's local aristocracy, they should probably be included with the latter, though for the

sake of clarity they will be grouped separately .100 The sample contains 144 individual bath

benefactors.

Uncertain

Patroni

Freedmen

Women

Locals

Equites

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Senators (14% ): Women(8%):

o C = consulars (4%) oN=name only (7%)
o G = governors (2%) o C =consular (1 %)
o 0 = other officers (7%) oL =local office-holder (0.5%)
o S = senators (1 %)
Freedmen (3%)
o S =
seviri (2%)

Equites (12%): o 0 =other (0.5%)

o F = "functionary" (7%) o I= imperial (0.5%)

o H ="honorific" (5%)

Patroni ( 1%)

Locals (56%): Uncertain (7%)

o 0 =office holders (31%)

oN= name only (25%)

CHART 3: Social statuses of individual bath benefactors

99 Such is the general assumption behind CURCHIN's discussion of local magistrates' social status, cf.
Magistrates, pp. 71-84, esp. 76-78 where the hereditary nature oflocal senates and councils ensured families'
continued membership of the local aristocracy. The main social divisions among the locals discussed by
CURCHIN are between freed and free-born (pp. 71-73) and citizen or non-citizen (pp. 73-75).
100 Cf. above, p. 218.
VI] 227

The first point to note is that all the privileged strata of Roman society are represented,

from consular senators to freedmen. Because most baths were the responsibility of local agents,

it comes as no surprise to find the decurial class dominating the overall figures. 101 However,

the relatively high percentage for senators. whose numbers were very restricted, is striking; of

these senators, the majority (16 out of 21) benefited communities in areas under their official

control, the rest other communities (in at least one case, a hometown).I02 "Functionary" and

"honorific" equites share a roughly equal proportion of benefactions, and local women (again,

not surprisingly) dominate their category, though the actions of two consular-ranking women

should be noted. 103 The freedmen are also noteworthy, with individual seviri acting as

benefactors more frequently than "ordinary" freedmen (as is to be expected), while only one

imperial freedman is represented (this man held office in the community as a decurialis). 104

The social status of joint benefactors. where two or more individuals contribute to a

single act, is presented in the chart below. Local councils, comprising an undetermined number

of decurions, have had to be categorized separately .105 There are 68 joint benefactions in all.

10 1 See above, pp. 214-224. As just argued (previous page) the "name only" benefactors are probably
to be identified with the decurial class.
102 E.g. nos. 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40-43 (Table 2) (imperial officials); 70
(Table 3), 90, 92, 107 (Table 4), 176 (Table 5) (private benefactotrs).
I03 Cf. Equites: nos. 20, 21, 22, 25, 28 (Table 2), 88 (Table 4), 200 (Table 6), 253, 263 (Table 7)
("functionary"); 77 (Table 4), 142, 143, 144, 156 (Table 5), 209,217,258 (Table 7) ("honorific"). Women:
nos. nos 79, 106 (Table 4) (consular); 140 (Table 5) (local office-holder); 75, 89, 101, 109 (Table 4), 180, 183,
197, 198, 206 (Table 6), 223 (Table 7) (locals).
104 Cf. 59 (Table 3), 207 (Table 6), 221 and note (Table 7) (sevin); 210 (Table 7) ("ordinary"); 148
(Table 5) (imperial & decurialis).
105 For the number of decurions in any council, cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 22-24.
VI] 228

Other

Patroni

Freedmen

Locals

Councils

Equites

Senators

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Senators (4%) Locals (38%)

• OF= official & family member(s) (4%)
=
• OFs 2 or more officials (19%)
Equites (3%) • NF =name only & family member(s) (15%)

Councils (44%): Freedmen (6%)

• N =name of community (16%) • S =seviri (4%)
• NS =not specified (15%) • 0 = other(2%)
• D = decuriones, vicani etc (9%)
• C+ =curator r. p. and council (4%) Patroni ( 1.5%)

Other(4%)

CHART 4: Social status of joint bath benefactors

The situation here is comparable to that among individual benefactors, with local agents

dominating. All the senators are consular~ all the equites are "functionary. " 106 The councils,

variously identified in the texts as re:lpublica, municipiwn, colonia, senatus or decuriones, or

vicani, dominate the joint benefactions, making clear their importance in public building.I07
Local officials could present a benefaction with a member of their family, or in conjunction with

other officials, usually a magisterial colleague (who may also be family).lOS The "other"

106 Senators: nos. 91, 98, 105 (Table 4); equiles: 58 (Table 3), 85 (Table 4). Nos. 91 and 98
(Table 4) feature a consular and his son, while in no. 105 (Table 4) the work is that of two consulars.
107 This has been emphasized for Italy by JOUFFROY, Ktema 2 (1977), 329-277.
108 There are various possibilities here, easily located by glancing down the "Builder" columns of
Tables 3 and 5: cf. e.g. for family members, nos. 60 (Table 3) (duovir & wife), 130 (Table 5) (father & son,
VI] 229

category contains two cases involving chief officers of collegia, and one commemorating the

addition by plerique decuriones of a musaeum to a set of baths previously built by the council;

the decurions were apparently acting independently of the counci1. 109 Women have not been

indicated on this chart, as they are spread out among the various classes. usually as the mothers,

wives or daughters of male benefactors. 110

~:>
This survey of the social statuses of bath benefacto~evea~that the local

aristocracy dominates. Because this group was responsible for the majority of benefactions, this

should cause no surprise. It is therefore not possible to identify them as a distinct class of bath

benefactors per se, as in general it was they who provided a community with most of its public

buildings and services. ttl That they have here been shown to have done likewise for baths

adds another detail to the general picture. What is noteworthy, however, is the wide range of

classes who participated in bath building and maintenance, from consular senators to freedmen.

This compares with the results ofWesch-Klein's investigations into benefactors in Roman

North Africa, where the majority are of local origin, with some representation for senators,

equites and liberti.II2

duovin.?), 159 (fable 5) (flamen & son). For two or more magistrates, cf. e.g. nos. 131 (duovin' quinqu.), 135
(two brothers, omnibus hon.Junct.) or 141 (two quattuorvin) (all in Table 5).
109 Officers: nos. 224, 247 (fable 7); decuriones: no. 157 (Table 5).
110 Cf. above, n. 108.
111 Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure, pp. 159-184; BOWMAN, JRA 5 (1992), 496-498.
112 Cf. WESCH-KLEIN, Liberalitas, pp. 414-416; see also above, n. 47 for lack of comprehensive
study of this topic. By way of further comparison, note the great social diversity of those establishing
foundations in Italian during the High Empire, cf. J. ANDREAU, "Fondations privees et rapports sociaux en
ltalie romaine (ler_me s. ap. J.C.)," Ktema 2 (1977), 157-209, esp. 164-170.
VI] 230

Non-constructional benefactions

In addition to construction and maintenance, the functional narure of a bath building

allowed for a wide variety of possible benefactions, a fearure which may have attracted the
potential euergete. Even within the constructional sphere, its separate rooms offered a greater
range of individual opportunities for repair, adornment or extension than was the case with other
public buildings.113 Technological elements (e.g. hypocausts, pipes, drains) could be the target
of beneficence. The average costs involved in such work are no longer recoverable, but such
information as exists indicates that it did not come cheaply.l 14

Aside from constructional activities, the functional nature of the baths, and their
popularity, offered a variety of other possible benefactions. Among the most common was the
provision of free bathing, either to the entire populace or to specified groups, for a length of
time, varying from one day to in perpetuum.1 15 The mechanics of this benefaction are unclear.
Inscriptions normally indicate neither the extent of the outlay, nor to how many baths in a
community a particular benefaction applied.1 16 Estimating precisely how many bathers per day
113 The various parts of baths which feature in the epigraphic sample as either built, restored, extended,
or adorned by benefactors are listed with references in Appendix 5.
114 Building or restoring a whole bath was an expensive business, as we have already seen (cf. e.g.
above, n. 61). The decoration of a bathhouse, if done lavishly, could also be expensive, cf. no. 188 (fable 6)
where Pliny the Younger leaves HS300,000 for the decoration of his baths at Comum, or no. 92 (fable 4) and
note where a total of HS252,000 (possibly HS352,000) was needed to complete a bathhouse at Corfinium that
had already been built and roofed. Most of this money must have been needed for decoration. (It should be
remembered, however, that both these cases involve wealthy consular benefactors). Cf. MARVIN, AJA 87
(1983), 347-384, esp. 380-381 where it is proposed that sculpture was the single most expensive element in
either the decoration or construction of a bath.
115 So Augustus gave free baths (and barbers) to the people of Rome for one day on his return from the
western provinces in 13 BC (Dio 54.25.4). Agrippa had already offered this benefaction to the people, in the year
of his aedileship in 33 BC (Pliny NH, 36.121; Dio 49.43.2); on his death his Thermae were open gratis to the
people forever, with certain of his estates especially designated to fund this (Dio 54.29.4). A man at Tibur left a
bathhouse to the people, so they could use it for free (Dig., 32.35.3). Inscriptions record this benefaction being
made for communities by local benefactors and officers in perpetuum (e.g. nos. 209,211,212,213,214,216,
218, 219 (fable 7), as well as for certain periods of time (cf. nos. 207 (four days), 210 (three years), 223 (certain
days a year), 267 (when certain ludi were being held) (fable 7)). Some inscriptions do not specify a time period
(e.g. nos. 208, 215,217, 220,221,222,224 (fable 7)). Cf. F. CENERINI, "Evergetismo ed epigratia:
lavationem in perpetuom," RSA 17-18 (1987-1988), 199-220.
116 In most cases, the benefaction would presumably have applied only to the place where the
inscription stood, i.e. in a particular bathhouse, cf., CENERINI, RSA 17-18 (1987-1988), 216.
Vll 231

were involved is virtually impossible. How were such benefactions carried out? A recent
suggestion, drawn from an analysis of a text from Baetica, is that the benefactor provided
sufficient oil and wood for each bather to use the facilities gratis.1 17 This proposal appears
unduly difficult to effect: how could the benefactor calculate accurately the amount of oil and
wood necessary? And how would it be distributed to the beneficiaries? The two simplest
proposals, rather, are that in such cases the facilities were hired by the benefactor for the
duration of the benefaction, and opened to the public for free; 11 8 or that the benefactor paid the
management an agreed sum, regardless of how many bathers were expected.1 19 A third
possibility (especially when restricted groups were involved) is that admission tesserae were
purchased and distributed by the benefactor.120

An instructive illustration is provided by a Julio-Claudian text that records the

establishment of a foundation of HS400,000 to allow the men, and young persons (impuberes)
of both sexes at Bononia to bathe for free in perpetuwn. 12 1 On a hypothetical interest rate of
5%, the capital would yield HS20,000 per annum.122 As the benefaction was restricted to a
particular set of bathers and, moreover, to a single bathhouse (the text specifies the balnewn
which had been built by Augustus for the community, and repaired by Gaius or Nero), the most
probable solution is that the money was paid to the town authorities (who would have owned

117 The text is AE 1989.420 (=no. 267 [Table 7] and note). Cf. P. LeROUX, "Cite et culture
municipale en Betique sous Trajan," Ktema 12 (1987), 271-284, esp. 276. LeROUX appears to think that this
method of providing free bathing was peculiar to this instance: "L'originalite de Ia formulation -- sans doute due a
Ia teneur du decret lui-meme -- semble indiquer que le magistrat avait fait acheter huile et bois de chauffage en
quantite sufissante pour que chaque habitant libre du municipe puisse profiter d'une seance gratuite aux thermes
publics" (ibid., 275-276). In all likelihood, the benefaction here was administered in one of the ways outlined
above: the baths were open free to the populace, and oil was provided therein in the manner described below, pp.
232-233.
118 Cf. Dig., 19.2.30.1, where a municipal aedile hires a bath to provide free bathing for the people,
but it burns down after 3 months (was the lavatio gratuita for the year?).
119 For both these possibilities, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.133.
120 For tesserae, cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.134.
12 1 Cf. no. 218 (Table 7) and note. This is the only inscription in our sample where a specific sum of
money is provided in connection with free-bath benefaction.
122 I follow here DUNCAN-JONES's suggested interest rate for this benefaction, cf. Econ., no. 1308
(p. 215), cf. ibid., pp. 132-138 on interest rates.
VI] 232

baths built for the community by the princeps) to cover the entrance fees of the specified group,
although distribution of tesserae would have served equally as well. Whatever the case, this
benefaction raises problems for the proposition that all publicly owned baths were free.123 In
this case, there are several unknown variables: the numbers of the male bathers and impuberes
per day; the size of the building (as an imperial donation it was probably of reasonable size, but
no trace of the structure survives); the proportion of the visitors that belonged to the groups
privileged by the benefaction; and the amount of the abrogated entry charge. All this means that
there is no way to determine the actual value of the benefaction, nor how far the hypothetical
HS20,000 per year went. However, the benefactor obviously felt that a foundation of
HS400,000 would generate sufficient interest to fund free bathing for the groups in perpetuum.

In addition to free bathing, a benefactor could see to the water supply, usually by
building or repairing an aqueduct. 124 This is essentially a constructional benefaction, but some
variations are known, such as the improvement of the water supply to a solium (communal
bathing pool) at Municipium Tubemum, or to a piscina at Calama.125 At Forum Novum, a
duovir allowed water from sources located on his land to be used in the public baths. 126

Oil distributions at the baths were another possibility.127 This act was originally
associated with Greek gymnasia and the duty of an official in Greek cities called a
gymnasiarch. 128 Certain texts specify how the distribution was carried out: large oil vessels
(A.oUTT)PES') were placed in the baths, and individuals filled smaller vessels (opciKTOt) from

123 Cf. above, Ch. S n. 72.

124 Cf. the majority of water-supply benefactions, nos. 225-240 (Table 7).
125 Cf. nos. 235 (piscina) and 236 (solium) (Table 7).
126 No. 226 (Table 7).
127 Cf. nos. 241-253, 267 (Table 7).
128 The duty and the office continued into the Roman period in the east, associated now with baths
rather than strictly with gymnasia. However, due to the ambiguity of the term wgymnasiumw (cf. above, pp. lO­
ll), I have included only examples which refer to baths (either by mentioning ~etA.CXVElCX or A.m..JTpci or,
more commonly, by omitting mention of gymnasia in the text), cf. nos. 242, 244, 245, 248, 249 (Table 7) and
notes. For gymnasiarchs, cf. the note to no. 57 (Table 3).
VI] 233

them. 129 No gymnasiarchs are known from the Latin west, but various euergetes benefit
communities in this way. An instructive example comes from Comum. Here a quarruorvir a.p.
(possibly a relative of Pliny the Younger) bequeathed HS40,000 as a foundation for the
provision of oil for the people. A hypothetical interest rate of 6% would yield HS2,400 per
annum. 130 Especially noteworthy is the information concerning how the bequest was to
operate: the oil was to be distributed during the festival of Neptune "in the campus, the thermae
and all the balneae as are available for the people of Comum." This notice not only makes
explicit the distinction between thermae and balneae, but shows that Comum by this date had
several sets ofbaths.13I The quinquennalis of the burial club at Lanuvium was to "make oil
available in the public bath on the birthdays of Diana and Antinoos, before the collegium
banqueted." He was to do so at his own expense.132

The baths offered various other possibilities. Money could be provided either for
heating (calefactio) or maintenance (tutela), or both.133 An inscription from Altinum shows
clearly that these were regarded as quite separate benefactions.134 The text records that a
benefactor, among other bath benefactions, left HS400,000 in his will as a foundation for
heating baths (which would yield HS20,000 per annum at 5%), and HS200,000 (yielding
HSlO,OOO per annum at the same rate) for their maintenance. The benefactions applied to two
balnea in the town, for the restoration of which the benefactor had bequeathed a further
HS800,000. It is noteworthy that the calefactio amount is twice that for tutela, which may
indicate the higher costs of the former, though it may also reflect only the manner in which the
benefactor decided to divide his bequest. That heating was more expensive, however, seems

129 Cf. esp. nos. 243, 248, 249 (Table 7), though the phrase EK A.ovrr')p WV probably includes the
5pci.K TOl, e.g. nos. 242, 244, 245 (Table 7).
130 I follow here DUNCAN-JONES's proposed rate of interest, cf. no. 246 (Table 7) and note.
131 For terminological difficulties, cf. pp. 6-11.
132 No. 247 (Table 7).
133 Cf. nos. 254-258 (tutela) and 262-265 (calefactio) (Table 7).
134 Cf. nos. 257, 264 (Table 7) and note. (DUNCAN-JONES's proposed interest rate is again adopted).
VI] 234

likely: facilities would require heat (and so wood) every day they were operational, while tutela,
probably denoting routine cleaning and maintenance, and checking of equipment (such as the
furnaces, water pipes, drains, pool lining etc) would presumably be more occasionaJ. 135
Another text records that a local official made provisions for the supply of 400 wagon-loads of
hardwood for the baths, and another who gave a plot of woodland.136 In both cases, although
the inscriptions do not say so expressly, the wood was undoubtedly destined for the furnaces of
the baths.

Finally, ground could be given for baths (without actually building the baths themselves
on it) or, in one case, a huge weight of lead was donated, presumably for the provision of pipes
and poollining.137 Six seviri Augustales at Teanum Sidicinum contributed money (summae
honorariae?) for the purchase of an existing bathhouse by the local authorities.BB

The baths thus offered a variety of possibilities to the potential benefactor, ranging from
large-scale construction, restoration, and adornment to more functional and/or temporary
benefits. Whether or not this feature of bath facilities was particularly attractive to benefactors
cannot be determined; raising the possibility, however, leads to a discussion of bath benefactors'
motives.

135 Cf. Dig., 19.2.58.2, where a man furnishes baths in a municipality, and 100 coins (nwnmr) were
needed for the repair of furnaces and pipes etc: quidam in municipio balineum praestandum annuis viginn· nummis
conduxerat et ad refectionemfornacisfistularum similiumque rerum centum nummi et praestantur ei: conductor
centum nummos petebat. Cf. MEUSEL, Verwaltung, pp. 132-133. That heating baths was expensive is
suggested by it becoming a burdensome liturgy by the third century AD, cf. O.F. ROBINSON, "Baths: An
Aspect of Roman Local Government Law" in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarno 3 (Naples: Joven~.
1984), pp. 1065-1082, esp. p. 1077.
136 Cf. nos. 262 (wagons) and 265 (woodland) (Table 7) and notes.
137 Cf. nos. 259, 260 (ground) and 266 (lead) (Table 7) and notes.
138 No. 261 (Table 7) and note. Note alsoP. Oxy. 44.3173, 3176 where the baths of Arrius
Apolinarius come into public onwership, cf. BOWMAN, JRA 5 (1992), 497, n. 10.
VI] 235

(iv) Motivation

The motivation of emperors and imperial officials in building and maintaining baths has
already been considered, and the lack of direct evidence noted. 139 The situation for local
authorities and benefactors is comparable. But there are some exceptions. A text from Narona
reports that baths which had fallen into ruin were replaced by a local benefactor {rog]a[nte]
populo, "when the people requested it." 140 Assuming that this heavy restoration is correct, the

benefaction was in reaction to popular demand. This is the only such inscription in our sample,
so it is impossible to determine what proportion of bath benefactions were offered in response to
popular demand, though some texts recording baths built for the people, or repaired after a
period of disuse, may indicate a situation similar to that at Narona. 14 1 In one case, we read of a
bath built "with the enthusiasm of people" (cwn amore popull); had they demanded its initial
construction? 142 Because it would be in the interest of the benefactor to portr<ly_ his work as the
---------
result of spontaneous, unsought generosity, it is not too surprising that explicit mention of
popular demand should be lacking in inscriptions. As with the emperors' activities at Rome, it
is therefore not possible to assert confidently that locals built and maintained baths in response to
it, but the possibility must be acknowledged. Some benefactors acted in accordance with a

139 Cf. above, pp. 195-199 (emperors) and 212-213 (officials).

140 No. 200 (fable 6). The inscription goes on to say he gave a meal civibus suis, showing he was a
native of the town despite being in the imperial service as ducenarius. That he also built (aedificavit) and handed
over (tradidit) the baths to the town would imply he built an entirely new structure rather than restored the old
ruined one. See also AE 1953.21 (=no. 207 [Table 7]) where the councillors of Lucurgentum in Spain are
induced to bestow onuunenta decurionatus on a local sevir "when the people demanded it" (petente populo) in
view of his benefactions (including free bathing for women). Note also CIL 8.26548 where a local carries out a
construction "when the whole people demanded" (postulante universo populo).
l41 E.g. nos. 49, 69 (fable 3); 77, 85 (fable 4); 135, 169, 171 (fableS); 189 (fable 6); 221, 240,
250 (fable 7).
142 No. 165 (fable 5); the phrase may mean "out of love for the people," in reference to the
benefactor's motives, but even if so the main point holds: even if they had not demanded it, the benefactor was
reacting to what he perceived as their need. Note also no. 148 (fable 5) where a bath is repaired erga amorem
patriae et civium, "in consideration of his love for his native city and citizens."
VI] 236

religious vow: they had promised the god they would build a bath, and did so.l43 But by and
large specific explanations are lacking.

Certain general explanations, however, can be adduced. For local authorities, by the
2nd century AD at least, the construction of a bathhouse was almost a requirement: they were,
along with a forum (and market), theatre, temples, and a basilica, one of the de rigueur public
buildings expected of any self-respecting Roman municipality .144 The appearance of a city
benefited from the presence of baths.145 Some inscriptions reflect this. When a well-connected
woman built baths at Bulla Regia, her work is said to "adorn her native town," and the
~cx.;\CX.VEtov at Oxyrhynchos is said TT!v ncnp£8cx KOO~Et v.I46 Another fragmentary text, if

correctly restored, describes a run-down set of summer baths as "once the greatest pride of our
colony." 147 A bath restoration at Antium is hailed as being "for the improved appearance of the
city," while the removal of statues into the Severan thermae at Litemum is "for the fame of the

143 E.g. nos. 62 (ex voto suscepto pro salute municipi) (Table 3); 86 (baths built and consecrated to
Numen Domus Augustae), 107 (baths built and consecrated to Fortuna Augusti) (Table 4); 134 (temple and baths
restored v.s.l.m. to Dea Tutela(?)), 138 (baths restored voto suscepto to Asclepius), 153 (bath restored v.s.l.m. to
Fortuna Redux) (Table 5); 187 (labrum added to baths under oath) (Table 6). Note also the distribution of oil at
Comum during the Neptunalia (no. 246 [Table 7]), and at Ephesos during the Katagogia (no. 249 (Table 7}).
144 Cf. Dio Chrys. Or., 40.10, where a city's public buildings (among other things) ensure its dignity
in the eyes of strangers and proconsuls. The elements listed above recur again and again in the towns of Italy and
the provinces, cf. WARD-PERKINS, Architecture, pp. 157-184 (Italy), 213-413 (provinces) passim. Pliny (Ep.,
10.23) describes the proposed new baths at Prusa as "a work which the dignity of the city, and the splendour of
your reign seems to demand" (loeb trans) (quod [sc. opus] alioqui et dignitas civitatis et saeculi tui nitor
postulat). Vitruvius comments (l.praef., 1) that the majesty of the state (civitas) was manifested in the public
monuments of the Augustan building progamme; similar sentiments could surely be applied to any civitas in the
empire. Note that the petition of Orcistus in Phrygia to Constantine for the granting of city status includes
mention of baths (labacra quoqu[e] publica pn'vata[que]) as one of the features supporting their claim (/LS 6091,
cf. AE 1981.779). Cf. also W.L. MacDONALD, Roman Imperial Architecture II (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1986), pp. 253-278 where the underlying uniformity of urban elements in the towns and cities of the
empire is stressed.
145 Pride in a city, due to baths in particular, is reflected in such sources as Apul. Met., 2.19 or Ael.
Arist., 13.189, 15.232. Cf. S.S. FRERE, "Civic Pride: A Factor in Roman Town Planning," in F. GREW &
B. HOB LEY, Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western Empire (CBA Research Report 59, 1985),
pp. 34-36. The potential splendour of a bathhouse would fit this backdrop particularly well. Cf. DUNBABIN,
PBSR 57 (1989), 8-10, 12-32 where enjoyment of a bath's physical beauty is noted as among the chief pleasures
of bathing. Pliny's description of the work being undertaken at Claudiopolis corroborates such eulogies on the
splendour of baths, cf. the references above in n. 90.
146 No. 106 (Table 4); P. Oxy. 43.3088. Likewise, the proposed plot for the Prusan bath will
"ornament the city in a part which at present is exceeding! y deformed • (ut foedissima facies civitatis ornetur), c f.
Pliny Ep., 10.70.1.
147 No. 129 (Table 5).
VI] 237

baths." 14 8 On the negative side, a dilapidated aqueduct which fed the baths at Thignica is
described as "a real eyesore," and an {aquae?jductu.s therma{rum] is restored at Satafis "by
astonishing construction." 149 Clearly, baths were seen as an important element in a town's
appearance, a contribution to its dignity. For local authorities to build and maintain them is
therefore quite natural.

A related consideration is inter-city rivalry. Neighbouring communities could compete

with each other in the size and splendour of their public buildings, in the honours they received
from the central authorities, and (in the East especially) in the grandiloquence of the titles they
bore.150 As a result, a community's council might be encouraged to build the largest and most
splendid baths it could, many evidently modelled on the great thermae of Rome, in order to
outshine a rival. 15 1 Pliny the Younger's description of the vast bath at Claudiopolis ought to be
viewed against this background. Naturally, the size of the baths would depend to a large extent
on the size of the town and its resources, so some places could build bigger than others. Note
that the Prusans wanted to "upgrade" their old bath with a new (presumably bigger) one, and at
Lanuvium the local council was replacing run-down balneae with new thermae, which were

148 Nos. 37 (Antium), 39 (Litemum) (fable 2). Note also no. 26 (fable 2) where a corrector r. p.
carries out a benefaction at Beneventum "for the splendour of the baths."
149 Nos. 239 (fhignica), 238 (Satafis) (fable 7).
150 Cf. Dio Chrys. Or., 34.47-48; Arist. 23, 27.44; Dio 52.37.9-10; Dig. 50.10.3pr. Cf. L.
ROBERT, "La titulature de Nicee et de Nicomedie: la gloire et Ia haine," HSPh 81 ( 1977), 1-39 (= OMS, 6.211­
649); R. SYME, "Rival Cities, Notably Tarraco and Barcino," Ktema 6 (1981), 271-281; S.R.F. PRICE, Rituals
and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 126­
132. Note also the comments of M. CORBIER, "City, Territory and Taxation" in J. RICH & A. WALLACE­
HADRILL (edd.), City and Country in the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 211-239, esp. 217­
223. Note no. 252 (fable 7) and note where a benefactor at Barcino threatens to transfer to Tarraco certain funds
he is bequeathing, should conditions he establishes not be met; cf. no. 114 (fable 4) and note.
15 1 To take some outstanding examples, giving references in parenthesis to page numbers in
MANDERSCHIED, Bib. and NIELSEN's Catalogue, but excluding examples known to have been built by
emperors: Alexandria Troas, Turkey (51; C.292); Alexandria, Egypt (51; C.280); Carthage, Tunisia (94-95;
C.209); West Baths, Cherchel, Algeria (97-98; C.226); Large South Baths, Cuicul (103; C.229); First Baths,
Guelma, Algeria (119); Lambaesis, Algeria (134; C.235); Hadrianic Baths, Lepcis Magna, Libya (136; C.213);
Large South-East Baths, Mactaris, Tunisia (143-144; C.216); Large North Baths, Timgad, Algeria (207-208;
C.242); West Baths, Thysdrus, Tunisia (213; C.225); Barbarathermen, Trier (215-216; C.79). The predominance
of African sites is noteworthy, perhaps the result of the exceptional conditions for preservation that prevail there.
Vlj 238

larger, contained more rooms (ampliatis locis et cellis), and were probably more lavishly

decorated than their predecessors. I 52

Rivalry may also partly account for the actions of local officials. I 53 Local offices

(honores) carried with them an expectation of service to the community from the officials'
personal funds (munera). 154 However, we have seen that only four bath benefactions (all

restorations or extensions) are expressly said to have been given ob honorem or pro honore, so

direct expectation of a munus cannot account for the majority of cases. I 55 However, rivalry

may still have played a major part. The construction or repair of a bath would have added to the

prominence and prestige of an official's family in the community, even more so if it was not an

expected munus.l56 The appearance of an inscription on the building identifying the benefactor,

listing the offices he had held, and outlining the nature of his work must have served this

purpose admirably; when members of future generations stood for local office (which seems to

have been the case), they could point to the building and its commemorative inscription as proof

of their family's service to the patria.l57

152 Cf. Pliny Ep., 10.23, 70 (Prusa), no. 49 (Table 3) (Lanuvium). Cf. also above, pp. 8-10 for
relative meanings of thermae and balneae.
153 Cf. Plut. Mor., 821F; R. DUNCAN-JONES, "Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa," PBSR
31 (1963), 159-177, esp. 160-162.
154 The seminal work of this phenomenon is VEYNE, Pain. But cf. also: ABBOTT & JOHNSON,
Municipal Admin., pp. 84-116; CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 106-112; DUNCAN-JONES, Structure, pp. 159­
163; JACQUES, Liberti, pp. 668-757.
155 Nos. 130 (pro honore llviratus), 136 (ob honorem sexviratus), 146 (pro honore aed.) and 150 (ob
honoremjlamonz) (fable 5). Note also no. 151 (fable 5) where funds promised for a gladiatorial display ob
honorem quinquennalitatis are diverted to the restoration and adornment of afrigidarium.
156 Cf. Plut. Mor., 821F-822 for overspending by officials to secure local office; DUNCAN-JONES,
Structure, pp. 170-171 suggests this may have led to regional booms and slumps in building activity, as
prominent families overspent in one generation, and so dropped out of sight until they had recovered.
157 For the hereditary nature of membership of local councils cf. CUR CHIN, Magistrates, pp. 21-22.
Due to the scattered and random survival of the evidence for local magistrates (ibid., pp. 12-20), examples of
office-holders from a single family in two or more generations at specific sites are difficult to provide. Further, if
DUNCAN-JONES's suggestion about overspending by some generations is accepted (above, previous note), a
family might not be prominent in every generation, thus making the search more difficult. Despite this, there
may be some signs of continuance in the shared nomina of magistrates at some Spanish sites, though the
adoption of Roman names by provincials often makes proving family relationships difficult (CURCHIN,
Magistrates, pp. 89-99). Note, however, the epigraphically attested prominence of the Salii family at Amiternum
over several generations in the imperial period, DYSON, Community, pp. 231-232.
VI] 239

Some joint benefactions appear to support this proposition. At Burguillos in Spain, C.

Aufidius Vegetus, twice duovir, built a set of baths, and his son C. Aufidius Avitus, duovir
designarus, "gave" them to the town (presumably meaning he opened them free). 158 A similar
situation pertained at Furfo, where L. Caesienus Firmus, a quinquennalis, and his son (?) and
namesake, also a quinquennalis, built a bath from their own funds.l59 Two texts from
Interarnna Lirenas are revealing. In one, summer baths are restored and extended by M. Sentius
Crispinus, omnibus honoribus.fUnctus, probably in the 2nd or 3rd century AD, but possibly in
the 4th. 160 In the early 5th century AD another Sentius, also omnibu.'l honoribus.fUnctus,
restores the building again.l61 Both men appear to be from the same family; it would be
interesting to know if a Sentius had been responsible for the original construction. Such was the
case at Paesturn, where a duo vir and patronus coloniae built a set of baths, and when they were
extensively damaged by fire, his son, who is not credited with any offices or titles, restored
them. 162 In all these cases, although a direct causality is not discernible, it is reasonable to
suggest that the building and maintenance of baths could only have helped the family's
successful attainment of the highest honores in successive generations. Another text from
Turca, Africa, relates how ajlamen perpetuus and curator r. p. added an apodyterium and
carried out various restorations and adornments "with his son Magnilius, a most bright and
clever young man. "163 As Magnilius was an adulescens, he may not have contributed much to
the actual work (although the term could apply to quite mature people); his mention is probably
intended to advertise his existence, perhaps in anticipation of a future attempt to follow in his
father's political footsteps. 164 Such introductions of family members are not always entirely

15S Cf. nos. 63 (Table 3) and 222 (Table 7) and notes. See also Appendix 6.
159 No. 58 (Table 3). Cf. also nos. 134 (brothers, sacerdotes AreTISI·s; restoration), 135 (two brothers,
omnibus hon. functi; extension), 150 (a man and two sons, alljlamines Romae et Augusti; extension and
adornment) (Table 5).
160 No. 154 (Table S).
161 No. 172 (Table 5).
162 Nos. 66 (Table 3) and 194 (Table 6).
163 No. 159 (Table 5). Cf. also nos. 65 (Table 3) (a quattuorvir builds baths in his own name and that
of his son), 132 (Table 5) (a praefectus Pagi/-1 adorns baths in his name and that of his son.)
l64 But note nos. 66 (Table 3) and 194 (Table 6) and note. The son may have been a minor.
VIJ 240

politically motivated: officials also mention mothers, wives and daughters, none of whom could

expect to hold local office (except, perhaps, for priesthoods).16 5 In the case of wives, they

would probably have been members of other prominent local families, so those texts that

mention them could serve to advertise both families, and may even reflect local political

alliances. However, when men who held all the available offices in a community (omnibus

honoribu.•;; juncti) carried out a bath benefaction, their motive must have been to advertise their
families, because no further munus could be expected of them, and they themselves had run the

complete gamut of honores.166

In Late Imperial texts. the detailed descriptions of the work carried out or damage

repaired show the builder's desire to highlight the immensity of his efforts on the public's behalf

during difficult economic times. As a result. some wonderfully grandiose boasts survive. A

flamen perpetuus and curator r. p. at Thuburbo Maius completed summer baths "within seven
months, after (they had stood incomplete for) eight whole years; he added and completed every

(facility) which the baths needed" 167 The winter baths at Thuburbo Maius were built by a

patronus, "from the lowest level of the foundations to the uppermost pediment." 168 Another
flamen perpetuus and curator r. p. at Dougga repaired the atrium of the Licinian Baths "which
had been started by the ancients with the demolition of cisterns at the site; the work was sub­

standard and the foundations unsound, (so) Honoratianus completed it with (careful?)

construction. " 169 At Madauros, a curator r. p. restored a cella balnearum which "had lain in

ruins for quite some time, with its lavacra unusable; he also constructed vaulting with

suspensurae." 110 There are other examples ofthis sort of wording, some too fragmentary to be
coherent, but clear enough in their message: the builder (a local official) had acted with

165 Cf. the examples listed above, n. 86.

166
Cf. nos. 135, 154, 155, 161, 169, 170, 172 (Table 5).

167 No. 68 (Table 3).

168 No. 72 (Table 3).

169 No. 164 (Table 5).

170 No. 171 (Table 5).

VI] 241

outstanding generosity and civic-mindedness. Thus the two omnibus honoribus juncti at
Ocriculum who restored and improved the winter baths "in accordance with their civic
disposition." 171

So, for local authorities a mixture of rivalry among the leading families, rivalry with
neighbouring towns, and a desire to provide their community with buildings suitable to its
dignita.•;; seem to stand behind bath building and maintenance, as for other public buildings. The
motives of private benefactors are more difficult to ascertain. There is no explicit evidence from
inscriptions, which tend to record only the benefaction and the name of the euergete. 172 Some
of the motives suggested above were undoubtedly shared by private benefactors: a desire to
beautify their cities, and to add prestige to the family name and so heighten the family's profile
in local society (this applies equally to female benefactors, many of whom undoubtedly
commanded funds of their own). The construction of baths could take a long time, 173 and no
doubt the benefactor's name would have appeared on makeshift signs at the site while
construction was underway. 174 A benefactor would therefore not have to wait until the final
inscription was put up to begin enjoying kudos.175 Wesch-Klein proposes that munificence
was stimulated by a desire to be remembered after death, and to outstrip predecessors. 176

171 No. 161 (Table 5); cf. also nos. 159, 160, 163, 165, 172. Note also DUNBABIN, PBSR 57
(1989), 33-34 for boastful mosaic inscriptions aimed at those who had doubted that the baths could be completed.
172 Cf. the "Work Done" columns of Tables 4 and 6; no. 200 (Table 6) is an exception.
173 Cf. the "eight whole years" of unfinished work note in 68 (Table 3).
174 I am indebted for this point to J. DeLAINE, whose paper "Building the Baths" will appear in the
publication of the proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths, Bath, England, 30 March­
4 April, 1992.
175 Of course, this worked both ways. If the project turned out to be a disaster, the benefactor's name
would be associated with it, cf. no. 68 (Table 3), 92 (Table 4) and notes for constructions that appear to have
gone awry. It is perhaps in this light that the celebration of the opening of baths with games or other
benefactions is to be interpreted (cf. the examples cited inCh. 5, n. 23): the people got their bath, and the
benefactor was out of danger.
176 Note Cic. Off, 2.55 where it is said that games, banquets and distributions of money and food
leave little or no memory; the erection of monuments, however, leaves something for posterity (ibid., 2.60);
compare Plut. Mor., 821F. Cf. WESCH-KLEIN, liberalitas, pp. 41-42; cf. also VEYNE, Pain, pp. 41-42, 272­
276; AMBLING, Herodes, pp. 85-87. Our corpus unfortunately provides no case as explicit as that cited by
=
WESCH-KLEIN (op. cit. p. 41; C/L 8.5276 JLAlg. 1.95), where a benefactor's gladiatorial games are said to
have "completely surpassed all memory of previous (displays)" (ob magnificentiam gladiatorii muneris . .. quo
VI] 242

Certainly, baths could bear the name of a benefactor or owner, an excellent way of advertising
his generosity to posterity.177 Hints of rivalry can also be discerned in claims that baths had
been improved by the efforts of a benefactor. 178

In general, the activities of private benefactors, and most local officials, are
representative of the phenomenon Veyne called "voluntary euergetism" (as opposed to
euergetism ob honorem), which derived partly from an ideology of magnificence among the
upper classes (the benefactors), and partly from an expectation among the lower classes (the
beneficiaries) that the well-off should deploy their means for the public good. 179 This system
was virtually a social contract, and if a wealthy family were to refuse completely to benefit their
community, it would appear strange and despicable; 180 it is perhaps noteworthy that no such
cases are known.1 81 Related economic considerations should be mentioned. Due to the poor
budgetary arrangements of most cities, with their inefficient and insufficient tax systems, there
was simply no other source for funding expensive public building than the pockets of the local
wealthy: if they had not come forward to build baths (and other public buildings), few would
have existed. From the perspective of the wealthy euergetes, public donations may have been

omnes priorum memorias supergressus est). Note, however, no. 27 (Table 2) which praises a governor who
restored baths at Tarraco as "above all other governors."
177 Cf. Appendix 4 (Rome) and nos. 23 (Thermae Juventianae), 27 (Thermae Montanae), 31 (Thermae
Sabinianae) (Table 2), 83 (Thermae Noviam), 87 (Balinea Sergium et Putinium), 100 (>--OETpov
¢O:.lJOTEl VT)~), 102 (TO L:.o~ lTElOV ~O:.AO:.VEtOV), 110 (Balneum Pacatianum) (Table 4), 149
(Ovcipwv Bo:.>--o:.vEtOV), 178 (Balneum Terenti Donati), 182 (TO' Ep~(nnowv >--onp6v) (Table 6).
178 There are no examples from the private benefactor lists in our corpus, but the most explicit is that
cited above (n. 169) where ajlamen and curator r.p. denigrates the work "of the ancients" while contrasting the
quality of his own.
179 Pain, esp. pp. 20-43; more recently, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Structure, pp. 159-162. See also G.
BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), pp. 26-28. Note
Apuleius's remark (Apol., 87), that he was married outside the town to avoid the cives who would turn up in
expectation of cash-handouts; his wife, indeed, had been obliged to distribute HS50,000 in sportulae at the
wedding of her eldest son.
180 Cf. Plut. Mor., 822.
181 Although Aelius Aristides avoided public office, he was not averse to acts of beneficence, Cf.
BOWERSOCK, Sophists, pp. 36-38.
VII 243

one of the few outlets for disposing of surplus cash; investment of profits on the modern scale
was almost unheard of.182

The baths, then, illustrate well the general system of euergetism which generated not
only public buildings, but also gladiatorial and theatrical spectacles, cash hand-outs, banquets
and other assorted public services in the towns and cities of the empire. Can any features of
baths in particular explain why benefactors were attracted to them? Although speculative, I
believe a case can be made. The variety of possible benefactions, as documented above, may
have been one such feature. The baths provided the builder with an exceptional opportunity to
combine the functional with the aesthetic, producing a monument that simultaneously beautified
the patria and served the populus. Another factor, perhaps, was their popularity: an inscription
or statue honouring a benefactor that stood in a bath would be encountered by more people more
regularly than if it stood in or on one of the more sporadically used public buildings, such as a
theatre, temple or circus.183 It must be admitted that other crowded opera publica, such as fora,
could serve this purpose as well, but the particularly functional nature of baths meant that a
benefaction here may have been seen as more directly euergetistic than a benefaction in a forum
or elsewhere. This latter point, and the popularity of the baths, combine to produce a third
proposition: a bath benefaction (especially constructional, or lavatio in perpetuwn) would affect
more people, more directly, more regularly than the more ephemeral epula (banquets), sponulae,
or spectacles. How greatly such considerations determined the behaviour of Roman euergetes
towards baths is no longer recoverable, but that they did so is surely a possibility.

182 Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, PBSR 31 (1963), 161-162.

183 This point has been made by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.5, 145.
 CHAPTER VII

THE BATHS AS SOCIAL CENTRES

Introduction

This chapter treats an area largely ignored or glossed over by previous students of the baths: the

role the baths came to play in society, as illustrated by the social environment to be found there. 1

Some of the implications of this investigation for broader themes in Roman social history are

also discussed.

Naturally, the sources are predominantly written. Notices in ancient authors are

supplemented by testimony from inscriptions, a largely untapped source of information for the

present purpose. Four main areas are treated: the physical environment; who used the baths;

social mixing; and the social activities that went on there. As outlined in the introduction, there

is no direct ancient testimony for much of this, so care is required in interpreting the largely

"indirect" statements which form the majority of the written evidence. Given the wide

chronological and geographical distribution of the material, the best that can be hoped for is an

impression left by the cumulative effect of disparate pieces of testimony, what Hopkins has

called "a collage, ... an artificial, almost timeless composite, inset with illustrative vignettes. "2

How typical are our findings for life at the baths in all parts of the empire at all times is

I E.g. NIELSEN, Therm. includes a chapter entitled "The Bathing Institution: the Role of the Baths in
the Towns" (1.119-148), but most of the topics discussed there are technical/architectural (e.g. summer/winter
baths) or semi-technical (admission fees, personnel, bathing gear etc). Likewise, HEINZ, ROm. Therm., pp. 142­
157 discusses "Benutzung und Organisation der Bader," but again covers much the same ground. More
perfunctory treatments can be found in the general handbooks on Roman daily life, e.g. MARQUARDT,
Privatleben, pp. 269-297; BLIJMNER, Privataltertumer, pp. 420-441; J. CARCOPINO, Daily Life in Ancient
Rome (London: Penguin, 1956), pp. 277-286; J.P.V.D. BALSDON, life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (London:
Bodley Head, 1974), pp. 26-32. DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 27-29 comments on the lack of research into this area
of Roman balneology.
2 Cf. K. HOPKINS, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History II (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 203

244

VIIJ 245

impossible to gauge, but at least some salient features of life there will have been brought to

light.

(i) The physical enrirunment: splendour and squalor

There can be no doubt that Roman public baths could be places of overpowering impressiveness

and luxury. Modern scholars have tended to focus almost exclusively on this aspect of the

baths, and have largely overlooked some testimony which implies that in many respects they

could have harboured a physical environment that was far from magnificent. This may even

have been the case for the Imperial showpieces at Rome.

The massive remains of Imperial-style establishments themselves attest to their once

great architectural splendour. The chief literary wiU1esses for the pleasant aspects of the physical

environment at the baths are Lucian, Martial, Statius and others whose descriptions leave a

strong impression that baths were generally havens of beauty, cleanliness and hygiene. The

Baths of Hippias, testifies Lucian, were a paradigm of comfo1t, brightly lit throughout, adorned

with marbles from Phrygia and Numidia, and inscribed with citations from Pindar. 3 The

Thermulae (or Balneum) ofEuuscus at Rome were so magnificent, that Martial tells his

addressee, Oppianus, "unless you bathe [there], you will die unwashed. "4 Statius provides an

even more glowing description of this establishment. with emphasis on the sumptuous

decoration, including various marbles of foreign origin, bronze and silver fittings, and fine

mosaics. 5 Pliny's descriptions of the fine baths at his Laurentine and Tuscan villas, although

3 Hipp., 4-8.
4 Mart., 6.42: Etrusd nisi thennulis /avaris, I inlotus morieris, Oppiane. Note also Mart., 9. 75 where
the fine marhle decoration of a set of thl'rmae is described.
5 Stat. Silv., 1.5.
VII] 246

private establishments, further reinforce this impression of general grandness, and perhaps
reflect what an upper-class Roman expected of a bathing establishment. 6 Late Imperial epigrams
often praise the physical beauty and luxw-y of the baths, and indeed appreciation of such beauty
appears to have been one of the principal joys of bathing at its best. 7

These explicit descriptions find confirmation in other sources, such as the moralizing
tracts of Seneca or Pliny the Elder deploring the luxury which they claim contemporary bathers
expected of their baths. 8 Literary sources also describe the bathing excesses of certain
emperors, usually those characterized as "bad," which, whether historically accurate or not, also
contribute to the overall impression of bath luxury .9

Epigraphic testimony often refers to the adornment of baths with marbles and other
decorations, or to baths and parts of baths built or restored omni cultu, "with every
refinement." 10 Some inscriptions advertise the fine facilities and comfort of certain bathhouses,
such as the well-known Balneum Venerium et Nongentum of Julia Felix at Pompeii. The claim,
lavatur more urbico, is typical: "you can bathe here in comfort like that in Rome, and every
convenience is available." ll There are also inscriptions which expressly say that baths serve the

6 Pliny, Ep., 2.17.11 (Laurentine Villa) and 5.6.25-27 (Tuscan villa).

7 Cf. DUNBABIN, PBSR 57 (1989), 8-10, 12-32.
8 Sen. Ep., 86.8-12, 90.25; Pliny NH, 36.189. Particularly noteworthy is Seneca's comment (Ep.,
86.8) that a bathhouse which had drawn crowds at its opening because of its finery, would be abandoned as
antiquated by some new-fangled feature in a newer facility. It seems from this comment that luxury in itself
would attract customers.
9 To take just some examples: Caligula is said to have perfumed his bathwater (Suet. Cal., 37.1 ), a
practice said by Pliny the Elder (NH, 13.22) to have been imitated by people of private station. Poppaea Sabina.
the wife of Nero, is reported to have bathed in ass's milk (Pliny NH, 11.238). The bathing excesses of
Heliogabalus are a frequent feature of his Historia Augusta biography, e.g. He/., 8.6; 19.8; 21.6; 23.7; 25.6;
30.5, 7; 31.7; cf. the reservations of MERTEN, &ider, pp. 114-131, esp. 117-120about the veracity of these and
other HA imperial bath-excess stories.
10 For instance, nos. 39 (Table 2) and 115 (Table 5) (statues moved into baths); 159 (Table 5) (statues,
pictures, columns and seats); 132 (Table 5) (marble adornment); 139 (Table 5) (columns given to baths); 143
(Table 5) (portico adomed with marble); 163 (Table 5) (marbles of diverse colours, foreign artifacts and splendid
mosaics); 177 (Table 6) (coloured stone, bronze labrum and seats); 180 (Table 6) (marble adornment). Cf. also
ILS 646 (thermos . .. omni cultu perfectos), and 5732 (mosaics, statues).
ll Jl..S 5723 (Julia Felix), and Ch. 3, n. 128 for a discussion of the possible meanings of Venerium et
Nongentum. Cf. nos. 74 (Table 4) and note: harum t)herma(rum more urba]n(o) lavat(ur); ILS 5720: lavat(ur)
VII] 247

public good or comfort.12 There is mention of museums at baths, where works of art would be
displayed, and perhaps discussion and lectures would take place. 13 Finally, archaeological
evidence has shown that many bathhouses, especially the hnperial establishments, were lavish
not only in scale but also in decoration.14

So, baths could be splendid. While this may have been true of the Imperial-type baths,
and certain privately run smaller establishments (such as the Thermulae Etrusci), there are hints
in the sources that all might not have been as these references suggest.

Martial, as noted elsewhere, makes occasional reference to some of the less salubrious
bathing establishments at Rome. Selius will put up with the gloom of the Baths of Gry Bus, the
draughtiness of the Baths of Lupus. and the unspecified unpleasantness of those of Faustus in
his quest for dinner invitations. 15 The establishments of Gry Bus and Faustus must have been
close to proverbial in their grubbiness, at least among Martial's audience, for when the poet
complains elsewhere of the expense of eating at Baiae while nonetheless having fine bathing
establishments available to him, he laments "Give me back the gloomy baths of Lupus and
Gryllus; when I dine so badly, why, Flaccus, should I bathe so well?." 16

moire urhico et omnis II humanitas praestaltur; and 5721: more urbico lavat(ur) I [et) omnia commoda praestantur;
AE 1933.49: balneu[m et) omnis humanilltas urbico more praebetur. Note also CIL 8.20579 where a Balneurn
Cy[--] I more prep[--) is mentioned; the last phrase probably advertised the comfort of the facilities. A bath at
Patavium was called Thennae Urbanian[ae }, though it may be derived from a proper name, cf. CIL 5.2886. The
adjective urbicus refers specifically to the city, i.e. Rome, cf. OLD, s.v. (Urbanus, on the other hand, means
"city-like," not necessarily in reference to Rome, ibid., s.v.).
12 E.g. nos. 52 (Table 3), 85 (Table), 226 (Table 7); this is also implied in texts such as 37 (Table 2),
69 (Table 3), 163 (Table 5), 200 (Table 6).
13 Nos. 157 and 158 (Table 5). Cf. RE 16.797-821, s.v. "Museion" [Miiller-Graupa).
14 Cf. DUNBABIN, loc. cit. above, n. 7 for the ideal of the pleasurable bath and its manifestation in
bath decoration. Sculpture was a particularly luxurious (and expensive) element of bath decoration, cf. H.
MANDERSCHEID, Skulpturen, and MARVIN, AJA 87 (1983), 347-384.
15 Cf. Mart., 2.14.11-13 and below, pp. 290-292.
16 Mart., 1.59: redd~ Lupi nobis tenebrosaque balnea Grylli: I tam male cum cenem, cur bene, Flacce,
laver?
VII] 248

It would seem natural that among the many bathhouses of Rome, some would be less
splendid than others. Unfortunately, the dearth of archaeological evidence from the city
prevents a detailed reconstruction of the appearance of such establishments, and so how their
details compared with the better-equipped facilities is no longer ascertainable. But some clues
are available. A small bath, which was in use between the early-3rd and mid-5th centuries AD,
has been found near the Scalae Caci on the Palatine.17 Although its facilities expanded during
the period it was in use, they lent the modest structure few airs of grandeur.

The small comer-bath depicted on a fragment of the Forma Urbis near the Horrea
Lolliana may well have been one of the city's less-vaunted establishments. IS Hemmed in on all
sides by streets, a laneway and shops, its rooms are many but small. It has an odd-shaped
exercise ground with a cramped-looking peristyle tucked away at one end Additional details
can be surmised by comparing the older and newer baths at Pompeii and Herculaneum. One
feature of 1st-century AD bath architecture was an increase in window and room size; good
lighting and spaciousness later featured among the praiseworthy elements of an establishment.1 9
By contrast, the baths of Republican date at Pompeii are ill-lit, with low roofs, small rooms, and
small windows set high in the walls (if at al1).2o Likewise at Herculaneum, the older Forum
Baths are gloomy when compared with the Suburban Baths, which feature large windows along
the southern frontage.2 1 These comparisons would suggest that the gloomy baths of Gryllus
and Lupus mentioned by Martial were representative of an older model than the newer

17 Cf. A. CASSATELLA & I. IACOPI, "ll balneum presso le Scalae Caci sul Palatino" in Thermes,
pp. 129-138.
18 Cf. Forma Urbis Romae, fr. 25 (=fig. 19). For the identification of this complex as a bathhouse,
cf. R.A. STACCIOLI, "Terme minori e balnea nella Forma Urbis Romae," ArchClass 13 (1961), 92-102. The
utilitarian nature of the surrounding buildings may suggest that this facility would have served mainly workers.
19 So, l.llcian in several places praises the Baths of Hippias for being well-lit and spacious(Hipp., 4-8);
Statius comments specifically on this aspect of the Thermulae Etrusci (Silv., 1.5.45-46). Pompeii's Central
Baths, the largest set on the site, featured large windows; cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.47-48; H. BROISE, "Vitrages
et volets des fenetres thermales a l'epoque imperiale" in Thermes, pp. 61-78.
20 Cf. above, pp. 51-72, 119-121 (Stabian), 121-122 (Forum), 122-123 (Republican).
21 Compare the plans NIELSEN, Therm., ll.98 (fig. 74; Forum) and ll.99 (fig. 76; Suburban), where
the relative absence of fenestration in the Forum Baths compared to the Suburban is clear.
VII] 249

establishments (such as the Thermulae Etruscl); their initial construction may even have been

Republican in date. Although the Sarno Baths were ultimately intended to be part of an

apparently luxurious leisure centre that was unfinished at the time of the eruption, it is worth

noting that they were approached directly from the street by a long, dark, narrow, low-roofed

corridor. The bathrooms themselves are rather small and cramped, although they had large

south-facing windows. The Palaestra Baths are somewhat larger and were in use when disaster

struck, but they are also smaller than the main baths of the town, though about the same size as

those of Julia Felix. They were modestly decorated, with a wooden colonnade on a stone

sty lobate, hardly a showcase of magnificence.22

Perhaps still less inviting are the baths in the Casa di Giuseppe II, a former atrium-house

converted into an apartment/shop complex after the earthquake of AD 62. 23 These are also

approached by a narrow corridor, and are adjacent to a kitchen area. The suite has only three

rooms: a tepidariwn/ apodyterium, a.frigidariwn and a caldarium. All are small. As the

apartments in the building are large and spacious, it is quite possible that the use of these baths

was restricted to the residents and their guests, so they may not have been open to the general

public.

If there were less inviting baths in Roman towns, could not the discerning bather simply

avoid them and bathe amidst the splendour of more finely appointed establishments? It is in this

connection that the sources present hints of conditions at baths, apparently fairly common, that

the modern bather would find unacceptably unpleasant but which the Romans appear to have

tolerated without extensive comment. This circumstance alone ensures that the evidence is

somewhat scant and indirect. But the hints are there, nonetheless.

22 For descriptions of these and the other public baths of Pompeii, cf. above, pp. 118-138.
23 Cf. above, pp. 136-137.
VII] 250

Some inscriptions record that baths were repaired after they had fallen into a state of
decay.24 When the council at Lanuvium built a set of thermae to replace the older balneae, they
did so because the latter "through old age had become unusable. "25 Baths at Antium had fallen
into such a hazardous condition that the people were afraid to use them.26 It seems that in these
cases it required either danger or straightforward impossibility of function to deter bathers and
stimulate repair. However, most inscriptions do not mention the virtual abandonment of the
baths, but simply record the varying conditions of decrepitude that preceded restoration.27 This
leads to the predictable conclusion that bath maintenance was not always the best. A further,
and reasonable, inference to draw from these texts is that the baths in question continued to be
frequented right up to the moment of restoration. 28 Several examples even say explicitly that the
baths had been in bad condition for some time (and were still in use?) before the repair work
was done.29 Evidently. in these cases at least, the baths would have presented an appearance far
short of dazzling beauty.

The general quality of the water may also have left something to be desired. While
Seneca may claim that bathers of his day were very fussy about water purity, Frontinus reports
that in the Republican period the baths of Rome were only entitled to use run-off water from
public troughs, and that at a price.30 Elsewhere Frontinus says that until the reign of Nerva the

24 Cf. above, pp. 219-220.

25 No. 49 (Table 3).
26 No. 37 (Table 2). For other cases where baths or certain facilities in them had become unusable, cf.
nos. 35 (Table 2); 125, 136, 165, 169, 171 (Table 5); 240 (Table 7).
27 There are many such inscriptions employing various phrases to describe the delapidated condition of
the baths, e.g. vetustate conlapsae I co"uptae (and variants) being the most frequent: e.g. nos. 9, 12 (Table 1); 33
(Table 2); 119, 126, 129, 134, 148, 154, 160, 163, 164, 165, 170, 172, 174 (Table 5), 200,203 (Table 6).
28 This would seem especially true of those which mention baths restored to "to their original
appearance," (ad pristinamfaciem and variants), a phrase which could suggest that visitors had grown acccustomed
to the building's run-down appearance, cf. nos. 12, 17 (Table 1), 25, 36 (?), 41 (Table 2), 168 (Table 5), 180
(fable 6). Presumably, baths damaged or destroyed by fire (nos. 7, 16 [Table 1), 142, 147 [TableS), 194 [Table
6)), earthquake (nos. 13, 19 [Table 1], 32 [Table 2], 175 [Table 5)), flooding (nos. 10 (?) (fable 1), 176 [Table
6)) or other forms of violence were not in use when they were repaired; cf. also nos. 6 [Table 1] and 204 (Table 6)
(war); 155 [Table 5] (bad foundations); 179 [Table 6] (overgrown with thorn bushes); 197 (Table 6] (structural
instability).
29 Cf. nos. 14, 17 (fable l); 41 (fable 2); 129, 148, 170 (fable 5); 201 (Table 6).
30 Sen. Ep., 86.9; Front. Aqu., 2.94.
VII] 251

city would have to endure muddy water after heavy rains, and that when he became curator
aquarum in AD 97 he found many "watermen" (aquarii) were mixing the waters of the various

aqueducts into the city, producing a sub-standard quality for all (though this probably affected
drinking water more than that for bathing).31 Celsus comments that one of the worst things to
do for a fresh wound is go to the baths, "for this renders the wound both wet and dirty, which
normally results in gangrene. "32 A fragmentary inscription from Africa apparently records the
improvement of the water supply to the solium of a set of summer baths, by drawing it from a
pure source; the implication is that previously the water had not been entirely clean. 33 Perhaps
most off-putting are the inferences to be drawn from a graffito from the Baths of Titus, which
reads "may the wrath of the twelve gods and Diana and Joye fall upon the person who pisses or
shits here. "34 The precise location of the text in the complex is not known, but it would seem to
refer to conditions in a pool. If it is not just a joke, the water quality at baths may not have
always been the best, perhaps even in the major bathhouses.

This deficiency would only be compounded by the custom of communal bathing, one of
the hallmarks of Roman-style bathing.35 In the absence of chemicals of the sort used to keep
water fresh in modem swimming pools, there would have been a need for regular changes of
water.36 A crucial point about which we are ignorant is how often this was done in Roman
baths. Among the duties of the aediles at Rome and elsewhere was the task of entering public

31 Front. Aqu., 2.89 (muddy water) and 2.91 (aquan"z).

32 Celsus, 5.26.280: balneum quoque, dum parum vulnus purum est, inter res infestissimas est: nam
id et umidum et sordidum reddit, ex quibus cancrum transitus esse consuevit.
33 No. 236 (Table 7). Other texts note poor water supply, cf. nos. 231,235, 240 (Table 7).
34 CIL 6.29848b: duodecim deos iit (sic) Deanam et Iovern I optumum maximu(m). habeat iratos I
quisquis hie mixerit aut cacarit.
35 As is clear from references such as Plut. Mor., 1109B where the difficulty in people finding
agreement with one another is illustrated by the example of a group immersed in the same bath, some finding it
too hot and calling for cold water, others the opposite.
36 Disinfection is regarded today as a vital element of the maintenance of public swimming pools,
especially given the variety and virulence of micro-organisms that thrive in untreated bodies of still water, cf.
F.W. KROEBER, Public Swimming Pools. A Manual of Operation (New York: Barnes, 1976), pp. 82-118
(disinfection), 153-180 (viruses and bacteria).
VII] 252

establishments and ordering, if necessary, that they be cleaned. 37 For such measures to have
become necessary, experience must have shown that cleanliness was not always automatically
maintained. It is a matter of uncertainty whether the aediles were concerned only with publicly
owned establishments (the maintenance of which would fall naturally to local authorities), or all
publicly accessible facilities. 38

The sources blandly accept what is perhaps the most unpleasant of all the water-quality
conditions that apparently prevailed in Roman baths: the bathing together of the ill and healthy. 39
This practise could only have further contributed to poor water quality in communal pools. We
have seen above the major role baths played in Roman preventive and remedial medicine.40
When a medical writer like Celsus recommends a bath in treating an illness (as he does
frequently) where was the patient taken?41 For the majority of ailing Romans, the only
possibility would be the nearest public baths. To be sure, the wealthier patient might enjoy the
luxury of treatment in his own bath suite but in the absence of hospitals as such, or any
indication that separate bathing establishments were built for the sick, we must assume that
public baths would have been the resort of the majority.

37 Sen. Ep., 86.10: nam hoc quoque nobilissimi aediles.fungebantur officio intrandi ea [oca, quae
populum receptabant, exigendique munditias. Seneca portrays this as the job of "the most noble aediles" of the
past -- the context mentions Cato, Fabius Maximus and the Cornelii -- but there is no reason to suppose that the
duty did not continue into the Principate. Indeed some inscriptions from the provinces show that aediles in local
municipalities were still in charge of conditions at the baths in the Flavian period, e.g. the lex lmitana (AE
1987.333.XIX, cf. JRS 76 (1986), 147-243) while Plutarch suggests its continuance into the 2nd century (see
below, n. 51). Cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, pp. 61-63. Note also that the actual work of cleaning baths appears
to have been carried out by criminals, who would be used as public servants, cf. Pliny Ep., 10.32.
38 The wording of Seneca (loc. cit. above inn. 37) would imply that all baths were involved, but this
may only have applied to Rome.
39 This aspect of the baths is especially emphasized by SCOBIE, Klio 68 (1986), 399-433, esp. 425­
427.
40 Cf. above, pp. 151-158.
41 For Celsus's bath recommendations, cf. the examples cited inCh. 4, n. 34.
VII] 253

There is some positive evidence to this effect. Martial describes Laetinus complaining of

his fever which, the poet says, accompanies him everywhere, including to the baths. 42

Elsewhere, Martial tells offabianus, who used to make fun ofpeople afflicted with hernias,

until he discovered at the Baths of Nero that he himself suffered from the same condition. 43

Both quips imply that the sight of ill people at the baths was not uncommon. The Historia

Augusta adds that Heliogabalus searched Rome for ruptured people with whom he would then
bathe. 44

Hadrian is reported to have restricted use of the public baths to the sick for certain hours

of each day. 4 5 Before, it seems, the sick and healthy had bathed together at the same time. It is

not clear how far-reaching this measure was, and if it was applied in the provinces, we find no

sign of it. Examples of inscriptions (one of Hadrianic date) reserving baths for men and women

at different times survive, but no texts mention a similar segregation of sick and healthy .46 Even

if the regulation was restricted to Rome, it is unclear whether it applied equally to all the baths in

the capital, which would have presented considerable difficulties of enforcement. It is most

likely that only the Imperial-type thermae were affected, as they were the emperor's concern to

administer. There is also no way of knowing what motivated Hadrian to take this measure. It

may not necessarily have been hygienic considerations. No Roman medical writer, either before

or after Hadrian, expressly warns against bathing with the ill. 4 7 Perhaps he was simply

42 Mart., 12.17.1-3: quare tam multis ate, Laetine, diehus I non abeat febris quaeris et usque gemis. I
gestatur tecum pariter tecumque lavatur.
4 3 Mart., 12.83: derisor Fabianus hirnearum, I omnes quem modo colei timebant I dicentem tumidas in
hydrocelas I quantum nee duo dicerent Catulli, I in tlumnis subito Neronianis I vidit se miser et tacere coepit.
44 He/., 25.6. The story may not be true, perhaps even derived from the epigram of Martial cited in the
previous note, but it nonetheless reflects a lack of compunction about bathing with the sick and ill.
4 5 Hadr., 22.7: ante octavam horam in publico neminem nisi aegrum lavari passus est.
46 E.g. the lex Metalli Vipascensis (ILS 6891.20-21) ofHadrianic date and SEG 26 (1976), no. 1043/4
of uncertain date, but 1st century AD at the earliest. The former is the most telling, as the mines were imperial
property administered directly by an imperial procurator. Had Hadrian's reservation of baths fur the sick been an
empire-wide measure, mention of it could reasonably be expected here.
47 Contrast, for instance, the injunctions of medieval writers to avoid public baths for fear of
contracting the plague. e.g. G. Bunel (1513): "Steam-baths and bath-houses, I beg you, flee them or you will die"
(cited in G. VIGARELLO, Concepts ofCleanliness. Changing Attitudes in France since the Middle Ages
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], p. 8). It is possible that the Romans, unaware of the existence
VII] 254

motivated by a desire to keep people with no doubt often unsightly illnesses out of the public
eye, or to prevent them from sullying the pure image of the (Imperial) baths. Alternatively, he
may have wished to close the baths to the able-bodied but lazy, who should have been at work
until the 7th or 8th hour (about midday).48 Finally, we do not know how effective the measure
was. Did the sick and healthy really not bathe together in post-Hadrianic Rome?

Most unpleasant are the implications of a passage in Scribonius Largus, illustrating the
sort of situation that could arise when the ill visited the baths. When recommending a certain
type of plaster, he writes:

A plaster of indistinct colour is useful for all moderate wounds, animal bites,
contusions and cuts on joints, as when teeth are punched in. Likewise it is
remarkably helpful for boils and swellings of the lymphatic glands, completely
dissipating hardness as long as it is used for some time. It also draws fluids off
long-term ulcer scars and is generally wonderfully good for all sorts of light tasks in
daily usage: it doesn't allow tumours or pus to develop; it sticks, so that bandages
are unnecessary; and it will not fall off in the bath.49

What is noteworthy in this passage is the remarkably casual manner in which Largus comments
on the plaster's ability to stay on in a bath, which for most Romans would have meant a public
establishment Presumably other plasters did fall off at the bath; when combined with the
graffito from the Baths of Titus, the picture this paints of life in a communal solium becomes
revolting to modern taste. 50

of germs, conceived of the hygienic dangers of bathing in divine terms, as demons and the like cf. DUNBABIN,
PBSR 57 (1989), 33-46, esp. 35-37. However, it still remains the case that no source expressly makes a
connection between public bathing and falling ill (except where people abuse the baths, by drinking in them, or
eating too much before bathing etc, cf. e.g. Pliny NH, 7.183; Plut. Mor., 124C).
48 For Roman working hours, cf. below, n. 189.
49 Scrib. Larg., 214: emplastrum co/oris incerti facit ad omnia mediocra vulnera, quadrupedum morsis,
contusa vel incisa articulamenta, ut fit, cum ad dentem pervenit pugnus. eadem adfurunculos mire fa cit et
strumas omnemque duritiem discutit, si quis perseveranter earn imponat. eadem cicatricem ducit diutini ulceris et
in totum ad omnia levia in quotidianos usus mirifica est: tumorem non paritur fieri neque pus; haeret, utfascia
non sit opus; in balineo non excidet.
50 For the graffito, cf. above, n. 34.
VII] 255

Another apparently common unpleasantness has not been previously noticed. It seems
that it was possible for gases and odours from the furnace fires to reach and, on occasion,
inconvenience the bathers. Plutarch tells that conscientious aediles would not allow people who
ran baths to put darnel into the furnaces, "since the fumes of this plant give the bathers
headaches and induce vertigo. "51 Pliny the Elder confirms this, reporting that he has heard it
said that balneaJores in Greece and Asia would put darnel seed onto hot coals to clear out
unwanted crowds. 52 Fronto, writing toM. Aurelius in AD 143, says how he prefers the natural
grottos of Baiae to the furnaces of other baths, which are lit "with expense and smoke. "53 The
implication is that smoke from the furnaces was familiar to the bather. The Historia Augusta
provides an instructive anecdote, the veracity of which is not as important as the assumptions
that lie behind it. Commodus, dissatisfied with the heat of his bath, ordered the balneaJor to be
thrown into the furnace. The slave ordered to carry out the deed threw a sheep-skin on the fire
instead, thus fooling the emperor by the resulting smell into believing he had carried out the
task. 54

There is no way of knowing how common it was for gases from the heating system to
reach the bathers, but if fumes and odours from the like of darnel or sheep-skins could reach
them, as the evidence above makes clear, there is no reason why fumes or even smoke from
regular furnace fuel could not Considering the huge amount of fuel burnt to maintain the heat in
large baths, its general occurrence seems likely. Such conditions may even have been so

5 1 Plut. Mor., 658E:ot Xa.ptEVTES' ciyopa.v611ot TOVS' E:pyoA.a.~ouvTa.S' ouK E:wow .

a.1pa.s- Ell~a.A.Etv Ets- Ti)v un6Ka.votv, a.t ycX.p cino Tmhwv civa.evlluions­
Ka.pT)~a.p(a.s- K(Xl OKOTWilO:Ta. TOlS' A.01!01lEVOtS' EVTTOtoUOtV.
52 Pliny NH, 18.156: aiuntque in Asia et Graecia balneatores, cum velint turbam pel/ere, carbonibus id
[i.e. aero] semen inicere. A direct connection between hypocaust and bathroom has been proven archaeologically
only in the case of Bath IV at Olympia and the men's caldarium in the Stabian baths, cf. KUNZE & SCHLEIF,
Olympia, p. 53 and NIELSEN, Thermae, 1.20.
53 M. Aur. Caes. 1.3.4: Baiarum ego ca/idos specus malo quam istas jornaculas balneanun, in qui bus
ignis cum sumptu atque jumo accenditur brevique extinguitur.
54 Comm., 1.9.
VII] 256

accepted and unremarkable a feature of a visit to the baths, that only the occasional indirect
reference (of the sort just surveyed) survives.

Finally in this regard, it can be noted that Pliny the Elder comments that baths were
favourite breeding grounds for cockroaches, and Petronius's heroes at one stage are required to
leave a bath in haste, and do so via "a dark and dirty exit. "5 5

The evidence assembled indicates that whereas some baths were paradigms of
splendour, others were not. It even seems that certain sanitary conditions at baths (even the
fmer ones?) may have left a lot to be desired. That said, it is nonetheless true that the Romans
generally associated a visit to the baths with hygiene, getting clean (or at least cleaner) and
having a good time, rather than with wallowing in filth and having a repulsive experience. But
the Roman concept of hygiene probably differed greatly from the modern; hygienic expectations
must have been well below ours. Thus, despite the evidence for luxurious decoration and other
splendours, the physical conditions at Roman baths should not be unduly idealized. It seems
that certain conditions -- such as the simultaneous bathing of sick and healthy, the possibility of
dirty, or at least low-quality water, and the presence in some rooms of smells or even smoke
from the furnaces -- may have been far more common features of Roman baths than many like to
admit That the ancient sources do not continuously complain about such conditions is revealing
in itself.

55 Pliny NH, 11.99: tenebrarum alumna blattis vita lucemque .fugiunt, in balineis maxime umido
vapore prognatae (cf. Sen. Ep., 86.8); Petr. Satyr., 91: per tenebrosum et sordidum egressum exrraho Gitona . ..
VII] 257

(ii) The social environment 1: who used the public baths?

Who frequented the baths? What social strata were represented there? These are important

questions for establishing the nature of the baths' role in daily life, and their place in Roman

social relations. There is evidence that all social classes used public baths. It will be instructive

first to survey this evidence, and then to consider the important question of how freely the
............. \.,/''

classes mingled in the baths. Naturally, the volume of evidence w~ weighted more in favour

of the literate upper classes, who provide us with the majority of primary data, but some

testimony pertains to the less-vaunted lower social strata as well.

Emperors

The habitual bathing of the emperor with his people cannot be securely established.

Suetonius reports that the emperor Titus sometimes used to bathe at Rome with the people in the

baths that bore his name. 56 Three points are worth noting. First, it is unclear how often was

"sometimes." The choice of word, however, implies that it was not a common habit for the

princeps. Second, Titus's action is expressly said to have been aimed at gaining popularity (ne
quid popularitatis praetermitteret), so it may have been purely opportunistic; Titus may even
have hated these visits, but to assert this would be pushing the evidence too far. Third. the

emperor is said to have bathed "in the presence of the plebs," which could just mean "with the

plebs admitted" (admissa plebe). This may imply that Titus or other emperors had bathed here

at other times with the plebs excluded, or before the baths were opened to the general public.

56 Titus, 8.2: nonnumquam in thermis suis admissa plebe lavit.

VII] 258

The Historia Augusta asserts that both Hadrian and Severns Alexander bathed with the
people as a matter of course, but the reports may be falsifications deriving from Suetonius's
story about Titus. 57 Nonetheless, as anecdotes they are instructive -- especially the story about
Hadrian which places him in a public bath with a poverty-stricken veteran (the man did not own
a slave), and some greedy old men 58 -- insofar as they appear to take as natural the presence at
public baths of persons of elevated station alongside the more lowly. As regards the emperor
himself, though, it cannot be said that it was common practice for him to bathe with the people
in public, though he may have done so occasionally to foster a popular image. Most of his
bathing was probably done in private in the palace. 59

Senators, equites and the upper classes

It has been seen that the upper classes, whether individually or in groups (e.g. a town
council), were responsible for building the empire's public baths. It would be odd for them to
do so if they did not expect to use the facilities themselves, and various pieces of evidence
combine to place members of the Roman world's leading classes in public baths. It is
noteworthy that, in contrast to the evidence for emperors, none of the witnesses imply, let alone
explicitly comment, that it was in any way unusual to find members of the privileged classes at
the baths; rather their presence appears not only to have been unremarkable, but expected: it was

57 HA Hadr., 17.5: publice frequenter et cum omnibus lavit ; Sev. Alex., 42.1: thermis et suis et
veterumjrequenter cum populo usus est et aestate ma.xime. Cf. MERTEN, &uler, pp. 130-131 remains uncertain
as to the veracity of these reports, but inclines towards skepticism.
58 Hadr., 17.6-7.
59 There were private baths on the Palatine, in Imperial villas (e.g. the Villa of Hadrian at Tibur, or
those at Capri, Spoletium, and Piazza Armerina [if the latter was indeed imperial property], cf. above, Ch. 3, n.
4). Literary sources show the emperor and imperial family bathing in what were most likely private baths in the
palace, though this is often not made explicit, cf. e.g. Suet. Aug., 76.2, 82.2, 85.2, Cal., 37.1-2, Nero, 20.2,
27.2, 31.2. In some cases, private baths appear more certain: Suet. Galba, 10.5, Vesp., 21; Fronto M. Aur.
Caes., 2.12, 4.6.2, M. Aur. Imp., 1.5.4; Plut. Mor., 124C; note especially the case ofTuscus, procurator of
Egypt. who was banished for using baths built for Nero (Suet. Nero, 35.5). Note also the texts recording men
concerned with seeing to the emperor's bath, e.g. a praepositus balneariorum domus Aug(ustae) (CIL 6.8642), and
mag(ister) a balneis Aug(usti) (CJL 6.8512). Such men were undoubtedly part of the emperor's private staff,
comparable, for instance, to the praepositus vestis albae triumphalis (JLS 1763) and others concerned with the
imperial wardrobe, cf. JLS 1755-1766.
VII] 259

insolentia to the Roman tastes of Valerius Maximus that the rulers of Carthage bathed separately
from the populace. 60

Pliny the Younger, a senator of consular rank, reports that whenever he returned to his

Laurentine villa unexpectedly or without enough time to heat his own set of baths, he would use

one of three balinea meritoria (public facilities, often in private ownership, that charged an

entrance fee) in a nearby vicus.6l When describing the death of Larcius Macedo, a slave's son

who rose to the praetorship and was murdered by his domestic slaves in the private baths at his

house, Pliny recalls an incident at one of the public baths in Rome that seemed to him to be an

omen of Macedo's eventual bath-related demise. The ex-praetor was making his way through

the crowds aided by a slave when an eques, offended that Macedo's slave had touched him,

lashed out at the slave but hit Macedo instead. 62 This vignette places a praetorian senator and an

eques (as well as a slave) together at the public baths. 63

A reference in the Digest throws more light on the wealthy at the baths. It legally defines

a man's domidliwn as that place where he conducts business (negotia), frequents the forum,

baths and theatre, and celebrates festivals, rather than where he cultivates farmland.64 As the

person concerned has a choice of living in a municipiwn or a colonia, and conducts negotia in

60 Val. Max., 9.5.ext. 4: insolentiae vero inter Karthaginiensem et Campanum senatum quasi
aemulatio fuit: ille enim separato e plebe balineo lavabatur, hie enim diverso foro utebarur. quem morem Capuae
aliquomJiu rerentum Gai quoque Gracchi orarione in Plautium scnpta parer. (The last clause apparently refers
only to the use of a separate forum by the senarus at Capua).
6! Ep., 2.17.26: in hoc [sc. l1·co] balinea meriroria tria, magna commodiras, siforte balineum domi vel
subirus advenrus vel brevior mora calefacere dissuader; this passage is discussed also above, on p. 112. On balnea
meriroria, cf. above, p. 4.
62 Ep., 3.14.7-8: cum in publico Romae lavarentur .. . eques Romanus a servo eius, ur transirum
darer, manu leviter admonitus convertir se nee servum, a quo erar tactus, sed ipsum Macedanem tam gravirer
palma percussit, ut paene concideret. For violence at the baths, see also, Sen. Dial., 4.32.2 (Cato the Elder
receives a blow at a public bath), Lib. Or., 1.21 (a friend of Libanius assaulted entering a bath).
63 Compare Petron. Satyr., 92 where an eques, a slave, a youth and the amateur poet Eumolpus are
placed if not in the bathhouse, then in its immediate vicinity (the young man is naked, implying perhaps that he
was still at least within the bathing complex).
64 Dig., 50.1.27.1: si quis negotia sua non in colonia, sed in municipio semper agir, in illo vendir,
emit, contrahit, in eo foro, balineo, specraculis utitur, ibi festos dies celebrat, omnibus denique municipii
commodis, nullis coloniarumfruitur, ibi magis habere domicilium, quam ubi colendi causa deversatur.
VII] 260

one place while cultivating (and owning?) land in another, someone of at least modest wealth

can be inferred. The logic behind the ruling is clear: wherever a man participates in a

community's public activities, there lies his domicilium, even if he owns farmland -- presumably

his main estate-- elsewhere. That visiting the baths is included as a defmitive communal activity

is revealing, and suggests that it was not only normal but expected behaviour for people of

wealth to be found using a community's bathhouse. 65

The character Ulpian in Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae is most probably Ulpian ofTyre

the famous jurist, and he is portrayed as regularly visiting public baths. 66 Governors appear to

have used public baths in the provinces. The Historia Augusta, in a no-doubt spurious letter

from Valerian to an otherwise unknown and probably fictitious procurator of Syria, says that if

the governor's personal firewood is lacking, he should use the public baths. 67 Despite the

dubious context of this story, and its possibly sarcastic tone, it receives support from a passage

in the Digest which implies that it was not unusual for a governor or other magistrates to bathe

publicly. In describing the conditions under which a magistrate can sanction a manumission,

Gaius says: "slaves are very commonly manumitted when [the magistrate is} moving about,

when [for instance] the praetor or proconsul or legate of Caesar has come out to bathe, or drive

or attend the games. "68 The point is clearly that the magistrate can be called upon to witness a

manumission when in public other than when he appears formally while sitting on the tribunal.

and one of those instances, indeed the first one cited, is when he is on his way to the baths.

6S That balineo . .. utitur refers to public bathing is clear from the context: all the other activities
listed-- conducting business, going to the forum and theatre, celebrating festivals-- are public and communal, and
form the premise of the ruling as outlined above.
66 Deipn., l.ld-e.

67
HA Claud., 14.12-13. Note also the goveror holding court at the baths (Ch. 6, n. 37). though in
this case he evidently is not present to bathe.
68 Dif{., 40.2.7 (trans P.A. BRUNn: plerumque in transitu servi manumitti solent, cum aut lavam/i
aut gestandi aut ludorum gratia prodierit praetor aut proconsullegatusve Caesaris.
VII] 261

Cicero provides more pertinent testimony. When describing and ridiculing the plot to

poison Clodia alleged against his client M. Caelius. he implies that well-bred Romans could

apparently be an unremarkable feature of the Balneae Seniae at least. 69 For Clodia is said to

have gotten wind of the plot and arranged for certain of her amici to ambush Licinius at the

baths. While Cicero lampoons the allegation sufficiently to make it likely that no such plot ever

existed, the point to note is that its particulars were plausible enough to require Cicero to spend

some time dismissing them in detail. He describes Licinius as pudens adulescens et bonus. The

ambushers are amici of Clodia, a woman of patrician status. For them to be so designated, it is

reasonable to suggest that they too were all members of Rome's privileged classes. Cicero

nowhere remarks on their presence in the baths; in itself, it was evidently not considered out of

the ordinary.

Lucian's description of the baths ofHippias includes reference to "a hall suitable for the

reception of the rich. "70 The wording implies the presence of the rich and the not-rich at the

baths. Isolating specific examples of such halls in the physical remains has proven virtually

impossible, though the atrium or basilica thermarum mentioned in inscriptions and literary

sources may have served such a role.71

Juvenal and Martial, while not the most affluent individuals, were nonetheless

representative of the privileged classes, and were familiar with public baths; Martial, in fact, had

a preference for the facilities built by Titus.n The 4th-century AD nobility of Rome, according

69 For what follows, cf. Cic. pro Cael., 61-62.

70
Hipp., 5.
71 Cf. Appendix 5 for parts of baths mentioned in inscriptions; cf. NIELSEN Therm., 1.162-163, s.v.
"ba'lilica thennarum," "Vestibulum, atrium."
72 Mart., 3.36.6. The poet also implies that he used other facilities in the city, cf. 1.59, 2.14.11-13
(the more squalid baths of Gryllys and Lupus?), 6.42 (fhermulae of Etruscus), 11.52.1-4 (Baths of Stephanus).
Juvenal similarly makes it clear he frequented public baths, cf. e.g. Sat., 6.374-376, 7.232-233, 11.3-5, 11.203­
206. Both men appear to have been of local municipal stock, though Martial rose to the tribunatus semestris
(Mart., 3.95.9), and both were moderately affluent, cf. Juvenal's house in Rome (Sat., 11.171,190), and perhaps
one at Tibur (Sat., 11.65).
VII] 262

to Ammianus Marcellinus, attended the baths as a matter of course; in fact, it was regarded as

polite to inquire of a stranger what thermae he used (which itself suggests certain baths were

considered fashionable),73 Men who attended the baths with substantial retinues of slaves must

be counted among the upper classes. 74

Few inscriptions attest the upper classes at the baths, but one intriguing example from

Rome may do just that75 The text concerns one Ursus who describes himself as a player of

"glass ball" in the Baths of Agrippa, Nero, Titus and Trajan. He enjoins his supporters to

rejoice in his achievements, and admits at the end that he had been defeated ''by the patron

Verus, three times consul, not once but many times." The text may appear little more than a

quaint commemoration of a quainter old man, but an ingenious interpretation by E. Champlin

makes this unlikely. 76 Pointing out the inherent unlikelihood of a game played with a glass ball

(for which where is no other ancient testimony), and some odd features of the text, such as the

injunction to honour Ursus who is "alive and willing" in a fashion suitable for one who is dead

(e.g. pouring of libations, wreaths of flowers), Champlin proposes that the whole text is a

comic allegory. Verus is M. Ann ius Verus (cos. AD 98, 121, 126 and praefectus urbi, 121­

126) surely one of the most powerful men in Hadrianic Rome.7 7 Ursus, proposes Champlin, is

L. Julius Ursus Servianus (cos. AD 91, 102 but never cos. III), who must have been a political

rival of Verus.78 The glass ball is therefore an allegory of court politics: a difficult endeavour

73 Amm. Marc., 28.4.8-9, 4.24 (bathing a regular activity); 28.4.10 (asking after thermae). Cf. Lib.
Or., 1.141 (Libanius habitually used the "great baths" of Antioch).
74 For slave retinues, cf. below, pp. 267-268.
75 Cf. ILS 5173: Ursus, togatus vitrea qui primus pila J lusi decenter cum meis lusoribus, llaudante
populo maximis clamoribus, I Thermis Traiiani, thermis Agrippae et Titi, II multum et Neronis, si tamen mihi
creditis, I ego sum. ovantes convenite, pilicrepi, I statuamque amici, floribus, violis, rosis, I folioque multo
adque unguento marcido I onerate amantes, et merum profundite II nigrum Falemum aut Setinum aut Caucubum, I
vivo ac volenti de apotheca dominica, I Ursumque canite voce concordi senem hilarem, I iocosum, pilicrepum,
scholasticum, I qui vicit omnes antecessores suos II sensu, decore adque arte suptilissima I nunc vera versu verba
dicamus senes: I sum victus ipse, fateor, a ter consule I Vero patrono, nee semel sed saepius, I cuius libenter dicor
exodiarius.
76 E. CHAMPLIN, "The Glass Ball Game," ZPE 60 (1985) 159-163.
77 In addition, his son-in-law was Antoninus Pius and his grandson, and adoptive son, was M.
Aurelius, cf. PJR2 A 695.
78 He was Hadrian's brother-in-law, cf. PJR2 J 631.
VII] 263

where success is fragile and hard to grasp. Champlin suggests the inscription was

commissioned by Ursus and sent to his rival Verus when he achieved his third consulship,

effectively killing Ursus's political career (hence the libations etc.). For our purposes, however,

note that for the allegory to be successful, and the joke to be funny, the portrayal of a senator

playing ball in the public baths must have reflected reality, or at least must have been

plausible. 79

Plebs, commoners and others oflow station

The evidence for these groups is mostly indirect, gleaned from implications drawn from

the literary sources, though some more explicit epigraphic testimony is available. By far the

most direct of this is the graffiti found in the well preserved bathhouses in the towns buried by

Vesuvius. The Forum and Sarno Baths at Pompeii, and the Suburban Baths at Herculaneum

have yielded the scribblings of visitors, usually little more than their names. 80 But most such

graffiti-writers were, then as now, most likely of common station. There are also two epitaphs

of apparently humble Romans which mention their frequent use of baths.81 An inscription from

Claudiopolis in Bithynia records the sudden death (by heart attack?) of the dancer Chrysopolis

of Nikaia "while bathing in the hot baths. "82 In addition, there are the instrwnenta balnei

79 Ball-playing is most clearly attested at baths by the existence of specific rooms (sphaeristeria) to
accommodate it, cf. Pliny Ep., 2.17.11, 5.6.25, and Appendix 5, s.v. Note especially apaganicum, apparently a
place for playing the ball game pila paganica (Mart., 7.32.7) at the baths at Abuzza in Africa (CIL 8.16368), cf.
R. REBUFFAT, "Le paganicum," in Thermes, pp. 33-34. See also. BLUMNER, Privata/tamer, pp. 439-441 on
different types of ball-games.
80 Cf. CIL 4.1462-1469 (Forum), 4.10674-10683 (Suburban); KOLOSKI-OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 54-59
(Sarno).
81 ILS 8157: v.a. LII I D.M. I Ti. Claudius Secundus, I hie secum habet omnia. II balnea, vina, Venus I
corrumpunt corpora I nostra. I sed vitam faciunt I b. v. V.; CIL 14.914: D. M. I C. Domiti Primi I hoc ego su(m)
in tumulo Primus notissilmus ille. vixi Lucrinis; potabi saepe Fallemum; balnia, vina, Venus mecum I senuere
per annos bee ego si potuilsit mihi terra lebisset tam en ad Maines. The absence of any distinguishing titles
(Primus notissimus is more of an affectation than an official title) suggests these men were of lowly station.
82 SEG 36 (1986), 1139: E8avov rrpojTTETWS' 8Ep!J.OLOl 1\ u8Etoa (sic).
VII] 264

(strigils, parerae etc) inscribed with their owners' names. 83 Presumably, however, these were
people of at least some means, as they could afford metal accoutrements.

It seems that families would go to the baths together. Two texts, one from Lugdunum.
the other from Ostia, commemorate deceased wives who used to bathe with their husbands. 84
In the Lugdunum text the grieving husband, Pompeius Catussa, describes himself as a
"Sequanian citizen, a plasterer." The bereaved Ostian husband was a Roman citizen, but gives
no hint as to his profession or status; he was probably of inconsequential social station. If
husbands and wives visited the baths together, they appear to have brought their children along.
In an inscription from Rome, two freedpeople mourn the loss of their 8-year old son who
drowned in the piscina of the Baths of Mars.85 A drawing of stick-men on the wall of the ramp
leading to the Sarno Baths may have been executed by a child.86 Of the five teeth found in the
baths at Caerleon, three were from children.87 Surviving schoolbooks for children, most of 3rd
century AD date and later, describe how to use the baths and acquaint the pupils with the
requisite vocabulary and rules of etiquette. 88

Besides the actual writings and belongings of the bathers themselves, there are also the
texts which record bath benefactions aimed at certain groups. So, an undated inscription from
Nemausus records that a benefactor "provided baths for the use of the plebs earlier (than

83 Cf. CIL 15.7084-7095.

84 JLS 8158 (Lugdunum): Pompeius I Catussa cives Sequanus tecltor coniugi incomparabi1i I et sibi
benignissime ... tu qui legis, vade in Apolinis (sic) lavari, quod ego cum coniulge feci; vellem si aduc (sic)
possem; AE 1987.179 (Ostia): Q. Minucius Q. f. Pal(atina tribu) Marcellus I coniugi carissimae, pientissim(ae),
castissim(ae) II coniugali, quae numquam sine me in publlicum aut in balineum aut ubicumq(ue) ire volet.
85 ILS 8518: Daphnus et I Chryseis I Laconis Iiberti I Fortunato suo v(ixit) a(annorum) VIII, II balneo
Martis piscina I perit. The Balneum Martis is otherwise unknown. Cf. a similar text from Teate Marrucinorum,
CIL 9.6318: ipse pa[ter infelicissimus}l sculpsi puero I qui miser in piscina p[eriit] I vixit annis Ill mens VI.
Here, however, it is not made explicit that the piscina was part of a bathhouse.
86 Cf. KOLOSKI-OSTROW, Sarno, p. 59.
87 Cf. above, Ch. 4, n. 55.
88 A.C. DIONISOTTI, "From Ausonius' Schooldays? A Schoolbook and its Relatives," JRS 72
(1982), 81-125, esp. §§55-64 (pp. 102-103); note in particular the lists of words in§§ 57-58, and the injunction
at the end, gratias ago balneatori ("l thank the balneator (on the way out]"); compare Gloss. Lat., Ill.644-654
(Colloquium Monacensia) and lll.654-659 (Colloquium Montepessulanum).
VII] 265

expected). "89 Here it is not clear whether these baths were exclusively for the use of the plebs.
but even if it was not , their presence cannot be disputed. Other texts record work carried out
for the benefit of, and with the support of, the populus, perhaps even in response to its
demands.90

Among the clearest testimony of this type are the texts which record the provision of free
bathing. Sometimes the categories of beneficiaries are listed.9 1 Bathing can be given simply "to
the people," a word that probably is intended to denote all the classes of the community, even if
strictly speaking the term excludes decurions and Augustales.92 Other texts list the specific
categories of people who were to benefit. Free bathing could be stipulated for municipes and
coloni (i.e. citizens of the municipium and/or colony), incolae (i.e. residents of the territory
accruing to the community), hospites (i.e. guests of the community), adventores (i.e. visitors to
the community, probably from neighbouring villages and towns), and peregrini (i.e. foreigners,
either resident aliens, or a rough equivalent to adventores ). 93 More restricted examples are
known: in one, bathing is offered only to the female members of the community's ruling order,
and in another only to men, and youths (impuberes) of both sexes. 94 Again, in these cases it is
far from certain that use of the baths was restricted to the groups named; rather the texts only
mention those who are to benefit, and it must be assumed that other classes of people could
attend, but had to pay.

89 No. 77 (Tabk 4).

90 Cf. above, p. 235. For benefactions expressly aimed at the populus, cf. nos. 13, (Table!), 20, 37
(Table 2), 86 (Table 4), and below, n. 92.
91 Cf. Table 7, s.v. section A., "Free Bathing."
92 Cf. Nos. 210 (populus), 215 (0 8-f)iJ.OS), 221 (pagani), 224 (Ot KCx.TOtKOl) (Table 7); note also
oil distributions, which are often given populo, cf. nos. 243 (TIOA lS TIOS), 244 (0 8-f)llOS), 246, 251, 252
(populus) (Table 7). Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., pp. 141-143; S. MROZEK, Les distributions d'argent et de
nourriture dans les vi lies italiennes du Haut-Empi re romain (Brussels; Collection Latomus 198, 1987), pp. 94­
102.
93 A glance down the "Work done" column of the "Free Bathing" section of Table 7 will provide
several examples of this.
94 Nos. 218 (men and youths) and 223 (women) (Table 7).
VII] 266

Literary sources allude to the presence of commoners at the baths. The establishment at

Rome through which Larcius Macedo was making his way with the aid of a slave was obviously

crowded, and it would be unrealistic to imagine that everyone else present was a senator, eques,

or member of the upper classes. The presence of the plebs is thus to be inferred. That members

of the lower classes were habitually to be found at the baths in Rome is implied by an epigram of

Martial. Addressing himself (tecum mihi, care Manialis ), the poet wonders what life would be

like if he did not move among the high social circles of the imperial capital. He answers himself:

We should not know the halls or mansions of men of power, nor worrying lawsuits
and the anxious forum, not lordly ancestral busts; but the promenade, the lounges,
the bookshops, the plain, the colonnade, the garden's shade, the Virgin water, the
thermae - these should be our haunts always, these our tasks.95

Although the text is overtly romanticized, the basic point that commoners frequented the baths is

clear. This need not surprise; living conditions for the less well-off in the city must have been

atrocious, tempting them to spend time in the more opulent surroundings of the city's public

spaces. 96 Of these, the baths must have been among the most attractive, being functional in

nature and, in the case of bigger establishments at least, offering luxurious and comfortable

surroundings to the visitor.97

95 Cf. Mart., 5.20 (Loeb trans.): nee nos atria nee domos potentuml nee litis terri cas forumque tristel
nossemus nee imagines superbas; I sed gestatio,fabulae, libelli,/ campus, porticus, umbra, Virgo, thermae,/ haec
essent loca semper, hi labores.
96 Cf. Tac. Hist., 1.4 which speaks of the plebs sordida et circo ac theatris sueta. See also
MacMULLEN, Social Relations, p. 63. For the living conditions of the mob, cf. YAVETZ, "Living
Conditions" in SEAGER, Crisis, pp. 162-179 and SCOBIE, Klio 68 (1986), 399-433. It is not clear whether or
not the magnificence of public buildings helped the plebs put up with their domestic squalor, as MacMULLEN
and others (e.g. MARVIN, AlA 87 (1983), 347 with specific reference to baths) assert. SCOBIE denies the
proposition on Marxist grounds: public opulence only made the poor more aware of their personal poverty (ibid.,
431-432). Altogether, it seems more likely the plebs would have enjoyed a trip to the baths, and a brief brush
with luxury.
97 Cf. above, pp. 245-247.
VII] 267

Slaves as attendams and customers

There can be little doubt that slaves were to be found at the baths. Some evidence
already reviewed reveals the presence of slaves in an "official" capacity, i.e. as attendants,
members of retinue or staff attached to the building.98 Mosaics depict slaves carrying buckets
and other bath-related instruments, and one from the private baths at Piazza Armerina names
them in the vocative ("Tite," "Cassi") as if they were being summoned.99 In the surviving
colloquia (schoolbooks), the bathing scenes are often expressed as orders given to silent
slaves.1oo When Trimalchio first appears in the Satyricon, he is at the baths with three no doubt
slave masseurs drinking wine.1o1 They were probably members ofTrimalchio's retinue, as
bringing slave attendants to the baths was not unusual for those who could afford it Juvenal
makes great sport of the woman who bathes at night, and has all her bath equipment transported
there (presumably by slaves) and is accompanied by a masseur (aliptes).102 The satirist also
pokes fun at one Tongilius who "frequents the baths with a huge oil-flask of rhinoceros horn
and disturbs the bathers with a mob of dirty retainers. "103 That this is not pure fantasy is

98 So, for instance, the slave who attended La.rcius Macedo (above, p. 259). Cf. below, n. 168 for a
graffito illustrating the sort of treatment to which such slaves could be subjected.
99 Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., ll.76-77, figs. 40-42 (fig. 40 is the Piazza Armerina mosaic). Note also
Amm. Marc., 28.4.16 where a slave receives 300 lashes for not bringing hot water quickly enough, presumably
in the baths.
100 Cf. DIONISOTII, JRS 72 (1982), 83-125: e.g. §55 (dejene res ad balneum mutatoria) or §61 (da
strigilem, destringe me); cf. also Gloss. Lat., ill.651-652.10 and ill.657.14.
101 Petron. Sat., 28. On the mostly servile status of bath personnel cf. M. WISSEMAN, "Das
Personal des antiken romischen Bad," G/otta 62 (1984), 80-89; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.125-131. Note also H.C.
YOUTIE, "Records of a Roman Bath in Upper Egypt," AJA 53 (1949), 268-270 (= id., Scriptiuncu/oe II
(Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1973), pp. 990-993 where the names on the 1st or 2nd century ostraca records of a military
bathhouse at Apollinopolis Magna (Edfu) show the staff to be slaves. Cf. also C/L 5.2886 where a familia
thermensis Thermarum Urbania[r(um)], i.e. the servile workers at the baths, make a dedication to the emperors or
masters (domini). On iatraliptae in particular, cf. ibid., p. 88 where WISSEMAN concludes that they were
mostly freedmen, but says they could also be part of an upper-class Roman's household (cf. Pliny Ep., 10.5, 6),
i.e. slaves. That appears to be the case with Trimalchio, as there is no hint in the Satyricon passage that the
masseurs were attached to the bathhouse as regular staff, as WISSEMAN suggests.
102 Sat., 6.419-426. On the opening hours of baths, cf. MERTEN, Biider, pp. 59-78; HEINZ, Rom.
Therm., 145-146; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.135-138. There appears to have been no strict regulation of opening
hours.
103 Sat., 7.130-131 (Loeb trans.): magno cum rhinocerote lavaril qui solet et vexat lutulenta balnea
turba... Cf. Sen. Dial., 10.12.7 where the pampered bather is lifted out of the bath into his litter, presumably
by his retinue.
VII] 268

indicated by Ammianus Marcellinus who describes a retinue of up to 50 servants accompanying

late Imperial aristocrats to the baths, and Plutarch, who counts it among the virtues of the
XPT)OTOS' that he does not have an immoderate number of servants at the baths. 104 But the size

of the retinue need not have been especially large; a retinue of one or two was also possible.I05
It seems probable that one of the functions of the benches found outside the Forum Baths or

those of Julia Felix at Pompeii was to accommodate slaves waiting for their masters (and/or
bathers waiting to get in when the establishments were full); Lucian mentions a room in the
Baths of Hippias specifically for servants and attendants. 106 Slave staff could also guard
clothes or serve baser functions.107

However, a more interesting question is: Did slaves use the baths as customers? The
evidence for the presence of slaves as bathers is rarely direct, and often ambiguous. An example
is a graffito from the vestibule of the Suburban Baths in Herculaneum which reads: [F]usci
Cilix.tos Unfortunately, it is not clear ifCilix was a libertus or a slave, or, if the latter, whether
he was at the baths as Fuscus's attendant or as a customer. The terse text thus proves tantalizing

104 Amm. Marc., 28.4.8-9: tales ubi comitantibus singulos quinquaginta ministris, tholos introierunt
• s:c " s:c' '
balnearum, "ubi, ubi sunt nostri" minaciter clamant.. ; Plut. Mor., 823B: O'UuCqJ.T) uE A. 'UTIT)POS'
ovo' EVOXf...WV OlKETWV Til\ f)8EL TIEpL f...O'UTpOV ...
105 Cf. Mart. 11.75, cf. Juv. 6.374-376 (woman and eunuch attendant?); Mart. 12.70 (poor man has
slave to carry towel and one to watch his clothes); Petron. Sat., 91, cf. 97 (single slave attendant); Pliny Ep.,
3.14.7-8 (slave to make way for Larcius Macedo, though the ex-praetor may have had more unmentioned slaves in
his retinue); Anon. life ofAesop, 32 [DALY, p. 47] (handsome slave attends mistress at (a private?) bath), 38
[DALY, pp. 50-51] and 66 [DALY, p. 63] (Aesop, the only slave in his master's townhouse, attends his master
at the public baths). The latter is an anonymous 1st-century AD Egyptian composition. On its nature and date,
cf. L.W. DALY, Aesop Without Morals (New York: Yoseldorf, 1961), pp. 19-23 and B.E. PERRY's
introduction to the Loeb edition of Babrius and Phaedrus (1965), esp. pp. xxxv-xlvi. Although set at the time of
Croesus of Lydia, when tradition said Aesop lived, much in the work evidently reflects 1st century AD conditions
and so is a useful source for the social functioning of baths.
106 Luc. Hipp., 5: Kotvos otKos;-, tKcx.vT)v EXWV unT)pETcx.Ls Kcx.t cX.Kot..oveov;·
01.CX.Tpt~"f1v; cf. below, p. 286 where the passage is cited in full.
107 Cf. below, pp. 288-289 (thieves at the baths) and pp. 299-300 (sex and prostitution).
108 CJL 4.10681. Another text from the same room reads (C/L 4.10676): Hermeros Primigeniae
dominae: I veni Puteolos in vico Tim(i)niano et quaere I a Messio num(m)ulario Hermerotem Phoebi. On the
surface, the graffito appears to be clear evidence for the presence at the baths of Hermeros, a slave of Primigenia.
However, it seems that this Primigenia was a much-admired local beauty from Nuceria who is the subject of
several wall-graffitos in the region (CIL 4.3976,5358, 8175,8301 and especialy 10241). Hermeros calling her
his domina therefore takes on a different meaning.
VII] 269

but ultimately frustrating. More informative is another text from the same room recording the
presence of Apelles, a cubicularius Caesar(is).109 Apelles was probably of slave status (though
high in the hierarchy due to his proximity to the emperor), and as he lunches and copulates at the
baths, he was undoubtedly there as a customer.11o

Before reviewing the other material, a word of caution. For certain slaves, limitation of
freedom of movement was one of the chief drawbacks of their station, and one that would have
interfered directly with their ability to visit public baths. This problem is diminished if the
distinction between slaves as attendants and slaves as customers is not drawn too strictly. It is
possible that slaves who went with their owners to the baths "on duty" also bathed while there.
If this were the case, it still means that slaves could visit the baths to bathe, presumably

simultaneously with their owners (which would be remarkable in itself). However, not all
attendants would have been given the opportunity: some (e.g. those who guarded clothing, or
carried litters) would surely not have been given a chance to bathe while carrying out their
duties, whereas others (e.g. masseurs, washing attendants) might. Altogether, the possibility
that at least some slaves could work and bathe at the same time should be borne in mind when
reviewing the evidence.

In two benefactions of free bathing, the offer is expressly extended hospitib(us)

servisque eorum, "to guests and their slaves" and uxsorib(us}, serveis ancilleisque eor(um), "to

their wives [i.e. of the various groups previously listed], slaves, and maids. "111 Now it is just

109 CJL 4.10677; cf. below, n. 204 for full text.

110 Imperial cubicularii were usually slaves, who could be manumitted after years of service, cf. JLS
1734-1742; RE 4.1734-1737, s.v. "a cubiculo, cubicularius" {RostowzewJ, esp. 1734; G. BOULVERT, &cla~·es
et a.ffranchis imperiaux sous le Haut-Empire romain (Naples; Jovene, 1970), pp. 241-247. There are two chief
indications that Apelles was a slave and not a libertus: 1). he only uses one nomen (though, admittedly, the text
is a graffito); and 2) the possessive "Caesaris" is generally used by slaves, freedmen preferring "Augusti," cf.
P.R.C. WEAVER, Familia Caesaris. A Social Study ofthe Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 48-54.
111 Nos. 209 (ancillae) and 214 (servl) (Table 7). These texts are taken at face value by CENERINI,
RSA 17-18 (1987-1988), 212; MROZEK, Distributions, p. 101, n. 48.
 --~-~----

Vll] 270

arguable that these slaves are members of a retinue of attendants, small or large. But even if so,

the slaves are expressly granted lavatio gratuita, "free bathing," and so the right to use the

facilities as customers, whether "on duty" or not. On a broader perspective, is it reasonable to

expect that a bather bringing slave attendants would be expected to pay an entrance fee for those

attendants? Would they not number among his instrumenta balnei (like towels or strigils), and

be automatically exempt? A passage in the Digest may support this contention. Here it is stated

that in legacies involving bathhouses (slave) balneatores andjornacatores (furnace attendants)

were to be included with the property as instrwnenta balnei. 11 2 Given this, it would be no

benefaction at all to extend an offer of free bathing to slaves unless they were to be included

among the other groups of bathers listed.

If these arguments are accepted, these two inscriptions provide positive evidence that

slaves could use the baths as customers (at least at the places where the texts were found). A

negative inference in support of this proposition can also be drawn. The mention of slaves in

these particular texts, and their absence from the majority, implies that they usually would not be

beneficiaries of lavatio gratuita.1t3 The wording, in fact, does not show that slaves were

excluded from the baths per se, but rather implies that they usually could use the baths, but had

to pay.

The lex Metalli Vipascensis adds weight to the argument. The 2nd-century inscription,

regulating the administration of an imperial mine and the territory accruing to it, stipulates that

such slaves and freedmen as were in the employ of the procurator or enjoy privileges could use

112 Dig., 33.7.13.1 (balneator), 33.7.17.2 ifornacator). The ruling is justified on the basis that these
staff-members were essential to the running of the facility. It is therefore arguable that perhaps only essential
staff were considered instrumenta balnei. However, this is probably too legalistic an approach, and may not have
applied to everyday life; Veil. Pat., 2.114.2 implies the term applied to whatever was necessary for bathing, cf.
NIELSEN, Therm., I. 142-144.
11 3 Such is the conclusion of MROZEK, Distributions, pp. 100-102 who proposes the habitual
exclusion of slaves from money and food distributions in Italian towns. This is despite Sen. Vit. Beata, 24.2
where it is claimed that slaves can, in principle, be beneficiaries of liberality. Cf. also CENERINL RSA 17-18
(1987-1988), 212.
VII] 271

the baths free of charge.114 As above, the wording implies that other slaves, not in the employ

of the imperial service, would be charged, i.e. that slaves of any kind had access to this bath as

customers. Pertinent here is an inscription, also from imperial estates (in Coela, Thrace), that

records the building of baths for "the people and the familia of Caesar," i.e. those imperial

slaves who served the estates.115 It would seem from these texts that imperial servants could

use baths on certain imperial properties. That they come from opposite ends of the empire, and

are separated chronologically by almost a century might indicate that the practice was

widespread, if not common; however, two inscriptions do not establish a common regulation,

and neither text proves that imperial slaves could use public facilities elsewhere.

The rules of the Lanuvian burial club (AD 136) are also instructive. It seems clear that

the collegium had slave members, who appear to have been treated on an equal footing with

others.116 In which case, when free oil is prescribed for the collegium at the public baths prior

to their annual banquets, the slave members presumably benefitted as well (certainly, they are

not explicitly excluded).11 7 The text therefore indicates that the collegium members, of varying

social statuses including slaves, bathed together on these occasions.

Literary sources provide relevant testimony. In the Saryricon, the heroes meet a slave

who is about to be punished for losing the clothes of a dispensator while at the baths.11s A

dispensaJor resembled an accountant in charge of the financial matters of a household. He was

11 4 Cf. JLS 6891, lines 23-24: excipiuntur Iiberti et servi (Caes. qui proc.] in offi[c]is erunt veil
commoda percipient, ...
115 Cf. No. 86 (Table 4).
116 Cf. JLS 7212.II.3-10, where the burial rights of the slave and freed members are outlined. Cf. also
MROZEK, Distributions, p. 102 for slave members in collegia.
117 Cf. no. 247 (Table 7). Note also AE 1971.88.0.3-4 where the slave corpse-removers at Puteoli
may not use the baths before the 1st hour of night, the time restriction probably imposed for religious reasons.
118 Petron. Satyr., 30. For the status and duties of a dispensator, cf. RE 5.1189-1198, s.v.
[Iiebenam].
 - - ~~-- -------

VII] 272

usually a slave (but could be a freedman), high up in the servile hierarchy. 119 IfTrimalchio's

dispensator is a slave, he is seen here using the baths as a customer, with another less-elevated
slave as a robe guard, who is then to be punished for losing his clothes. Juvenal comments that

one of his two simple serving slaves is "no noisy frequenter of the baths, presenting his armpits

to be cleared of hair, and with only an oil-flask to conceal his timid nudity. "120 Were other

slaves "noisy frequenters of the baths"? The attendance by depilators shows Juvenal's slave

was there to bathe, not to serve. Pliny the Elder complains of gold-adorned paedagogi, also

household slaves, who have transformed the appearance of the baths.12 1 In this case, however,

it is not clear if the slaves are part of a retinue or visiting the baths as customers.

It must be stressed that all we have seen so far applies to public baths located in an urban
context In the countryside, conditions may have dictated separate bathing for master and slave.

It would be unrealistic to expect that a villa's private bath suite would be available for use by

farmhands, though in some early villas in South-East England the sharing of baths by workers

and owners appears to have been practised.122 At Ash stead in Surrey, a villa has been

excavated which has a small bath-suite built into it, and a larger, detached bath building some 50

metres down the road approaching the house.123 The most logical explanation of this

arrangement is that the detached bathhouse was for the use of the lowly workers, the villa's bath

suite for the owners of the estate. Most villas, though, do not feature such detached bath

buildings, so presumably the workers had to fend for themselves in this regard; perhaps they

119 Imperial dispensatores were normal! y slaves of the highest servile rank, but could be manumitted at
age c. 40; note that, among the emperor's familia, they are the group most frequently attested as slaves who
owned slaves (servi vieariz), cf. WEAVER, Familia Caesaris, pp. 205-206, pp. 200-206.
120 Sat., 11.156-158 (Loeb. trans.): nee pupil/ares defert in balnea raueus I testiculos, nee vellandas
iam praebuit alas I erassa nee opposito pavidus tegit inguina guto.
121 Pliny NH, 33.40. Cf. Juv. Sat., 6.374-376 where the poet's description of a eunuch conspicuously
entering the baths leaves it ambiguous as to whether he was present alone as a customer or in attendance on his
mistress.
122 Cf. E.W. BLACK, The Roman Villas ofSouth-East England (Oxford: BAR British Series 171,
1987), p. 53: some early villas had single, detached bathhouses, while in the course of the 2nd century AD,
separate bath suites attached to the villas (for exclusive use of the owners?) become more common.
123 Ibid., pp. 105-116. Similar arrangements are found at e.g. Angmering, Sussex (ibid., pp. 87-89)
and Darenth, Kent (ibid., p. 52). On detached baths in villas, cf. ibid., pp. 51-54.
VIIJ 273

facilities in nearby vici or pagi. On the other hand, Columella recommends allowing farm slaves
to bathe only on festival days, meaning that they could enjoy a full Roman-style bath only on
these special occasions; otherwise they would have to improvise.1 24 But was Columella's
attitude typical? Was his recommendation widely applied? Altogether, public bathing in the
countryside is a topic in need of further investigation.

The evidence so far reviewed, when taken together, makes strong the possibility that
slaves were allowed to use urban public baths as customers. However, it is probable that the
practice varied from district to district, even from bath to bath within a town or region. If this
were the case, it could be expected that some evidence would survive, no matter how indirect, of
the reservation of a bathhouse for the use of slaves alone, or for their exclusion from others.
None does. Of course, the sort of lowly establishment likely to be frequented by slaves would

not be the type to sport grandiose inscriptions. Nonetheless, the complete absence of any
evidence (even graffiti, or asides in literary authors) that slaves were not welcome in some
public facilities is noteworthy. If we assume, as I believe we must, that slaves had to get clean
just as much as anyone else, their presence as customers at public facilities would seem logical
enough. It is possible, however, that only high-ranking slaves-- such as imperial servi,
household dispensatores or personal attendants and favourites -- enjoyed the freedom of
movement (and permission?) to visit public baths on anything like a regular basis.125

124 Cf. Columella, 1.6.19-20.

125 In the life ofAesop, for instance, Aesop is never depicted as going to the baths except as an
attendant upon his master. However, Aesop is clearly an all-purpose chattel, and perhaps lacked the status to use
public baths.
Vlll 274

There is therefore a substantial body of evidence placing Romans of all social classes,

from at least one emperor to slaves, in the baths. The next questions are: were they to be found

together in the same bathhouses? If so, how freely did the classes mingle there?

(iii) The social environment II: social mixing

No evidence exists to suggest that formal social segregation was implemented at the baths. 126

(It would certainly not have been impossible to organize, as shown, for instance, by the

separation of men and women.) 127 In fact, the evidence would imply quite the opposite. When

Pliny the Younger comments that he would visit the public baths in a village near his Laurentine

villa when his private suite was not operative, he shows no social compunction about using

these establishments, nor gives any indication that they were reserved for certain social

classes.128 Likewise, in Cicero's refutation of the poisoning allegations against Caelius, slaves

and men of high birth appear to mingle freely at the baths. Caelius's motive in choosing the

baths as the most suitable place for the transmission of the poison to Clodia's slaves would

appear to have been that a well-born young man could be seen there in close contact with slaves

126 An exception is the room "suitable for the reception of the rich," an apparently exclusive area (for
changing?) of the Baths of Hippias. But, aside from that, the rich would have mingled with the rest in the
remaining areas of the building. No other evidence exists for the reservation of certain buildings or areas thereof
for social groups. The baths of the tribes of Antioch (Lib. Or., 11.245), and others for the use of collegia etc.,
are more akin to private establishments than public ones.
127 Women could have their own bath-buildings (balneum muliebre; cf. nos. 75 (Table 4), 219 (Table
7)), separate sections within a building (as the Stabian or Forum Baths at Pompeii, cf. above, n. 20 for page
references), or be restricted to certain hours at the baths (ILS 6891, lines 20-21; SEG 26 (1976), 1043/4). There
is no reason why, ifthey had wanted to, the Romans could not have established such segregation for social
classes, even on a broad basis, e.g. between members of ordines and plebs, or between freeborn and freed/slaws.
Compare, for instance, the 14th-century rulings at Digne, Dijon and Rouen stipulating alternate days at public
baths for the use of men, women, Jews and actors (cf. VIGARELLO, Concepts, p. 29).
128 Cf. above, pp. 112, 259.
VII] 275

without raising suspicion.129 However, it is not clear from the text if the slaves were to
masquerade as customers, or a retinue; but if it were the latter, whose retinue? Altogether, the
story appears to assume that it was unremarkable for well-born and slave to be in the same
bathhouse. If it were not, it is surprising that Cicero passed up another opportunity to ridicule
the prosecution's allegations by commenting acidly on such inappropriate social intercourse.
Apuleius populates his baths with various classes of people, from a beggar-like down-and-out to
rich women.130

In the inscriptions conferring benefactions on named groups, it must be assumed that

those groups could be found simultaneously at the baths together: there is certainly no indication
otherwise. In fact, the terminology involved allows a clear illustration of how social mixing was
an accepted feature of the baths. As seen above, some texts record the provision of free bathing
for municipes (and/or coloni), incolae, hospites, adventores, peregrini and servi (and ancillae) in
various combinations.131 It just happens that almost identical wording is employed in the so­
called lex Ursonensis from Spain, which stipulates separate seating at spectacles for coloni,
incolae, hospites and adventores. The main point of the text is to separate these groups from
the decurions of the colony, but the sense demands that each category was assigned separate
seating.l32 So it seems that specific groups segregated according to rank at shows were not so

129 Cicero's consideration of the places within the building where Clodia's amid would best conceal
themselves to apprehend Licinius and the slaves makes it clear that the transaction was to take place inside the
building and not on the street outside (pro Cael., 62).
130 Met., 1.7 (beggar) 9.17 (rich woman). Lucius, the main character, also visits the baths several
times, adding to the social melange (Met., 1.6, 1.24, 2.11, 3.12, 8.29). Cf. Clemens of Alexandria, Paid., 3.5
where it is reported that one could meet women of the upper classes naked at the baths.
131 Cf. nos. 208, 209, 212-214 (Table 7); above, p. 265.
13 2 ILS 6087, §126: colonos coloniae incolasque hospites<que> atventoresque ita sessum ducito, ita
locum dato distribuito atsignato, uti d(e) e(a) r(e) <de eo loco dando atsignato> decuriones, cum non min( us) L
decuriones, cum e(a) r(es) c(onsuletur) in decurionibus adfuerint, decreverint statuerint s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). Each
group probably had a block of seats, in the way J. KOLENDO, "La repartition des places aux spectacles et Ia
stratification sociale dans I'empire romaine," Ktema 6 ( 1981 ), 305-314 traces for other groups during the 2nd
century and later. This situation most probably stands behind the train of events in AD 59 described by Tac.
Ann., 14.17 (and represented in a Pompeian wall-painting now in the Naples Museum) where rivalry between
Pompeians and visiting Nucerians at a spectacle at Pompeii led first to insults, then to fisticuffs, stone throwing
and an all-out riot resulting in many deaths. If the Nucerians were seated in a block or series of blocks (as
adventores), rather than distributed randomly among the Pompeians, these events become understandable
VII] 276

segregated at the baths. Although social segregation at spectacula is understandable -- on such

occasions the community formally assembled for a public occasion, which would not have been
the case at the baths -- the contrast nicely illustrates social mixing at the baths.

A similar illustration is provided by the Arval Brethren. Under the year AD 80 of their
Aaa it is recorded that the college had seats assigned to it at the newly built Flavian

amphitheatre.t33 Interestingly, the seats were not contiguous, but divided among three grades:
the first, the second, and the wooden seats at the back (i.e. the worst seats in the house). As the
measurements for each block of seats are provided, Kolendo can plausibly suggest that the first
grade of seats were for the 12 Brothers and their families, the second for the officials of the
college (scribae, ministri, calatores, etc), and the wooden seats for the college's slaves. 134 In
other words, although the college as a whole received seats in the Colosseum, they were so
distributed as to maintain social distinctions (as is to be expected).l35

It just so happens that at the college's sanctuary at Magliana, 7 km south of Rome, the
Brethren's bath has been discovered.l36 The building dates to the Severan period (the latest
brickstamps are AD 214) and the maximum capacity of the pools of the caldaria is reckoned at

(compare, for instance, the notoriously adversarial behaviour of English soccer fans which can lead to violence,
with individuals emboldened by being surrounded by colleagues in a segregated section of the crowd). It is also
likely that collegia (presumably assigned block seating) were involved here. The segregation of people at shows
was made an empire-wide regulation under Augustus (Suet. Aug., 44), but the evidence of the Caesarian Lex
Ursonensis cited above suggests that it was not unknown, at least in colonies, beforehand., cf. the texts collected
by KOLENDO, op. cit., 305-314. It seems probable, therefore, that such rules would have applied also to the
towns from which the free bathing texts originate.
133 Cf. M. MCRUM & A.G. WOODHEAD, Documents Illustrating the Principates ofthe Flavian
Emperors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 9 (= C/L 6.2059.25-34 =G. HENZEN, Acta
Fratrum Arvalium (Berlin: Reimer, 1874), pp. 106-107).
134 The measurements as presented by KOLENDO, Ktema 6 (1981), 304 are:
- 1st moenianum on 8 steps, 42.5ft (= 12.32m);
- 2nd moenianum on 4 steps, 22.5ft (= 6.53m);
- wooden seats, 64ft (= 18.55m).
135 Ibid., 304-305.
136 H. BROISE & I. SCHEID, Recherches archeologiques ala Magliana: le balneum des freres Arvales
(Rome: Ecole fran9aise de Rome, 1987).
VII] 277

24.137 As DeLaine points out, this building provides an unusual opportunity to study a bath

built for a restricted number of visitors, the pool capacity being just sufficient for the 12.fratres

and each of their calaJores, one for each Brother. (That the calaJores bathed with the Brothers is

a plausible suggestion, because we know that the bath was used on formal occasions, and so

use by the Arvals' family members seems unlikely .)13 8 The evidence of the Arval College, like

that of the lex Ursonensis and free bathing texts, highlights social mixing at the baths, by

suggesting that groups who were separated in the theatre according to rank bathed together, in

this case also on formal occasions. The latter point makes it conceivable that some religious or

ceremonial reason stood behind this proposed joint bathing of Arvals and calaJores, but if so, we

hear nothing of it.

Archaeology provides some support. At Rome, some of the imperial thennae appear to

have been situated in order to serve certain sectors of the city, but social considerations do not

seem to have played a part. The Baths of Caracalla, for instance, were accessible not only from

the opulent area of the Aventine, but had a large entrance facing the Via Appia, apparently

inviting all sorts of travellers. 13 9 The location of many communities' main bathhouse in or near

the forum, 140 or at places clearly aimed at attracting as many people as possible, such as

137 Cf. the comments of J. DeLAINE, ~The Balneum of the Arval Brethren," JRA 3 (1990), 321-324,
esp. 323.
138 Cf. the entries for AD 218 (C/L 6.2104.10 = HENZEN, Acta, p. 203): item post meridiem a
balneo cathedris considerunt; and AD 241 (= CIL 6.2114.14-18 [p. 581, s.v. ~a. 24P] = HENZEN, Acta,
p.225): [item post meri ]die <m > mag(ister) loftjus cenatorio albo ac puefri praetextati patri ]mi et matrfi }mi
senatorumfilii & [ ... ] conseder(unt) et epulati sunt. Unfortunately, these laconic notices are our only two
witnesses to the Arval Brethren at the baths. The text only specifies that the Brothers bathed, and gives no
indication if anyone else from the college joined them.
139 On the situation of the Baths ofCaracalla, cf. HEINZ, Rom Therm., p. 124, where it is argued
that the baths were aimed at winning the lower classes for Caracalla by being built for their use (the implication
being that those who lived around the baths were of the less-privileged levels of society). The proximity of the
building to the Aventine and the Via Appia makes this unlikely, cf. DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 29.
140 The following places, according to NIELSEN's geographical index (Therm., 1.184-191), have
"Agora," "Forum" or "Central Baths" (in alphabetical order with catalogue numbers in parantheses where
applicable): Augusta Raurica (C.l57), Cales (C.35), Cumae, Ephesus (C.299), Forum Trajani (C.131),
Herculaneum (C.38), Lugdunum Convenarum (C.75), Lutetia (C.92), Ostia (C.27), Paestum, Pompeii (C.42,
47), Side (C.373), Thubursicum Numidarum (C.251), Timgad (C.241), Turris Libysonis (C.135). Additions
from MANDERSCHEID, Bib., (cf. Appendix 3, section B): Aventicum (M.126), Cherchel (Iol Caesarea;
M.l69), Gigthis (M.152), Lucus Feroniae (M.24), Nuceria (M.30), Nora (M.102), Sabratha (M.156), Saepinum
(M.37), Vasio Vocontiorum (M. 83), Volubilis (M.lOI). This list, of course, is far from complete. The names
VII] 278

gates,141 suggests that these baths would be frequented by the various social strata.142
However, more fieldwork is required on this topic before its full implications can be drawn.

It would seem from the foregoing discussion, as well as from the evidence adduced in
the preceding section, that public baths were frequented by all classes of people in the Roman
world, and that those classes appear to have mixed in the baths freely. But how freely? The
smaller establishments at Rome and elsewhere may well have served a more localized clientele,
but there is no evidence to suggest they were socially exclusive, at least not formally .143 It is
certainly possible that some opulent baths, e.g. the Thermulae Etrusci, may have screened out
"undesirables" by charging higher entrance fees, offering more expensive services or denying
entry to rough-looking customers; but this is conjecture.1 44 As proposed above, the social
environment of pubs in the British Isles may provide an approximate counterpart for conditions
in Roman baths: officially, anyone can go to any pub, but may be deterred from some (e.g. by
higher prices and/or dress codes), and just about everywhere "regulars" are encountered. 145
The question remains, however: how free was the social mingling in the baths?

"Forum" and "Central Baths" are modem assignations, so other buildings may be located near the forum or city­
centre which are not so named (e.g. the Baths of Seius Strabo at Volsinii, which are near the forum there, cf. no.
85 (fable 4) and note).
141 For the distribution of the Ostian baths, cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, p. 418, fig. 30 where the clustering
of baths near the forum, or on main thoroughfares is clear. For baths situated at or near gates at Ostia and
Timgad, cf. above, Ch. 3, n. 93.
142 Cf. DeLAINE, JRA 1 (1988), 29. Note the comment in an inscription from Comum that a
benefactor provided oil "for the people (populo) in the campus, the thermae and all the ba/neae as are at Comum"
(no. 246 [Table 7]). Clearly here, the "people" used both the thermae and the ba/neae, and there is no hint of
social segregation.
143 Cf. F.K. YEGUL, "The Small City Bath in Classical Antiquity and a Reconstruction Study of
Lucian's Baths ofHippias," ArchC/ass 31 (1979), 108-131. He is correct in pointing out (110, n. 5) that some
balnea could be exclusive to a group or club (e.g. the baths of the tribes at Antioch, cf. above, n. 126), but these
should be considered more private than public baths.
144 In any case, entrance fees, even at privately run public establishments, appear to have been
generally small, though this may have varied over time from place to place, cf. HEINZ, Rom. Therm., pp. 149­
150; NIELSEN, Therm., I.131-135. The maximum price for a bath stipulated in Diocletian's Price Edict is 2
denarii (CIL 3, p. 1936.7.75-76). In modem Turkish baths the cost of entrance is often a fraction of the
cumulative costs of the various services on offer. Note that in 1849-1850, the commercially run public baths in
Philadelphia and Boston were too expensive for the poor, cf. WILUAMS, Washing, pp. 14, 15.
145 Cf. above, p. 203. For "regulars" at Roman baths, cf. Hor., Epist., 1.1.91-93 (the poor man is
forced regularly to change apartments, barbers and baths, implying others were not); Mart., 3.25 (rhetorician
Sabineius a regular at Baths of Nero?), 3.36.1-6, cf. 12.83 (Fabianus a regular at the Baths of Agrippa, while
Martial prefers those of Titus), 11.52.1-4, cf. 14.60 (Martial usually takes dinner guests to the Baths of
VII] 279

Roman society was highly stratified, with the upper classes jealously guarding their
privileges. 146 Divisions between members of the wealthy upper classes (from the 2nd century
AD broadly designated honestiores) and the less well-off lower strata (humiliores, tenuiores)
were visible and enshrined in the laws. 147 The privileged were organized into three officially
regulated ordines (senators, equites and decurions) each with its own admission requirements,
status symbols, legal distinctions and other manifestations of rank.148 The status symbols were
essential for maintaining and displaying the dignitas of the upper classes when they went out
among the masses in public. The laws against the usurpation of such symbols, such as broad­
and narrow-striped tunics, rings, special seats at spectacles etc., are a clear sign of how
seriously status (and public appearances) was regarded and officially regulated.149 Other broad
divisions between freeborn and freed, and citizen and non-citizen (until AD 212), complicated
the hierarchy still further. Even within the privileged ordines, there were divisions based upon
birth, proximity to the imperial house, and successful careers in the central administration. 150

Stephanus near his house); Amm. Marc., 28.4.10 (polite to ask which thermae a person used); Appendix 4, s.v.
"Baln(eum) Scriboniolum)." Is this the meaning of the graffito in the vestibule of the Forum Baths at Pompeii
(CJL 4.1465): "(1), Speratus, live (here)" (Speratus habito)?
146 Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., pp. 1-13, esp. p. 12: "A prime feature of Roman society was
extreme differentiation between social classes and groups"; M. REINHOLD, "Usurpation of Status and Status
Symbols in the Roman Empire," Historia 20 (1971), 275: "Roman society evolved into one of the most
hierarchic and status-conscious social orders in mankind's history"; G.E.M. de Ste. CROIX, The Class Struggle
in the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca: Cornell, University Press, 1981), pp. 327-408, cf. p. 425: "The Graeco­
Roman world was obsessively concerned with wealth and status." See further, MacMULLEN, Social Relations,
pp. 88-120; id. Co"uption and the Decline ofRome, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. 60-84;
GARNSEY & SALlER, Roman Empire, pp. 107-125. The picture is further reinforced by such studies as J.
GAGE, Les classes sociales dans /'empire romaine (Paris: Payot, 1964) where each class is studied separately
within itself with little or no attention paid to inter-class relations. An excellent overview is provided by G.
ALFOLDY, The Social History ofRome (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988, 2nd. ed.), pp. 94­
156, esp. 106-115.
147 Most palpably in the different punishments meted out to the different groups: for honestiores, fines,
loss of property and exile, for humiliores, flogging, torture condemnation to the arena and crucifixion. On this
cf, P. GARNSEY, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), esp. pp.
103-152 (punishments), 222-223, 260-281 (honestiorlhumilior division). Cf. also GARNSEY & SALlER,
Roman Empire, pp. 111, 115-116, 118.
148 For a fuller discussion of status symbols (especially of the equites) and their importance in Roman
society, cf. F. KOLB, "Zur Statussymbolik im antiken Rom," Chiron 7 (1979), 239-259.
149 Cf. M. REINHOLD, Historia 20 (1971), 275-302. The very persistence of the act of status
usurpation is in itself a sign of how highly prized status was among the Romans.
150 Cf. ALFOLDY, Social History, pp. 115-133.
VII] 280

A clear manifestation of the social stratification is the division of classes at theatrical and
other spectacles, already alluded to. 15 ' In surviving theatres and amphitheatres, such as at
Verona, the division of the cavea into sections by means of walls or balustrades is common, as
is a row of separate seats at the very front reserved for local notables and distinguished visitors.
Upper-class sensibilities were profoundly shocked when these regulations were
transgressed. I52 Pliny the Younger summarizes the whole situation (as well as the attitudes of
the privileged) succinctly when he advises a fellow senator in the provincial service to preserve
the distinction of the orders in legal hearings because "nothing is more unequal than equality
itself. "153

Relations between the classes was formalized in the client/patron relationship, the aspect
of Roman social relations most closely studied by modern scholars. I54 On a less formal plane,
the attitudes of the privileged to their social inferiors is characterized in many sources above all
by contempt and snobbishness. ISS

lSI Cf. above, pp. 275-277. The strictness of the divisions as applied to the arenas in Rome (Suet.
Aug., 44) is remarkable. Separate seating was provided for senators. Legates of free and allied states were
prohibited from sitting in the orchestra as it had been discovered that some were freedmen. There were seats for
married men e plebe, boys under age and their paedagogi. Women, apart from Vestal Virgins, were to sit at the
back, separate from the men, and were banned completely from watching athletic competitions.
152 E.g. Cic. Phil., 2.44; Pliny NH, 33.32; Suet. Aug., 40, Cal., 26, Dom., 8; Mart., 5.8, 14, 23,
35, 38. The lex Ursonensis (ILS 6087, §§ 125 and 126) stipulates fines ofHS5,000 for transgressions of the
seating regulations, a sum well out of the range of the average humilior and so probably aimed more at the
impertinent eques or decurion.
!53 Ep., 9.5, a letter addressed to Calestrius Tiro: quod eum modum tenes, ut discrimina ordinum
dignitatu~ue custodias; quae si conjusa, turbata, permixta sunt, nihil est ipsa ae{/llilitate inaequalius.
1 E.g., cf. (with references to modern works) GARNSEY & SAUER, Roman Empire, pp. 148-159,
esp. p. 151-152 and the comments of de St. CROIX, Class Struggle, pp. 341-343, 364-367. Some recent work
on personal patronage (as opposed to the state or political variety) includes R.P. SAUER, Personal Patronage
under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) and, more recently, the collection of
essays, A. WALLACE-HADRILL (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989), esp. pp. 205­
218 (by D. Cloud).
1S5 Cf. the occasional remark of such a thorough snob as Cicero on the lower orders (e.g. Att., 1.15.1,
1.19.4) and Pliny's pointing out of Larcius Macedo's servile origin (Ep., 3.14; cf. also 2.6). Cicero, however,
was by no means alone, cf. MacMULLEN's "Lexicon of Snobbery" in Social Relations, pp. 138-141, cf. ibid.
pp. 109-112. Cf. further, Z. YAVETZ, "Plebs Sordida," Athenaeum n.s. 43 (1965), 295-311; "The Living
Conditions of the Urban Plebs in Republican Rome," in R. SEAGER, The Crisis ofthe Roman Republic
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 162-79; Plebs and Princeps (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), pp.
3-5,7-8 and 141-142.
VII] 281

When viewed against this background, the mingling of the classes at the baths appears

anomalous. But this is probably an illusion. The different classes would have mixed freely in

other public contexts, such as the fora, streets, and markets, where the symbols of privilege

distinguished their bearers from the masses. Although one might speculate that the intimacy of

the bathing environment with its universal nakedness and communal bathing pools would have

had a levelling effect-- negating or at least diminishing social distinctions 156 -- this need not

have been the case. In the first place, given the attitude of the upper classes to their position, 157

if visits to the public baths were thought to compromise their dignitas, we can safely assume that

they would not have gone. In fact, clear signs of rank followed the privileged past the balnearor

and into the baths. Chief among these would be the size (and cut) of the slave retinue; Larcius

Macedo, for example, was preceded by a slave who cleared a path for him through the crowd,

and late Imperial aristocrats could have up to 50 slave attendants.158 Other means of signalling

rank were also available, in the form of strigils and parerae made of precious metals, fine and

expensive unguents, and woollen rather than linen towels.159 Jewellery could also be worn to

indicate rank.160

The upper classes, then, could maintain their status inside the baths by means of their

retinues and the finery of their bath accessories. It can reasonably be argued that they went to

the baths as much to swan and display as when they paraded in litters through the streets, fora

156 Cf. DYSON, Community, p. 174: "Given the nature of the bathing process, social distinctions and
hierarchies were bound to break down."
157 Cf. e.g. MacMULLEN, Social Relations, p.109: "The broader distinction between plebeian and
everyone else above it was fiercely defended - needless to say, by the upper class."
158 Cf. above, pp. 267-268. Cf. Anon, life ofAesop, 32 (DALY, p. 47) where Aesop accuses
Xanthus's wife of purchasing a handsome slave to show off at the baths -- and to titillate her afterwards.
159 Cf. Dig., 34.3.40.1 (a man has two sets of silver bath ware (argentum balneare), one for use only
on festival days, the other presumably for ordinary days); C/L 13.5708.11.23-25 (a man orders various of his
favourite personal belongings, including his bathing gear (balnearia) to be cremated with him); Juv. Sat., 7.129­
131 (unguents and retinue); Petron. Sat., 28 (unguents and towels); Amm. Marc., 28.4.19 (fine linens, multiple
changes of clothes and jewellery).
160 Mart., 11.59: serws Chari nus omnibus digitis gerit I nee rwcte ponit anulos I nee cum /avatur.
causa quae sit quaeritis? I dactyliothecam non habet. Cf. Pliny NH, 33.40.
VII] 282

and other public places.I6I Since bath accessories were not among the officially regulated

symbols of status, others were free to imitate them with impunity. This is surely how Martial's

Aper is to be understood. Though poor, he would insist upon bringing defective slaves to carry

his towels, guard his equally defective clothing and anoint him with a drop of oil. 162 Likewise,

Juvenal's Tongilius threatens himself with bankruptcy through going to the baths with a huge

flask of oil and droves of retainers.163 Both men were evidently attempting to maintain a front

(Aper more pathetically) by aping the behaviour of the truly wealthy.

If this reconstruction of the social environment is accepted, it would seem that although

the various classes attended the baths together, and were not formally segregated there, mingling

among them was not particularly free. Slave attendants could keep curious plebs at bay, and

clear paths through crowds. Occasions when high-ranking bathers were hit (as were Cato the

Elder and Macedo) 164 or jostled by the masses must have been rare. The finery of bath

accessories announced rank to onlookers and, presumably, the accent, vocabulary and

demeanour of the privileged bather would have helped to discourage direct, uninvited contact.

This must have been how it was when, for instance, a governor entered the baths in the

provinces, or the consular Pliny dropped in on one of the three balnea in the vicus near his

Laurentine villa. To what lengths such restricted mixing was carried is not at all clear. Would

loitering plebs be cleared out of a pool or a room to make way for their social betters?

161 In this connection, DeLAINE (JRA 1 (1988), 29) is surely correct in proposing that in the imperial
thermae "the principal characters must have always been the rich, who went to be seen, and the rest, who went to
gape as much as to bathe."
162 Mart., 12.70: linteafe"et Apro vatius cum vernula nuper I et supra togulam lusca sederet anus I
atque olei stillam daret enterocelicus unctor ...
163 Cf. above, p. 267.
164 Cf. above, n. 62. In Cato the Elder's day conditions were bound to have been more primitive than
in Macedo's, and in any case the rank of his assailant is not made clear. Incidentally, SHERWIN-WHITE, utters
ofPliny, p. 247 comments on the Macedo incident that it illustrates "a remarkably 'democratic' facet of Roman
social life."
VII] 283

Only one anecdote in the literary sources gives a hint of such aggressive snobbery at the

baths. C. Gracchus's story of how a consul's wife cleared balneae viriles at Teanum Sidicinum

for her personal use implicitly reflects the snobbery of the Roman nobility. 165 When the locals

did not clear out fast enough, and the interior did not meet the consular woman's standards of

cleanliness, she had the local quaestor flogged in the forum. Although the woman may have

been motivated primarily out of a desire to use the men's undoubtedly larger facilities, the same

cannot be said for a praetor (and so a male), whom Gracchus says behaved similarly at

Ferentinum "for the same reason," having one local quaestor flogged, while another threw

himself off the walls to avoid capture.166 That the "same reason" here refers to clearance of

locals from the baths is clear from the preceding sentence: "When they heard this [i.e. the

Teanum Sidicinum incident], the people of Cales ruled that no-one was to use the baths when a

Roman magistrate was in town." 167 Because such behaviour evidently generated outrage and

drew comment, it must be assumed that it was extreme and not representative of what was

acceptable. In fact, the incidents allow a negative inference to be drawn. The story would seem

to assume that travelling Roman grandees did not normally expect to have the baths cleared for

their personal use, and that locals would not shrink from bathing at the same time.

Taking these incidents as the extreme, how arrogantly the upper classes were

accustomed to behave at the baths, or how greatly they interfered with others to ensure their own

comfort, is a moot point. A graffito from the Suburban Baths in Herculaneum tells how two

sodales threw a servant (attached to the establishment?) out onto the street because he was not
doing a good job. 168 The servant in question, however, was undoubtedly a slave, and there is

165 Cf. above, pp. 74-75.

166 Au!. Gel!., Att. Noct., 10.3.3: Ferentini ob eandem causam praetor noster quaestores arripi iussit;
alter se de muro deiecit, alter prensus et virgis caesus est.
167 Ibid.: Caleni, ubi iJ audierunt, edixerunt ne quis in balneis lavisse vellet, cum magistratus
Romanus ibi esset.
168 CJL 4.10675: Duo sodales hie fuerunt et, cum diu malum I ministrum in omnia haberent I nomine
Epaphroditum, vix tarde I eum foras exigerunt. I consumpserunt persuavissime cum futuere HS CVS. The latter
part of the text is discussed below, pp. 298-299.
VII] 284

no reason to suspect that the sodales would have treated fellow customers in such a manner. In

general, if such arrogance was a frequent occurrence, we hear little of it.169 In the larger

establishments, with their vast halls, pools and multiplicity of facilities, this problem could only

have arisen rarely. Even in the smaller baths, honestiores would probably everywhere have

enjoyed the automatic deference demanded by the the dignitas of their rank.

Nonetheless, public baths provided the whole community with an environment where

they could mix and mingle informally at unusually close quarters (not every town had a huge

imperial-style establishment). From this perspective, they were prime promoters of community

spirit, where the rich went to be seen and others (such as Martial's Aper) to ape them, or simply

to watch and envy. Although the upper classes employed various means to advertise their rank

and maintain a respectable distance from their social inferiors, they would surely have been

exposed to them more intimately at the baths than anywhere else. That they did so leads to the

instructive inference that they felt safe enough naked in proximity to their inferiors to use public

facilities.

It would be fascinating to know how much business was done in the informal context of

the baths: how often were petitions quietly heard, agreements reached, alliances forged, favours

requested or granted? Or were the baths seen as inappropriate places for such activity, usually

carried out in more formal contexts (such as at the theatre, forum or basilica)? 170 The sources

give no clue either way, but given the "personal" manner in which so much got done in the

169 Besides the incidents reported by C. Gracchus, there is not a single instance where a writer
expresses a desire to use this or that bath because the clientele elsewhere are of a lower social standing than
himself. Rather, the stress is on the the degree of comfort, and the quality of the facilities available rather than
the social status of the bathers to be found there. Such is the case, for instance, with the descriptions of baths in
Lucian, Hippias ; Mart. 6.42; Stat. Si/v., 1.4.35-63. Even the anti-bath railings of Seneca lay more stress on the
aspect of bath luxury than the lower social status of some bathers. Of course, as suggested above (p. 278), such
salubrious establishments may have attracted a higher class of customer, or restricted entry through higher
admission fees.
170 Note Suetonius' comment (Vesp., 21) that Vespasian was most indulgent to petitioners from his
household after his bath, as it relaxed and mollified him. Would he have been as indulgent if approached~
his bath?
VII] 285

Roman world, it is easy to imagine quite a lot of business being conducted informally amidst the
noise and bustle of a community's bathhouse.171

The arguments presented above will, I hope, show that the apparent intimacy of the
baths, where nakedness was the rule, did not necessarily act as a social leveller. Symbols of
rank and affluence accompanied the privileged into the baths as into the forum, and unwanted
direct contact with the plebs could be avoided in most situations. Nakedness and the
performance of bodily functions was regarded somewhat differently by the Romans than by
people today (in the West, at least). The Romans were less inhibited No better illustration of
this can be offered than Roman public latrines, where defecation, regarded today as one of the
most private of tasks, would take place in full view of perhaps 20 others, apparently without any
loss of face.1 72

Now that the broad social environment at the baths has been outlined, and the social
identity of bathers established, our fmal task will be to investigate how it operated on a day-to­
day basis. Aside from bathing, what did the Romans do at the baths?

171 Cf. the governor's hearing of petitions while sitting in the Baths of Hadrian at Antioch (cf. Ch. 6,
n. 37) took place during an official meeting of his tribunal, rather than an informal request made as he bathed.
For the exercise of power through connections and personal contact, cf. MacMULlEN, Co"uption, pp. 96-104.
172 On latrines, cf. SCOBIE, Klio 68 (1986), 407-418. An article on public latrines by J.W.
HUMPHREY is forthcoming in ANRW. As an example of the Romans' relaxed attitudes to bodily functions,
note Xanthus, Aesop's master, who shows no compunction about urinating in front of his slave (life ofAesop,
28 [DALY, p. 44]), or having Aesop attend him with a towel and water as he defecates (ibid., 67 (DALY, p. 63]);
the two even hold a conversation about the process!
VII] 286

(iv) The social environment III: social activities

General

The very first rooms the visitor encountered upon entering the baths served social
functions, as Lucian makes clear:
On entering, one is received into a public hall of good size, with ample
accommodation for servants and attendants. On the left are the lounging-rooms, also
ofjust the right sort for a bath, attractive, brightly lighted retreats. Then, beside
them, a hall, larger than need be for the purposes of a bath, but necessary for the
reception of the rich.l73

Such rooms, however, are virtually impossible to identify securely in the surviving remains, as
they will generally lack those distinctive physical features that characterise the more functional
cellae, e.g. hypocausts, tubulation (for heating the walls and/or roofs), pools etc. But there are
some possibilities. The first room of the men's section of Forum Baths at Pompeii, for
instance, is equipped on three sides with benches, examples of which are also found flanking
the entrance to these baths.174 While this room undoubtedly served as a changing room
(apodyterium), as the wall-niches for clothes indicate, the internal and external benches were
probably provided for slaves and attendants to wait on their masters (in the manner indicated by
Lucian), although they could also have served as areas where new customers might wait at times

173 Hipp., 5 (Loeb trans): ElOl.OVTa. OE TOtJTOV EKOEXETO:l. KOl.VO~ OtKO~ EUIJ.EYE9T)~,
LKa.VT)V €xwv UTIT)pETa.t~ Ka.t ciKot-.oueot~ 5ta.Tpt~-fJv, EV ciptaTEP~ 5E: TetE~ Tpu¢-f)v
na.pEOKEUO:OIJ.EVO: OLK-fJIJ.a.Ta., ~a.AO:VEL(t) 5. ODV Ka.t Ta.1ha.npE11WOEOTa.Ta., xa.p£eooa.t
Ka.t <j>WTt 110AAtp Ka.Ta.AO:IJ.TIOIJ.EVa.t unoxwp-fJons. EtT 'EXOf.iEVOS O:UTWV OtKOS,
11Epl.TTOS flEV w~ npos TO AOL!Tp6v, civa.yKa.l.os OE ws npos TT)v TWV EUOO:l.fl­
OVEOTEpwv unooox-fJv. It is not really important for our purposes whether or not Lucian's Baths of
Hippias actually existed. Even if they were a figment of the author's imagination, they represent what was
expected of an excellent bathhouse, and so are still of use to us.
174 Cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 148-150. Such benches are also found outside the Balneum
Venerium et Nongentum in the Praedia Juliae Felicis, cf. PARSLOW, Praedia, pp. 87-88. Note also mention of
baths equipped with cathedrae at Turca, Africa (no. 159 (fable 5), and the provision of seatin~ for 1600 in the
Baths of Caracalla, 3000 in those of Diocletian (FTUR, 13.403) (the term used here is Ka.9E5pa.t).
VII] 287

when the baths were full. The Forum Baths, being of modest dimensions and relatively early

date (Sullan), seem to have conflated the tasks of reception and changing rooms.

In later buildings, the vestibule or atriwn, usually located in the vicinity of the entrance

and the apodyteriwn, could have served as the meeting place, while the ba5ilica thermarum,

although hard to identify with certainty, may have been a bigger version. 17 5 Other "social

rooms" undoubtedly lie hidden among the often vast rooms of indeterminate function in the

Imperial baths.176 Their identification, however, can only be speculative.

The regular assembling of Romans of various classes at the baths can be expected to

have generated a vibrant social atmosphere. The most explicit surviving testimony is a famous

letter on quiet and study by Seneca the Younger, where he describes what it was like to live over

(or near?) a bathhouse at Baiae. 177 His description of the grunts of those exercising, the slap of

the masseur's hands on flesh, the singing of the bather, the rumpus accompanying the arrest of a

pickpocket, and the yells of the various food vendors and others selling services all bring the

baths to life. The overall impression is one of noisy social intercourse.

This impression gains support from other sources. Horace portrays the ascetic poet as

shunning the baths out of a desire to avoid people, implying the baths were habitually

crowded. 178 Juvenal's termagant "loves all the bustle and sweat of the bath," and he includes

17 5 A sense of the (proposed) habitual location of these rooms in bath plans can be gleaned from the
groundplans in NIELSEN, Therm., ll.83-212, s.v. "V" (vestibule) and "B" (basilica). But since it is not possible
to identify these rooms with absolute certainty, NIELSEN's locations for them are speculative.
176 For instance the rooms immediately adjacent to entrances, or the similarly large rooms that cluster
around the frigidarium of most baths of the imperial type. In smaller buildings, there was probably a tendency to
double up on functions, as in the Forum Baths.
177 Sen. Ep., 56.1-2. Seneca writes that he lived supra ipsum balneum, which would seem to mean,
as it is translated in the Loeb edition, "right over a bathing establishment." Another possibility, however, is that
the phrase means "right up the road from a bathhouse," in which case the din he goes on to describe must have
been considerable in order to disturb his musings.
178 Epist., 2.3.296-298 (= Ars, 296-298): credit et excludit sanos Helicone poetas I Democritus, bona
pars non ungues ponere curat, I non barbam, secreta petit loca, balnea vitat. The Latin clearly implies that
VII] 288

the baths among the public places where people gossip about a well-known glutton at Rome. 179

Larcius Macedo required a slave to make way for his master through the crowd, implying a

crowded, if not teeming, bathhouse.1 80 In the Life ofAesop, Aesop's master Xanthus tells him

to go and see if the bath is crowded, and, when Aesop arrives, he finds it full. 18 1 That Aesop is

sent to check on the crowd at the baths is in itself revealing. Martial refers to baths featuring

"crowds ofwomen."1 82 Finally, Aelius Aristides mentions in passing women and boys

chanting slanderous phrases borrowed from comedic productions at the baths, among other

public places.183 The picture gleaned from all these sources is of crowds and noise and plenty

of activity.

Further support is offered by the apparently endemic phenomenon of thievery at the

baths. This situation alone implies that they were among the most populous public places in a

community. That they were enclosed would also have been to the thiefs advantage. Several

literary sources, from Plautus through the Digest of Justinian, refer to this problem. 184 It seems

that where there were baths there were thieves. A sign of the extent of the problem is the

institution of the capsarius, a member of the bath personnel whose specific duty was to guard

clothing (the thiefs favourite target).l85 Alternatively, the bather who could afford to might

avoidance of the baths is part of the poet's search for whidden-away placesw and not just a facet of his lack of
personal hygiene.
179 Sat., 6.420: magno gaudet sudare tumultu (Loeb trans); and 11.3-5: omnis convictus, thermae,
stationes, omne theatrum de Rutilo; ...
180 Ep., 3.14.7-8. Cf. above, p. 259.
181 Anon. Life ofAesop, 65-66 [DALY, pp. 62-63]. Xanthus, Aesop's master, was hoping to get to
bathe without being crowded.
182 Mart. 11.47.1-2: omnia femi neis quare di feet a catervis I balnea devitat I.Attara?
183 Ael. Arist., 40.511: (5Tav EV TolS ~aA.avE£0lS ... yUVO:ta., nat5cipta., nCi<; Tt<;
E¢E~f)<; TOtO:lJTO: ETit~EA.(t)OTJ;
184 Plaut. Rud., 385-388 (text cited above, Ch. 2, n. 94); Catullus, 33.1; Sen. Ep., 56.2; Petron.
Satyr., 30.8; Apul. Met., 4.8, 8.21; Athen. Deipn., 3.97e; Dig., 47.17. Note that an entire section of the Digest
is devoted to the issue of wThieves who lurk about baths, wa clear sign of its persistence and ubiquity. It is
interesting to note that the law placed hath thieves and burglars in the same category (47.17.1).
185 Dig., 1.15.3.5, where the question of crooked capsarii is addressed, cf. also 3.2.4.2 (slavegirls for
hire at baths to guard clothing, but actually practising prostitution, cf. below pp. 298-299; and 16.3.1.8 (a
balneator can assume the duties of a capsarius). Note further the Price Edict of Diocletian where the maximum
charge for a capsarius is set at 2 denarii, cf. above, n. 145. Cf. NIELSEN, Therm., I. 129-130.
VII] 289

bring along one or more of his own slaves to act as clothes-guards. 186 Curse tablets found in

the Sacred Spring at Bath bring to life the personal, human side of the problem, expressing in

the most colourful language the anger of a victim towards the unknown thief: "So linus to the

goddess Sulis Minerva. I give to your divinity and majesty (my) bathing tunic and cloak. Do

not allow sleep or health to him who has done me wrong, whether man or woman, whether

slave or free, unless he reveals himself and brings those goods to your temple ... "187

Noisy, vibrant, and crowded with people of various social station, vendors shouting,

bathers singing and thieves on the prowl, to visit the baths was to touch a social nerve centre of

Roman daily life. The general social atmosphere seems clear enough, and it is probably best to

imagine the everyday, timeless activities characteristic of social centres taking place there:

meeting friends, observing people, gossiping, catching up on news, negotiating business

informally and the like.1 88 But can any specific social activities, though not necessarily

distinctive to the baths alone, be identified as taking place there? The sources, which took the

world of the baths for granted, give only a few indications in this regard.

l86 So Petron. Satyr., 30.8; Martial, 12.70; Anon. life of Aesop, 38-39 [DALY, p.Sl]. Niches and
benches in apodyteria probably served to accommodate bathers' clothes and their guardians respectively, cf. the
orders to the slave in Gloss. Lat., ITI.65l.l0: compone vestimenta, cooperi, serva me, ne addormias propter fures.
187 Tab. Sulis 32 (trans. TOMLIN): deae Suli Minerv(a)e Solifnus dono numini tuo mafiestati
paxsa(m) ba(ln)earum et [pal]fleum [nee p]ermitta[s so]mnum II nee san[ita]tem<.>ei qui mihi fr(a)ufdem (t]ecit si
vir si femi(na] si servus I s(i] l[ib]er nissi [<s>s]e retegens istas I s[p]ecies ad [te]mplum tuum detulerit ... {the
rest of the text is fragmentary, apparently calling ill down upon the thiefs family and children}. The "bathing
tunic" appears to have been a garment worn on the way home from the baths (like a modem bathrobe), cf. HA
Sev. Alex., 42.1. By giving the stolen goods to the goddess, the victim was calling upon her to reclaim them.
Some 130 such tablets have been recovered from the Sacred Spring, many fragmentary; most deal with acts of
theft. Not all the stolen goods, however, can definitely be said to have been pilfered from the baths (notably a
ploughshare in Tab. Sufis 31, and a theft from a house in Tab. Sulis, 99), but this seems the most likely
circumstance surrounding disappearances of articles of clothing (cf. TAM 5.1.159, where a cloak is stolen from
the bathhouse and the thief cursed) and perhaps the sums of money and jewellery, cf. R.S.O. TOMLIN's
comments, Tab. Sufis, pp. 80-81. For other such thefts, cf. Tab. Sulis, 8 34, 54, 98 (money); 5, 6, 20, 43, 49,
55, 61-65 (clothing and blankets); 15, 97 Gewellery). See also the comments of D.R. JORDAN, "Curses from
the Waters of Sulis," JRA 3 (1990), 437-441, esp. 437-438.
188 Cf. life ofAesop, 38 (DALY, p. 51]; compare the extensive social functions of saunas in Finland,
cf. P. KAlliLA, "The Hotbed of Sauna," Globe and Mail, 25 April 1992, pp. 1-2 (F).
VII] 290

Dinner panies and invitations

Because it was customary to bathe in the afternoon before the evening meal, 189 the baths
naturally became places where people met before dinner parties. When the heroes of Petronius's
Satyricon hear of the invitation to Trimalchio's dinner, they meet the party at the public baths. 190
Plutarch portrays the embarrassment of the "shadow," a person invited secondarily to a dinner
party by one of the other guests, who cannot go directly to the meal without his sponsor but
who also has no desire to play attendant on his host as he finishes his bath. 191 The
quinquennalis of the burial club at Lanuvium was to see to it that there was oil available at the
baths for the members of the collegium when they met there before having their meal to celebrate
the birthdays of Diana and Antinoos.t92

This custom gave rise to another phenomenon: the person who went to the baths
specifically to procure a dinner invitation. Martial in particular enjoys satirizing this social
situation. Selius, he tells us, would hunt around the baths of Rome in search of an invitation,
covering the large thermae and the more modest establishments alike; he would not omit even
gloomy and draughty establishments in his quest. 193 Another man, Sabellus, composes poems

189 There is ample ancient testimony for this, though a meal before a bath was not unknown: Apul.
Met., 5.2,3, 8.7, 8.29, 10.13; Athen. Deipn., 1.5e; Juv. Sat., 6.419-426; Mart., 3.44.10-15, 11.52.1-4, 12.19;
Petr. Satyr., 130; Pliny NH, 14.139; Pliny Ep., 3.1.7-8, 3.5.8; Anon. life of Aesop, 2 [DALY, p. 31), 3
[DALY, p.32], 38-39 [DALY, p. 51), 67 [DALY, p. 63); Lib. Or., 1.85, 108, 174, 182 (before); Hor. Epist.,
1.6.61; Petr. Satyr., 72-73; Persius 3.95; Pliny NH, 7.183 (after). The origin of the custom may lie in the fact
that most people finished work at about midday, and cena was not served until the early evening. The baths were
a good way to fill in the intervening period, and, anyway, bathing conditions were best in the early-mid afternoon,
cf. Vitruv. 5.10.1, NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.135-136. On the work-baths-dinner routine, cf. Cic. Deiot., 17, Vat.,
31; Mart., 11.52.4. For the working day, cf. BALSDON, Life and Leisure, pp. 17-26.
190 Satvr., 26-27.
191 Plut. Mor., 707E: KC:.t TIQAl..V TO TIC:.pETIE09cn KC:.t Tic:.pc:.¢ut-.6.TTEl..V af-.El..~~a: KO:t
f-.OUTpov ETEPOU KO:l wpc:.v ~pC:.OVVOVTOS' f) TC:.XVVOVTOS'
192 JLS 7212: et die[bus natalibus] I Dianae et Antinoi oleum collegio in balinio po[nat [sc.
quinquennalis] antequam] epulentur. Cf. also the Acta Fratrum Arvalium for the years AD 218 and 241 where the
college members bathe before a meal (the text is cited above, n. 138).
193 Mart., 2.14.11-13: (sc. Selius] nee Fortunati spernit nee balnea Faustus /nee Grylli tenebras
Aeoliamque Lupi: I nam thennis iterum temis iterumque lavatur. Some of these places probably charged an
entrance fee, but presumably it was not substantial (especially if the physical environment was unpleasant).
VII] 291

in praise of the (private?) Baths of Ponticus to ensure a steady supply of dinners, presumably

from the owner. 194 But perhaps the most amusing is Martial's description of the antics of one

Menogenes:

It is impossible to escape Menogenes at the thermae or around the balnea, try what
you will. He will catch the warm trigon-ball, in order often to score for you those
balls he catches. He will pick up and hand to you the punch-ball from the dust, even
if he has already bathed and is already in his sandals. If you take towels along, he
will say they are whiter than snow, be they as filthy as a baby's bib. As you arrange
your thinning hairs with a comb, he will say you are combing the locks of Achilles.
He himself will bring you the dregs from the smoky flagon, and he will wipe your
brow. He will praise everything, he will marvel at everything until, exhausted by a
thousand tediums, you say, "Come and dinel"l9S

Naturally, this situation worked both ways. The host who could not find dinner guests,

for whatever reason, would try the baths. Martial refers to Cotta who only chose his guests at

the baths, the implication being he was a homosexual and determined the composition of his

dinner party by their physical attributes. 196 Martial himself complains at the behaviour of

Dento, a former regular at his table who now refuses his dinner invitations, and avoids him at

the baths because a more wealthy host has become available.l97 Martial also arranges to meet

his dinner guests at the baths at the 8th hour (i.e. midday to early afternoon), inviting a seventh

guest to make up the numbers.l9S In the Life of Aesop, Aesop's master, Xanthus, goes to

194 Mart., 9.19: laudas balnea versibus trecentis I cenantis bene Pontici, Sahel/e. I vis cenare, Sabelle,
non lavari.
195 Mart., 12.82: effugere in thermis et circa balnea non est I Menogenen, omni tu licet ane velis. I
captabit tepidum dextra laevaque trigonem, I inputet exceptas ut tibi saepe pitas. I colligit et referet laxum de
pulvere follem, I et si iam lotus, iam soleatus erit. I lintea si sumes, nive candidiora loquetur, sint licet infantis
sordidiora sinu. I exiguos secto comentem denre capillos, dicet Achilleas disposuisse comas. I fumosae feret ipse
tropin de faece lagonae, /.frontis et umorem colligit ille tuae. I omnia laudabit, mirabitur omnia, donee I
perpessus dicas taedia mille "Veni!"
l96 Mart., 1.23: invitas nullum nisi cum quo, Cotta, lavaris I et dant convivam balnea sola tibi. I
mirabar quare numquam me, Cotta, vocasses: /iam scio me nudum displicuisse.
l9? Mart., 5.44: quid factum est, rogo, quid repente factum, I ad cenam mihi, Dento, quod vocanti I
(quis credat?) quater ausus es negare? I sed nee respicis et fugis sequentem, I quem thermis modo quaerere et
theatris I et conclavibus omnibus solebas I sic est, captus unctiore mensa I et maior rapuit canem culina.
198 Mart., 10.48.1-6: nuntiat octavam Phariae sua turba iuvencae, I et pilata redit itmUjue subitque
cohors. I temperat haec thermos, nimios prior hora vapores I halat, et inmodico sexta Nerone calet. I Stella,
Nepos, Cani, Ceria/is, Flacce, venitis? I septem sigma accepit, sex sumus, adde Lupum, cf. also Mart., 11.52.1­
4, where Martial arranges a meal with one of the guests mentioned in the preceding citation (Julius Cerealis),
VII] 292

the public baths, meets some friends, and decides spontaneously to invite them back to his

house for a meal. 199 This vignette in particular illustrates the phenomenon of people meeting at

the baths before a meal, as well as the baths' general role as social centres.

Eating and drinking

Drinking and eating at the baths appear to have been common practices. Seneca's

description of the noises emanating from a set of baths in Baiae referred to above, includes the

yells of cake- and sausage-sellers, confectioners and "all the vendors of food hawking their

wares, each with his own distinctive intonation. "200 Suetonius, citing imperial correspondence,

shows that Augustus used to eat a few mouthfuls of bread in the bath which, incidentally, he

says he took at night.20t Was Augustus's behaviour typical, even for emperors? Several

Historia Augusta references describe imperial eating and drinking parties in connection with
baths, but leave it uncertain as to whether or not the eating took place in the baths themselves.202

Even if it did, these passages refer to the behaviour of emperors, and so may not be taken as

typical for bathers of private station (and, at any rate, emperors would have predominantly

bathed privately).203

For humbler people, there is clear evidence from graffiti from the vestibule of the

Suburban Baths in Herculaneum. In one place Apelles, an imperial cubicularius, announces that

adding: "You know how close the Baths of Stephanus are to my house" (scis quam sint Stephani Balnea iuncta
mihi). It seems Martial was going to meet Cerealis at this establishment.
199 life ofAesop, 38-39 [DALY, p. 51). Note also Gloss. lAt., ill.657.15 where the speaker
(presumably the schoolboy) meets a friend at the baths: luli, have; saluto te.
200 Ep., 56.2: iam libari varias exclamationes et botularium et crustularium et omnes popinarum
institores mercem sua quadam et insignita modulatione vendt-ntis.
20! Aug., 76.2
202 Comm., 5.4; Hel., 21.6; Gall., 17.8; cf. MERTEN, Blider, pp. 120-122. Cf. also Suet. Nero,
27.2.
203 For emperors' baths, cf. above, pp. 257-258.
VII] 293

he has eaten lunch at the baths in the company ofDexter. 204 In another spot in the same room,
there is a price list for drinks, bread, meat and sausages painted onto the wall. 205 It would be
interesting to know if these foods were costumarily eaten only in the vestibule, or if they could
be taken into the main bathing rooms.206 If the latter, the possibility arises that food morsels
could be found in the water, thus adding a further unpleasantness to the physical environment.
Thus, when Martial says that Aemilius used to eat (sumere) eggs, lettuce and lizard-fish in the
thennae and declare that he was not eating at home that day, where in the complex did Aemilius
do the actual eating?207

The literary sources generally provide ambiguous testimony. Martial complains of the
expense of living at Baiae, and asks "when I dine so badly, why, Flaccus, should I bathe so
well?" 208 There is only an implication here that the poet ate in the glorious surroundings of
Baiae's baths; it could just as easily be that the activities of eating and bathing were not
simultaneous. 209 When Trimalchio proposes taking a bath to end his dinner party, it is clear that
the guests move to a different area of his house, but not clear if they bring food and drink with
them for consumption there; if anything, the passage would imply that they did not (in this
instance, probably because they were already sated).2 10

204 CJL 4.10677: Apelles cubicularius I Caesar(is) I cum Dextro I pranderunt hie iucundissime et I
futuere simul. The implications of the latter part of the text are discussed below, pp. 298-299.
205 CIL 4.10674: Nuc(es) biber(ia) Xliii I singa II I panem Ill I orrellas III XII I thymatla IIII Vlll I LI.
The double figures probably indicate portions and price (in asses) in that order, and the final "51" may be a total
for all the items and some unspecified service(s).
206 Note that in the Colloquium Monacensia, snacks are purchased only after the bathing process has
been completed, cf. Gloss. Lat., III.652.1 0: emite nobis a balneo minutalia et lupinos <et> fabas acetata.s.
207 Mart., 12.19: in thermis sumit /nctucas, ova, lacertum, I et cenare domi se negat Aemilius.
Coincidentally, note an inscription from Forum Baths at Herculaneum, painted onto a signinum podium 0.55m
high in the access from no. 8 entrance off Cardo IV (C/L 4.1 0603): Nicanor I ovas. It is apparently an egg­
seller's stand. Were eggs and sausages particularly popular foods at baths?
208 Mart., 1.59: tam male cum cenem, cur bene, Flacce, laver?
209 Cf. P. HOWELL, A Commentary on Book One ofthe Epigrams of Martial (London: Athlone
Press, 1980), pp. 245-249. Given what was seen in the previous section on dinner invitations, Martial could be
referring to poor meals taken after splendid baths.
210 Petr. Satyr., 72 (the guests move from the dining room looking for the baths) and 73 (they revel in
the baths, but there is no mention of food or drink being taken here).
VII] 294

Seneca and the graffiti from the baths at Herculaneum make it clear that snack-vendors

were to be found in the baths, but it is noteworthy that among the many amenities provided at

Imperial bathhouses, permanent food or drink shops do not feature. 211 If eating was a habitual

feature of life at the baths, this omission appears curious, considering that the Imperial thermae

met (indeed, set) the highest standards of bath comfort and convenience. On the other hand,

perhaps the activities of the booth owners was considered sufficient, thus obviating the need for

permanent food-vending facilities (such vendors served other public meeting places, such as

theatres and circuses). Some evidence from Pompeii is instructive. The Palaestra Baths, for

instance, have a caupona adjacent to the entrance which communicates with the bath complex via

a (serving?) window onto the palaestra itself.212 The same is also true of the Premises of Julia

Felix, which feature a popina, cauJXJna and a dining-room along the fa~ade of the Via

dell'Abbondanza adjacent to the entrance to the baths.213 The popina has a door communicating

with the peristyle of the baths.

However, these cases are perhaps exceptional. The baths here belong to a bigger leisure

complex, designed to provide eating, drinking and bathing facilities to patrons. What is more,

the popinae or cauponae in question have their main frontage on the street, and not on the baths,

indicating from which direction the owner expected to get the most business. Finally, none of

the main bathhouses at Pompeii -- the Stabian, Forum and unfinished Central -- feature a food or

drink shop that has an opening onto the bathing area But many such shops are to be found in

2 11 Such would be easily recognizable from their cooking facilities and/or counters, cf. the discussion
of Ostian taverns in G. HERMANSEN, Ostia: Aspects ofRoman City life (Edmonton: University of Alberta
Press, 1981), pp. 125-183. Compare 19th-century public baths in England, which often included kitchens, cf.
WILLIAMS, Washing, p. 8.
212 Cf. RICHARDSON, Pompeii, pp. 299-301. The caupona is located at Vlli.ii.24 adjacent to the
entrance fauces of the Palaestra Baths at Vill.ii.23. The first level of the Sarno Bath complex featured a dining
room, cf. KOLOSKI OSTROW, Sarno, pp. 16-28.
2 13 Cf. PARSLOW, Praedia, pp. 171-182. The entrances are situated at ll.iv.1 (caupona /dining-room)
and 5 (popina). The meaning of the word cenacula in the inscription advertising the premises (ILS 5723) is
unclear: it may mean dining rooms (so NIELSEN, Therm., 1.165, s.v. "Tabemae, Popinae"), or it could be an
advertisement for upper-story apartments (so RICHARDSON, Pompeii, p. 292).
VII] 295

close proximity to these baths.214 A similar situation pertains at Ostia, where many taverns are
located within the vicinity ofbaths.215 Written evidence is scarce on this point, but note how
Martial reports that Syriscus spent a huge inheritance -- an undoubtedly much exaggerated sum
ofHSlO,OOO,OOO --in the "popinae in the vicinity of the Four Baths." 216 Some inscriptions
connect baths and tabemae, at least implicitly.217 All this evidence taken together makes clear
the association of baths and eating (as seen above). The Roman bather appears to have had the
option of eating substantially in cauponae and popinae before or after the bathing process, while
snack foods were available from vendors at the baths themselves.

It is clear from several sources that drinking, often to excess, went on at the baths.
When Trimalchio first appears in the Satyricon, he is at the public baths while "three masseurs
were drinking Falernian wine under his eyes. "21 8 Martial pokes fun at the once-poor bather
who used to scorn people who drank in the baths, "but after 300,000 sesterces came to him
from an old uncle, he doesn't know how to go home from the thermae sober."2 19 Seneca and
Pliny the Elder deplore the excessive drinking that characterized the behaviour of some bathers
in their day.220 The epitaph of C. Domitius Primus mentions that he often drank Falemian wine
(apparently a favourite among bathers, as the Petronius and Martial references above would

214 One of Pompeii's largest cook and wine shops is located at Vl.vii.7-l0 directly across the road from
the entrance to the men's section of the Forum Baths, while others are found along the Strada Stabiana and the
Via dell'Abbondanza facing the Stabian Baths at IX.l.3, 6, 8, l3 (S. Stabiana) and VII.2.15 (V. dell'Abbondanza).
The Central Baths, not yet finished when the eruption destroyed the town, have no such shops directly opposite
the main entrances, but two food/drink shops are found nearby at V.i.4/5 (near the bath entrance at IX.iv.18) and
VII.ii.15 (near the entrance at IX.iv.5).
215 Cf. HERMANSEN, Ostia, tavern numbers (with names of the nearby bathhouses in brackets): 6,
38 (Forum); 7, 8 (Mithras); 9,10 (Drivers); 15, 16 (Neptune); 22 (Seven Sages); 26, 27,28 (Pharos); 30, 31
(Seven Columns); 38 (lnvidiosus).
21 6 Mart., 5.70: infusum sibi nuper a patrono I plenum, Maxime, centiens Syriscus I in se/lariolis
vagus popinis I circa balnea quattuor peregit.
21? Cf. CIL 9.1667 (Beneventum; no date), 10.3161 (Puteoli; no date); cf. no. 150 (Table 5). In these
cases, though, the tabernae are not necessarily part of the baths; they could be adjacent structures. Note also the
graffito found in the wall of a tavern near the Stabian Baths: "Into the baths!" (im balneum; CJL 4.2410).
21 8 Petr. Satyr., 28: tres iatraliptae in conspectu eius Falnernum potabant ...
2l9 Mart., 12.70 (Loeb trans): a sene sed postquam patruo venere trecenta, I sobrius a thermis nescit
abire domum.
220 Sen. Ep., 122.6 and Pliny NH, 14.139.
VII} 296

imply) and grew old in the company of baths, women and wine. He laments: "these things,

allowed to me on earth, I would have taken with me to Hades had I been able. "221 There is an

implication here, in the light of the other evidence just adduced, that Primus was not averse to a

tipple while bathing. Drinking at the baths was to some extent understandable, as sweating and

exercising were as sure to raise a thirst then as now, and this fact is commented upon by some

sources. 222

Many aspects of the availability of food and drink at the baths remain obscure. It seems

that both could be purchased there,223 but who controlled the vending? Was it the bath

owner,224 or did vendors come in from outside, perhaps in return for rent (rather like the

modern concession stands at cinemas and sports grounds)? Since entrance fees were so low,

could it be that vending and other non-bathing services were the most lucrative parts of a bath

owner's business? There is no evidence to throw light on these important questions.

Sex

This topic inevitably requires a brief consideration of a broader problem of the social life

at the baths that has already been debated by several scholars: male/female mixed bathing.

Modern opinion varies on this topic, and the ancient evidence is contradictory. On the one hand

there is evidence for separate baths (or sections thereof), or different bathing hours for men and

women; 225 on the other, we have written sources that appear to accept mixed bathing as the

221 For the full text, cf. above, n. 81.

222
E.g. Ael. Arist., 25.311; Pliny NH, 14.140; Celsus, 1.3.6-7; Anon. Life of Aesop, 39}DALY, p.
51).
223 Cf. above, n. 205 for the price list from the Suburban Baths at Herculaneum. Incidentally, eating
and drinking at the baths holds further implications for the physical environment: empty glasses, cups etc. may
have been a familiar, and untidy, sight at the baths.
224 Note that the records of the baths at Apollinopolis Magna in Egypt provide evidence for bathing
services made available by the management, but do not mention food or drink vending, cf. YOUTIE AJA 53
(1949), 268-270 (= id., Scnptiunculae II.990-993).
225 So the separate women's sections of the Forum and Stabian Baths in Pompeii (cf. page references
above inn. 20) or mention of balnea muliebria in literary sources and inscriptions, cf. Varro, Ling. Lat., 9.68;
VII] 297

norm.226 How can the contradictions be resolved? Various solutions have been offered: only
the less respectable establishments allowed it;227 the practice varied from place to place, with the
imperial thermae reserved for men only, and in any case respectable women would not bathe
with men;228 the transition from separate to mixed bathing occurred over time -- disallowed in
the Republic, acceptable in the early Empire, but disallowed again after Hadrian's ruling. 229
For each of these propositions. the diverse evidence offers contradictions: women could bathe in
the Baths ofTrajan, not just at the disreputable facilities in the city;23° Clement of Alexandria
comments that one could meet noble ladies naked in the baths;231 and strict chronological
boundaries between the acceptability or not of mixed bathing are hard to establish.232

An alternative model is possible, which avoids sweeping solutions and accounts for the

contradictions in the sources. Perhaps acceptance of mixed bathing varied and shifted over time
from place to place, whether from region to region, or from establishment to establishment. A
parallel might be nude sunbathing in Europe today, where some countries allow it and others do
not; even within countries that tolerate it, certain beaches can be reserved for nude or semi-nude
bathing, or for men or women. So it may have been with mixed bathing in the Roman world.

Vitruv., 5.10.1; nos. 75 (fable 4), 137 (Table 5), 219, 258 (fable 7); see also CIL 9.1667 (Beneventum; no
date). Note, in addition, the texts stipulating separate bathing times for men and women, above, n. 46.
226 None of the Imperial thermae have separate sections for men and women, and the same is true of
the Central Baths at Pompeii. Did men and women bathe at different times at such places? There is no evidence
to suggest that this was a universal rule. References in written sources, such as Martial (3.51, 3.68.1-4, 3.87,
6.93.7-10, 11.47, 11.75), would imply that mixed bathing was fairly common, at least at Rome in his day, and
we have seen inscriptions that imply husbands and wives bathed together (above, n. 84). This is supported by
Hadrian's prohibition of the practice (HA, Hadr., 18.10), followed later by M. Aurelius (HA, M. Aur., 23.8) and
Severns Alexander (HA, Sev. Alex., 24.2). The Church Fathers similarly denounce this practice, cf. NIELSEN,
Therm., 147-48.
227 E.g. BALSDON, Life and Leisure, p. 28.
228 E.g. BLUMNER, Private/eben, pp. 427-428; CARCOPINO, Daily Life, pp. 281-282.
229 E.g. DAREMBERG & SAGLIO, DARG, 652, s.v. "Balneum"; MERTEN, Bader, pp. 79-100
230 FTUR, 10.463 (Chron., A. 354): Hoc [sc. Trajano] imperante mulieres in thermis Trajanis
laverunt. Cf. also the female names of petitioners who had lost goods at the famous baths at Aquae Sulis, where
there is no evidence of segregated bathing: Tab. Sulis, 61 (Lovernisca) and 97 (Basilia); cf. possibly 67
(Cantissena) though this may be a man's name.
23l Paid., 3.5.
23 2 So, Ovid comments that balnea were good rendez-vous places for young lovers (Ars. Am., 638­
640). Does this reflect Republican practice? Cf. perhaps, Cic. Cael., 62 where it is inferred that Clodia visited
baths run by balneatores, i.e. public facilities (the Senian Baths?).
VII] 298

However, that several emperors undertook to prohibit it, and Church Fathers to condemn it,
attests its continuance and prevalence in general. Plutarch makes a revealing comment in his
Cato the Elder. He says that Cato never bathed with his son, a custom that has been alluded to
above.233 Plutarch then comments that when the Romans had learned to bathe naked from the
Greeks, they in turn taught the Greeks to bathe with women. 234 Evidently, Plutarch, writing
from a Greek perspective, considered mixed bathing to be characteristic of Roman practice.

If it is accepted that men and women bathed together frequently, even if the precise

fluctuations in the prevalence of the custom can no longer be reconstructed, then the use of baths
as venues for sex seems inevitable. There is some direct testimony. Ovid comments that the
many baths of Augustan Rome were favourite meeting places for young lovers, while Ulpian
includes baths as one place where adultery could take place. 23 5 The wording of epitaphs
celebrating balnea, vina, Venus may imply that all three were to be found at the first named.
Graffiti from the Suburban Baths in Herculaneum are more explicit in their references to sex:
two vigorous bathers boast of copulating twice with two women each!236

Prostitution at the baths is well attested. Ulpian describes the behaviour of balneatores
who keep slaves under the guise of clothes guards, who are actually prostitutes.237 A text from
Ephesus refers to a na.totoKEtov (brothel) in the Varius Baths, and two sodales at

233 Cf. above, Ch. 2, n. 121.

234 Cato Ma,j., 20.8: EtTa. ~EVTOt na.p' 'E:\\ f)vwv TO yu~ voDoea.t ~a.e6vTES", a.'lno'L
na:\tv TOV Ka.t ~ETa yuva.tKW\1 TO'I.ho npcioonv cX.va.nEn\T)Ka.Ot TOUS" C/E\\'iva.s-.
235 For Ovid, cf. above, n. 232. Ulpian: Dig., 48.5.10(9).1.
236 CIL 4.10678: Apelles Mus cum fratre Dextro I amabiliter futuere bis bina(s). Cf. also above, n.
204 (apparently the same Apelles and Dexter).
237 Dig., 3.2.4.2. The practice is said to be found in certain provinces and finds direct, if partial,
corroboration in the records of the baths at Apollinopolis Magna in Egypt: one of servants listed there has a
female name, L:EVnpE~ciKtS" (cf. YOUTIE, AlA 53 (1949), 269 (= id., Scriptiunculae 11.991). (That Ulpian
expressly says that the practice was found in certain provinces supports the notion of regional variations in
bathing practices, proposed above for slaves (p. 273] and mixed bathing (pp. 297}). Medieval Germany offers a
parallel whereby Badmiidchen (bath maids) served the ostensible purpose of washing, massaging and generally
catering to customers' bathing needs, but often doubled as prostitutes, cf. M.E. WIESNER, Working Women in
Renaissance Germany (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1986), pp. 95-97.
VII] 299

Herculaneum claim to have spent HS1051f2 while making love, evidently on prostitutes. 238
Ammianus tells how the late Roman nobility attended the baths expecting to meet their regular
courtesans; if a new one appeared, they flocked for her favours. 239 The Jewish Midrash

recommends avoiding baths as they are places ofprostitution.240 It is possible that the cubicles
in the Sarno Baths (and those at the Baths of Faustina at Miletus?) served this purpose. 241 The

Stabian and Central Baths in Pompeii are both within short walking distance of the
Lupinarium.242 Altogether, given the Romans' lack of inhibition in sexual matters, the
occurrence of sex at the baths should cause little surprise.

What non-bathing activities went on at the baths is often difficult to specify, but the
sources reveal some particulars: they were meeting places before dinner parties, regular haunts
for clothes thieves and other pickpockets and, for some at least, places to submit to the

temptations of Dionysus and Venus. The claims of scholars that the baths were an integral part
of Roman daily life appear fully borne out.

238 Cf. no. 191 (Table 6) and note (Ephesos), above, n. 168 (sodales). In the latter case, the charges
for services appear excessive.
239 Amm. Marc., 28.4.9.
240 Cf. A.J. WERTHEIMER (ed.), Batei Midrashot (Jerusalem, 19542), II.143 (I am indebted to E.
DVORJEfSKI of The Hebrew University in Jerusalem for this reference).
241 Cf above, pp. 135-136.
242 It is at VII.xii.18-20 less than one block north of the Stabian Baths and two south-west of the
CentraL
 CONCLUSION

One of our reasons for undertaking a study of the builders and maintainers of public baths was

to attempt to explain why the second phase of the growth in bath popularity coincided with the

transition from the Republic to the Principate. From what has been seen above, it cannot be said

that it was because the emperors or their agents promoted public bathing by direct benefaction.

Due to his special relationship with Rome, the emperor habitually benefitted the city, but he only

occasionally extended his generosity beyond. His agents, possessing temporary authority over

specific regions, also rarely acted as benefactors, at least in their "official" capacity. Thus the

influence of the central authorities on the growth of public bathing appears to have been indirect,

in that the great baths built at Rome during this period (those of Agrippa and Nero), set new

standards that became the model for others to follow. 1

Furthermore, with the establishment of peace and stability, more communities were

provided with the prosperous conditions and financial means to build baths, which were an

expensive proposition, both during and after construction Local authorities and private

magnates benefitted their communities in a manner analogous to the emperor's behaviour at

Rome (though usually not on so lavish a scale). In this respect, the baths of the 1st and 2nd

centuries AD could be used in future studies as one means of indexing regional prosperity.

A wide spectrum of social classes is represented among bath benefactors, from senators

to freedmen. Motives for building baths varied. In addition to aping the appearance of Rome,

there was inter-city rivalry on the regional level, and inter-family rivalry on the community level.

The general phenomenon of private, "voluntary" euergetism plays an important role as well. It

1 Cf. the ~Imperial~ imitations in the provinces listed inCh. 6, n. 151.

300

 301

is just possible that the functional nature of the building, which offered a great variety of
possible benefactions, was attractive to the potential euergete. The role of popular demand in all
this is virtually impossible to document, but it is reasonable to suggest that the widespread
construction of baths in the first two centuries AD reflects, if not responds to, a popular passion
for bathing. This is perhaps especially true of those cases where baths became a problem, e.g.
the ill-conceived ingens balinewn planned by the Claudiopolitans, or the project at Corfmium
that seems to have become a "white elephant. "2 In these cases, communities and individuals
appear to have been led to embark on projects beyond their means. That they did so in response
to a perceived popular demand for baths seems distinctly possible.

Many of the constructional inscriptions are of Late Imperial date (especially restorations).
Jouffroy has recently shown that during the 3rd-5th centuries AD in Italy and Africa (from
where much of our epigraphic evidence derives), baths received by far the most attention among
utilitarian buildings.3 In the context of public building in general, they rise from being the sixth
(of eight) most frequently attested structures in Republican Italy to the second (of eight) in the
4th/5th centuries AD; the corresponding figures for Africa are: eighth (of eight) in the period
from the conquest to the end of the 1st century AD, and second (of eight) for the 4th/5th
centuries AD. 4 Communities therefore appear to have felt that the upkeep of their baths was
more important than that of many other public structures; all the more so when it is remembered
that baths, constantly in use and arguably the most complicated buildings erected by the
Romans, would naturally require particularly frequent (and costly) maintenance. This latter
point makes the Late Imperial maintenance of baths all the more telling: although they were
demanding and expensive buildings, communities felt it was a top priority to keep them
operative. This in turn leads to another question: if baths were so costly a proposition, why

2 Cf. above, pp. 217-218 (Corfinium) and 223-224 (Claudiopolis).

3 Cf. Construction, pp. 326 (fig. 1bis) (Italy); 402 (fig. 4) (Africa).

4 Cf. ibid., pp. 332 (Italy); 407-408 (Africa).

 302

were they often run as business investments? It is possible that the "concessions" and other

non-bathing services, about which we are not particularly well informed, provided the most

profit, but this remains open to question.

The baths have been shown to be fulcra of Roman social activity. They were visited by

all the classes (even, on occasion, by the emperor), even if it would be incorrect to think of them

as vehicles of social levelling. The rich and wealthy brought the signs of their rank to the baths

as well as to other public places, adding to the colour of the social pageant. The fantastically

rich bathed side-by-side with the destitute, a remarkable circumstance that illustrates certain

features of Roman society. Despite a tall and steep social pyramid, much got done on a personal

level. The baths would have provided an ideal forum for informal, inter-class contact on the

terms of the privileged, who had the means available to limit the degree of their communication

with the lower orders, if they so wished. But in general, Roman aristocrats do not appear to

have harboured any noblesse-oblige feelings about going to the baths; indeed, it seems to have

been part of their routine. Rather than being social levellers, the baths may even have helped to

reinforce the social hierarchy: the rich man would parade with his slaves and fme accoutrements,

the poor man would look on and wony about having his clothes stolen. In the Imperial baths,

above everyone stood the emperor who had built the building in the first place. From this

perspective, the social environment of the baths can be seen as a reproduction of Roman society

as a whole. The baths truly stood at the centre of daily life in a Roman community.
 GENERAL CONCLUSION

As each section carries its own conclusions, my purpose here is to pull together the threads of

the three studies by examining their broader implications for Roman history. Unlike previous

studies, the approach taken throughout the dissertation has been more historical than

archaeological. Although the archaeological evidence has to be taken into account and assessed

in detail at several points, I have combined it with close analysis of the written record to offer a

broader perspective on the issues addressed. In particular, the large body of inscriptions

collected and tabulated in the following pages offers a fresh database for the study of public

bathing among the Romans. Overall, the focus has been on the bather rather than the baths.

The first section argued that Roman-style baths were above all an Italian (Campanian)

creation, although influenced to some degree by Greek predecessors. More work needs to be

done on the ground -- especially in correlating data from different sites and investigating more

fully important early baths (such as the Central Baths at Cales)-- before more precise

conclusions concerning the mechanics of early development can be reached. But, as I have

argued, rejection of the unwarranted assumption that the Romans developed the hypocaust for

no apparent reason, and subsequently adapted their bathing habits to this invention, is surely

more appropriate to Roman conditions, given the general context of ancient technological

development. The bathing habits carne first; the buildings adapted to accommodate them.

With the reduction of direct Greek influence on the Roman adoption of public baths, the

claim that the origin, development and spread of early baths reflect the Hellenization of Italy is

somewhat vitiated; 1 in any case, the popularity of public bathing in Italy is not well attested until

1 Cf. NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.1.

303

 304

the 1st centuries BC and AD. Rather, the findings of our study support Dyson's recent

observation concerning the growth of community life in the 2nd century BC. 2 Along with

theatres, amphitheatres, monumental fora and the like, the construction of baths (from public

funds in the few cases which are attested epigraphically) surely reflects an enhancement of

public life in the peninsula relative to what had come before. Further study of early baths can

only fill out this picture more fully.

The main point of the second section (taken as a whole) is the remarkable degree to

which ancient medical thinking appears to have influenced social behaviour. Although it must

be reiterated that Asclepiades cannot be seen as the initiator of bath popularity (baths preceded

him at Rome, and several general factors need to be taken into account), his role seems to have

been important. Future studies could focus on this theme: how deeply did the ideas of other

doctors reach into and affect society, if at all? Was Asclepiades unique in this respect?

The findings of section three touch on several aspects of Roman social history. In the

frrst place, the limited extent of direct imperial beneficence outside Rome and Italy has been

highlighted. This extends to public building in generaP On the other hand, the overall

importance of local responsibility (whether public or private) in constructing and maintaining

public baths has been illustrated. Again, the situation with regard to baths is in keeping with that

for other public buildings.4 Our study of bath builders and maintainers thus illustrates well the

mechanics and motivation of municipal euergetism.

As regards daily social function of the baths, a wide range of activities can be shown to

have taken place there. The sources attest the presence of all members of society at the baths

2 DYSON, Community, pp. 23-55, esp. pp. 44-46.

3 Cf. the "les constructeurs" sections of JOUFFROY, Construction, especially for Africa (pp. 197,
233-234, 279, 311-312).
4 Cf. ibid., pp. 106-108, 138-140, 152-153, 171 (Italy); 197-199,234-237,281-283,313-314 (Africa).
 305

(from emperors to slaves), but two points need to be borne in mind in this connection. First,
not all baths would have been frequented by all classes; there were undoubtedly many smaller
facilities serving a localized clientele, probably of relatively homogeneous social status
(somewhat like pubs in the British Isles today). But the main civic baths of a town, which were
not necessarily on a monumental scale (e.g. the Stabian Baths at Pompeii, or the Forum Baths at
Herculaneum), appear to have been open to all comers, regardless of rank. Second, the problem
of typicality affects consideration of the evidence. For example, it is virtually impossible to
offer a clearly documented, universally applicable response to the simple question, did slaves
habitually enjoy access to any public bath in a given community? The sources show this to have
been the case in certain establishments at particular times and places, but the general conditions
elude us. Perhaps the best approach is to recognize the likelihood that many facets of Roman
bathing culture varied regionally and over time. Conversely, it is most unlikely that all baths
functioned in the same manner all over the empire for nearly seven centuries. Appreciation of
this point may assist future understanding of other aspects of the baths' functioning for which
the ancient evidence is often contradictory and confusing, e.g. male/female mixed bathing,
entrance fees, opening hours etc.

We have seen that even in the intimate and informal context of the public bath, the rich
attempted to maintain social distinctions by various means. This is a striking illustration of just
how deeply ingrained were the concepts of hierarchy and status in Roman society. At the same
time, the baths would have reinforced a sense of community by bringing members of the upper
and lower classes into closer contact than (say) in the forum or on the street On a broad view,
the baths appear therefore to have served a double social function: on the one hand to reproduce
the social hierarchy, and on the other to emphasize the essential unity of the community; people
of different social statuses may have moved in different worlds, but they could still contribute
jointly to the social environment of their town's bathing facility.
TABLES

 307

GENERAL NOTES

There are 7 Tables, throughout which the individual entries are numbered consecutively, 1-267,
for ease of reference.

When an individual entry is cited, the entry number is followed by the Table number in
parentheses , e.g. no. 5 (Table 1).

When a series of entries from the same Table are cited consecutively, the Table number follows
the last entry number in that series, e.g. nos. 2, 5, 6 (Table 1), 24, 34 (Table 2) etc.

Entries marked with an asterisk(*) in the "Builder" or "Agent" column indicate the involvement
of a woman or women.

Notes (assembled at the end of each table) are indicated by a cross (t) adjacent to an entry's
number.

Within a table, entries are organized chronologically within agent categories, e.g. in Table 4
local authority activities are listed chronologically frrst, then those of the magistrates.

Undated inscriptions are grouped at the begining of each agent category.

A dotted line(...... ) between entries indicates separate date categories, e.g. undated from dated,
Principate from Dominate.

In citations of texts, { } brackets indicate words or phrases I have inserted, mostly from
elsewhere in the text itself, to give sense to the citation. Round {) and square [] brackets
are used in the conventional manner to indicate respectively completion of an
abbreviation and a restoration of the text itself. Missing text is indicated with two dashes
in square brackets [--].

Three periods ( ... ) does not indicate missing letters, according to the usual convention, but
rather that intervening text is not being cited. Individual missing letters are indicated by
periods enclosed in square[] brackets. For instance, no. 69 (Table 3): "... {previous
text not cited} thermas Gratianas dudum coeptas et emissas mag. aput [ ...... ] {six
letters missing} Alp. Cott. extruxit, ornavit et usui Segusinae reddidit civit(atis)".
Names of officials and benefactors are not cited exactly from the text, but the essential elements
are provided. For instance: no. 209 (Table 7) where the text reads "L. Octavius L. f.
Cam. Rufus", the simpler "L. Octavius Rufus" is rendered. Fragmentary or restored
names are indicated by the usual conventions, though still employing abridged versions,
e.g. no. 91 (Table 4): "L. Min[icius L. fit. Gal. Naltalis" is rendered "L. Min[icius
Na]talis".

Offices held by imperial officials and local magistrates are usually not cited in full, some careers
running to sevecallines; their full careers are easily traceable in the relevant
prosopographical reference in the notes (to PIR, RE or PLRE) Rather, the highest post
held in the cursus honorum, usually the frrst cited in the text, is provided. In cases
where a position is held at the time of the benefaction, it is also given. In addition,
 308

where a curator rei publicae appears, even if it is not the highest position held by the
individual, this will be indicated.

Roman and Greek systems of writing numbers (for a list of which cf, ILS vol5.798-799) are
translated into Arabic numerals for ease of comprehension, e.g. in no. 8 (Table 1) HS
lXX! is rendered HS (2,000,000).
 Table 1 309

TABLE l: Inscriptions record in~ baths built, restored, extended or adorned in

Italy or the provinces by emperors

No. Emperor Place Work done Ret"erence

lt Augustus Bononia divus Aug(ustus) parens ILS 5674

{balneum} dedit
2t Gaius (Caligula) Bononia [C. Caesar] Augustus ILS 5674
Germanicus [p.p] refecit
3t Vespasian Cadyanda, 'A'VTOKpciTwp .. . IGR 3.507 (=
Lycia oVEOTT<XO"LCX.VOS .. . McCRUM&
KCX.TEOKEVCX.OEV TO
WOODHEAD, no.
437)
~CX.A.CX.VElOV

4t Vespasian Patara, Lycia 'AUTOKpchwp .. . IGR 3.659

oVEOTTCX.O"LCX.VOS' . . . TO
~<XA.<XVElOV
KCX.TEOKEV<XOEV [EK]
6E~-tEA. (wv avv TolS EV
a.lJTtQ TTpOOKOOI-trlllCX.Ot V
KCX.l TCX.lS KOA.Uf1~tl6p<XtS

5t Trajan Ric ina divos Traianus ... rei publ. ILS 5615
Ricinens. balneum ...
rep(arari) mandavit
6t Hadrian Cyrene Imp.... Hadrianus Aug.. AE 1928.2
. balineum cum porticibus et
sphaeristeris ceterisque
adjacentibus quae tumultu
ludaico diruta et exusta erant
civitati Cyrensium restitui
iussit
7 Antoninus Pius Narbo Imp... [Antoninus] Aug. ILS 5685
Pius ... ther[ mas incendio]
consumptas cum por(ticibus
et [--] et basilicis et omni
[apparatu impensa] sua
re( stituit]
 Table 1 310

8t Antoninus Pius Ostia Imp... Antoninus Aug. ILS 334, cf. CIL
Pius ... thermas in quarurn 14.376; HA,
exstructionem divus pater Pius, 8.3.
suus HS (2,000,000)
polli[citus erat] adiecta
pecunia, quantum arnplius
desiderabatur, item
marmoribus ad ornnem
o[rnatum perfecit]
9 Antoninus Pius Tarquinii Imp.... Antoninus Aug. CIL 11.3363
Pius ... bal[in]eum
vetus[tate collapsum] sua
pecunia [restituit]

10 M. Aurelius & Forum [Imp. Caes. M. Aurelius ILS 5868

L. Verus Claudii cet. ..... et] Imp. Caes.
Luc[ius] Aurelius Verus
Aug.... balin[eas pee.] sua
restit[uer.]
llt Commodus Beneventum [baline]um sua pec[(unia) CIL 9.1665
omni]que cultu exor[navit
Comm]odus Pius Fel[ix]
12 Caracalla Pinna [M. Aurelius Antoninus Aug AE 1968.157
... ] balneum vetus[tate]
corrupt(um) ad pristin(arn)
faciem r[estituit]

13 Diocletian Nicomedia Imp.... Diocletiano ... ILS 613

cuius providentia etiarn
lavacrum thermarum
Antoninianarum funditus
eversum sua pecunia
amplificatum populo suo
exhiberi iussit.
14 Constantine & Lavinium [dd nn ... Consta]ntinus .. AE 1984.151
Licinius . et . . . Licinius ...
[thermas long]i temporis
deformatas Laurentibus suis
addito cultu restituerunt
15 Constantine Remi Imp.... Constantinus ... CIL 13.3255
thermas fisci sui sumptu a
fundamentis coeptas ac
peractas civitati suae
Remorum pro solita
liberalitate largitus est
 Table 1 311

16 Constantius & Spoletium dd nn ... Constantius ... ILS 739

Julian et Iulianus ... thermas
Spoletinis in praeteritum
igne consumptas sua
largitate restituerunt
17 Constans & Ostia [Cons]tantius et Const[ans CIL 14.135
Constantius thenn]as incuria longi
temporis destituta[ s] ad
pristinum statum
reforman[das Ostiensibus?
sui]s red[d]iderunt
18t Valens, Gratian & Ostia thermas maritimas intresecus ILS 5694
Valentinian refectione cellarum foris soli
adiectione ddd. nnn. Valens,
Gratianus et Valentinianus .
. . Proculo Gregorio, v.c.
praefecto annon. urbis
Romae curante decorarunt
19t Valens, Gratian & Rhegium Valentinianus ... Valens .. AE 1913.227
Valentinian . Gratianus . . . Reginis
suis [t]hermas vetustate et
terrae motu conlabsas in
meliorem cultum formamque
auspiciis felicioribus
reddiderunt; reddita basilica
marmorum, quae
[n]umquam habuerat
pulcritudine(m), decorata
nova etiam porticu adiecta

NOTES
1 & 2. The erased name is posssibly that of Gaius, who was the only Julio-Claudian to call himself Germanicus
and pater patriae (assuming that this is indeed the missing title). CENERINI, RSA 17-18 (1987-1988),
217 argues for an identification with Nero, as he is reported to have given a speech in the Senate on
behalf of the Bononians in AD 53 when the city was devastated by fire (Tac. Ann., 12.58.2; Suet. Nero,
7). If so, however, it is difficult to square Nero's nomenclature with that on the stone, even that
common after Claudius's death. Whatever the case, two separate benefactions (a construction and
restoration) are recorded on the same stone.
3. The last phrase of the inscription reports that Vespasian used funds which were under imperial control to erect
these baths: Ka.TEOKEUa.OEV TO ~a./\a.VELOV EK TWV civa.ao8EVTWV XPT)IJ.clTUJV 1m'
I
mhou TQ no/\El.. CAGNAT, JGR, comments on the unusual form &.va.oo8EVTUJV: "Ita
lapis". The baths have been partially excavated, cf. E. FREZOULS, M.-J. MORANT, D. &
LONGPIERRE, "Urbanisme et principaux monuments de Kadyanda", KTEMA 11 (1986), 225-238, esp.
236.
4. The text credits Vespasian with the work, but goes on to say that the money came from communal funds and
donations from the people ofPatara: [E]K [T]wv ouv[T]T([p]T(8EVTUJV XPT)IJ.CXTWV K[otlvwv
T]ou €evous 8T(va.p£wv . .. Ka.t Twv &.no Tf)s na.Ta.p€wv no/\Ews 1
 Table 1 312

OlJVTEI-.HWOO:.VTOS' KO:.l ci<fltEpWOO:.VTOS' TQ Epyo:.. IfVespasian did not fund the venture,
how can he be credited with erecting the baths? A possible answer is provided by a close reading of no.
3, the Cadyanda inscription. As has been seen, Vespasian there built a bath for the city "from the
money over which he has control for the city" (EK TWV civo:.oo8EVTU.JV XPT)~(XTUJV {.m' a.tJTOD
ITD TIO/\H). Perhaps a similar arrangement existed in Patara, not referred to in this text, and the
donations from the locals were extra. Whatever the case, the inscription clearly states that Vespa<;ian
built the baths.
5. The full text reads: divos Traianus I Augustus I concessa Tuscili I Nominati heredit. II rei pub!. Ricinens. I
balneum et platias I rep(arari) mandavit. Thus Trajan ordered the balneum and platiae, which had been
given to the town in the will of Tusculus Nominatus (for whom, cf. Plin. NH., 5.13), to be repaired for
the town, presumably at imperial expense.
6. Although the text does not expressly say that Hadrian himself bore the cost of the restoration, the sense would
suggest that he was responsible for the work. I translate the phrase civitati Cyrensium as meaning "for
the community of the Cyrenians" rather than "by the community of the Cyrenians". Similar use of the
dative to indicate a favoured community is found in nos. 5, 14-17 and 19.
8. Cf. no. 147 (Table 5) where a restoration of these baths under M. Aurelius refers to them as thermos quas
divus Pius aedif[i]caverat. They are probably to be identified with the Baths of Neptune, cf. MEIGGS,
Ostia, p. 409.
11. Despite the fragmentary nature of the inscription, the sense is clear enough. Mom rosen restored the first
word in the citation as the [portic]urn of the Thermae Commodianae elsewhere attested at Beneventum,
cf. no. 204 (Table 6) (and perhaps also no. 26 (Table 2)). Whatever the case, the work is clearly in
reference to a bath building and is carried out by Commodus.
18. Proculus Gregorius was prefect of the grain supply in AD 377, cf. PLRE 1 Gregorius 9 (p. 404).
19. The editors of AE note that the earthquake may have been that of AD 365 (Amm. Marc., 26.10.5). If so,
because the restored building wa<; not dedicated until AD 374 (present inscription, line 11: domino nostro
Gratiano Augusto tertio et Flavio Equitio consulibus), the building may have been unusable for up to
nine years. However, as it is not known how long the repair work lasted, the period of actual ruin may
have been shorter.
 Table 2 313

TABLE 2: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths built, restored,

extended or adorned in Italy or the provinces by imperial officials

No. Off1c1al Place Work done Date Reference

20 incertus, annonae Ostia [a)bebatur ut none CIL 14.5387

praefec(tus) lava[tu?]m [omni
splen]dore excultam
ad usum pop[uli]
annonae praefec.
__
,
--­ -------­ -- ---------------~A - -----------~

21t C. Sennius Vicus balineum, campum, Hadrian I ILS 5768

Sabinus, Albinnensis, porticus, aquas Pius
praef(ectus) Gallia iusque earum
fabr(um) Narbonensis aquarum tubo
ducendarum, ita ut
recte perfluere
possint vicaris
Albinnensibus d(e)
s(uo) d(edit)

22t M. Gavius Ostia [ther]mis Gav(i) Antoni nus AE 1984.

Maximus, praef. Maximi Pius 150, cf.
praetorio 1955.287

23t M. Nonius Arrius Verona M. Nonio ... Arrio 201-211 ILS 1148
Mucianus, cos., Muciano... ob
curator et patronus largitionem [eius]
r. p. quod at ther[ mas]
luventia[ nas]
perficiend. H[S ...
l rei public. d(ederit)
ordo [--]

24t Q. Petronius Tarquinii Q. Petronio ... c. 230 ILS 1180

(Melior), v. cos., quod ... thermas
curator r. p. restituerit

25t Aur(elius) Dornavia, balneum ad 274 CJL 3.12736

Verecundus, v.e., Dalmatia pristinam faciem
pro(curator) reformare curavit
Argentariarum
-­ -­
26t Sattius Crescens, Beneventum ex locis abditis usui late 3rd/early ILS 5480
v.c., corrector r.p. adque splendori 4th cent.
thermarum dedit
 Table 2 314

27t M. [Aur(elius)] Tarraco M. Aur. Vincento. . late 3rd/early CIL 2.4112

Vincentius, v.[p.], . sup(er) omnes 4th cent.
p(raeses) reliquos praesides,
[p(rovinciae) iustissimo restitutori
H(ispaniae)1 thermarum
Tarraconensis Montanarum

28t Flavius Octavius Ostia t..01JTpOV at..E~LTIOV 328 + AE 1984.

Victor (?), praef. [- -]l~EV BLKTWP 150, cf. SEG
annonae iipxos Ewv 33 (1983),
773
KOOl~OS AUOOVL~S'

29t L. Caelius Montius, Ephesos d. n. Constanti . . L. 340/350 ILS 5104 (=

v.c., procos. Asiae Cae. Montius . . . IK 14.
atrio thermarum 1314/5)
Constantianarum
fabricato excultoque
constituit

30t Furius Maecius Tibur Gracchus. . . before c. 350 II 4.1.151

Gracchus, v.c., omatui thermarum
corr. Flaminiae et dedicavit
Piceni

31 t Fabius Maximus, Telesia thermas Sabinianas 352-357 ILS 5690,

v.c., rector prov. restituit cf. AE
1972.150

32t Fabius Maximus, Allifae thermas Herculis vi 352-357 ILS 5691

v.c., rector prov. terrae motus eversas
restituit a
fundamentis

33t Fabius Maximus, Saepinum thermas Silvani 352-357 CIL 9.2447

v.c., re[c]tor prov. vestutat(e) conlabsas
restituit ...
sum(p )tu proprio

34t P. Ceionius Cecina Kenchela, thermarum 364-367 AE 1911.

Albinus, v.c., cons. Numidia aestivalium fabulam 217
Numidiae factam depellens
faciemque restituens
... Ceionius
restituit, perfecit
dedicavit
 Table 2 315

35t Flavius Vivius Sabratha,

quod post ruinam et 378 IRT 103
Benedictus, v.p., Tripolitania
abnegatum
praeses prov. Trip. thennarum populo
exercitium citra
ullius dispendium
ornamentis patriae
revocavit
36t [Avianius] Tarracina [t]hennas vi [ignis c. 378 CIL 10.6312
Vindicianus, v.c. consumptas restituit]
cons. Camp.
37t Anicius Auchenius Antiurn thermarum speciem 379-383 ILS 5702
Bassus, v.c., pro ruinae deformitatem
consule Campaniae sordentem et peric­
ulosis ponderibus
iruninentem, quae
labantem populum
metu sollicitudinis
deterrebat ...
r[e]paravi(t) in
meliorem civitatis
effigiem
38t [F]l(avius) Felix Satafis, [aquae?]ductum 379-383 CIL 8.20266
Gentilis, v.p., Mauretania therma[rum] ...
pr(a)es[es [constr]uctum
prov(inciae), instituit, perfecit
patr]onus dedicavitque
39t Audentius Litemurn signa translata ex 383 or earlier ILS 5478
Aemilianus, v.c., abditis locis ad
cons. Camp. celebritatem
thermarum
Severianarum
Audentius ...
constituit dedicarique
precepit
40t [ -- J Quintilianus, Venafrum Quintiliano ... mid-late 4th CIL 10.4865
[rector S]amniticus, statuam [in loco cent.
pa[tronus optim]us publi]co positam ob
[atq]ue therm[as]
41t Domitius Litemurn balneum Veneris 4th/5th cent. ILS 5693
Severianus, v.c., lon[gi tempo]ris
cons. Campaniae vetustate corruptum
Domitius ... ad
pristinam faciem
[aedifi]cavit
 Table2 316

42t Septimius Rusticus, Neapolis Septimio Rustico, 4th/5th cent. ILS 5692
v.c., cons. Camp. provisori ordinis
restauratori
thermarum

43t Rullus Festus, v.c., Grumentum adornatum 4th/5th cent. CIL 10.212
corr. Luc. et Brit. thermarum collocavit

NOTES
21. The date is determined by Sennius, who was an Italian (he belonged to the voting tribe "Voltinia") and lived
during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (Dig., 48.18.1,5; cf. RE 2.2A.1467-1468, s.v.
"Sennius" (no. 1) [Riba]). This dedit most probably means "built" (the presence of the d(e) s(uo)
strongly suggests this; cf. Appendix 6). Here a praefectus jabrum, an official attached to the governor's
staff, builds an entire bath complex, and supplies it with piped water for an even flow. For praejecti
jabrum, cf. RE 6.1920-1924, s.v. "Fabri" [Kornemann). Cf. no. 231 (Table 7).
22. The text cited is a fragment found in the Forum Baths in Ostia. Another fragment from the baths (part of an
architrave) cited in the AE 1984 article, reads: Maximus has olim therm[as- -}I divinae mentis ductu
cum o[- -). The two together make it very likely that the Praetorian Prefect M. Gavius Maximus, who
served under Antoninus Pius, was responsible for building these baths, cf. PJR2 G 104. For baths
named after their builders, cf. Ch. 6, n. 177 and Appendix 4.
23. M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus was cos. in AD 201 (cf. PJR2 N 114). See also JACQUES, libene, p. 9 no.
39 where the dates of his curatorship are given as c. 193-210 (cf. id. Curateurs, no. 39, pp. 100-103).
He seems to have been a native of Brixia, as his tribal name, Pob(lilia), is attested there. Here Nonius
contributes money for the completion of a set of baths begun by an unnamed agent.
24. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 dates the text precisely to AD 240 for no stated reason. CIL 6.1984
mentions that a Q. Petronius Melior was coopted into the sodales Claudii in AD 230, cf. RE 19.1219­
1220, s.v. "Petronius" (no. 47) [Groag). The present inscription reveals that he was or had been the
curator of no less than 4 communities (Tarquinii, Graviscum, Pyrgi and Ceretanum). He was of
senatorial rank, cf R. DUTHOY, "Le profil social des patrons municipaux en ltalie sous le Haut­
Empire", AncSoc., 15-17 (1984-1987), 121-154, p. 147 no. 288.
25. For Verecundus, cf. PLRE 1 Verecundus 3 (p. 950); PJR2 A 1629. Domavia was an important mining
community in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Its baths have been excavated and are "the most elaborate in
the province", cf. PECS, s.v." Domavia" pp. 280-281 [Werner] (these baths, however, do not appear in
either NIELSEN, Therm. or MANDERSHCEID, Bib.). Argentaria was an area of Dalmatia near the
border with Moesia, administered by a procurator, cf. RE 2.705, s.v. "Argentaria" [Tomaschek].
26. For Crescens, cf. PLRE I Crescens 4 (p. 230). The wording, especially the phrases sp/endori thermarum
(which makes it clear an adornment of the baths was involved) and ex lods abditis ("from hidden/secret
places") recalls that of nos. 39 (Table 2) and 115 (fable 5), both of which report the transference of
statues from lonely spots to baths, resulting in their enhancem~nt.
27. This inscription is dated in PLRE 1 Vincentius 7 (p. 966) to the late 3rd/early 4th century AD, because all
other praeses inscriptions from Tarraco are so dated.
28. A Greek verse inscription in three fragment<> found in the Forum Baths. It records a restoration of the baths
by a Victor, probably the praejectus annonae c. AD 328 +,according to the article in AE; RE 515.293­
294, s.v. "Octavius" (no. 90a) [Eck) prefers a date in the second half of the 4th century.
29. For this man, cf. PLRE 1 Montius (p. 608).
30. The side of the stone bears an inscription dated to AD 172, which is apparently considerably older than the
text cited, which can be dated to the mid-4th cent. AD; cf. PLRE 1 Gracchus 3 (p. 400).
31-33. PLRE 1 Max.imus 35 (p. 587) lists 15 inscriptions recording benefactions of this man in the area of
Samnium. These three record his bath benefactions.
34. PLRE 1 Albinus 8 (pp. 34-35) lists 18 inscriptions recording the building activities of this man in the
province. The full text (which is difficult to understand) reads: aureis ubique temporis dd nn Valentiniani
et Valenltis perpetuorum (Au]gg statum desperata recipiunt amlissa renovantur ruinarum deformitatem
 Table 2 317

decor novitlatis excludit iamdudum igitur thermarum aestivalj~um fabulam factam depellens faciemque
restituens I Publius Ceionius Albinus, v.c., consularis, I ad splendorem tam patriae quam provinciae
restituit I perfecit dedicavit [--] omninis [--]antis I Aemilio Flaviano Fabio praetextato lav[-] II
Innocentio Mario Secundino 1--]xcv[--]antio I tll bb pp.
35. For Flavius Benedictus, cf. PLRE 1 Benedictus 4 (p. 161). The editors of 1/U comment that the baths were
probably ruined after the incursion of the Austuriani in AD 363-365 (Amm. Marc., 28.6), in which case
the baths were left in ruinous condition for over a decade.
36. For Vindicianus, cf. PLRE 1 Vindicianus 4 (p. 968). Another inscription dates him to AD 378 under
Gratian. cf. CIL 10.1683. Although much of the text is restored the clear "vi" makes a restoration of the
baths, even if not destroyed by fire, virtually certain; compare the wording of e.g. no. 194 (fable 6).
37. For Bassus, cf. PLRE 1 Bassus 11 (pp. 152-154). The text says the baths were in ruinous and dangerous
state, being about to collapse, so that the bathing public would not use them: et periculosis ponderibus
imminentem, quae labantem I populum metu sollicitudinis deterrebat.
38. This text is in three fragments. For Felix, cf PLRE 1 Flavius Felix Gentilis (p. 391). The likely
restoration is [aquae Iductum therma[rumI rather than [aquae Iductum thermalsqueI because the rest of the
text refers to putrid wooden structures replaced by the benefactor: thermae are not likely to have been
made of wood (though balnea could be, cf. Mart., 9.75; p. 118 for the putative wooden baths at Velsen,
Holland). Because the aqueduct is specifically said to be a part of the baths, I include it here. There is
mention of the curator rei publicae at the end, but the text is too fragmentary to clarify his involvement.
For other aqueduct benefactions, cf. Table 7, section B, "Water Supply".
39. For Aemilianus, cf. PLRE 1 Aemilianus 4 (p. 22). This recalls the wording of nos. 26 (fable 2) and 115
(fable 5). Aemilianus was patron of Puteoli.
40. The stone is a statue base. It is not exactly clear from the text what it was Quintilianus did with regard to
the baths. However, a simple reading of the odd-sounding phrase ob atque therm[asj would suggest he
built them. It is possible that the baths were built after the statue was erected: the phrase appears
virtually tacked on as an afterthought.
41. For this man, cf. PLRE 1 Severianus 8 (p. 829).
42. For Rusticus, cf. PLRE 1 Rusticus 3 (p. 787). For the unusual title provisor ordinis, cf. ILS 1276.
43. For Festus, cf. PLRE 1 Festus 13 (p. 337). Here the official gives an unspecified sum of money for the
adornment of the baths.
 Table 3 318

TABLE 3: Inscriptions recording baths built by local councils, magistrates and

officials, or patroni civitatis
NOTE: Only inscriptions recording the construction of a complete set of baths are included here. Items
commemorating the building of parts of baths are taken to reflect extensions of existing structures and are
included in Table 5.

A. LOCAL AUTHORITIES & COUNCILS

No. Bualder Place Work Done Date Reference

44 'ATTEpt..EL TWV KC(l Aperlae, TO ~C(/..C(VEtOV KC(l 80-81 IGR 3.690

TWV O'UVTTOA.L T­ Lycia TO TipOOTOOV
E'UO~EVWV i) KCXTEOKEUCXOEV EK
~ovA. T) Ka:t6 8E~EA. LWV
8f)~os-

45t col(onia) Iul(ia) Apamea balineum Hadrianum 129 ILS 314

Conc(ordia) ex p(ecunia)
Apamea public(a) dedicavit

46 respublica Cuicul the]rmas a solo fecit 183-184 AE 1935.

[C]uicu[litan­ 45, cf.
(mum)] 1920.16

47 municipium Aelii Choba, balneae municipum 196 ILS 6876

Chobae Mauretania municipii Aelii
Chobae p(ecunia)
p(ublica) factae

48t Tj'Ot..~LOTIOA- Olbia, TO ~cx.[A.CXVElOV? 198-211 IGR 1.854

El TWV TIOA LS' Sarmatia aVEOTT)]OEV aiw
KCXl OKO'UTA.WOEL
EK TWV OT)~O[OLWV
--]
 Table 3 319

49t senat(us) Lanuvium in locum balnearum, 198-211 ILS 5686

populusq(ue) quae per vetustatem

Lanivinus
in usu esse
desierant, thermas ex
quantitatibus, quae .
. . honoriarum
summarum
sacerdotiorum
adquisitae sunt, ...
ampliatis locis et
cellis, a fundamentis
exstruxit

SOt not specified Castellurn genio balineo 228-230 AE 1908.

Mastaris, Cast(elli) Mas(taris) 244/5
Numidia o. m. a solo

51t [municipium Thibursicum thermas 260/262 AE 1913.180

S]eptimium Bure Gal[lienianas [--] (= ILAfr.
Aurelium re]formatas et 506)
Severianum excultas pecunia

Antoninianum
publica perfecit et

Frugiferum
dedicavit

Concordium

Liberum

Thibursicensium

Bure

--- ---- ---~-- ----. ·-~·- -­ - ·---·" ~-" --· --·-· -~ --··-·-·--· ·--­ ---------------- ---- ·------- ·--­
52t vicani Petrenses Vicus Petra, vicani Petrenses qui 3rd/4th cent. AE
Moesia contul[e]runt causa 1977.758,
salutis corporis sui cf. AE
balineu(m) 1939. 100
faciundu(m) and 1935.
172

53t not specified Mitylene EKTL09T) TO 413 AE 1971.

~etA.etVLOV 454

B. MAGISTRATES & OFFICIALSt

No. Bualder Place Work Done Date Reference

54t *Cn. Terentius Brebia Terentio ... et none CIL 5.5504A

Primus, IIIIIJvir et Terentiae ... qui
Terentia coniunx vican(is) f(ecerunt)
habitantib(us)
lavationem
 Table 3 320

55t P. Lucanius Venafrum balneum solo. none ILS 5664

Quadratus, Ilvir, peq(unia) sua dedit
augur. q. II

56t *[--] Chrysanthus Narbo [balineum ... I et none CIL 12.4388

[VIvir Aug.) et marmoribus
Clodia Agatha uxor exsnuctum et
ductu(s) [aquae ...
feceru}nt
- ---------- - -- - - -

57t 1\.. ouciKKw~ Kyme {1\.ct~EWVCX} ... 2 BC- AD IK 5.19, cf.

1\.a~EWV, OV8EVTQ 8E: KQl TO 14 IGR 4.1302
YlJflvcxoicxpxos ~a.A.avf]ov To'ls
VEOtOl

58t L. Caesienus Furfo [bal)neum d(e) s(ua) Julio- CIL 9.3522

Firm[us?I. quaest. p(ecunia) fec(erunt) Claudian (?)
praef. i(ure)
d(icundo),
q(uinquennalis), L.
Caesienus
Firm[us?] [--].
quaest., quinq.,
trib. milit. II

59t L. Aemilius Murgi thermas sua omni Flavian (?) CIL 2.5489
Daphnus, sevir impensa municipibus
Murg(itanis) dedit

60t *C. Sempronius Aurgi thermas ... pecunia Trajan (?) ILS 5688
Sempronianus, impensaque sua
llvir, pontufex (sic) omni d(ono)
perpet(uus), d(ederunt)
Sempronia Fusca
Fibia Anicilla filia

61 KEVOEO$, Iotapa, E[m.Joous- Kal. Ets­ 176 or later IGR 3.833

OTpctTT')YOS' Cilicia [TO KOtv]ov
~QACXVElOV KCXTa-
OK El.Jct[C]Of.lEVO[ V
o'{K]08EV OT')Vci.pta
,CXKE' (1025)

62t Ti. Gavillius AIbona, ex voto suscepto pro 193 (?) CIL 3.3047
Claud(ius) Dalmatia salute municip(i)
Lambicus. aed .. balineo effect(o) ...
llvir posuit
 Table 3 321

63t C. Auf(idius) Burgvillos balineu(m) 2nd cent. (?) CIL 2.5354

Vegetus, llvir II, aedificavit
curat(or)

64t [f. .t\l.KLVVl..OS' Xanthos 8E8wK6Ta ... ts 2nd cent. AE 1981.834

4>1-. a(OVW.VOS') ~al-.aVElOV
'Iaawv], KaTa[O]KEV[T)vJ
YlJIJ.vaal.apxos copax~J.as)
TTEVTaKtOXEl.l-. laS'

65t C. Torasius Spoletium suo et ... fili sui 2nd cent. (?) CIL 11.4815
Severns, llllvir nomine loco et
i.d., augur pecunia sua
{thermas} fecit

66t M. Tullius Cicero Paestum balneas Nobas a solo late 2nd/ AE 1935.28
Venneianus, Ilvir sua pecunia extruxit early 3rd (= ILPaest.
q(uin)q(uennalis ), et dedecavit (sic ) cent. 101)
p(atronus)
c(oloniae)

67t rt-.vKwv [Kat. . . Ephesos €8wKav nap' 206f207 /K17.1.

]KOS', OL EaVTWV E~W8EV 3249
TiaiJ.¢([1-.ov ?] [ n
[t--JoywT Eva­ ETTl.OKEVT)v Tou
avTES IJ.Eycit-.ou ~al\av(ov
Gipyupl.ov
(OT)Vctpl.a) av·
(250)

68t Ann[i]us Thuburbo (t]hermas 365 AE 1916.

Namptoivus, Maius [ae]stivales post 87/8
flam en ann[os solidos] octo
p(er)p(etuus), [in]tra septimum
cur(ator) mensem a[ d] iectis
reip(ublicae) omnibus
perlectisq[ue]
cunct[is] qu[ibus[
lavacra ind[i]gebant
Annius ... cum
Thub[ur]bi[t)anae
[u)rbis ordine
amplissim[o]
[c)unct[a]que eius
plebe perfecit,
excoluit, dedicavit
 Table 3 322

69t incertus, mag(ister) Segusio, ... thermas 375-378 ILS 5701

or mag(istratus) Alpes Cottiae Gratianas dudum
coeptas et omissas
mag. aput [ ..... .
] Alp. Cott. extruxit,
omavit et usui
Segusinae reddidit
civit(atis) ... ne
quid vel utilitati vel
us[ibus deesset]

C. PATRON/ CNITATISt

No. Bualder Place Work Done Date Reference

70t [Hero]des, Aquileia [ex testamento none CJL 5.880

[patro]nus?, c.v. Hero]dis [patro?]ni
c.v., [thermae
factae] lavant(ibus)

71t incertus, patronus Pitinum [b ]alineum fecit none JLS 5711

municipi Pisaurense
- -

72 [Gab?]inius Thuburbo Salviano ... quod 395-408 AE 1914.57

Salvianus, Maius etiam thermarum
p(atronus) a(lmae) hiemalium ex ima
K(arthaginis) fundamentorum
origine usque [ad]
fastigia culmen erexit
... [su]mtu proprio

NOTES
A. LOCAL AUTHORITIES & COUNCILS
45. That the baths were built by the local authorities is certain due to their dedication to Hadrian by the colony
from public money; had a party other than the colony been responsible for constructing the baths,
mention of it could be expected to appear in the text (unless it was on another, now lost, inscription). It
is safer to assume that the baths were built, maybe sometime beforehand, by the state. The dedication
was to Hadrian and the imperial household; full text is: numini domus Augusto[rum) I et I imp. Caesari
divi Trajani Parthic[i filio,) I divi Nervae nepoti, Trajano Hadriano Au[g.,] II pont. max., trib pot., XIII,
cos. III, p.p., Sabinae Aug. I senatui populoq. Rom. col. Iul. Cone. Apamea I Balineum Hadrianum ex
p. public. dedicavit.
48. Although the word ~a:A.a:VElOV is mostly restored, mention of the chequered decoration, OKOlJTAWOlS,
makes its presence very likely; the phrase is reminiscent of cum omni ornatu or the like found in other
bath construction texts, cf. e.g. nos. 7, 8, 11 (Table 1), 80, 85, 90 (Table 4)
 Table 3 323

49. This is the only inscription in our corpus that expressly states that summae honorariae were used to build
baths, although Pliny the Younger reports the cost of the huge baths at Claudiopolis in Bithynia was to
come from this source, cf. Pliny Ep., 10.39.5. For the use of swnmae honorariae in local building
activities, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., pp. 86, 149-150; id. in F. GREW & B. ROBlEY (edd.),
Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western Empire (CBA Research Report 59, 1985), 28-33;
and more recently, id. Structure, pp. 174-184, esp.182-183.
50. The text is dated by the phrase Modesto et Probo cos in the opening line. Although there is no verb here, a
passive aedificatum or factum must be assumed (especially in view of the phrase a solo). In cases such
as this, where the erection of baths is recorded in the passive with no agent indicated, a construction by
the local authority ought to be assumed, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., no. 30, p. 91 and below no. 53.
Sl. The inscription is dated by the phrase proconsule L Naevio Aquilino, which places it in the years AD 260­
268 (cf. PLRE 1 Aquilinus 8 [pp. 91-2]). Here the baths are completed by the local authority apparently
on a different plan to that originally envisaged (reformatas). (Who started the work is not specified in the
text.) It is not a question here of restoration, as the baths are finished off in the reign of Gallienus, after
whom they get their name: it is unlikely that baths built in the reign of Gallienus would require
restoration so soon after their construction. A group of the local decurions contributed money to the
cost of a Musaeum to these baths, cf. below no. 157 (Table 5).
52. It is not clear how many villagers contributed to the erection of the baths. Had there been a limited number
we might expect a Jist of names or the like, but this may have put the cost of the inscription beyond the
means of such a small place as Vicus Petra. Whatever the case, it is clear from official involvement in
the work, in the form of one of the quaestores vid as a curator operis, that the local authorities were
responsible for the construction: quod opus effectu(m) I magisterio anni Nymphidi Maximi etAeli
Gemi[n]i, qu(a)estorijbus vici Ulpio Romano et Cassio Primitivo, curantibus operi(s) N[ymp}hido I
Maximo s(upra) s(cripto) et Aelio Julio.
I
53. The text is dated by the phrase ETTl urrcn(as ¢A.(a.~(ov) 1\ovdov, II5EOTTOTEVOVTOS I
Eull.wy£ov Tov /\a.l?~.a.yptwv(o[v], E:lm TporrEvovTa.s [' AJv~EvT(ov.

B. MAGISTRATES & OFFICIALS

NOTE: Although they were not magistrates, seviri and seviri Augustales are included in this category, insofar as
they participated in public life, and building activity featured among the expectations of office, cf. RE
1.2349-2360, s.v wAugustales" [Neumann]; CASTREN, Ordo, pp. 73-75; R. DUTHOY, "Les
Augustales", ANRW2.16.2.1254-1309, esp. 1265-1277; S.E. OSTROW, "The Augustales in the
Augustan Scheme" in K.A RAAFLAUB & M. TOHER (edd.) Between Republic and Empire:
Interpretations ofAugustus and His Principate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 364­
379.

54. There are two versions of the text in CJL. Version B implies that the benefaction was free bathing
Oavationem I balneo [ .. ] I optatiss(imo)). However, that the construction of a bath is the sense of
version A is suggested by the use offacere rather than dare which is the verb that usually accompanies
the giving of free baths to the people (cf. Table 7, Section A, "Free Bathing"). In this case, lavatio
means "bathhouse" or "bathing facilities", a rare use of the word (for a parallel, cf. Cic. Fam., 9.5.3).
55. Cf. Appendix 6 for balneum dare inscriptions. Here dedit most probably means "built" as the baths are
"given" at "his own expense", and either "on his own ground" or "from foundations" depending on
whether an a or a suo is to be restored before the solo. In either case, a bath construction is the most
likely benefaction.
56. Cf. no. 225 (Table 7).
57. ENGELMANN (the editor of JK 5) states that these are the baths near the Gymnasium of the Neoi at Kyme.
The text implies they were reserved for the use of the Neoi only. For the work of gymnasiarchs in
giving money for baths, cf. ROBERT, OMS, 1.446-448; id., EtUdes Anatoliennes (Paris: de Boccard,
1937; repr. Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1970), pp. 315-318; A.H.M. JONES, 'The Greek City from Alexander
to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), pp. 221-222.
58. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.40, n. 25 dates this text to the Julio-Claudian period, but gives no indication why.
The two benefactors appear to be father and son, the father having stayed at the municipal level, the son,
 Table 3 324

an eques, receiving a posting as a military tribune before returning to his patria for the quinquennial
quaestorship, cf. DUTHOY, AncSoc., 15-17 (1984-1986), 123-127.
59. The date is deduced from letterform, and so is not secure. For a discussion of balenwn dare inscriptions, cf.
Appendix 6. It is clear enough that in this case we are dealing with a bath construction: the baths were
given "completely at his own expense" (sua omni impensa), and were then dedicated. For the rest of this
benefaction, cf. no. 254 (fable 7).
60. Dated by letterform. Cf. comments in previous note. For the rest of the benefaction, cf. nos. 229 and 265
(fable 7).
62. Dated by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.97, n. 12 to AD 193 without explanation.
63. The date is by letterform, and so not secure (though NIELSEN, Therm., 1.65, n. 9 cites it without
qualification); cf. CURCHIN, Magistrates, no. 298 (p. 166). Cf. no. 222 (fable 7).
64. A double statue base. Jason's name is missing here but can be reconstructed from comparison with other
texts (cf. AE 1981.835, TAM 2.1.381). Here Jason as gymnasiarch gives 5,000 drachmas towards the
construction of the baths, and elsewhere his father, holding the archonship, gives an equal amount for
public use. The editors of AE suggest that the figures may be summae honorariae; whatever the case, it
would not be enough to build an entire bathhouse. For bath costs, cf. above, Ch. 6, n. 61.
65. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.40, n. 25 dates this inscription to the 2nd century (though it is not clear why). This is
a dedicatory text found in the baths, so the word thermas was omitted. Cassiodorus Var., 4.24 mentions
thermae Turasii at Spoletium, and they are probably the subject of the repair work carried out by
Constantius and Julian as recorded in another text, cf. no. 16 (fable 1).
66. The date is that provided by DUTHOY, AncSoc., (1984-1987), 151 no. 366 (NIELSEN, Therm., 1.40, n. 25
offers only the early 3rd-century date). The father built the baths, and his son, who at least by that time
had not held any posts, restored them. Cf. no. 194 (fable 6) and DUTHOY, op. cit., 151 no. 367.
67. These men are clearly of local origin. The term f,oytOTT)S is normally used to denote a curator rei
publicae (cf. IGR 3.39), but these are evidently local magistrates.
68. Here a set of baths, already begun but left unfinished after 8 years of work, are completed within 7 months
by the magistrate mentioned. However, the text here is a little ambiguous. It seems to say that Annius
completed the job himself, but did so in conjunction with the city's decurions and the entire plebs, which
suggests it was a joint effort on the part of Annius and the local community. There are parallel
examples of this sort of expression, where the main verbs are usually in the singular, cf. e.g. nos. 160,
163 (fable 5). In such cases, I take it that the curator rei publicae was primarily responsible for the
work.
69. Cf. no. 166 (fable 5) and 237 (fable 7).

* * *
C. PATRON! CNITATIS
NOTE: Because patroni were neither local magistrates nor officials (in that they performed no specific function),
nor purely private benefactors (insofar as they enjoyed some public recognition in a community, having
been chosen by official cooptation), I include them here in a separate category from the aforementioned
groups. The relationship between patrodnium and euergetism is unclear; here listed are only those
persons whose sole title is patronus. So, for instance, M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus, curator et patron us
r. p. at Verona (no. 23 [Table 2]), is considered primarily a curator and so classed among imperial
officials; likewise M. Tullius Venneianus, //vir qq, p(atronus) c(coloniae) at Paestum (no. 66 above), is
counted among the local magistrates. (I am indebted to C.F. Eilers, currently completing his D.Phil.
dissertation on Imperial patroni at Brasenose College, Oxford, for some helpful pointers on this topic).

70. Though the words thermae factae are restored, the presence of lavant(ibus) gives a clear sign that baths were
involved: the most obvious benefaction to bathers is to build baths. Alternatively, /avant. could be an
abbreviation of lavantes meaning "baths" (as in no. 200 (Table 6)). In either case, a bath construction
seems the most likely benefaction.
71. The name of the patronus munidpi is lost. The rest of the text, though fragmentary, reveals that he also did
a lot of maintenance and repair work on these, or another set of baths, cf. no. 174 (Table 5).
 Table4 325

TABLE 4: Inscriptions recording baths built by private benefactors

No. Builder Place Work done Date Reference

73t Terentius Donatus Djemila balneum Terenti none AE 1920.33

Donati

74t Papius 1[--], Mididi [-- i]n private solo none CIL 8.11775
Pa[pius --]anus suo suis sumtibus, (cf. 8.609)
filius eius [su]is Mididit[anis -­
a]edificavit ...
patriae suae [ --]
therma[rum --]n
Iavat.

75t *Alfia Quart[a] Marruvium [balneum] muliebre a none /LS 5684

Marsorum solo [fecit]

76t [--] Grati pat(er) et San Nicola al balneum sua pecunia none AE 1969170
f(ilius) Torone fecerunt .178
(ancient
name not
known)

77t Q. Solon Fabius Nemausus ob merita(m) eius none ILS 5680

Severinus, praeterita(m) et
e(gregius) v(ir) praesentem
liberalitatem quo
maturius balneum
usibus plebis
exhiberetur

78t *Tl. Kl\avows­ Beujuk TOV VO'.OV KO'.L TQ none IGR 4.228
"AI\ 1JS', L:E~O'.OTOU Tepekeui [~a./\a.vda.J ... EK
cXTIE/\EV9EpOS'
(ancient 9EIJ.EA tWV
name not
K[al T) yvvf) KO'.TCWKE'Jci-
known),
0'.'\JTOD] Asia OO'.VTES' E[K TWV
ioiwvJ
 Table4 326

79t *[Koup]Tt<X Tabila, Asia [E:Jvxnpi.ocwa.v none IGR 4.1378

'lout-. i.a. [Ova.A.]­ [T]Tjv E:nwE.t-.na.v

EVHAA<X, [Tf)SJ K<XT<X­
l!TT<X[ HK]r) OK E'Uf)S' [ TOV]
~<X/I.<XVEtO'U K<Xt
[TWV] TIEpt TOV
TOTTO[V
OlKO]OO!lT)!li.£TWV

SOt [np]6KA[os] Smyrna 'ATIOAAWV[OS'] K<Xt none IGR 4.1440

:l:E[plimoos-J
:l:E~<XOTWV
d[py]6.[oa.To] TO
(~a./I.]<XVEtOV [OUV]
TT<XVTt [T{p
K]OO!-L[qJ]

81t [--OS' KA.a.u6LOS' Labraunda, TO ~a.A.a.vf)ov [K<Xt none BE 1965.

M]EvE.t-.a.os Caria at-.t-.a.? E:K Twv 368, nos. 4
to(wv <ivE:ST)KE]v and9

82t L. Cluvienus Bergomum balneum et aquas none CIL 5.5136

Anicilo dedit

83 Novianus Cas inurn therm(a)e Noviani none CIL 10.5200

' ... - -- -­ ·---~-- --.-~----- ~--
'• ·-~ ·--•H- -~ -~ff_, __ _ _ _ _._, •­ •H--·~

---~-- -- -- -. '-­

84t L. Turcilius Rufus Murcia [ther]mas [f]ec(it) Augustan (?) CIL 2.3542

85t *[L. Seius Strabo?] Volsinii ae[dificiis] emptis et early 1st ILS 8996,
praefectus Aegypt[i ad solum de[iectis] cent.(?) cf. AE
et] Terentia mater balneum cum omn[i 1983.398
eiu[s et] Cosconia . ornatu Volusin­
. . Gallitta uxor eius iens]ibus ded[erunt
ob publ]ica
c(ommoda]

86t *Ti. Claudius Coela, numini domus 55 ILS 5682,

Faustus Regi[n.] et Thrace Augustae ... cf. l.K.
Claudia Nais Fausti balneum populo et 13.29
familiai Caesaris
n(ostri) [s(ua)]
p(ecunia) f(ecerunt)

87t Sergius and Altinum balinea Sergium et 1st cent. or NSc (1928),
Putin[ius?] Puti[nium] earlier 283
 Table 4 327

88t L. Rufellius Fanum balneum a L. lst cent. or ILS 5679

Severns, Rufellio ... factum earlier (?)
p(rimi)p(ilaris ),
tr(ibunus)

89t *Voconia A vita Tagilis, thermas reipublicae late 1st/early AE 1979.352

Baetica suae Tagilitanae 2nd cent.
s(olo) s(uo) s(ua)
p(ecunia) f(ecit)

90t C. Plinius Caecilius Comum ther[mas ex HS --]. c. 100-109 ILS 2927

[Secundus, cos.] .. adiectis in
omatumHS
(300,(X)()) .... [ et
eo amp]lius in
tutela[m] HS
(200,000)
t(estamento) f(ieri)
i(ussit)

91 t L. Min[icius Barcino balineum c[um c. 120 ILS 1029

Na]talis, cos .... port]icibus solo suo
et L. Minicius et du{ctum aquae]
[Natalis Quadro]­ fecerunt
nius Verus, augur,
trib. plebis desig.

92t Ser. Cornelius Corfmium balineum solo suo c. 129/150 ILS 5676
DoIabella s(ua) p(ecunia)
Metilianus, cos. aedificavit et contexit

93t incertus Tarraco [balneas aedificasti] Hadrianic/ CIL 2.6102

2nd cent.

94t * 'laowv, avi)p Cyana, Lycia Ets TE 146 IGR 3.704.

' t /\
a, tOAoyos, ... KO:.TO:.OKEUT)[v] lla.10-13
!lETCt KO:.t Tf1S OTOCXS npo TOU
e[uJyo:.Tpos KO:.TO:.OKEUO:.O!lEVOU
mhou 1\u[Ki:Jas ~a:A.O:.VELOU [TTp]OS'
TiJ [TT]A.[o:.]TELC&
OT)vapto:.llupto:.
(€5ooo:.v}

95 Tt. <t>t..avws (sic) Thera CX!lEV ~O:.A.O:.VELUlV 149/150 SIG 3 852,

KA.Et T009EVT)S' KO:.TO:.OKEUO:.lS TCt n.13
KA.o:.uoto:.vos ETTt VEtO:. Tf)S
not.. Ews KOO!l'T)oo:.s
 Table 4 328

96t ['onpa.f16a.~J Xanthos (EoWKEV) ElS' 152 or after SEG 30

YlJVCllKElOV (1980),
~ClAClVEtOV
1535.7-10
fJ.flJpl)Cl

97t Telmessos, List of contributions mid-2nd TAM 2.905.

Oenoanda& of money for works cent. XIXB-D
Gagae in different cities
(see note for texts)

98t P. Tullius [Varro], Tarquinii [th]ermas ... quas mid-2nd CIL 11.3366
cos., et [L. P. Tullius pater eius cent. (cf. 11.3365)
Dasumius Tullius, cos ... s]estertio
filius] ter. et tr. testamento
f[ieri iussi]t adiecta
pecunia ampliatoqu[e
ope]re perfecit

99t Arruntius Tifernum {testamento suo} c. 170 ILS 5678

Granianus (?) Tiberinum reliquit ad balinei
fabrica(m) rei p. Tif.
Tib. HS (150,000)
n.
lOOt *¢a.UOTELVT) Miletus To ... ?\oETpov.. 176 or AE 1906.
. ¢ClUOTElVT)S' shortly 177/8
before(?)

Palmyra ¢El?\OTElfl T)O­ 182 Berytus 3

ClflEVT)V OT)VctplCl (1936), no.
OWXElA lCl
11 (pp. 109­
112)
TIEVTClKOOtCl EL~
OlKOOOflflV
~a.;>-...avdou
'Ayt?\~W?\OU Ka.t
Ma.;>-...a.xt~r);>-...ou
8EWV

102t ?.6DflLTlO~ Prusias-ad­ TO 60fllTElOV before late IK 27.20

Hypium ~ClAClVEtOV 2nd cent. (=IGR 3.66)

103t non?\ ws­ Ephesos V7!9 TO 2nd cent. SEG28

KUl VTLA t.o~ ~a.t;.a.v[Eiov] (1978), 862,
oucipw~ cf. /.K.
12.500
 Table 4 329

104t Tt. 'lov!l. l05 Ancyra {' !OVCTOV} Caracalla SEG27

'lOV0T05 ETTllJ.EA T)8EVTq 8€: (1977), 842,
'lO'UVW.VOS' KE Tf)S'
(cf. SEG
6.61, AE
KCXTCWKEVT)S' TOV 1981.782)
~a!l.avE(ou, ¢ui~.T)
.6.lOS' TpaTTE(WV
ET(IlT)0EV

105t M. Valerius Bradua Albinguanum balneum Juod late 2nd/early ILS 1128
Mauricus, c.m.v., {Valerius vivos 3rd cent.
cos., Q. Vi[r]ius inchoaverat ...
Egnatius Sulpicius Vibius ...
Priscus, consularis perfectum
Albi[n]ga[u]n­
ensibus a[t]signavit

106t *(Iul]ia Me(m]mia Bulla Regia [praeci]puam operis late 2nd/early AE 1921.45
[Pris?]ca Ruf[a] sui thermarum 3rd cent.
Aemil[iana] [magnifi]centiam qua
Fidia[na], te (sic) patriam
claris[sima et [suam e]xomavit
nobilissima flemina

107t P. Aelius Gemelus, Apulum, Fortunae Aug. . . . late 2nd/early CIL 3.1006
vir clarissimus Dacia perfecto a solo 3rd cent.
balneo consecravit

108t *Tpu/¢ wv ... Tacina, Asia EKTEAE0(QS') TO 202/203 IGR 4.881

lJ.ETtt Tf)S' ~a!l.av{i.ov
yuva(Kos rrapE8WKEV
"A!l!lCXS' ...

109t *[Av]itta Avitta Bibba thermas s(ua) 204 CIL 8.12274

p(ecunia) f(ecit) (cf. 803)

llOt C. Arrius Pacatus Cirta balineum Pacatianum early 3rd ILAlg. 2.

sibi mensib(us) XIV cent. 615, cf. CIL
8.7031

lllt [ ... ot arro Zorava, EKT1..0CX.V TO Severns IGR 3.1155

11 T)TpO]KWlJ. (as Syria ~a!l.avEl.ov Alexander
ZopaO"IJT)VWV i[8(a.ts
8arravats]

112 Valentius Asola balneum a solo fecit 336 AE 1972.202

B[ae]bianus Junior

113t EuaTo!l.tos Kourion ii.O'UTpcX late 4th cent. SEG26

xaptaaa!J.EVOS (1976), 1474
 Table 4 330

114t 'lou;\ uxvos 6.6\l vt Sergilla, ETE'U~Ev [To 470 IGLS 4.1490
cruv ci;\oxwt Syria ;\OL!TpoV]

NOTES

73. The identity of this man is not known. Cf. no. 178 (Table 6).
74. That the construction of a set of baths was the main benefaction seems clear, despite the lacuna in the text
where the word thermas should be. The end of the inscription, if correctly restored by Mommsen, would
read: " ... for his homeland; by a regulation of these baths, people bathed in the urban manner" (patriae
suae I [lege harum] therma[rum more urba]n(o) lavat(ur)). The wording is odd, to say the least.
75. The text goes on to say Alfia adorned these baths, cf. no. 177 (Table 6).
76. The article in AE suggests that both men stemmed from the local nobility as they both share the same last
name. There is no sign of offices and/or titles after their names.
77. The sense of the inscription is that Solon had hastened the completion of the baths. The work may have
been a restoration, but in that case we might expect a verb like reddere rather than exhibere. The text can
be read as meaning Fabius opened the baths to the plebs, there previously being some (unnamed)
restrictions on entry. This is unlikely for two reasons: 1). The phrase ob praesentem liberalitatem quo
matun"us balneum usibus plebis exhiberetur ("on account of his present generosity by which the bath
might be made available to the plebs more quickly") which implies some sort of expenditure that
allowed the plebs to use the baths sooner than expected; completion of the structure makes the most
sense. 2). Explicit social restrictions at the baths are not attested anywhere else (cf. pp. 274-285).
78. Note that the benefactors are imperial freedpeople. Although the word ~a.;\ a.VELa. is missing, its presence
seems likely due not only to TCt immediately preceding the lacuna, but as the dedication is to
'ApTEiJ.tot L:E~a.oTiJ Ba.ta.viJ, a goddess with healing powers associated with baths (cf. the mater
dea Baiana, JLS 4175) . As there is mention of a temple built along with the baths, this
establishment may possibly have been religious in function, but because this is not certain, the item
is included here.
79. This woman was of consular family, daughter of Julius Curti us Crispus, cf. PJR2 C 1622. The appearance
of the word ETHiJ.E;\ELa.V may indicate that she was somehow commissioned to carry out the work,
i.e. that she acted in some (unclear) official capacity. Alternatively, it may simply be grandiloquence
meaning something like, "she took in hand the pursuit of building the bath ... •.
80. A strange inscription; much of it remains uncertain in reading. Especially odd is the coupling of Apollo and
Serapis. It is not clear if these baths were dedicated to Apollo and the other deity (possibly Serapis) and
so were sacred and religious in function, or if they merely bore the sacred name. For baths named after
gods, cf. nos. 32, 33, 41 (Table 2), 101 (Table 4); cf. also NIELSEN, Therm., 1.146-147, n.9.
81. Two texts relating Menelaos's benefactions to Labraunda. No.4 is cited; no. 9 reads: 6 Sf)iJ.OS [--]OV
K;\a.Dowv ... MEvE[;\a.ovJ ... [EK T]wv to\.wv Ka.\. To ~a.;\a.vEl.ov.
82. Here dedit most probably means "built", cf. Appendix 6. Cf. no. 227 (Table 7). The identity and status of
the benefactor is not known.
84. The status ofthe benefactor is unclear. The dating is also uncertain. Mommsen dated it to the Augustan
period. If so, this is the earliest use of the word thermae of which I am aware (cf. pp. 69-70).
85. Because the male benefactor here is reported to have been a praefectus Aegypt[i], it has been proposed that the
man in question is L. Seius Strabo, the father of L. Aelius Sejanus, the infamous praetorian prefect
under Tiberius who was a native of Volsinii (Tac. Ann., 4.1), cf. AE 1983.398. Strabo is acting as a
benefactor to his native town. The "dederunt" here clearly means "built" as it is stated that the buildings
which stood on the site were bought up and demolished to make room for the baths (a not uncommon
practice, cf. MERTEN, Bader, pp. 11-15). The baths have been excavated and are located near the forum
of the town, cf. P. GROS, Bolsena. Guide des Fouilles (Paris: Ecole franf¥aise de Rome, 1981), p. 43;
NIELSEN, Therm., 1.49, n. 90.
86. The text is dated by the phrase [Nerone] Caesare Aug. et Antistio Vetere cos. Here the baths are said to have
been built "for the people and the familia of Caesar". Cf. pp. 267-273 for a discussion of slaves at the
baths.
 Table 4 331

87. These baths are named in a text recording the huge testamentary bath benefactions (totalling HS 1,400,000) of
a benefactor named Fabius at Altinum dated by DUNCAN-JONES, Econ ., no. 468 (and note) to post­
AD 100 on the basis of the criteria he lays out on pp. 362-363, while NIELSEN, Therm., 1.122 opts for
a post-160 date for the Fabian benefactions (though she does not indicate on what grounds she assigns
it). In either case, one of Fabius's acts was to restore the baths, so the buildings' construction must
predate that act. They may even be Republican. Two separate buildings were involved, as the wording
balinea Sergium et Puti[nium] makes clear, i.e. a balineum Sergium and a separate balineum
Puti[nium]. The identity of the builders is not known. The full text is: [--] d(ecurionum) d(ecreto). I
[h]ic rei p(ublicae) Altinatium HS (1,6()(),oaJ) [n(ummum] ded(it) I i]ta ut balinea Sergium et
Puti[nium] I HS (800,(XXJ) n(ummum) refecta in usu mu[nicip(um) or municip(ii)] II essent et alia HS
(400,oaJ) n(ummum), ut ex [eorum] I reditu cale[fier}ent, et HS (200,000) n(ummum) [in perp(etuam)}l
tutelam eo[ru]mdem (sic), item HS [(200,000) n(ummum)] I ut ex usuris eorum VII idus [ ... }I natali
ipsius et VII idus eas[dem] II natali Petroniae Magnae ma[tris] I suae, XVII kal(endas) Ian(uarias) natali L.
Fabii St[ellat(ina)] 1Amminiani patris sui decurio[nes I Au]g(ustales) et seviri sportulas acci[perent]. Cf.
nos. 189 (Table 6), 257 and 264 (Table 7).
88. A very instructive inscription that provides a concise history of the building. The baths were initially built
by the chief centurion Rufellius. Some time later the local authority completely rebuilt them. This
new building was then badly damaged by fire and restored on a bigger scale by Rufinus Marcellinus, a
local magistrate, cf. nos. 122 and 142 (Table 5). NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 dates the main
benefaction (the restoration after fire) to the 1st cent. AD, so previous activity must fall in that century
or earlier. The full text is: T. Varius T. f. Pol. Rufinus I Geganius Facundus Vibius Marcellinus I equo
publ., quinquennalic., nomine suo et IT. Vari l..ongi filii sui II balineum a L. Rufellio Severo
p(rimo)p(ilari), tr(ibuno), factum, I quod res publica a novo refecerat, incendio ex maxima parte I
consumptum operibus ampliatis pee. sua restituit.
89. Cf. no. 255 (Table 7).
90. The benefactor is Pliny the Younger. Although the inscription is fragmentary, it is clear enough that Pliny
had the baths built for his native Comum, and added money for decoration and maintenance, cf. nos. 188
(Table 6) and 256 (Table 7).
91. The two benefactors are father and son who, as the inscription says, had served under Trajan and Hadrian.
The father had reached the suffect consulship in AD 106 and the proconsulate of Africa (cf. PJR2 M
619), while the son's highest post was tribunus plebis designatus (cf. PJR2 M 620). Clearly they are
acting here as private benefactors. Cf. 229 (Table 7).
92. The full text is: Ser. Cornelius Ser. f. Dolabella Metilianus cos. I balineum solo suo s. p. aedificavit et
contexit. I M. Atilius Bradua cos. et M'. Acilius A viola cos., honor. possessor. I Dolabellae Metialiani,
in hoc opus dederunt HS centena mil. n.; II res p. et populus Corfiniensis datis HS CLII n.
consummavit, curam agente I [C. Alfio) T. f. Ser. Maximo. Although the local council got involved in
completion of the baths, Dolabella is clearly accredited with the main part of the work in the first line,
building and roofing them, cf. above, pp. 217-218.
93. Very fragmentary inscription recording a eulogium of an unnamed benefactor. Fine letter quality implies a
date of high prosperity, possibly Hadrianic but probably in the 2nd century. That baths were involved is
implied by the presence, in the following clause, of the phrase [insti]tuisti nymphas calidas, which were
parts of a bathhouse, cf. no. 190 (Table 6).
94. This is part of a lengthy inscription honouring Jason, son ofNicostratos who was Lyciarch in AD 143-144.
The column in question is a decree of Myrea dated to 13 October, AD 146 honouring Jason for his
"magnificent gifts made to the city" (OWpEaS TE ~Eya.t-.oTipETIEt5' TIETIOtT)TCX.l.). It is clear
enough that the stoa in question was part of the baths, like the np6crTOOV of the baths at Aperlas (cf.
no. 44 (Table 3)), and, from the presence of the perfect participle KCX.TCX.OKE'UaO~EVOV, that Jason
had previously built the baths themselves. It is not clear if his daughter had contributed to the bath
construction or not. The phrase avf)p a~1.6A.oyo$ is a Greek one for a benefactor, with no Roman
equivalent (it is absent from H.J. MASON, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto: American
Studies in Papyrology 13, 1974)). Compare no. 191 (Table 6).
96. The editors of SEG comment: "Though Opramoas is not mentioned, it is virtually certain that he is the
benefactor." He was a citizen ofRhodiapolis, Lyciarch and an outstanding euergete who died c. AD 152,
cf. RE 18.1.748-749, s.v. "Oprarnoas" [Miller]. Cf. next entry and no. 192 (fable 6)
97. A huge inscription carved on the walls of Oprarnoas's mausoleum at Rhodiapolis. The texts are a collection
of letters and rescripts from emperors, imperial officials and individual communities honouring the great
 Table4 332

benefactor. The section in question is a list of his good deeds for various communities. The pertinent
sections read:
-Telmessos: XIXB.7-9: Tf) OE TEf..~T)00EWV TTOAEL EL$' KO:TCWKEVT)V
~a:t..a:vEtov Ka:t E~Eopa:s (denarii) Tpw~upla: Ka:l.. oT)va:pta: TTEVHtKlS XEL;\ la:
(35,000)
- Oenoanda: XIX B.13-14: Tf) OtVO:l:'[OE]WV EiS KO:TO:OKEVT)V ~0:;\0:VELOV (denarii)
~up ta: oo.ooo>
- Gagae: XIX 0.2-5: [Tf) fa:y]a:TWV Et$' KO:TO:OKEVT)v ~a:t..a:VELOV Ka:[t TO'U
Kot..u]v~ov Ka:l.. TWV XPT)OTT)ptwv f)[oT) (denarii) ~upla:] WKTci.ns XEtt..w. (8,000)
imooxo~Evos n[;\ T)pwon v].
In all 31 cities are listed with a total outlay of some 350,000 denarii, i.e. HS 1.4 million. For a
translation and discussion of this text, cf. F.W. DANKER, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study ofa Greco­
Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis, Missouri: Clayton, 1982), no. 19 (pp. 104-151).
For other bath benefactions by Opramoas, cf. previous entry, and no. 192 (Table 6).
98. The father is P. Tullius Varro, cos. AD 127 (RE 2.7A.1326-1329, s.v. "Tullius" (no. 57) [Groag]). Here a
father's will bequeathed HS330,000 for the building of a bath, which was then completed by his natural
son (who is not named in the surviving text). L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus, cos. AD 152, was adopted
by Varro's friend L. Dasumius Tuscus (cf. pJR2 D 16 [son] and D 13 [friend]). Cf. DUNCAN-JONES,
Econ ., no. 445 and note. This is one of 5 honorary inscriptions found in the same room at these baths,
apparently to accompany statues of the magnates, cf. CIL 11.3364-3368.
99. An acephalous inscription recording the provisions of the will of a benefactor whose name is lost but who
was probably called Arruntius Granianus (her(edes) Arrunti Graniani are mentioned in the text). The
benefactor bequeathed HS 150,000 in his will for the construction of a bath. The will had been contested
and a decision reached by Aemilius Pronto and Arrius Antoninus, officials under M. Aurelius, probably
as DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., no. 447 and note suggest, successive iuridici for this region of Italy (cf.
PJR2 A3 49 and A 1088). The full text reads: [--] sibi et fil. suo Nel[p]o[t]i ex HS (60,000) n. poni
iussit I et ob dedicatione(m) earum I dec. (denarios) V, VIvir (denarios) ill, pleb. (denarios) ll II dari
iussit; item reliquit I ad balinei fabrica(m) rei p. I Tif. Tib. HS (150,()00) n., quae ex sen~entia Aemili
Frontonis II cl. vir., postea deinde Arri I Antonini cl. vir. rei p. Tif. Tib. I ab Cipellis Profuturo et
Pilcentino her. et ab. Arruntia I Ampiana her. Arrunti Graniani numerata sunt. her. posuer.ll L. d. d. d.
100. Two verse inscriptions from the baths of Faustina at Miletus. One records the erection of the baths by
Faustina, the other, their restoration by a local magnate, Makarios (cf. no. 202 (Table 6)). Which of the
two Faustinas carried out the work is not clear: one was the wife of M. Aurelius (PJR2 A 716), the other
the wife of Antoninus Pius (PJR2 A 715). As the latter died while in Asia in 176, she is the more
likely candidate. Her actions appear to be a break with the immediate past, when Imperial women made
no known financial outlays for public purposes, cf. M.T. BOATWRIGHT, "The Imperial Women of the
Early 2nd Century AC", AJP 112 (1991), 513-540, esp. 519-525. Compare no. 199 (Table 6) and note.
101. The date is provided in the text as the Palmyrene year 493 (= AD 182). This woman was a member of an
important local family. Here she contributes 2,500 denarii (= HS 10,000) towards the erection of the
baths, but this is not enough to cover the entire cost of the construction. INGHOLT (Berytus 3 (1936),
109-111) maintains that the baths were public, but belonged to the temple of the two gods mentioned, as
is the case with other public buildings at Palmyra. Cf. above n. 80 for baths named after gods.
102. This named bath appears in an inscription recording their restoration by a Severan magistrate, so they must
be earlier than the late 2nd century. Who this Domitius was is unknown. A local family with the
nomen Domitius is known from this city (cf. IK 27.19 for one Domitius Julianos), so we are probably
dealing with a local, private benefactor.
103. The inscription is very fragmentary and was found in the Varius or Scholastikia Baths at Ephesos. That
Varius built the baths is confirmed not only by the inscription's find spot, but also by the testimony of
a different inscription honouring his daughter ~intilla Varia, also found in these baths, which describes
heras evya:TEpa: no. Kvtvnt-. £ov O[u]jcit..EvTo[sJ 01Ja:p£ov To'U [TQ] €pycx.
[T]a:u[TJa: Ka:[T]a:oKEva:loa:~[€vov EK Tw]v t[oJ£wv 1 TTJ Ea:v[ToD na:]T[ptJo[t] (IK
13.986).
104. This inscription honours Ti. Julius Justus Junianus, "thrice archiereus and founder of his city " (y'
I
cipXtEpEa., KTLOTT)V Tf)S ~ETpOTTO;\EW$'). The phrase in question simply says that he "took
 Table 4 333

charge of the construction of the baths". That this means Justus constructed the baths himself seems
likely due to a previous phrase in the text where he is said to have "equipped his home city with the
I
most beautiful buildings" (TT)v ncnpl:6a. E:pyov;- TE TTEptKa.A.A.EOTci.TOlS
KO\OIJ.-rioa.vTa.). The baths are most probably to be seen as among those buildings. The AE article
( 1981. 782) reports that the baths have been located and are dated by coin finds to the reign of Caracalla.
105. Valerius was consul in AD 191 (RE 2.7 A.2347, s.v. "Valerius" (no. 113) [Hanslik]), Vibius, or Virius, in
some indeterminate time (RE 2.9Al.235-236, s.v. "Virius" (no. 4) [Hanslik}). Both men were active in
the imperial service. Not only were they both consuls, but they were also pontifices and held the post of
curator aqua rum sacrae urbis et Minidae. Valerius was in addition a soda lis Hadrianalis, curator operwn
publicorum, censitor provinciae Aquetanicae and procos. provinciae Africae. Virius, in addition to the
posts he had in common with Valerius, was ajlamen divi Severi and a praejectus alimentorum. Why
Virius should finish the work begun by Valerius is not sure, the most likely explanation being that they
were friends: Valerius Bradua and Q. Virius I..arcius Sulpicius Pr(iscus?) (the present Virius's father?) had
cooperated in the erection of a monument in Rome (CIL 6.1541 ).
106. This woman was the daughter of C. Memmius Fidius Julius Albius, cos. AD 191 or 192 (P/R2 M 462, cf.
M 467 for Julia Memmia). The baths have been excavated, and are a large and impressive establishment
{as is only to be expected of a consular benefaction) but in a poor state of preservation, cf. NIELSEN,
Therm., ll. 26-27 (C.207).
107. For Aelius Gemelus, cf. PJR2 A 180. This stone was found in the baths and is dedicated to Fortuna
Augusta. Gemelus had consecrated the offering after completing the baths.
108. The text is dated by mention of the proconsul of Asia Tarius Titianus, who served there in 202-203 (cf. RE
2.4A.2323, s.v. "Tarius" (no. 4) [Fluss]).
109. The text is dated by imperial titles in the opening phrases. This is an unusual inscription. The name of
the town was Avitta Bibba, and at first sight the text seems to record the local authority building the
baths. But two points argue against this: 1). only half the the full name of the town is present, and
there are no titles at all associated with it (compare, for instance the almost ridiculously long name of
Thibursicum Bure, no. 51 (Table 3)); and 2). the baths are built s(ua) p(ecunia), not p(ecunia) p(ublica).
This last point in particular makes it clear that a benefactor was involved, and probably a female one at
that (due not only to the feminine gender of the name, but to there being only one nomen).
110. For Pacatus, cf. PJR2 A 1102 and stemma on p. 170 where he is a grandson of C. Arrius Antoninus, cos.
AD 170. Note the short time in which the baths are built. GSELL says the remains of the baths are
known, cf. MANDERSCHEID, Bib., p. 101, s.v. "Constantine" where they are listed as unpublished.
111. The wording of this text, if the restoration of ot QTTO 11T)T pOKW!l i.a.s is correct, might imply that the
bath was the work of the local authority, except that the closing phrase, again if correctly restored, says
that the money came from private _pockets. This would mean a group of unnamed private benefactors
who came from the !lT)TpOKW!llCX carried out the work.
113. This is a mosaic verse inscription from the 4th-century baths at Kourion, making it clear Eustolios was
responsible for the building. Eustolios was evidently a local figure and seems to have been away (on
imperial service? If so, in what capacity and where?), cf. the comments of T.B. MITFORD, The
Inscriptions ofKourion (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1971), no. 206.
114 A mosaic inscription found in the baths at this site. The inscription goes on to say how Julianos's work
glorified the town and asks that the honour of the baths be kept safe from envy, a possible indication of
inter-city rivalry. Julianos was a local magnate, son ofThalassios.
 Table 5 334

TABLE 5: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths restored, extended or

adorned by local councils, magistrates and officials, or patroni civitatis

A. LOCAL AUTHORITIES & COUNCILS

No. Builder Place Work done Date Reference

115t resp(ublica) Thibursicum ex avio loco et rupe none ILS 5712

col(oniae) Bure iam minanti statuas
Thib(ursici) Bure n. IIII marmoreas at
cultum et
splendorem
apodyteri thermarum
res p. col. Thib.
Bure transtulit

116 not specified Aesernia {Illlviri} ... d(e) none CIL 9.2660
s(enatus) s(ententia)
balneum
ref(iciundum)
cur(averunt)

117 partes Peltuinatium Peltuinum balineum refectum none ILS 5668/9

dec. deer. pecun.
public. partis
Peltuinatium

118 not specified Aquilonia balneum ... ex none CIL 9.6261

d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum)
p(ecunia) p(ublica)
restitutum

119 v[ik(ani)] Tasgaetium, balneum vetustat[e] none CIL 13.5257

Tasg[aet(ii)] Germ. Sup. consumt(um) a solo
resti[t]uer[unt]
-­---···-··-· -·····-­ - ­···----·­ ... ···----­ - - - · - - ­ -------····­ ---------~- ~ -
120t not specified Pompeii Ilvir(i) ... labrum 3-4 ILS 5726
ex d( ecreto)
d(ecurionum) ex
p(ecunia) p(ublica)
f(aciundum)
c(urarunt)
 Table 5 335

121t not specified Interamnia {octoviri} . . . 1st cent. (?) ILS 5666
Praetutti­ balneas refic(iendas)
orum d(e) c(onscriptorum)
s(ententia) c(urarunt)

122t res publica Fanum balneum ... quod 1st cent. (?) ILS 5679
res publica a novo
refecerat

123t [C]oloni[a] Augusta Hippo {thermas} restituit 198 AE 1958.

Hippo Regius Regius 141-142

124t not specified Cures Sabini deereto 2nd cent. (?) ILS 5670
centumvir[ urn
b]alneum refectum
cu[ra] .. Valeri
Cerialis llllvir.,
pe[c. pu]blica et ex
HS ternis milli[bus
q]uae contulerunt
sevirales ii quo[rum
no]mina infra scripta
sunt ...

125t not specified Thagora cella unctuaria, quae 290-294 ILS 5714
per seriem annorum (=ILAlg.
in usu non fuisset 1.1032)
restituta ... est

126t respubl(ica) Canosa balneum publicum . 3rd cent. AE 1987.307

.. vetustate
quassatum
respubl(ica), decur.
deer. atplicito omni
cultu restituit

127 res [p(ublica)] Caesena balneum Aurelianum 3rd cent. ILS 5687
... res [p.] refecit (cf. AE
1981.381)
--------- --~----

128t not specified Madauros [thermae] [ca]meris 355-363

ILAlg.
omnibus et soliis e[t 1.2100
--] melioribus
omam[entis --] ...
sumtu publico ...
r .
mstant1a?....
Ma]rciani ... cur.
re(i] p. perfectae
sunt
 TableS 336

129t not specified Madauros therm]as aestivas, 364 ILAlg.

olim splen[did­ 1.2101
(issimae) or
(issimum)] coloni[ae
nostrae? om]a[men­
tum? sed? tot re]tro
annis ruinarum labe
deformes pa[riet­
ibusque omni?]um
soliorum ita
corruptis ut gravibus
damnis adficerent,
(nun?]c omni
idonitate constructas
et cultu splendido
decoratas, sed et
patinas ampliato
aeris pondere omni
idonitate firmissas ..
. Pontilius Paulinus,
ff(lamen) pp,
p(atronus c(oloniae),
pecunia publica
perfecit

B. MAGISTRATES & OFFICIALS

No. Builder Place Work done Date Reference

130t [P.] Cornelius Centuripae, pro honore Ilvira[tus none ILS 5663
Gramme[--]lipax et Sicily s]phaeristerium
P. Cornelius Long( fecerunt
.... ], pater et
f(ilius)

131t (--] Sermus, Philippi [per] Oppium none ILS 5710

Turpilius Vetidius, Frontonem patrem
llviri quinqu(enn­ [thermas? refec.]
ales) adiecta cella
natatori [a --]

132 P. Annius V[ol --], Pa(gus --], suo et P. Anni (-- fil. none CIL 12.1708
praef. Pa(gi --] (modemLe n]omine marm­
Pegue) [oribus? ex]cultum
ba[lneum]

133 Ti. Claudius Aventicum sphaeristerium d(e) none AE 1946.239

Matemus, aedilis s(ua) d(edit)
 TableS 337

134 M. Pompeius, C. Vesunna templum deae none ILS 4638

Pomp( eius) Sancti, Petrucor­ Tutelae et therma[ s]
sacerdot(es) iorum public(as) utraq(ue)
Arensis, Quir(inius) ol[im] vetustate
Libo, sacerdos collab[sa] sua
pecunia rest(ituerunt)
v.s.l.m.
135t L. Patricius Vertillum, cellam vestibulam e
none CIL 13.5661
Martialis et L. Germ. Sup. regione columnae

Partric(ius) Marcus cum suis omnib(us)

Ling(ones) fratr(es) commod(is) d(e)

omnib(us) offic(iis) s(ua) p(ecunia)

civilib(us) in civitate Vikan(is)

sua functi Vertillensib(us)

largiti sunt

136t [ ........ ]oratus Lanuvium apodyterium [ope]re

none ILS 5707
et [ ...... ] tectorio, quod

Pr[imi]genius, ob vetustate

[honore]m de[ficie]bat,

sexvir[a]tus refecerunt, [it]em

piscinam ab no[v]o

fecerunt, labrum

[ae]numcum

salientibus [r]ostris

navalibus tr[ibu]s

posuerunt

137t M. Valerius, Lanuvium fistulas reposuit,

none ILS 5683
aed(ilis), dict(ator) balnea virilia utraque

et muliebre de sua

pecunia refecit

138t P. Cornelius Attax Lepcis cur( atores)

none IRT 263
Marcianus, L. Magna refectionis
(=AE 1925.
Appius Amicus thermarum ter[ --]
105)
Rufinianus, deo Aesculapio

cur(atores) v(otum) s(olvent)

refectionis
-~--·-··---------- ---·----­ ~-- ------- ---
 Table 5 338

139t [- -] Nl YEP Birbeh,

{mE:p TWV Flavian IGR 1.1162

Egypt
EvEpyws- K[cna.­
oKEva.o~Evwv?J E:v
~ f\Ol ~' A.ovTt1p­
wv [. 'A te"Lvwv?]
KQl TOU TIEptA.nn­
O~E[VOV XPOVOV]
TOU QVTOU ETO'VS
wv at..A.wv
[8Et1on] OTVA.(wv)
~ · civa n68Es "·
KQl ..... .

140t *Junia Rustica, Cartima, porticus ad balineum Flavian (?) /LS 5512
sacerdos perpetua, Baetica solo suo cum piscina
etprimain et signo Cupidinis ..
municipio . p(ecunia) s(ua)
Cartimitan[o} d(edit)

141 t P. Paquius Copia Thurii inscription on 1st cent. AE 1976.175

Priamus, Q. Annius labrum
Pom[.}n[--]
Illlvir(i)

142t T. Varius Rufinus Fanum balneum . . . 1st cent. (?) ILS 5679
Geganius Facundus incendio ex maxima
Vibius Marcellinus, parte consumptum
equo publ., operibus ampliatis
quinquennalic. pee. sua restituit

143t C. Sappius Flavus, Vasio testamento reliquit late 1stlearly C/L 12.1357
praefect. idem HS (50,()(}0) 2nd cent.
Iuliensium, tribun. ad porticum ante
militum thermas marmoribus
omandum legavit

144t L. Annaeus Abuzza paganicu(m) et Antoninus CIL 8.16368

Hermes, flam(en) et portic(um) et Pius
trib(unus) caldar(ium) et
c(o)horte(m) cum
omnibus omamentis
a solo s(ua)
p(ecunia) fec(it)
 Table 5 339

145t *C. Valerius Nov aria (balneum quod vi} Antoninus CIL 5.6513
Claudius Pansa, consumptum fuerat Pius(?)
flamen divorum arnpliatis solo [et
Vespasiani, Traiani operibus intra
Hadrian(i), proc. bie}nnium pecunia
Aug. provinc. sua restituit et
Britanniae et dedicavit, (in quod
Albucia Candida, opus legata] quoque
uxor rei p. testamento
Albuciae Candidae
[uxoris suae HS
(200, {XX))]

146t [ .. ] Dastidius Lanuvium Celer, pro honore Antonine (?) ILS 6198
Celer, C. Dastidius ae[d.] ... Apollon­
Apollonaris pater aris, pro honor[e]
flamoni HS XV in
refectionem balinei
intulerunt

147t P. Lucilius Gamala, Ostia thermas quas divus M. Aurelius CIL 14.376
aed., decurio, II vir Pius aedif(i)caverat
vi ignis consumptas
refecit porticum
reparavit

148t M. Aurelius Anagnia {Euhodi} ...erga late 2nd cent. ILS 1909
Sabinianus amorem patriae et
Euhodius, Augg. civium, quod
lib., patronus thermas longa
civitatis, decurialis incuria neglectas sua
decuriae lictoriae pecunia restituerit
popularis denuntiat­
orum, decemviralis

149 Tt. ¢;\(QO'UlO~) Ephesos Kat Epyov 2nd cent. IK 13.672 (=

..6.a1-.nav6~, {moax61.1.Evov E:v 17,1.3080)
ypa.l-.l.lla.TEV~ T(JJ atJT WEV l(X'U T W
ol.~ov E.~ TW •
'
CJUa.pLq.> ~a;\avdq.>
1-l(EJTa otKooo1-1f1~
Kat TT(XVTO~
KOOI.l.O'U ...
 Table 5 340

150t L. Ju[lius) Aquae Neri, [diribitoria, 2nd cent. (?) CIL 13.
Equester, II vir, Aquitania t]abemas, porticus, 1376n
flam. Rom. et quibus fontes Nerii
Aug., et Lucii Julii et thermae p[ublicae?
Equestris filii cinguntur, cu]m
Cimber et Equester, omnibus suis
flamin[es Rom. et omamentis ob
Aug. hono[r(em)J
flam[o]ni
c(onsummaverunt]

151 t [--] Rusonianus, Lepcis cellam flrigi]darii et [ 198/199 or IRT396

fl[amen], augur, Magna ...c]ry[ptam?] . . . 202 +
llvir qq [e]x pollicitatione
m[un]eris gladiato[rii
o]b honorem
[quinquennalita]tis .
. . a fundamentis ..
. marmoribus et
co[l}umnis exomavit
stat[u]am Aesculapii
novam [... res]tituit
ceter[as] refe[cit]

152t M. • Iou/1. ws­ Prusias-ad­ 86vTa. Ka.1 imE:p 198-211 IK 27.20

ra.ouE£ vws-, Hypium to£a.s ciyopa.- (=IGR 3.66)
apxwv, voll£a.s- cipy-Qpwv
ciyopcX.voi-LOS' ds- civa.~ fi\jltv TOU
.601-Ll T ElOU
~a.il.a.vEiou

153t M. Sattonius Coriovallum, bali(neo] restitut(o) c. 200 (?) AE 1959.9

Iu[cun]dus, Germ. Inf. v(otum) s(olvit)
dec(urio) c(oloniae) l(ibens) m(erito)
U(lpiae) T(rajanae)

154t M. Sentius Interamna opera thermarum 2nd/3rd cent. ILS 5698

Crispinus, Lirenas estivalium vetustate (?)
decurialib(us) corrupta s(ua)
omnibus p(ecunia) restituit
honer(ibus) functus exomavitque,
porticos etiam
circumcingentes
colimbum a solo
constituit
 TableS 341

155t T. Sennius Viducasses, [baln]eum quod ... c.220+ CIL 13.3162

Sollemnis, Ilvir, Gallia Lugd. .. u(s]ibus 1.10-12
[o]mnib(us) colonia(e suae]
honorib(us) (et] pr[ofut]urum s[ ...
munerib(us) . ?put ]ribus
[functus] funda[me]ntis
in[stauratis
reli]querat

156t Tib. Cl.

Viminacium, baln(eum) refecit et 244-249 CIL 3.8113
Marcelli nus,
Moesia Sup. paravit
e(ques) R(omanus),

dec(uri arum)

Illl(vir?)

157t pleriq(ue)
Thubursicum ad cuius operis 260/262 AE 1913.180
decuriones
Bure Musaeum pleriq. (= ILAfr.
decuriones HS 506)
(41,200) conl[atis
--1
158t Plautius Lupus,
Lepcis cellam thermar(um) 3rd cent. IRT 601
II vir
Magna marmorib(us)
Numidicis et opere
musaeo exornavit
' ' " ' ' " ' " ' " ' f f ' ' " " ·-~----""" ·- " '

159t Q. Vetulenius Turca, Africa apodyterium novum late 3rd ILS 5713
Urban us ... a solo cons­ cent., or
Herennianus, tructum et scalas probably
fl(amen) (n)ova[s], cetera later
p(er)p(etuus), restaurata adq(ue)
curator r. p .... statuis marmoribus,
cum Magnilio filio tabulis pictis,
suo, florentissimo columnis [al]v[ib]us
adq(ue) prudent­ cellarum cathe­
issimo adulescenti) drebus ornata
sumptu proprio ...
perfecit

160t C. Aurelius [--]sinsen­ cum porticus [ .. ] 340/350 ILTun. 622,

Stat(ianus], cur. sium turpia foedabantur ad cf. AE
r(ei) p(ublicae), una (modern statum i[--pisc]inalis 1934.133
cum omn[ibus Henchir ad restaurationem d[­
decurionibus] Haouli), near -]s, colitumque
Furnos nitent, so liare( m
Maius cellam --]oleum a
fundamentis perc[-­
]proneum aquiducti a
fu(ndamentis --,
]ium solium vero
.mst [auravit.
. ?] . . .
perfecit et [dedicavit]
 Table 5 342

161t Sex. Cluvius Ocriculum volumptatem (sic) 341 ILS 5696 cf.
Martinus et M. thermarum ILS 5697
Caesolius hiemalium ... de
Satuminus, sua pecunia ordini
omnibus honoribus seu civibus
functi Ocricolanis ad
meliorem
pulcritudinem pro
civica adfectione
cum augmento operi
novi exercientes (or
excientes)
adsilg]naverunt et
dedicaverunt
162t Q. Basilius Calama piscinam ... 364 ILS 5730
Flaccianus, [restituit] et
fl(amen) excepto[rio -­
p(er)p(etuus), augur exst]ructo
et cur. [rei pub.]
163t incertus, cur. rei Madauros piscinalem istam 366-367 /LA/ g.
publicae cum ordine [--] et soliarem 1.2102
splendido et cellam, lacunis
universo popul[o densis ita foed[atas
ut ima pavi]menti
monstrarent, atque
ita retentione[m
caloris prohi]berent .
. . exquisitis divers­
orum co[lorum
marmoribus],
artificibus quoque
peregrinis adductis et
[adhibitis? splen]­
dentes novoque
omnino opere
tes(s)ellatas ... [ -­
] cur. rei publicae ..
. cumordine
splendido et
universo popul(o
restituit et dedicavit]
 Table 5 343

164t l -- ]dius Dougga atrium thermar[ urn 367-383 ILTun.

Honorati(a)nus, Lic]inianarum ab 1500, cf. AE
fl(amen) antiquis [coe]ptum, 1925.31
p(erpetuus), cur. exceptoriis in eodem
r(ei) p(ublicae) loco su[biectis, quod
inperfecto opere
adque ruderibus
foedatum [erat] ,...
cccratu (sic) opere
perfecit itemq[ ue
dedica]vit

165t Flavianus Leontius, Abbir Maius, oceanum a 368-370 AE 1975.873

principalis, curator Africa fundamentis
r. p. coeptum et soliarem
ruina conlapsum, ad
perfectionem
cultumque perductos
ingressus novos
signis adpositis,
decoravit ...
ordinis
splendidissimi
conlatione, cum
amore populi
incoav[i]t, perfecit
dedicavit

166t incertus, mag(ister) Segusio, Thermas Gratianas 375-378 ILS 5701

or mag(istratus) Alpes Cottiae dudum coeptas et
omissas ... extruxit
omavit et usui
Segusinae reddidit
civit[atis]

167t incertus, cur. r(ei) Hr. Bu Auga balneae quae i[-] 375-378 CIL 8.16400
p(ublicae) (ancient redintegrat(a)e sunt.
name not .. cur r. p. opus et
known) sollicitudine et
sumtibus adi(uvit --1

168t C. Volusius Victor, Ocriculum t<h>ermas late 4th cent. CIL 11.4094
qu<a>estor r. p. <h>iemalis ad (?)
pristinam
dig(nitatem)
restauravit
 Table 5 344

169t C. Paccius Felix,

Casinum {C. Pacci Felici} 4th cent. (?) C!L 10.5200
omnib(us)
cuius ...
honorib(us) et
inpendiisque ..
honeribus
propriis post seriem
pe[r]functus,
annorum therm(a)e
patron(us) Coloniae
Noviani nobis in usu
Casin., cur. r(rei)
sunt restitutae
p(ublicae)

170t L. Altius Fannius

Trebula thermas aetiam 4th cent. or CIL10.4559
So[ .... ],
Constantianas later(?)
quaest., curator
[l]on[g]a vetustate
frumento,
corrupta ex virib(us)
d(u)umvir omnib.
suo ... re(stituit)
honerib. et honorib.

functus, curator [rei

publicae?]

171 Cl. S[isen]a Madauros cel[la]m balnearum, 407-408 ILAlg

Germanianus, cur. lon[ga] serie 1.2108
r. p. temporum ruina
desolatam
usib(usque)
lavacrorum
den(e)gatam sumptu
prop[rio] {restituit}
et camoeram cum
suspenuris
constructam . . .
ded[icavit]

172t M. Sentius lnteramna termas extivas in 408 C/L10.5349

Redemptus, v. l., Lirenas sordentibus ac ruina
omnibus honoribus conlabsas ex
et honeribus curiae prop[rio] ad
suae perfunctus, ex summam manum
origine patronatus revocavit
veniens

173t M. Aurelius Membressa statuas et omatum 412-414 ILS 5731

Restitutus, cur. r(ei) piscinales conlocavit
p(ublicae), cum
splendido ordine
suo
 Table 5 345

C. PATRON! CNJTATISt

No. Builder Place Work done Date Reference

174t incertus, patronus Pitinum pavimentum tepidari none ILS 5711

municipi Pisaurense s. p. refecit; ...
idem balneum
suspendit, tubu[los]
... [la]cus
piscinamque fecit [-­
]m vetustate
corrup[tum ... ] sua
pecunia refecit
- '­

175t incertus, patronus Ligures patrono qui post-62 (?) CIL 9.1466
Baebiani [con]lapsum terr[ae]
mo[tu] balineum
ref[ici] curavit ac sua
[pe]cunia fecit.

176t L. Octavius Vreu, Africa thermas [et aquam or mid-late 3rd AE 1975.880
Aur[elianus?] formam corrup]tam cent.
Didasius, post diluviem [--] ..
c(larissimus) v(ir), . propria liberalitate
pa[tr]onus [ex ]o[mavit],
excoluit, perfecit,
dedi[c}avit

NOTES

A. LOCAL AUTHORITIES & COUNCILS

115, For similar benefactions, cf nos, 26 and 39 (fable 2), The full text is: ex avio loco et rupe I iam minanti
staltua<> n, IIII marmoreas 1at cultum et splendollrem apodyteri therlmarum res. p. I Thib. Bure transtulit,
I provisione instantila Aureli Honorat. II Quietani eq, R., cur. rei p.
120. Dated by the duoviri Cn. Melissaeus Aper and M. Staius Rufus, who held office in AD3/4, cf. CASTREN,
Ordo, pp. 190, no. 246.7 (Melissaeus) and 224, no. 388.4 (Staius). From the lip of the labrum in the
men's caldarium in Pompeii's Forum Baths. Because the the work was carried out at public expense, it
was clearly the responsibilty of the local council, seen to by the duoviri (compare, for instance, above,
no. 116 where the state carries out a restoration with quattuorvin· overseeing the work). For similar
labrum dedications, cf. below, nos. 141 and 187 (fable 6).
121. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 dates this to the 1st cent. AD ("presumably 1st cent. AD") without
elaboration. Although the octovin· (named as L. Agussius Mussus and C. Arrenus) see to the work, it is
the state which carries it out, following a decree of the conscripti. For octoviri, cf. H. RUDOLPH,
Stadt und Staat im Romischen Italien (Berlin: Dieterich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1935), pp. 66-87; E,
MANNI, Per Ia storia dei municipiifino alia gue"a sociale (Rome: A. Signorelli, 1947), pp. 141-148.
122. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 includes this among the 1st-century AD material with no comment. Cf.
nos. 88 (fable 4) and 142 (fable 5).
 Table 5 346

123. A text found in the baths in Hippo Regius, so the absence of the word thermae is not surprising. The
editors of AE link the two entries which provides a date for the restoration of 198 (there is a dedication to
Septimius Severns and mention in 1958.142 of the proconsul L. Cossonius Eggius Maru!lus, cos. AD
184, cf. PJR2 E 10).
124. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 dates this to the 2nd century (without explanation). Here a local council
undertakes a bath restoration at public expense and is assisted by contributions from the sevirs of the
town. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., p. 152 (cf. no. 478, p. 161) suggests this may be a summa honoraria,
because each sevir gives HS3,000.
125. The text is dated by mention of the proconsul Ti. Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus (cf. PJR2 C 806).
126. The date is that assigned by the editors of AE. These baths had been repaired previously by one Caesidius
Proculus (cf. no. 195 [Table 6]) and then, weakened by old age, were repaired again by the state. The
term vetustate quassatum is an interesting variation on the standard vetustate corruptumlconlapsum!del­
apsum.
128. Dated by mention of Julian in the opening lines. A fragmentary inscription in 4 parts from the large baths
at Madauros recording what seems to be their adornment and restoration (as suggested by their now
having "better decoration", melioribus ornamfentis]). The key phrase is sumtu publico, which reveals
that the work was that of the local authorities The precise role of the curator rei publicae in the work
remains uncertain; he may have approved the work.
129. Dated by mention of P. Ampelius as procos (cf. PLRE 1 Ampelius 3 [p. 56]). Here, although a local
official is said to carry out the work, it was funded pecunia publica, and so the responsibility of the local
authorities. The official is probably given prominence to highlight the last three lines of the text
(mostly lost) which may have recorded additional work he had carried out at his own expense; they read:
porticurn quo[q]ue ingredientibus ab atri[o], sed et pronaum II eidem coh(a)erentem commeantibus per
viarn trabibus ...... ceterisque I (-- Pont]ilius Pauli(lnus --] ordine. In the text cited in the table, note
the detail with which the work is described, cf. below, n. 159.

* * *
B. MAGISTRATES & OFFICIALS
130. DESSAU comments that the opening line of the text may have contained an emperor's name, no longer
recoverable. These men are said to carry out the work "in return for the honour of the duovirate", cf.
below no. 146. This is an ob honorem benefaction.
131. It is not clear what the role of Oppius Fronto is here, though the phrase translates "[through] Oppius
Fronto, their father, (the baths were rebuilt] with a natatio-room added". The question is, what does
"through their father" mean? Did Fronto put up the money for the work? As the last part of the text is
missing, we may never know. However, mention of a cella natatoria clearly signifies a bath
benefaction; the adiecta records at least an extension, probably carried out in association with a
restoration.
135. Although the omnibus honoribus functus title does not appear before AD 120 in Spain (CURCHIN,
Magistrates, p. 39) the situation in Germany is not so clear. In any case, assignation of a more precise
date after AD 120 is not possible.
136. The nature of the work here is interesting: the old stucco-work in the apodyterium (opus tectorium) is
repaired, a piscina added and a bronze labrum (usually located in the caldarium, cf. NIELSEN, Therm.,
1.158, s.v."labrum ") supplied with water from three spouts in the shape of ships' beaks.
137. Cf. note to no. 266 (Table 7).
138. The terf-1 most probably refers to "the third set of baths", as the editors of IRI suggest, rather than to the
curatores refectionis or the number of restorations. To my knowledge, curator refectionis has no parallel
among local magistracies, although CJL 2.4160 mentions a curator Balnei Novi. On curators in general,
cf. RE 4.1774-1813, s.v. [Komemann].
139. The date is provided by fragmentary mention of Vespasian or Titus in the opening line. It is clear that,
although Niger's offices are missing from the text, he was a local magistrate: there is mention of work
completed within a certain number of months "of the same year" (TOU CX."\JTOU ETO"\JS'), i.e. the year
he held office (compare below, no. 149). Niger's benefactions included setting up stone(?) bathtubs and
two pillars 50ft in height.
140. This woman also benefited the city in other ways: she restored the public porticoes, gave ground for baths
and gave them free (vectigalia publica vindicavit), gave a meal and spectacles and, as a final touch, paid
 Table 5 347

for the statues of herself, her son and husband voted by the local counciL Evidently a woman in
possession of considerable financial power who was not afraid to wield it in the public good, a
phenomenon found in the Roman Empire, cf. R. MacMULLEN, "Woman in Public in the Roman
Empire", Historia 29 (1980), 208-218.
141. An inscription on the rim of a labrum (cf. nos. 120 (Table 5) and 187 (Table 6)). The text is fragmentary
and records only the names of the magistrates so it is not clear if the work was carried out by the
quattuon'iri themselves or by the local council with the magistrates acting as agents (as is the case with
no. 120 above).
142. Cf. nos. 88 (Table 4) and 122 (Table 5).
143. This man had a predominantly military career, though as praeject(us) Juliensium (the place called itself
Respublica Juliensium) he had also held local office. His military postings, as listed in the text were:
tribun(us) I militum Leg. XXI Rapacis, praej(ectus) I alae Thracum Herculaniae, praej(ectus) I ripae
jluminis Euphratis. The date here is established by mention of Sappius's posting to Legio XXI Rapax
which was probably destroyed fighting the Sarmatians in AD 92, or perhaps a little later (cf. RE
12.1781-1791, s.v. "l..egio (XXI Rapax)" [Ritterling]).
144. An interesting text if for no other reason than it gives the names of various parts of the baths (cf. Appendix
5 for a list of bath-parts mentioned in inscriptions). A paganicum would appear to be an area or room
for playing the ball-game pila paganica, which involved a down-stuffed ball (cf. Martial7.32.7; CJL
8.16367; REBUFF AT in Thermes, pp. 33-34). Porticus and caldar(ium) require no elucidation. A
cohors was an enclosed area, like a palaestra. What specific function such an area would have, and bow
it differed from a palaestra if at all, is not clear.
145. An instructive text. Valerius Pan sa may have been procurator of Britain under Antoninus Pius (cf. S.
FRERE, Britannia [London; Routledge & Paul, 1987, 3rd ed.], p. 187). He is here clearly acting as a
local benefactor, his career being in the imperial rather than the municipal service. He rebuilds a bath
destroyed by fire (?). His wife then leaves money (HS200,000) to the state as a contribution towards the
costs of the work. However the text attribrutes the restoration and dedication to Valerius, so what was
Albucia's money for? The most probable explanation is that it was for decoration or finishing touches
(cf. nos. 92 [Table 4] and note where a benefactor builds and roofs a set of baths but a further HS252,000
is needed to complete the work; 181 [Table 6] where HS30,000 is left ad marmorandum balineum; and
188 [Table 6] where HS300,000 is left for the decoration of a set of baths at Comum). Cf. DUTHOY,
AncSoc ., (1984-1987), p. 151 no. 379.
146. The date is that assigned by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26. Here a father and son, in return for the honour
of the the flaminate and aedileship respectively, give HS 15,000 for the restoration of the baths, cf.
above, n. 130.
147. The Lucilii Gamalae played a leading role in Ostia's public life for six generations; all bear the praenomen
"Publius", cf. MEIGGS, Ostia, pp. 493-502. The Baths of Neptune (in all likelihood the baths in
question) feature repair work to the main rooms and the portico dated by brickstamps to the reign of M.
Aurelius, cf. ibid., p. 409.
148. This man was an imperial freedman who had been manumitted by emperors with the name "Aurelius", and
one in particular with the praenomen "Marcus". This probably indicates M. Aurelius and L. Verus (a
date also adopted by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 who dates it to "Late Antonine"); cf. also
DUTHOY, AncSoc ., (1984-1987), p. 139 no. 61, (cf. ibid., pp. 129-130, no. 30). Another statue-base
inscription from Anagnia (/LS 406) records that Marcia Aurelia, concubine of Commodus (PJR'l M 261)
gave sponulae to the decurions, seviri and people (as well as a meal) at the dedication of the restored
baths. In this text the verb is in the plural (restauraverunt), which leads DESSAU (JLS 406) to suggest
that Sabinianus's and Marcia's statues stood side-by-side, and that they both restored the baths. However,
in the main text cited above, Sabinianus alone is credited with the restoration. There may have been a
mistake by the inscriber, or, if not, perhaps Marcia was included in the restoration in her inscription to
flatter the Imperial house.
150. The date is by letterfonn and so not secure. This is a conflation of two texts of the inscription. Aquae
Neri, as the name suggests, had springs sacred to the god Nerius. However, the wording clearly
differentiates the springs from the public baths, if that is how thermae p[ . . . ] is to be restored. It
would seem, however, that as the springs and baths were surrounded by the the same porticoes, as the
sense of the inscription would seem to demand, these were separate parts of a single complex, a
phenomenon known from some thermal sites (cf. above, pp. 126-128).
151. This was found in the Jrigidarium of the Hadrianic Baths and is dated by the name and titles of Severus,
Julia Domna and Caracalla in lines 1-2. Note that Rusonianus had promised games for the
quinquennalate, but diverted the funds into the bath restoration instead. This is reported done [ex]
 Table 5 348

permissu sacratiss[imi pri]ncipis divi M. Antom'n[ij], i.e. Commodus. In that case, the work was
promised and cleared with the central administration some two years, maybe six years, before it was
begun. For a recent discussion ofthis text and its relationship to the physical remains, cf. G. di VITA­
EVRARD, "Lepcis Magna: contribution ala terminologie des thermes" in Thermes, pp. 35-42.
152. Cf. no. 102 (Table 4).
153. Dated by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.75, n. 7 to c. AD 200. Note here that a decurion of the nearby Colonia
Ulpia Trajana (Xanten) restores the baths at Coriovallum (Heerlen), suggesting that he had property in
the region of Coriovallum.
154. This inscription should be read in conjunction with item no. 172 below. The latter is a dated restoration of
the summer baths at this town by another member of the Sentii family. The present inscription, with
its terse and laconic wording, and spelling of thermae with a "h" rather than without one (as in no. 172),
is evidently earlier; I date it tentatively to the High Empire, though NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 opts
for a possible 4th-century date. Note that the Sentii remained responsible for these baths. Perhaps an
earlier Sentius had built them in the first place. A colimbwn appears to be another word for piscina
(from the Greek K0/\1J[.i~lS'), or swimming pool (cf. note to no. 97 (Table 4], s.v. "Gagae"), though
the etymology might demand the former was specifically intended for diving. Whether there was any
physical difference between a colimbum and a piscina (was the former deeper?) is not sure; NIELSEN,
op. cit., p. 155, s.v. "Kolymbetra" comments that word is "synonymous with piscina".
155. Sollemnis is said to be a cliens of Ti. Claudius Paulinus, leg. Aug. pr. praet. (cf. PJR2 C 955). The text
is derived from a fragmentary inscription in three parts, supplemented by several copies from
antiquarians. Here the baths were intended for the use of the people and were left to them by Sollemnis
after he had repaired rotten foundations. Apparently, the baths were Sollemnis's property which he
repaired and left to the local community.
156. Dated by mention of Marcia Octacilia Severa, wife of Philip the Arab (PJR2 M 266). Whatparavit denotes
here is unclear: perhaps Marcellinus had the baths heated or supplied with water in readiness for use;
alternatively, it he may have decorated the structure.
157. Cf. no. 51 (Table 3) for the ealier part of this inscription where the local authorities build the bath. The
addition of the Musaeum is here recorded as the work of several decurions, whose names probably
followed in the lost part of the text. There is no indication that this was a payment made ob honorem or
as a summa honoraria; in fact the odd total (HS41,200) would argue against this being the case.
158. The text was on a statue-base for Plautius and records his many benefactions and services for the city. The
benefaction in question is said to be in addition to games he gave promoverit in Jlviratus quoq. honorem,
and they appear to be a willing addition to these games: nee contentus his liberalitatibus (i.e. the games),
eel/am thermar. etc.
159. WILMANNS (C/L 8.828) attributes a 3rd century date to this text, but it is probably later. Two features
indicate this: 1). the detail with which the work is described, reminiscent of other Late Imperial texts
(e.g. nos 19 {Table 1], 72 {Table 3}, 129, 156, 159-161, 163-165 [Table 5]); and 2). the two benefactors
appear to stem from the local aristocracy, as they bear no senatorial or equestrian titles, and the father
participated in local public life as ajlamen perpetuus. This latter point is telling, as Vetulenius Urbanus
Herennianus is recorded as a curator rei publicae: if he was a curator r.p. of the High Empire, he should
have 'been a senator. Therefore, the text should probably he dated to the Later Empire when curatores
reipublicae were local magistrates and no longer appointed to cities by emperors, cf. G .P. BURTON,
"The Curator Rei Publicae: Towards a Reappraisal", Chiron 9 (1979), 465-488. (Herennianus finds no
mention in RE or PLRE).
160. The text is dated by mention of Flavius Dardanius as proconsul (cf. PLRE 1 Dardanius [p. 242]). Although
the text is very fragmentary, enough survives to make it clear that Aurelius Statianus and the local
decurions carried out restorations on and extensions to this bath: the portico seems to have been returned
to its previous condition; some restoration was carried out in the pisdna area; the soliaris cello was 'built
from foundations (?), as was the[-]pronewn of the aqueduct; and the soliwn in one of the rooms was
restored. This is another text that says the work was carried out by curator rei publicae una cwn
omn[i bus decurionibus], i.e. in conjunction with the decurions, as the last lines of the text implies. As
with other such cases, I take the curator to be the main agent of the work Cf. below, nos. 163, 173,
and above, note to no. 68 (Table 3).
161. Dated by the phrase: Marcelli! no et Probilno conlsulilbus. JLS 5697 reveals the two men were brothers.
162. Dated by mention of P. Ampelius as proconsul of Africa (cf. PLRE 2 P Ampelius [p. 56]). It is not made
explicit that this piscina was part of a bathhouse, but that is its most likely context. The water supply,
as well as the piscina, was improved, cf. also no. 235 (Table 7).
 Table5 349

163. Dated by mention of the legate Fabius Fabianus (PLRE I Fabianus 3 [p. 322]) and the proconsul Julius
Festus (Hymetius) (PLRE I Hymetius (p. 447]). Although the text is fragmentary, the work is clearly a
restoration.
164. From the baths at Dougga. The text says the atrium had been started sometime previously "by the
ancients" (atrium . .. ab antiquis coeptum ), but had been shabbily built (quod inperjecto opere
corruptum adque ruden·bus foedatum [erat} ). MERLIN says he cannot make sense of cccratu . It may
possibly be a corruption of acc(u)rato or some such expression evidently aimed at contrasting the high
quality of Honoratianus's work with the inperjectum opus of the anti qui. For exceptorium, cf. no. 235
(Table 7) and note.
165. Mention of Petronius Claudius as proconsul dates this inscription, cf. PLRE 1 Claudius 10 (p. 208). Here
the benefactor builds anew an oceanum (in all likelihood a piscina decorated with marine scenes, as the
editors of AE suggest), restores a cella soliaris, builds new entrances and decorates them with statuary.
Leontius was apparently from Carthage itself (rather than from Abbir Maius) as he stemmed from an
especially privileged class of decurions (the prindpales). The editors of AE propose that he may have
owned land in the territoriwn of Abbir Maius, thus explaining why he was curator there.
166. Cf. no. 69 (Table 3) and 237 (Table 7). The benefaction is partly a construction of the baths (or at least a
completion of them) and partly a decoration.
167. Although the main task of restoration is expressed in the passive, implying the local authorities were the
main agents (cf. nos. 50, 52 [Table 3)), the line between balneae q~UJe and redintegrat(a)e sunt, may have
contained the identity of the agent; as it is missing, certainty is not possible. Because the curator rei
publicae is said to have assisted the work with his money as well as his concern, I include the item here.
168. The date assigned is that given by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26, though it is not clear on what basis she
assigns it. The inscription was found in the baths in 1782 and decrees a statue in honour of Volusius.
169. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 tentatively assigns a 4th-century date to this text.
170. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.41, n. 26 dates it to 2nd half of 4th century, though why is not clear.
172. Dated by the phrase Basso et Filippo vvcc cons; cf. above, no. 154.
173. Dated by mention of the proconsul Q. Sentius Fabricius Julianus (cf. PLRE 2 Julianus 28 [pp. 641-642]).
This is another text which links the activities of the curator r. p. and the ordo of the community, cf.
above, note to no. 68 (Table 3).

* * *
C. PATRON! CIVITATIS
NOTE: See note to Table 3, Section C.

174. This patron had also built baths for the community (cf. no. 71 (Table 3}). Here he carries out extensive
restorations and extensions, either on this or another bath. The text is too fragmentary to be sure
whether or not two buildings are intended.
175. This is tentatively dated by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.40-41, n. 26 to after the earthquake of AD 62.
176. Though the text is fragmentary, it is clear that Didasius carried out extensive restoration work on the baths.
The inscription ends: benemerito civi et pa[tr}ono (splen)ldidissimus ord[o et] populus [mun(icipii) 1
V]ruensium statuam [posueru )nt.
 Table 6 350

TABLE 6: Inscriptions recording baths or parts of baths restored, extended or

adorned in Italy or the provinces by private benefactors

No. Builder Place Work done Date Reference

177t *Alfia Quart[a] Marruvium eadem lapide va[rio none ILS 5684
Marsorum ex ]ornavit, labrum
aen[um cum] foculo,
sedes pos[uit
p(ecunia) s(ua)

178t Frumentius Lambaesis balneum Terenti none AE 1920.33

Longianus Donati resitutu(m)
[pler i<n>stantia(m)
Frumenti Longiani

179 Frumenti us Tigava, respicis et reparas none ILS 5705

Mauretania dumis contecta
lavacra

180 *Satellia Anus[ ... Capua apodyterium ad none ILS 5708

.. ] novitatem re[stituit .
. l epistylis
ceterisque
marmoribus
o[rnavit]

181t Flavius Catullus Epamanduo­ Catullus ad none CIL 13.

durum, marmorandum 5416n
Germ. Sup. balineum testamento
legavit r(ei)
p(ublicae) (denarios)
(75.{)()0)

182t [Kpi)s?J Ephesos [Kpf)sJ Umx.Tos none SEG34

YEVOjJ.T)V (1984), 1115
[OlKOO]O!lWV, KO:t
TOtO [T6.5'
'Ep!l]LTT(TT)OW
t--OETpou, [EpKEt'
ci]oK-f)oo:s KE£oot
[t..]o:tVEotS, [ws
OcX]lJEOOV
f..ETTT~Wt [Kat
te]Ei:T)tat t..£eowt
 Table 6 351

183t *Dw/\1\cx /\CXIlTitCX lsthmos, Cos ~CXI\CXVEtltl ... Tf)V none BE 1967.439
'A¢po8d Tr)V EK
TWV t8i:wv
&.vE8T)KE
(/

184 6tObOTOS KTI\ Meiros, OOOt none BE 1972.461

Phrygia ETICXVyE[ tl\ ct!lEVOt
E:nEJ8wKcxv ts T[o
EV Ttp ~CX]I\CXVEtWt
&.no8[vn)pwv]

185 [--] Pacati f(ilius) Andemant­ cali[darium cum none CIL 13.5687
unnum, s]uis ornam[ entis --]
Germ. Sup. s(ua) p(ecunia)
p(erfecit)
----~
_ , _ _A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-- ----·--­ --------
186t M. Nigidius
Pompeii {foculum} }(ecunia) mid-1st CIL 10.818
Vaccula
s(ua) {fecit cent., before
54

187t Iu[ ... )hn

Sabratha v(oto) s(uscepto) late 1st/early AE 1980.900
[?]giaduris flil] ius
{labrum} f(ecit) 2nd century

188t C. Plinius Caecilius Comum adiecta pecunia in 100-109 ILS 2927

[Secundus, cos.] ornatum HS
(3()(),()()())
189t Fabius Altinum HS (1,600,000) post-100 NSc (1928),
[n{ummum) ded(it) 283
i]ta ut balinea ...
HS (800,()()())
n(ummum) refecta in
usu mu[nicip(um)]
or mu[nicip(ii)]
essent

190t incertus Tarraco

(insti]tuisti nymphas Hadrianic I CIL 2.6102
calidas 2nd cent.

191 t * [non/\ ws Ephesos

[E:K 8E)IlEI\twv Tov Hadrian IK 12.455
KVtvTtl\1\ tO$' 8CiKOV oU[v TOtS
oUctpLOS (?) OUV . . K]cn 'CXlJTOV
... yvvatd Kat EntKEq.LEVOtS'
o-Ucxptl\1\ 11'- ncxt8toK-riots Kcxl.
evy]cxTpt KOO!li)OCX$' TICX[VTl
KOOilWL ... E:K TWV
t5l.wv &.v€:6'f1KEV]
 Table 6 352

192t 'OTipcx.~6cxs Patara, Lycia o[ncx.]pEOXEV . . . 136

IGR 3.679
[cipyv]p iov
OT)VCX.plOlJ
~vpuiSa[s ..... J
E1s ... E~E.6pas
[TpE1sJ EV T0
~cx.>--CX.VElttJ

193t * 'Ic£owv, Cyana, Lycia Els TE

146 IGR 3.704.

no>--EiTT)S' r')~w[vJ, KCX.TCX.OK ElJTJ[ V]

IIA.l0-13

a.vi)p ci~t6>--oyos-, oToa.s npo ToD

... llETCt KCX.t TYJ$ K<X TCX. 0 KElJ cx.­

e[vJya.Tpos O~EVOlJ ~cx.>--CX.VEtOlJ

CCl!TOU AlJ[KtJas [npJos TlJ
[n]>--[cx.]TEi~
ST)v6.pta. ~vpw
(Eooocx.v}

194t M. Tullius Cicero Paestum balneas easdem vi late 2nd/early AE 1935.28

Venneianus ignis multifaria 3rd cent. (= JLPaest.
corruptas sua 101)
pecunia restituit

195t Caesidius Proculus Canosa balneum publicum a 2nd/3rd cent. AE 1987.307

Caesidio Proculo
refectum respubl. ..
. restituit

196t [--] Stulinus, Villa Magna [perfecto dedicato­ 2nd/3rd cent. CIL 8. 897
generosa familia que] ... solio uno
progenitus i<n>fimo ... per­
fecit, excoluit

Ephesos Kf.- t8EVTOS EV8cx.St 2nd cent. or IK 12.453

n vos llEPOlJS' later
xpvooD TTCX.pEOXE
n>--f)eos €s
KCX.WOVpytCX.V
 Table 6 353

198t *Aup( I)~ ted Julia Ka.TEOKEUa.OEV EK 230-231 AE 1974.618

At~C{a.) ¢Ol~T) Gordos, Asia <~>6.9(plwv TO (cf.BE
TTEplOTC{;)OV TOU
1971.601)
~a.~a.vdov ovv
TTCI'.VTL TQ KOO!l({?
CI'.UTOU EK TWV
t8(wv ovv Ka.t
TOtS Tp0¢EDotv
a.uT"f'\S

199t *Vibia Galla Alba Fucens baln[ea] de sua mid-3rd cent. AE 1962.30
pecunia ref. cur[avit] (cf. 1952.19)

200t M. Aur(elius) Narona thermas rei 280 ILS 5695

Valerius, v.p., p(ublicae) h[i]em­
ducen[ari]us, ex a[les rog]a[nte]
protectorrib(us) populo in ruinam
lateri[s] divini [de]lap[sas] M.
Aur.... [aedif­
i]cavit et lavantes rei
p. tradidit

201 t Q. Aemilius Grumentum balnea ex disciplin[a late 3rd cent. ILS 586
Victo[r] Saxonianus d. n. ] L. Domiti
Aur[eliani in]victi
Aug. po[st longam]
seriem ann[orum
restiltuit

202t Ma.Ka.pl.os Miletus Ma.Ka.p£os To 3rd cent. AE 1906.177

~ovTpov E.s
Cipxa.wv 9ETo
Ka.~~os
¢a.'VOTElVT)S

203t Nonius Marcell[us] Thubursicum [ther]mas et ce[tera 324 ILS 2943

Herculius Numidarum rui]na dilap[sa
aedificia] irestituit}

204t incertus Beneventum repar[atori] 4th/5th ILS 5511

thermarum century, or
Commodianarum later
 Table 6 354

205t L.toyEVY)S' Megara TTEVT-r)KOVTO:. OE 5th cent SIG3 909

KO:.t EKa.TOV
ETEPOUS'
txpvoi vovs- l
O"LOX"L~l01JS' TE K(X.t
8ta.KOOlOVS' TTOOO:.S'
~o:.p~ci.pov EtS' TT)v
ci.vo:.vEUJO"LV TOD
1-.0VTpdu (EOUJKEV}

206t *Maria Anthusa Cures Sabini baptisterium et Late Imperial ILS 5709
cella[m ... ] de sua
pecunia ma[nnoribus
exomavit'?]

NOTES

177. This woman had also built the baths (cf. no. 75 (Table 4)).
178/179. Are these Frumentii the same person? It is possible, as the name is rare one in Africa, cf. CJL
8.10483.1, 122644.109, 22655.2 (all inscribed objects), 23770, 26687 (tombstones) and 26620
(possibly the name of a mason). However, no dates are available for the stones, and Tigava and
Lambaesis are some distance apart and in different provinces.
181. This text is a conflation of two inscriptions commemorating the same benefaction. Here 75,000 denarii
(HS300,000) are left to the local communtiy for decorating the baths with marble, with the work
overseen by Catullus's son and heir, C. F[lavius G]allus; cf. above, note to no. 145 (Table 5)
182. An unusual inscription on a statue base. Who Kres was (or even if Kres was in fact his name) is not
known, but he seems to have been a chief builder, i.e. one of the foremen in charge of construction
work. This is suggested by some features of the text. The opening line is [ TlJS' TT08EV Et~· W
~El.vE, I[ I
Et E]'(pEct"L, OVK ETTtK€Uow· [f)~e]ov &.n• '!To:.~ lY)S', "If you were to ask, 0
stranger, who I am, where I came from, I would not hide (it): I came from Italy". The sentence, if it is
to be interpreted as more than mere epigrammatic cleverness, may show that Kres wished to hide his
Italian origin, or it may emphasize that he was not a Cretan (Kpr)S'). He may have been a Greek of
Italian origin. The end of the text contains the line [EOXOV] Ka.t TOO' C£yo:.:>-.~(a_), "I had this
statue" a statement of great pride understandable if Kres were not of the ruling classes, in which case a
statue would be a signal honour.
183. The base of a statue of Aphrodite. Here a woman sets up the statue in the baths and dedicates it to the
people of Isthmos.
186. From the braziers found in the Forum Baths and Stabian Baths in Pompeii. Vaccula appears to have died
about AD 54, cf. CJL 4.175; little is known about this member of the influential local family, cf.
CASTREN, Ordo, p. 195, no. 266.3.
187. Inscribed labrum (cf. nos. 120 and 141 (both in Table 5)). It is clear from the form of the names that the
benefactor was of local African origin.
188. Cf. nos. 90 (Table 4) and 256 (Table 7).
189. Part of the huge benefaction of Fabius to Altinum (cf. note to no. 87 (Table 4) for the full text). Here,
HS800,000 is given for the restoration of two baths previously built by men called Sergius and
Puti[nius]. For Fabius's other bath benefactions, cf. nos. 257 and 264 (Table 7).
190. It is not clear what nymphae calidM were, but they appear to have been part of a bathhouse, cf. no. 93
(Table 4).
191. An inscription from the Varius Baths; the benefactor is probably Varius himself (compare text of IK
12.429). Dated by a dedication to Hadrian. A 8CiKOS was a latrine and a TTO:.tO"LOKEtOV a brothel.
 Table 6 355

The IK commentary denies this latter possibility, but offers no alternative explanation for the word's
appearance. I see no real reason to doubt the existence of a brothel in a bath, especially given the
definition of a brothel-keeper in the Digest (3.2.4.2) includes any balneator who hires slaves to guard
clothing but also to practice prostitution. This is an informal form of the practice, and I do not see why
more official brothels cannot be seen as part of some bathing establishments, cf. pp. 297-299 on sex at
the baths.
192. For Opramoas's other bath benefactions, cf. nos. 96 and 97 (Table 4).
193. Here Jason adds a stoa (portico) to the baths he had previously built, cf. no. 94 (Table 4).
194. This is the son of the man who built the baths, cf. no. 66 (Table 3). Although his father had been a duovir
quinquennalis and patronus coloniae, there is no indication that his son held any posts or titles; as there
is mention of the work being seen to by two men described as contutores eius, it seems that Tullius
Cicero Venneianus was a minor.
195. This bath was repaired in the 3rd century by the local authorities at Canosa when it had been "weakened by
old age" (the unusual variation vetustate quassatum; cf. note to no. 126 [Table 51), so this earlier
restoration must be beforehand, perhaps the 2nd century.
196. The text is fragmentary and the precise nature and extent of all of Stulinus's work is not recoverable. It is
clear enough, however, that he was responsible at least for the completion of one of the soh'a (the
communal bathing pools), and perhaps for a completion and decoration of some other part of the
structure (or of the whole of it). Full text: [tempore (or iussu) fortissimorum] piisimor[u]mq. princip.
sub administratione proconsulis p(rovinciae) A(fricae) perfecto dedicatoque I[--] institutis nunc solio uno
i<n>fimo 1 [--] congestioni et [--1 parieti in I [--1 Stulinus generosa familia progenitus perfecit, excoluit
197. This is from the Varius Baths, also called the Scholastikia Baths due to this inscription. It clearly
commemorates a restoration: "When something leaned inside, she provided a mass of gold for
restoration".
198. This text comes from a small town called ' Yo OY)VWV K a TOl.K (a about 15 k.m North-East of Julia
Gordos, and belonging to the territorium of the city. The woman benefactor was of a high-ranking local
family: her father was EKaTOVTapxos and her mother a l!(hpwva OTOAcXTY).
199. The editors of AE suggest that this is the daughter of the emperor Trebonian (AD 251-253/4), cf. RE
2.8A2.1999, s.v. "Vibia" (no. 71) [Hanslik]. Compare the empress Faustina's bath benefaction at
Miletos, cf. no. 100 (Table 4).
200. Valerius was a native of this town in Dalmatia, and so is here acting as a local benefactor, cf. PLRE 1
Valerius 8 (p. 941); PJR2 A 1625.
201. What precisely is meant by balnea ex disciplina d(omini) n(ostri) Aureliani is not clear. Mommsen (CJL
10.222) suggested that it referred to a more severe mode of bathing introduced to the capital by the
emperor, on the basis ofHA Aur., 45.2 (where Aurelian has thennae hiemales built in the Transtiberina
"because there was a lack of cold water there", quod aquae frigidioris copia illic deesset). However, as the
meaning of thennae hiemales is not clear (what does the term actually denote?), Mommsen's proposition
is unproven. For a discussion of this HA passage and the question of thennae hiemales !aestivales in
general, cf. MERTEN, Bader, pp. 34-48, esp. pp. 39-42; cf. also NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.138-140.
202. The editors of AE report that the baths were restored by Eucharia, Makarios's wife, but the text is quite clear
that Makarios himself was responsible for the work.
203. This is the same Nonius Marcellus who wrote the dictionary. Apparently he stemmed from a noted
Thubursicum family, cf. RE 17.1.882-897, s.v. "Nonius (no. 38)" [Strzelecki]; PLRE 1 Marcellus 11
(p. 552). Although the word restituit or its synonym is missing, the surviving text makes it clear we
are dealing with a restoration.
204. Dated by NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.41, n. 26 to the 4th or 5th century. A long acephalous inscription recording
the deeds of a benefactor who is listed as restitutor or reparatorofa host of buildings: the forum,
basilica, porticoes, roads, collegia portico of Diana, basilica of Longinus, indeed totius prope civiltatis
[post h]ostile incendium, "indeed {restorer} of nearly the entire city after the enemy burnt it". This
statement might be hoped to place a firmer date on the text, but there is little solid information on
burnings of Beneventum in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, cf. PECS, s.v. "Beneventum", p. 149
[Salmon]; RE 3.273-275, s.v. "Beneventum" (no. 2) [Hiilsen] and Sl.248, s.v. [id.]. The city certainly
suffered devastation in the Gothic Wars of Justinian, between AD 536 and 547 (Procop., BelL Goth.,
7.15.11), but the current reference is probably to an earlier, otherwise unrecorded sack of the place (for a
6th-century benefactor at Beneventum to be restoring so many public buildings at a time when those at
Rome were in sharp decline would be remarkable to say the least).
 Table 6 356

205. The gift here is 2,150 gold pieces and two hundred feet of marble (how wide?). Nothing is known of
Diogenes.
206. Both Maria and Anthusa are Late Imperial Roman names, though they are known in Greek sources earlier.
The cella involved is possibly the cellafrigida, where baptisteria (pools) were to be found (cf. Pliny,
Ep., 5.6.25, 2.17.11; NIELSEN, Therm., 1.155, s.v. "baptisterium"). The restoration of the last line is
my own, but seems the most likely given what survives; compare, for instance, above, nos. 180 and
187.
 Table 7 357

TABLE 7: Inscriptions recording non-constructional bath benefactions but

including water-supply benefactions.

A FREE BATHING

No. Agent Place Work done Date Reference

207t M. Helvius Anthus, Lucurg­ per quadriduum ... none AE 1953.21

Lucurg(entinus), entum:, near mulieribus balineum
Illlllvir Aug. Seville gratis {dedit}

208 decuriones Buie, near colonis, incolis, none l/10.3.71 (=

Hi stria peregrinis, lavandis CJL 5.376)
(ancient gratis de pecunia
name not publica dederunt
known)

209t L. Octavius Rufus, Suasa lavationem gratuitam none ILS 5673

trib. mil., ... municipib(us),
duomvir quinq., incoleis, hospitib(us)
publ. patronus et adventorib(us)
uxsorib(us), serveis,
ancilleisque eor(um)
in perpetuom dedit

210t L. Urvineius Praeneste is testamento suo none ILS 6256

Philomusus, L(uci) lavationem populo
l(ibertus ), gratis per triennium.
mag(ister) coni. .. fieri iussit
Iibert.

211t *[Terentia No varia [lavationem) none CIL 5.6522

Postu)mina gratuitam in
[perpetuum) dedit

212t incertus Vercellae [lavationem none CIL 5.6668

gratuitam] in
perpetuu]m
municip[ibus,
incolis, hospitibus,
a]dventorib[us dedit]
-------­ - "'~------ ---­ -­_______ .
,
- ------------­ - --------------­ -----­
 Table 7 358

213t Q., C. Poppaeei, Interamna municipibus, Augustan or IURP617

patron(i) municipi et Praetuttiorum coloneis, incoleis, earlier(?)
coloniai hospitibus,
adventoribus,
lavationem in
perpetuom de sua
pecunia dant

214t C. Aurunceiu[s] Praeneste colonis, incolis, Augustan or ILS 5672

Cotta hospit[ibus], earlier(?)
adventoribus,
servisqu[e] eorum
lavationem ex sua
pecunia gratuitam in
perpetuom dedit

215t [ME]VEt..a.[o~ ], Ankyra f) ~OVA 'f) KO.lO Augustan (?) IGR 4.555
OTE¢a.vT)­ 5-f)~o~ ...
¢6[p]o~,ypa.~~- ETt~ T)O[EV
a.TEV~,yv~va.o- ME]VEt..a.[ov] ...
(a.pxos TOV 5-f)~ov ...
t..ovoa.vTa. EK
t5(wv

216t decuriones Nemausus Festus ... decreto c. 14 ILS 2267 (=

decurion(um) accepit CIL
... balneum et sui 12.3179)
(sic) gratuitum in
perp(etuum)

217t M. Helvius Rufus Vallis balneum after 20 ILS 2637

Civica, prim. pil. Digentiae municipibus et
(near Tibur) incolis dedit

218t T. Aviasius Bononia in huius balinei 38-41 ILS 5674

Servandus lavation(em) HS
(400,000) ...
Servandus pater
testament(o) legavit,
ut ex reditu eius
summ(ae) in
perpetuum viri et
impuberes
utriusq(ue) sexsus
gratis laventur
 Table 7 359

219t incertus Urbs Salvia [balneum muli]~re [ mid 1st­ AE 1979.202

... ite]mque early 2nd
cent.
lav~[tionem ...
gratuitam in
per]petuum [de sua
pecunia? dedit]

220t TL. <P~a:outos- Thera TTpOS' aTTO~O:'UOtV 1491150 SJG3 852,

K~Et T009EVT)S' TTO~l TWV TE KO:t note 13
K~a:uota:VOS' TWV ETT"LOT)~-
OVVTWV ~ EVWV
5ta:¢u~aoowv

221t not specified Pagus balineo gratuito quod Antonine ILS 6988
Lucretius, in ablatum erat paganis
theAger [Pagi Lucreti], quod
Arelatensis usi fuerant amplius
annis XXXX

222t C. Auf(idius) Burgvillos d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) 2nd cent. (?) CIL 2.5354
Avitus, Ilvir {balin(eum)} dedit et
desig(natus) circens(ibus) [ded­
(icavit)]

223t *Caesia Sabina Veii matribus 3rd cent. (?) ILS 6583
c(larissimorurn)
vir(orum) et
sororib(us) et
filiab(us), et omnis
ordinis mulieribus
municipib(us)
epulum dedit
diebusq(ue) ludorum
et epuli viri sui
balneum cum oleo
gratuito dedit
----­ -------­ -- ----­
224t Cot ETTWE~ !\Ten Hypaipa, TO ~O:~O:VElOV 301 SEG30
TWV ouOTT)~chwv Lydia ~OVHV \lE~ETW (1980),
Twv €pton[w~Jwv TOlS' ETTlllE~ T)­ 1382.14-15
TE KO:t ~tvU¢WV} [Tms _... J Tovs
/
KO:TOl.KO'US'
 Table 7 360

B. WATER SUPPLY

No. Agent Place Work done Date Reference

225t *[--] Chrysanthus Narbo [balineum ... ] et none CIL 12.4388

[VI vir Aug ... {et} marmoribus
Clodia Agatha uxor exstructum et
ductu(m) [aquae ...
feceru]nt

226t P. Faianius Forum aquam suam in id none ILS 5767

P[le]beius, Ilvir Novum balneum ne carerent
commodo municipes
... dedit

227t L. Cluvienus Bergomum balneum et aquas none CIL 5.5136

Anicilo dedit
-------­ ---------•HH_,_____ . ----------·-- -·---------- ·-----­ ·-------­ ---·-·---­ · - ­
228t *Ti. Claudius Coela, idemque aquam in 55 ILS 5682,
Faustus Regi[n.] et 'Thrace eius balinei usus cf. IK 13.29
Claudia Nais Fausti perduxerunt et
consacrarunt

229t *C. Sempronius Aurgi thermas aqua Trajan (?) ILS 5688
Sempronianus, perducta ... pecunia
llvir, pontufex (sic) impensaque sua
perpet(uus), omni
Sempronia Fusca
Fibia Anicilla filia

230t L. Min[ icius Barcino balineum ... et c. 120 ILS 1029

Na]talis, cos .... du[ctum aquae]
et L. Minicius fecerunt
[Natalis Quadro)­
nius Verus, augur
trib. plebis desig.

231t C. Sennius Vicus balineum, campum, Hadrian/ ILS 5768

Sabinus, Albinnensis, porticus aquas Pius
praef(ectus) Gallia iusque earum
fabr(um) Narbonensis aquarum tubo
ducendarum, ita ut
recte perfluere
possint vicaris
Albinnensibus d(e)
s(uo) d( edit)

232t incertus Carthage [aquam magno u]sui Antoni nus ILS 345
futuram thermis Pius
[perduxit?]
 Table 7 361

233t L. Octavius Vreu, Africa thermas [et aquam or mid-late 3rd AE 1975.880
Aur[elianus?] formam corrup]tam cent.
Didasius, post diluviem ...
c(larissimus) v(ir), propria liberalitate
patronus {ex]or[navit],
excoluit, perfecit
dedi[c]avit
234t incertus Argos ~0:.;\0:.VEtO:. TpLO:. .. 3rd cent. (?) SEG28
. To [Civwe ?]E (1978), 396
UOWp KO:.TCX.yQ-
YOVTCX.

"-~ ---------- - "'- --------·- ----- ---------------­ . -----­

235t Q. Basilius Calama piscinam quae antea 364 ILS 5730

Flaccianus, tenuis aquae pi(g]ra
fl(amen) fluenta capiebat,
p(er)p(etuus), augur nunc ve[ro .......
et cur. [rei pub.] unda]rum
intonantium motibus
redundantem ...
{restituit] et
excepto[rio
exs]tructo adq(ue)
perfecto
236t incertus Municipium solium estibalium 364-375 CJL 8.948
Tubernum therm(arum) [--]is ut
puro fonte pulcrior
redderetur
237t incertus, mag(ister) Segusio, fistulas dedit, aquam 375-378 JLS 5701
or mag(istratus) Alpes Cottiae deduxit ne quid vel
utilitati vel us[ibus
deesset]
238t [F]lavius Felix Satafis, [aquae?]ductum 379-383 CJL 8.20266
Gentilis, v.p., Mauretania therma[rum nup]er
pr(a)es[es lignis putrib(us)
prov(inciae), constitutum at [nunc]
patr]onus mirabili opere
agpera[ (sic) -­
constru ]uctum
instituit, perfecit
dedicavitque
 Table 7 362

239t local authorities Thignica [aquae1ductos taetra 393 CIL 801412

(and Gemino?) ac deformi caligine (cfo 8015204)
mersos et nullo felici
aspect[u gaudentes -­
]. 0 0 et Fl. Po(?)
Gemino provisionis
[--] beneficio quae
usui (privato
ero]gabatur lavacris
praestitit sumtu
public[o restituit]

240t Furius Cl(audius) Tarentum Pentascinensibus 4th cent. (?) ILS 5100
Togius Quintil[l]us thermis, quae longo
temporis trac[tu]
interceptoaquae
meatu lavacris
fre[que]ntari
desierant, undis
largioribus
afluen[tem
ny]mphalem aquam
in meliores usus sua
[impensa] 0 0 0
induxit

C. OIL DISTRIBUTIONSt

No. Agent Place Work done Date ReTerence

241t *Caesia Sabina Veii balneum cum oleo none JLS 6583
gratuito dedit

242t IE~ TOS' 'Io'UA. LOS' Ilium (' Io'UA. wv) none IK 30121, cfo
¢(A.wv, YtJil vcw­ np0hov Twv 30123
1cx.pxos- cin 'CX.LWVOS' KCX.t
IJ.EXPL vUV IJ.OVOV
EA.cx.1,0IJ.ETpr)o-
CX.VTCX. TOUS' TE
~OUA.EVT0:.S' KCX.t
TTOA.El TCX.S' mXVTCX.S'
KCX.t ciA.[Et]\j!CX.VTCX.
EK A.ouTr)pwv
[TICX.V]DT)IJ.El
 Table 7 363

243t KotvTo~ Laodicea (XAEt"\jfcxvTcx TE E:v none IGR 4.860

TIOiJ.THDVlO~ TCXlS E1TLO~iJ.01S
[¢\cXKKO~], Y!f-LE.pcxt~ ncxp'
OTpcXTTJYO~, E:a.uToD KcxTa f-LT)vcx
d.yopcxvoiJ.O~ KCXl ...
ct\Et"\jfT)CXVTCX
no\ tv nat.-. tv ncxp'
E:cxuTo[DJ To'ls KCXT'
avopcx OpcXKTOt~
E:y \ouTTjpwv

244t [ME]VE\cx[o~ ], Ankyra a\£"\jfovTa. Tov Augustan (?) JGR 4.555

OTE¢cxvrr Ofjf-LOV EK
¢o[p]o~, YPCXI-ll-l­ \ouTTjpw[ V]
cxTEV~, Y1.Jf..LVCXO­
(cxpxo~

245t fa to~ 'lov\ to~ Pergamum (2:a.K Ep 6 WT ex} post-26 JGR 4.454
IcxKE.pows, d.\E£¢ovTcx E:y
lEpE-6~ Tt~EplOU AOUT~pWV o£'
K\CXUOlOU OAT)~ Y!f..LEPCX~ EK
NE.pwvo~, Twv to£wv
yuf-l vcxo£cxpxo~

246t L. Caecilius Cilo, Comum testamento suo HS pre-1 00 JLS 6728

llllvir a( edilicia) n(ummos) (40,(XJO)
p(otestate) municipibus
Comensibus legavit,
ex quorum reditu
quot annis per
Neptunalia oleum in
campo et in thermis
et balineis omnibus
quae sunt Comi
populo praeberetur
t( estamento) f(ieri)
i(ussit)

247t quinquennalis of the Lanuvium et die[bus natalibus] 136 ILS 7212.1 I.

collegium Dianae et Dianae et Antinoi 30-31
Antinoi oleum collegio in
balinio (sic) publico
po[nat antequam]
epulentur
 Table 7 364

248t 'A aKA. T)TilQOT)S, Dorylaeum, yu~vaaiapxos EK Hadrianic ('?) IGR 4.522
E:mcnciTT)S, Asia TWV t5f.wv
yu~ vaaf.apxos EAEV8Epwv Kat
5ov:>-.wv &.no
cipxo~EVi)S
i)~€pas €ws
V'UKTOS' 5paKTOlS
EK A.ovTt1pwv

249t ~lOvUOLOS, Ephesos TlJ TWV c. 140-150 IK 13.661

ypa~~aTEVS KaTaywyf.wv
i)~EPC& &.yopa{as
&.yo~EVI)S EA-awv
8EvTa 5paKTtp E:v
TE TOlS
yu~vaaf.ots Kat
EV TOtS
~a/\aVEtOLS' TOtS
oDotv E:v 'E<j)EO(tl
TiiiOLV

250t C. Aufidius Verus, Pisaurum plebs urbana ob early-mid CIL 11.6360

pont. q., Ilvir qq merit eius; ex aere 2nd cent.
conlato cuius
dicatione dedit
decurionibus singul.
HS (nummum) (40)
. . . adiecto pane et
vino et oleum in
balineis

251 t incertus Apulum [i]n balne[o] populo Antonine ('?) ILS 7145
pub lice oleum posuit

252t L. Caecilius Barcino do, lego, darique 161-9 ILS 6951

Optatus, c( enturio) . volo ... eadem die
. . missus honesta ex (denariis) (200)
missione, atlectus oleum in thermas
inter immunes, llvir public(as) populo
III praeberi

253t [P. Alfius Rome [divisionem] Severan CIL 6.1474

Max]imus oleariam pecun[ia
Numerius Av[itus], sua] instituere enisus
sevi]r eq(uitum) s(it)
R(omanorum),
allectus in[ter
tribunicios praetori]
 Table 7 365

D. FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF BATHS

No. Agent Place Work done nate Reference

254t L. Aemilius Murgi in (tute]lam Flavian (?) CIL 2.5489

Daphnus, sevir earundem thennarum
quam diu ipse
vixisset annuos
(denarios) (150)
pollicitus est

255t *Voconia A vita Tagilis, at quot opus late 1stl early AE 1979.352
Baetica tuendum usumq(ue) 2nd cent.
perpetuum
[t]hermarum
praebandum (sic)
r(ei) p(ublicae)
Tagilitanae
d(enariorum) duo
milia q(uingentos)
ded(it)

256t C. Plinius Caecilius Co mum ther[mas ex HS [ -- ] c.l00-109 ILS 2927

[Secundus, cos.] ... adiectis in
ornatum HS
(300,000) ... [ et
amp]lius in tutela[m]
HS (200,000)
t(estamento) f( ieri)
i(ussit)

257t Fabius Altinum HS (200,000) post-H)() NSc (1928),

n(ummum) (in 283
perp(etuam)] tutelam
eo[ru]mdem

258t Q. Avelius Corfmium reip(ublicae) 180 or later AE 1961.109

Serg(ius) Priscus Corfiniens(ium)
Severius Severns balineum Avelianum
Annavus Rufus, muliebre cum HS
flamen divi Aug., (30) m(ilia)
llllvir quinq., n(ummorum)
patronus municipi donavit.
 Table 7 366

E. MISCELLANEOUS

No. A~ent Place Work done Date Reference

E.l Ground givenfor baths

259t *Junia Rustica, Cartima, solum balinei dedit Flavian (?) ILS 5512
sacerdos perpetua, Baetica
et prima in
municipio
Cartimitan [o]

260t Q. Torius Culleo, Castulo solum ad balineum 1st/2nd cent. CIL 2.3270
proc(urator) aedificandum dedit
Aug(usti)
provinc(iae)
Baet(icae)

E.2 Baths bought (and made public property)

261t six Augustales Teanum s. c. Balneum 1st cent. (?) ILS 5677
Sidicinum Clodianum emptum
cum suis aedificis ex
pecunia Augustal.
HS (60,(XJO), (six
names)

E.3 Baths heated

262t T. Fl(avius?) Avitus Misenum hie idem ad lavacrurn none JLS 5689
Forensis, llvir iter. balnear(um)
q(uin)q(ennalis) publicar(um) ligni
omnib(us) duri vehes n. (400)
munerib(us) functus enthecae nomine in
perpetuum obtulit,
ita tamen ut
magistratuus
quodannis
successorib(us) suis
tradant
 Table 7 367

263t Kof.vTos Laodicea, ayopCX.VOflr10CX.VTcX none IGR 4.860

TIOf!TIWVlOS Asia TE TIOf...'\JTEf...WS KCX.t
[¢f...cXKKOS], EKCX.TEpous Tovs
OTpcXTT)YOS', 8Epf!ODS
ayopCX.VOf!OS TIEptTicXTO'\JS
Ka.-\JOCX.V[TCX.]

------- f­ --------------- -q-­ ~-- -­ --- ----- ---,-~~~----- 1---------­ ------~~- -------­

264t Fabius Altinum HS (400,000) post-100 NSc (1928),

n(ummum), ut ex 283
[eorum] reditu
cale[ fier]ent

265t *C. Sempronius Aurgi thermas aqua Trajan (?) /LS 5688
Sempronianus, perducta cum silvis
IIVir, pontufex (sic) agnuar. trecentarum
perpet(uus), pecuniaimpensaque
Sempronia Fusca sua omni d(ono)
Fibia Anicilla filia d(edit)

E4 Lead to baths

266t incertus Nemus ad balneum vetus in none ILS 5727

Dianae quattuor plumb(i)
pondo (8,662) et
Iabella IV idem
donus (sic) pro se et
suis

ADDENDUM

267t M. Valerius Municipium item populum 109 AE 1989.420

Proculinus, Ilvir Liberum universum in
Singiliense municipio habitan­
tern et incolas oleo et
balineo gratuito dato
pervocavit item quo
die ludos iu(v)enum
in theatro dedit
gymnasium et
balinea viris et
mulieribus gratuita
praestit
 Table 7 368

NOTES
A. FREE BATHING

207. The full text reads: M. Helvius Anthus Lucurg .• l IIIlllvir Aug., edito specltaculo per quadridulum ludorum
scaenilcorum et dato gymlnasio per eosdem I dies, item mulielribus balineum graltis (dedit). huic ordo
splenldidissimus Lucurgentinlorum petente populo ornalmenta decurionatus decrevit. Helvius Anthus ob
honorem I statuam tanti patris cum basi s(ua) p(ecunia) d(ono) d(edit). I p(opulos)q(ue) f(ecit). Compare
with no. 267 below.
209. This may be of late Republican or Augustan date (note the spelling of perpetuom and compare with nos.
213 and 214 below). However, the benefactor served as a tribune in Legio IIll Scythica, which was
raised under Augustus, so it is not likely to be much earlier than that (especially since his local
magistracies most probably came after his return from military service). Unfortunately, Rufus cannot be
dated precisely, and as Legio Till Scythica continued to exist into the 3rd and 4th centuries, no date can be
securely assigned to the text. For the legion's history, cf. RE 12.1556-1564, s.v. [Ritterling] (note that
Octavius Rufus is listed as a tribune of the legion, ibid. 1563, but no date can be provided for him).
210. Here a freedman, the magister of the collegium of the freedpeople, gives free baths to the people for three
years.
211. The text reports that Terentia also "gave the bath on (her) private ground" ([balneum s]olo privato ...
dedit), for a discussion of which, cf. Appendix 6, s.v., B.2.
212. Despite the fragmentary nature of the text, that it records a free bath benefaction seems clear enough from
the mention of different classes of people, compare the wording of nos. 207-209, 213, 214, 217 and 223
below.
213. If these two Poppaei are to be identified with the brothers C. Poppaeus Sabinus and Q. Poppaeus Secundus
who were consuls in AD 9 (pace T.P. WISEMAN, New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 BC- AD 14
[Oxford: Oxford University Pressm 1971), p. 254, nos. 340, 341; cf. CENERINL RSA 17-18 [1987­
1988], 206), then an Augustan date for the benefaction is to be preferred. The absence of any mention of
their consulships in the text would indicate a date before AD 9, but it is not clear how long beforehand.
If the identification is incorrect, then the text may date to the late Republic (note the archaic spelling of
perpetuom; DEGRASSI included it in his JURP).
214. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.132-133 dates this text to the early Imperial period, as does CENERINI, RSA 17-18
(1987-1988), 210-212 (she does not provide an exact date, but considers it under the rubric of early
imperial material, cf. ibid., 200). However, it may be of Republican date: note the spelling of
perpetuom (cf. no. 213); A.R. HANDS, Clulrities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1968), p. 207, D.75 dates it to the "late first century BC".
215. Possible mention of VE[Ol. Of.lO~Wf-1 LOl. ?] in the last line is probably a reference to Augustus and Livia
as LAFA YE suggests. Menelaos, a local magistrate, here provides bathing out of his own pocket. He
also gives oil to the people (cf. no. 244).
216. DESSAU reports that he cannot make sense of the ba/neum et sui phrase; it may beet balnei usum. The
beneficiary (Festus) could be a soldier discharged without dishonour after the mutinies of the Rhine and
Danube armies in AD 14, as he is described in the opening lines as Ti. Caesaris 1 divi Aug. j Augusti 1
miles missicius. The decurions had voted him several honours: 50 modii of wheat (per year?), free baths
forever, and a plot of land.
217. This appears to be the Helvius Rufus who won the corona civica inN. Africa against Tacfarinas in AD 20
(Tac. Ann., 3.21). If so, he seems to have adopted the title "Civica" as his signum, cf. PJR2 H 75. For
a discussion of the meaning of balneum dare here, cf. Appendix 6, s.v. B.4.
218. Dated by mention of Augustus Germanicus (Gaius or Nero) as reigning emperor, who had repaired the bath
previously built by Augustus for the Bononians, cf. nos. 1 and 2 (Table 1). Here a fund ofHS400,000
is set up, the interest from which is to pay for the free entry into these baths of the town's men and
impuberes of both sexes. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., nos. 647 and 1308 calculates the interest at
HS20,000 per annum at a rate of 5% (cf. ibid., pp. 132-138 (cf. pp. 116-117, n. 258] for interest rates).
219. Although the text is very fragmentary, enough survives to show that the unnamed benefactor did something
for the women's baths (built? restored?), and then provided free baths in perpetuum. Cf. nos. 207 and
223 where free baths are provided for women only (though not specifically in a balneum muliebre).
220. Athough the word for "free" is missing here, it seems clear enough that Kleitosthenes was preserving the
right of citizens of Thera and resident foreigners to free bathing.
 Table 7 369

221. This is an interesting inscription. It records the efforts of one Q. Cor(nelius) Zosimus, a freedman of
Marcellus, who was sevir Augusta lis at the nearby colony of Are late, on behalf of the people of Pagus
Lucretius, a town in the territorium of the colony. It seems that Zosimus bad petitioned the emperor in
Rome and pestered the governors of the province (all at his own expense) to ensure that the pagani once
again enjoyed the privilege of free bathing, a privilege which had been cut off after standing for over 40
years. Several questions remain. Who had bestowed the benefaction in the first place? The involvement
of the imperial officials and petitions to the emperor may suggest a member of the central
administration, but this is far from certain. Where was the bathhouse? Was it in the Pagus Lucretius or
at Arelate? The full text reads: [p]agani Pagi Lucreti, qui sunt finilbus Arelatensium loco Gragario, Q.
Cor. I Marcelli lib. Zosimo, Illlllvir Aug. Col. Iul. I Paterna Arelate, ob honorem eius, qui notum (sic)
fecit II iniuriam nostram omnium saec[ulor]um sacraltissimo principi T. Aelio Antonino [Pio, ...)r
Romae I misit per multos annos ad praesides pr[ovinciae] perselcutus est iniuriam nostram suis
in[pendiis; e ]t ob hoc I donavit nobis inpendia quae fecit, ut omnium saeculllorum sacratissimi principis
Imp. Caes. Antonini Aug. Pii I beneficia durarent permanerentque quibus frueremur I [ .... ] et balineo
gratuito quod ablatum erat paganis I [Pagi Lucreti], quod usi fuerant amplius annis XXXX. Zosimus
appears to foreshadow the activities of the late Imperial defensor civitatis, officially established by
Valentinian, whose main duty was to protect the lower classes from oppression and maltreatment by the
rich, cf. A.H.M. JONES, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative
Survey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp. 144-145, 279-280, 403, 500, 726-727.
222. The inscription records that Avitus's father bad already built the baths for the town (cf. no. 63 [Table 3]), so
dedit cannot here mean "built"; cf. Appendix 6, s.v. B.5 for a discussion.
223. The date is that assigned without explanation by NIELSEN, Therm., 1.133. An instructive text. Here a
leading woman of the community gives a meal to all women of the municipium, and free baths and oil
on the days of games and a feast put on by her husband. It is not exactly clear if Caesia restricted the
free baths and oil to the same group as the meal had been (i.e. women of the town), but the sense would
seem to suggest that this was the case, especially since the dedication was made by Caesia's sorores
piissimae(presumably the beneficiaries).
224. This is part of a long inscription outlining the rules for an association ofwoolsellers and linenweavers as
laid down by an unnamed founder. The title as it appears in the "Agent" column is my reconstruction,
as drawn from the surviving text and the suggestions of Th. DREW -BEAR, • An Act of Foundation at
Hypaipa", Chiron 10 (1980), 509-536. The preceding lines all dealt with the management of property
given for the association's use. The editors of SEG translate the phrase cited in the table as: "Provide
for the functioning without charge of the public baths for the inhabitants". (Presumably the baths were
located either in Hypaipa or on the property mentioned in the text). However, this translation omits
mention of the men charged with seeing to the baths, the managers (ETTq..LEf-. T)Tal). The term
f-.OUElV TO ~at-.aVELOV means "to provide free baths", cf. DREW-BEAR, op. cit., p. 523 (esp. n.
70).

* * *
B. WATER SUPPLY
225. Cf. no. 56 (Table 3).
226. It seems Faianius had been concerned first and foremost with supplying the town with locus (public
troughs) and providing water to the piscina located in the Campus. Then, because the person who sold
the ground for the town's baths had made no provision for their water supply, Faianius gave water to the
baths as well, a situation that provides an instructive glimpse of the sort of sharp practice that could
accompany a bath transaction. The full text reads: P. Faianius P[le]beius Ilvir. iter. I aquam ex ag[ro]
suo in municipium I Forum Novum [pe]cunia sua adduxit I et lacus om[ne]s [f]ecit et in piscinam II quae
in Campo est saliendam I curavit idemque probavit; I et cum venditor soli, in quo balneum est, I parum
cavisset emptori de aqua I ut posset in balneo fluere, II aquam suam in id balneum ne carerent I commodo
municipes I P. Faianius Plebeius dedit.
227. Cf. no. 82 (Table 4).
228. These two benefactors had built this balneum, cf. no. 86 (Table 4), so the provision of a water supply,
essential for the functioning of the facility, can be viewed as part of that benefaction. This is the case
with many water-supply benefactions.
 Table 7 370

229. Here water is supplied for the baths, probably by constructing an aqueduct. Cf. nos. 60 (fable 3) and
below 265 for the other part of this benefaction.
230. Cf. no. 91 (fable 4).
231. Cf. no. 21 (fable 2).
232. Dated by titles of Antoninus Pius and M. Aelius Aurelius Verus Caesar. DESSAU (/LS 4.279, 280) is
unsure if the text dates to Antoninus's lifetime or is posthumous. As M. Aurelius is not called
"lmperator", it would seem clear that the text is not posthumous. The inscription probably recorded the
construction of an aqueduct.
233. Cf. no. 176 (fable 5). Uncertain restoration of the text makes it possible that it may not refer to a water
supply restoration. Didasius was a local patron.
234. The editors of SEG suggest a 3rd-century date for this text (it seems associated with a 3rd-century
dedication, SEG 28 (1978), 397). It is not exactly clear if the water was for the baths, but that is the
implication. The inscription is acephalous so the identity of the benefactor is not known.
235. Cf. no. 162 (fable 5). Here the water supply to the pisdna, previously reduced to a trickle, is improved
until the pool is overflowing. An exceptorium was a type of tank or cistern (cf. no. 164 (fable 5), JLS
3063; and OLD, s.v.) sufficient to feed quite a large set of baths, cf. B.D. SHAW in A.T. HODGE (ed.),
Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies (Leeds: Cairns, 1991), pp. 66-67.
236. Dated by mention of I dd. nn. Valente et Valen1tiano Augg .. Here the water supply to the solium of the
summer baths was improved by tapping a better source.
237. Cf. nos. 69 (fable 3), 166 (fable 5). The local magistrate who completed and adorned the Thennae
Gratianae, also improved its water supply.
238. Here the governor restores the aqueducts, previously made out of wood which was rotting, with "marvellous
work". Agpera[-1 appears to be ac pera[-]. perhaps to be restored ac pera[cte]. Cf. no. 38 (fable 2).
239. Dated by mention of Aemilius Florus Paternus as proconsul (PLRE 2 Paternus [p. 837]). The text is
fragmentary and determining the agent is difficult. It reads: [aequae]ductos taetra ac deformi caligine
mersos et nullo felici aspect[u gaudentes I[-- proconsulatu Ae]mili Flori Paterni v. c. et inlustris et Eri
Fani Geminiani v. c. leg. c. vib [ --] I [--]valet in sple[ndidissimo municipio? [--]met f!. ~.(?) Gemino
provisionis [--] beneficio quae usui [privato ero]gabatur lavacris praestitit quae hac viduata on[eribus
illis? iussit f)ieri civibus 1//////n [-- k]andido f.f. 1.1. p.p.p. d.d. [--] sumtu public[o restituit] //1//et
dedicavit. The phrase sumtu publico at the end clearly indicates that the main work (restoration of an
aqueduct) was the responsibility of the local authorities. The word "gemino" is more problematic. If the
letters preceding it are correctly restored (which is far from certain), it may refer to a man, in which case
he may have been an official commissioned to oversee the operations, or he could have been a private
benefactor who allowed his water(?) to be used for the public baths: "[The water?] which used to be put
to private use he gave over to the baths as a benefaction" ([aquam?1bene.ficio quae usui [pri vato
ero1gabatur lavacris praestit). Alternatively, gemino may go with beneficia which follows, in reference
to the double nature of the benefaction. The text was found in 15 fragments, so difficulties of reading are
hardly surprising.
240. The date is that assigned by NIELSEN, Thenn., 1.41, n. 26 (which seems correct: the detailed description of
the building's problems corresponds to Late Imperial epigraphic practice, cf. note to no. 159 (fable 5)).
Here a local, Furius Togius, restores the water supply to the Thermae Pentascinenses which had been so
damaged by an earthquake that the lavacra (in this case evidently a part of the thermae; cf. above, p. 10)
could no longer be used. The baths have been excavated and are poorly preserved; they may date
originally to the Augustan period, ibid. I.45, n. 64 (cf. ibid., p. 49, n. 91).

* * *
C. OIL DISTRIBUTIONS

NOTE: I do not include here 22 African inscriptions and three (from Spain and Germany) that record the
exhibition of gymnasia to the people, sometimes in the baths. I am inclined to follow the OLD, s.v.
"gymnasium" (2), which interprets the term to mean athletic display rather than DUNCAN-JONES,
Econ., p. 81 where it is taken to denote oil-distribution, if for no other reason than none of the gymnasia
(save one) are mentioned in connection with baths. Rather, they are associated with sportulae or epula or
both. They are usually associated with the dedication of a monument or the acquisition of local office
(or both). The references are (all in C/L 8; the bath-related gymnasium indicated in brackets): 754, 769,
858, 860, 895, 1323, 1353, 1361, 1414, 1449, 1501, 1574, 1577, 1587, 1858 (baths), 1859, 12381,
 Table 7 371

14365, 14378, 14783 (= ILS 5075), 26121, 26259. In addition, cf. AE 1989.420 (no. 267 below) from
Baetica where a gymnasium is given to the people; AE 1953.21 (no. 207 below) from Spain where a
gymnasium is given to the people on the days of a festival at Lucurgentum; and CIL 13.5042 (cf. AE
1939.206) where money is given for a gymnasium for three days at Minnodunum in Germania Superior.
These are the only examples of such a benefaction I know of outside Africa. WESCH-KLEIN
(Liberalitas, pp. 27-30) makes a good case for the oil-distribution interpretation, but why use the word
gymnasium and not one of the oil-distribution formulae found in other texts? Even if an oil distribution
were part of the gymnasium benefaction, there may have been other elements involved, no longer
identifiable (e.g. provision of strigils, or other equipment for sport). This suggestion gains weight from
no. 267 below, where the giving of oil and of a gymnasium appear to be clearly differentiated (unless
gymnasium is here used a synonym for oleum gratuitum in the previous sentence, or indicates oil
destined for a special purpose, cf. Le ROUX, Ktema 12 (1987), 276, n. 43). Given the general
uncertainty surroundmg the term, it seems best to omit it from the main body of the Table, while noting
its possibilities here.

241. Cf. above, no. 223.

242. The term EK :\0'\JT'f]pwv means from large jars placed in the baths. It is often not clear from these
inscriptions recording oil distributions in the east whether we are dealing with gymnasia! baths or
strictly Roman-style baths which, in this part of the empire, may have served identical purposes anyway
(cf. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.105-114).
243. Here the local magistrate provides oil at his own expense on certain daJs every month, and on a later
occasion provides it (to all classes?) in individual unguentaria (opa.KTOl), filled from the larger
AOVTY)PES.
244. Cf. above, no. 215.
245. The text is dated by Sacerdos's holding the priesthood ofTiberius which was not instituted at Pergamum
until AD 26 (cf. Tac. Ann ., 4.55-56). Here oil is provided for the whole day.
246. Here the benefaction is the setting up of a foundation from HS40,000, the interest from which is to be
spent on oil distributions in all the baths ofComum throughout the festival ofNeptunalia. DUNCAN­
JONES, Econ., nos. 676 and 1088 (cf. ibid., pp. 132-136) reckons the yield to be HS2,400 per year if
the interest rate were 6%. I also adopt the date assigned to this text according to the criteria laid out at
ibid., pp. 362-363. It is possible, as PJR2 C 30 suggests, that this man was a parental relative of Pliny
the Younger. If so, the 1st century date is confirmed.
247. From the rules of the Lanuvian Burial Club. Dated by the phrase [L Ceionio] Commodo Sex. Vettuleno
Civica Pompeiano cos. in the opening line.
248. The word eX.:\ El. \)!a.~ is understood here. Notice how Asklepiades provides slaves and freedmen for the
distribution of the oil, again in little oil flasks drawn from the larger AOVTT)PES (cf. above, no. 243).
Fragmentary imperial titles at the start of the inscription suggest a possible Hadrianic date for the text.
249. Dionysios is also recorded in the same text as having placed oil in various gymnasia for various lengths of
time. It is only in the cited clause, however, that ~a.:\a.VEl!X are mentioned.
250. NIELSEN, Therm., 1.40, n. 25 dates this to the Julio-Claudian period. However, the stemma attached to
CJL 11.6335 cites this Aufidius as the father of C. Aufidius Victorious, cos. AD 183 (cf. PJR2 A
1393), in which case the benefactor of this text would date to early-mid 2nd century AD.
251. Dated by letterform. A fragmentary inscription which does not preserve the identity of the benefactor. The
side of the stone bears the inscription ... rarissimfo] I Sex. Sentinas Maxilmus anno primo I ff}acti
munidpi I posuit. This may be the benefactor of the main text; alternatively, there may be no
connection at all between the two texts.
252. Dated by mention of the emperors M. Aurelius and L. Verus, who discharged Optatus (missus honesta I
missione ab imp. M I Aur. Antonino et Aur. I Vero Aug.) A lengthy inscription recording the part of
the will of this honorably discharged centurion and local magistrate outlining his benefactions to the
people of Barcino. He orders 7,500 denarii (= HSJO,OOO) to be given for the holding of games on 10
June every year, and on that day the people are to get free oil in the baths from the 200 denarii (=
HS800) mentioned. The pertinent lines read: do lego I darique volo (denariorum) (7,500), ex II quorum
usuris semissibus I edi volo quodannis spectac(ulum) I pugilum die IIII iduum luni(arum) I usque at
(denarios) (250), et eadem die I ex (denariis) (200) oleum in tbermas public(as) II populo praeberi et (l}ecta
praesltari ea condicione volo, ut I Iiberti mei, item libertorum meorum llibertarumque Iiberti, quos
honor. seviratus contigerfit, ab omnibus mulneribus seviratus exllcusati sint. Quot si quis I eorum at
 Table 7 372

munera I vocitus fuerit, I tum ea (denarios) (7,5()(]) at I rem pub(licam) Tarrac(onensem) II transferri
iubeo, I sub eadem forma I spectaculorum, quot I s(upra) s(criptum) est, edendorum I Tarracone.
253. From a Christian cemetery on the Esquiline hill. This Numerius lived in the Severan period, serving under
Severns Alexander, cf. PJR'2 N 202. He is also recorded as having carried out extensive restoration work
on the baths. Notice that he struggles to establish an oil distribution from his own money.

* * *
D. FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE OF BATHS

254. Dated by letterform. Daphnus had built these baths for the town, cf. no. 59 (Table 3), and here provides 150
denarii (::: HS600) for their upkeep, not a particularly lavish sum by comparison to others known, cf.
below, no. 257. Tutela means "upkeep" in the sense of cleaning etc.
255. This woman had built the thermae for the town (cf. no. 89 (Table 4]). Here 2,500 denarii (= HS 10,000) is
given to the town as a foundation for the perpetual maintenance of the structure. This would yield
HSSOO per annum if the rate was 5%, HS600 if it was 6% (these are the two most common rates
proposed by DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., pp. 132-138, esp. 133-136).
256. Cf. nos. 90 (Table 4) and 188 (Table 6).
257. Part of the huge bequest of Fabius to Altinum, almost all of which went on bath benefactions, cf. no. 87
(Table 4) for the full text, and nos. 189 (Table 6) and 264 below for the other parts of the benefaction.
Here HS200,000 is provided for tutela.
258. Here an apparently existing structure is given to Corfinium along with HS30,000 evidently for its upkeep,
although the text does not say so explicitly, cf. Appendix 6, s.v. B.6. Cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ.,
no. 1308a where the yield of the foundation is calculated at HS 1,800 per year if the interest rate was 6%.

* * *
E. MISCELLANEOUS
E.l Ground given for baths

259. Cf. no. 140 (Table 5) for the rest of this benefaction. Here ground is given for the bath, but the text does
not say Junia built the actual facility (as do, for instance, nos. 89, 91, and 92).
260. This is part of the massive benefaction of Culleo to what was to his hometown of Castulo. Cf. R.P.
DUNCAN-JONES, "The Procurator as Civic Benefactor", JRS 64 (1974), 79-85 where this inscription
is discussed in detail. The date is uncertain, but reckoned by DUNCAN-JONES (84) to lie within the
broad limits AD 20-160.

E.2 Baths bought (and made public property)

261. NIELSEN, Therm., I. 40, n. 25 includes this in her 1st-century AD material, but gives no indication why.
It seems that a private bath was bought by the town authority and made a public facility. It is likely
that the HS60,000 mentioned in the text as the cost of the balneum was divided equally among the six
Augustales named. It may even have been a summa honoraria.

E.3 Baths heated

262. An interesting benefaction. The ex-magistrate sets up a foundation of 400 wagon-loads of hardwood as fuel
for the lavacrum of the baths, and passes the administration of the benefaction onto his successors in
office.
263. Cf. above, no. 243 for the rest of this man's bath benefaction. Here he heats two ambulatories, which are
probably part of a bath building, although this is not explicitly stated.
264. This figure would yield HS20,000 per annum if the rate was 5%, cf. DUNCAN-JONES, Econ., nos. 647
and 1307 (pp. 173 and 215). This inscription makes explicit the difference between the benefaction of
providing for the upkeep (tutela) of the baths and that of heating them (ca/efactio), cf. above nos. 87
(Table 4), 189 (Table 6) and 257 above.
 Table 7 373

265. Cited as securely Trajanic by NIELSEN, Therm., Ll23, n. 5, presumably following C/L 2.3361 where the
date is by letterform. Therefore, I retain a questionmark. Here water is given to the baths (cf. above, no.
230) and an area of300 agnuars of woodland given for the baths. An agnuar was 120 ft2, (cf. Varro
RR., 1.102; Columella, 5.1.5). The woodland was to provide fuel for the baths, a practice known from
other sources, cf. R. MEIGGS, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Medite"anean World (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 237-238, 321,513 (n. 12).

E4 Lead to baths

266. Here an anonymous benefactor gives a remarkable 8662 pounds of lead to the baths. The lead would be
used perhaps for the four Iabella (bowls or basins of uncertain function, cf. OLD s.v. "labellum")
mentioned at the end of the citation (the lead is given in quattuor), or possibly for pipes and/or pool­
lining (the King's Bath at Bath wac; lined with lead). Lead was evidently a much-needed commodity for
the baths. Other texts tell of the donation of pipes for the baths (e.g. nos. 21 (Table 2), 174 (Table 5)
and 237 (Table 7); note also that no. 137 (Table 5) contains the words fistulas reposuit, though the pipes
in question may not have been part of the baths)). Note also the inscription found on the pipe from the
Baths of Agrippa at Rome, C/L 15.7247: in lavacro Aggrippinae (sic) limp. Caes. Traj. Hadriani Aug.
sub cur(a) Trelbelli Marini Martialis serv. fecit Here a slave on the staff of a procurator aquamm make
the pipe that goes into the bath (cf. RE 2.6A.2265, s.v. "Trebellius" (no. 12) [Stein]). It can be
surmised that the laying of pipes was a major benefaction in itself.

ADDENDUM

267. Compare with no. 207 and note above. The text is closely analyzed by LeROUX, Ktemal2 (1987), 271­
284. Full text: M. Valerio M.f., I M.n., G. pron., Quir. I Proculino, Ilvir(o) m(unicipum) m(unicipii) I
Liberi Singiliensis II cives et incolae ex aere conlato I hie in llviratu publicos ludos et I totidem dierum
privatos dedit I item I populum universum in municipio II habitantem et incolas oleo et balineo I gratuito
dato pervocavit I item quo die ludos iu(v)enum in theatro I dedit gymnasium et balinea viris et I
mulieribus gratuita praestit II huic cives et incolae pr(idie) k(alendas) Ianuarias I abeunti e Ilviratu ob rem
publicam I bene atministratam (sic) consensu omnium I in foro publice gratias egerunt I et hostias quas
inmolaret item II permisit I Ilvir(atu) A(ulo) Cornelio Palma Frontiano (sic) II I P(ublio) Calvisio Tullo
cos. Note that Valerius calls "the whole of the people and inhabitants (of the municipium's territorium)
to assembly after giving oil and free bathing". He probably wanted to boast to the masses in person. Le
ROUX's suggestion (ibid., 276) that the phrase means that Valerius summoned the universus populus
by means of criers to enjoy his benefaction seems a little stretched: the ablative absolute balineo gratuito
dato would imply that Valerius summoned the people afo'r he had offered them the benefaction.
However, on the same page Le ROUX plausibly suggests that the second free bathing benefaction was
aimed primarily at the parents ofthe iuvenes, so that they could relax and socialize while the youth
enjoyed the ludi put on in the theatre for their benefit by Valerius.
APPENDICES

 Appendix 1 375

APPENDIX 1

THE LITERARY SOURCES FOR GROWTH LISTED

CHRONOLOGICALLY, c. 80 BC -AD 90

Date Ioformation Reference

80BC Balneae Pallacinae at Rome Cic. pro Rose., 18

6413 BC Atia, Augustus's mother avoids public baths Suet. Aug., 94.4

60BC Faustus Sulla gives free baths and oil to people at Rome Dio 37.51.4

Cicero will heat his (private) bath for Atticus's arrival Cic. Alt., 2.3.4 (23
S-B)

56BC Cicero's description of the Balneae Seniae at Rome used as Cic. pro Cae/., 61­
unremarkable backdrop for refutation of Clodia poison plot 62

60s or early Catullus refers to thieves at the baths Cat. 33.1-2

50s BC
47BC Cicero includes baths among the "necessities of life and Cic. Fam., 14.20.1
health" in letter to Terentia (173 S-B)

Cicero asks his friend Paetus to have his (private) bath Cic. Fam., 9.16.9
ready for his arrival (190 S-B)

c.35/4 BC Horace refers to a "one-penny bathhouse" Hor. Sat., 1.3.137

Baths among Horace's daily routine Hor. Sat., 1.6.125­

126

33 BC 170 offers of free bathing given by Agrippa at Rome Pliny NH, 36.121

26-19 BC Agrippa builds his baths at Rome Dio, 53.27.1,

54.29.4.

30s or early Vitruvius includes a description of how to build baths in Vitruv., 5.10
20s BC his De Architectura

c. 20 BC Horace describes a poor fellow forever changing Hor. Epist., 1.1.91­

bathhouses and apartments 93

Horace includes baths as characteristic of a city Hor. Epist.,

1.14.14-15

13 BC Augustus gives free baths to people at Rome for one day Dio 54.25.4
 Appendix 1 376

Poets avoid crowded bathhouses Hor. Epist., 2.3.

296-8 (= Ars, 296­
298)

2-1 BC Ovid refers to the "many balnea" of Rome Ovid Ars Am.,
3.638-640

Tiberi an Celsus makes frequent reference to baths de Med.

Tiberian­ Q. Remmius Palaemon mentions both balneum and Ars, 568

Claudian thermae
period

Mid-1st cent. Baths feature frequently in writings of Pliny the Elder NH

AD
AD62 Nero builds his baths in Rome Tac. Ann., 14.20­
21, 47, 15.29.2;
Suet. Nero, 12.3,
31.2

AD62-64 Seneca rails against the luxury of contemporary baths Sen. Ep., 86.4-12.
See also Dial., 7.73,
Ep., 90.25, 122.6, 8

Neronian Baths feature in Petronius's Satyricon as a regular part of Petron., Satyr., 26­
period daily life 28, 30, 41, 53, 72 ­
73 (a private bath),
91, 92, 97, 130 (a
private bath?), fr. 2.

80s and 90s Baths feature prominently in Martial's quips on Roman Mart. Spec. and Ep.
AD society
 Appendix 2 377

APPENDIX 2

MAPS ILLUSTRATING THE SPREAD OF PUBLIC BATHING

IN THE ITALlAN PENINSULA UP TO c. AD 100

NOTES

Only "Roman-style" baths are indicated.

The sites on the maps are numbered according to the entries in the tables below.

Specific information about each site is to be found in the appropiate table entry.

Naturally, the baths listed here are only those for which a definite geographical location can be

provided.

Entries reflect the first appearance of baths at each site, i.e. their construction dates (when

physical remains are present), or their earliest mention in an author or inscription (which, of

course does not necessarily correspond to construction dates); baths which continued in use

throughout the periods covered by both maps are not shown twice. Thus establishments such as

those of Republican date at Pompeii, Cales or Cumae, only appear on Map 1.

Entries are listed chronologically.

Multiple entries for single sites are indicated by bullets (•).

* * *

MAP 1: The public baths of the Italian peninsula,

(from earliest times to Agrippa's aedileship, 33 BC)

Site no. Place Comments and references

1 Capua 216 BC. One bath mentioned. Livy 23.7.3 (cf. above, pp. 72­
73 for discussion).
 Appendix 2 378

2 Rome • Late 3rd/early 2nd cent. BC. Plays of Plautus (cf. above, pp.
75-79 for discusion); early baths mentioned in Varro,
Ling. Lat., 9.68; Cato the Elder, Non. p. 108M (155L),
s.v. ephippium.
• 2nd cent. BC. Caec. Statius, Non., 194M (285L), s.v.
balneae.
• 1st cent. BC. Balneae mentioned by Cat., 33.1; Hor. Sat.,
1.3.137, 6.125-126; those named by Cic. pro Rose. IS
(Balneae Pallicinae),pro Cael., 61-62 (Balneae Seniae);
the benefaction of Faustus Sulla in 60 BC, Dio 37.51.4.

3 Cumae c. 180 BC. Central Baths built.

4 Pompeii • c. 140-120 BC. Stabian Baths built (C.40).

• c. 100-90 BC. Republican Baths built (C.41).
• c. 80 BC. Forum Baths built (C.42).

5 Teanum c. 130-121 BC. One bath, probably a double building,

Sidicinum mentioned, Aul. Gell., 10.3.3 (cf. above, pp. 74-75 for
discussion).

6 Cales • c. 130-121 BC. Indeterminate number; Aul. Gell., 10.3.3.

• c. 90-70 BC. Central Baths built (C.35).

7 Ferentinum c. 130-121 BC. Indeterminate number, Aul. Gell., 10.3.3.

8 Aletrium c. 130-120 BC. Lacus balnearius; ILLRP 528.

9 Musarna Late 2nd/early 1st cent. BC. Baths built (C.62).

10 Aceruntia Post-Social War. Piscina repaired, ILLRP 521.

11 Lacedonia Post-Social War. Piscina cleaned and re-lined, ILLRP 542.

12 Grumentum Sullan? Balneum built, ILRRP 606.

13 Interamna 1st cent. BC (?). Free bathing to all comers, ILRRP 617.
Praetuttiorum

14 Praeneste 1st cent. BC (?). Free bathing, /LS 5672.

15 Alba Fucens Mid-1st cent. BC. Baths built (NIELSEN, Therm., I. 35).

16 Herdonia Caesarian? Baths built, AE 1967.96.

17 Croton End of Republic. Balneum built, ILLRP 575.

ADDENDA
(from JOUFFROY, Construction, pp. 51-53)

18 Cos a 2nd cent. BC. PECS, s.v. "Cosa", p. 245 [Brown].

 Appendix 2 379

19 Fondi 1st cent. BC. E. LISSI-CARONNA, BA 55 (1965), 108.

20 Massarosa 1st cent. BC. NSc 1935, 211.

21 Cetumcellae 1st cent. BC. S. BASTIANELLI, NSc 1942, 235.

22 Mevaniola c. 50 BC. FA 15 (1960), no. 4445.

* * *

MAP 2: The public baths of Italy, 33 BC - AD 100

Site no. Place Comments and references

1 Rome o 33 BC. 170 gratuita baZinea offered in city (Pliny, NH,
36.121).
o 25-19 BC. Baths of Agrippa built (C.l ).

o c.20 BC. Horace mentions baths in Rome (Epist., 1.1.91-93).

o c. 2-1BC. "Many baths" mentioned in Ovid (Ars Am., 3.638­

640).
o Mid-1st cent. AD. Baths feature in the writings of Celsus, the
Elder and Younger Seneca, the Elder and Younger Pliny,
Petronius.
o AD 62. Baths of Nero built (C.2).
o AD 79-80. Baths of Titus built (C.3).
• Late 1st cent. AD. Baths feature heavily in writings of Martial
and (to a lesser extent) in Persius, many named (cf.
Appendix 4 ); note also an area of the city apparently
called "Four Baths" (Mart., 5.70).

2 Velia Late 1st century BC. Baths built (C.52).

3 Pis a AD 4. All baths (an indeterminate number) closed in Pisa to

mark mourning of C. Caesar, ILS 140.21-24.

4 Ostia o Augustan. Balnewn mentioned, CIL 14.4711.

o Mid-1st cent. AD. Baths of lnvidiosus built (C.28).
o AD 80-90. Baths of the Swimmer built (C.l5).

5 Faesulae Augustan? Baths built (C.58).

6 Herculaneum o Augustan. Forum Baths built (C.38).

• Julio-Claudian. Suburban Baths built (C.39).
 Appendix 2 380

7 Pompeii • Augustan? Balneus Agrippae mentioned (may not be a

bathhouse), CIL 4.3878.
• Tiberian? Suburban Baths built (C.43).
• Tiberian? Thermae et baln(eae ?) Crassi Frugi, II.S 5724.
• AD 62-79. Central Baths built (C.47).
• AD 62-79. Balneum Venerium et Nongentum (C.46), ILS
5723.
·AD 62-79. Sarno/Palaestra Baths Complex (C.44-45).

8 Bononia Augustan. Bath built by Augustus, restored by Gaius or Nero,

JLS 5674.
9 Volsinii Post-AD 17/18. Balneum built by L. Sejus Strabo, ILS 8996.

10 Vallis Tiberian (post -AD 20). Balneum "given", ILS 2637.

Digentiae
(near Tibur)

11 Comum Early 1st cent. AD. Multiple balneae and thermae in the town,
JI.S 6728.
12 Forum First half of 1st cent. AD. Double baths built (C.57).
Sempronii

13 Teate Mid-1st cent. AD. Baths built (C.53).

Manuc­
inorum

14 Mas sac­ Mid-1st cent. AD. "Baths of Nero" built (C.61).

iuccoli

15 Furfo Julio-Claudian. Bath built, CIL 9.3522.

16 Teanum Julio-Claudian. Balneum Clodianum bought by local authority

Sidicinum (presumably to be made public), JLS 5677

17 Ligures Post-AD 62 (?). Balneum restored after earthquake (of AD 62?),

Baebiani CIL 9.1466
18 Ferentum Flavian? Double baths built (C.59).

19 San Gaetano Second half of 1st cent. AD. Baths built (C.63).
di Vada

20 Urbs Salvia Second half of 1st cent. AD/early 2nd cent. AD. Balnewn
muliebre (?)mentioned, AE 1979.202.
21 Capena c. AD 90-120. Balneum given as foundation for upkeep of son's
tomb, JLS 5770.

22 Copia Thurii 1st cent. AD. Edge of labrum inscribed by duoviri, AE

1976.175.
 Appendix 2 381

23 Florentia 1st cent. AD. Capitol Baths built (C.60).

24 Ager 1st cent. AD. Balnewn mentioned (built? extended? adorned?).

Viterbiensis CIL 11.3010.

25 Fanum 1st cent. AD. Balnewn restored after fire, ILS 5679.

26 Altinum 1st cent. AD. Two baths restored, NSc, (1928), 283.

ADDENDA
(from JOUFFROY, Construction, pp. 93-96)

27 Aquinum Augustan. Remains of apsidal structure, perhaps baths. M.

CAGIANO de AZEVEDO, Aquinwn (1949), p. 43.

28 Aeclanum Augustan? Remains of baths. PECS, s.v. "Aeclanum", p. 11

[Ward-Perkins].

29 Arretium Augustan? Remains near the theatre. EAA 1, s.v. Arezzo, p.

617 [Maetzke]

30 Terrae ina o Augustan. Baths of Neptune built. S. AURI GEMMA et al,

Circeo, Terracina, Fondi (1960), p. 33
o Flavian. Baths of the Arenas. Ibid., loc. cit.
31 Naples Julio-Claudian. Baths near the theatre. Suet. Nero, 20.2; M.
NAPOLI, Napoli greco-romana (1959), p. 197

32 Capua 1st cent. AD. North-East baths. A. de FRANCISCIS, RAAN

48 (1973), 95-104.
 Appendix 2 382

MAP 1: The public baths of the Italian peninsula (up to 33 BC)

 Appendix 2 383

MAP 2: The public baths of the Italian peninsula (33 BC- AD 100)
 Appendix 3 384

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF PUBLIC BATH-SITES

This list of bath-sites is compiled from the catalogues in NIELSEN, Therm., 11.1-47 and
MANDERSCHEID, Bib., pp. 43-231. NIELSEN's number-system has been retained for ease
of reference, and those baths found in MANDERSCHEID but not in NIELSEN, assembled in
section B, are assigned a number (MANDERSCHEID's original entries are unnumbered)
preceded by the letter "M" to indicate the source.

The list is confined to bath- or site-names only; more information can be gleaned by referring to
the original NIELSEN or MANDERSCHEID entry.

In all cases, private, military, thermal and religious baths have been excluded where they could
be identified, as have gymnasia and bath-gymnasia. Likewise, baths in Egypt and the East
which post-date the 5th century AD are omitted.

Both sections of the list are arranged according to the province groups used by NIELSEN in her
catalogue.

* * *

A. NIELSEN
ITALY C.24 Baths of Neptune, Ostia
C.25 Baths of the Porta Marina, Ostia
C.l Baths of Agrippa, Rome C.26 Baths of Faros, Ostia
C.2 Baths of Nero, Rome C.27 Forum Baths, Ostia
C.3 Baths of Titus, Rome C.28 Baths of Invidiosus, Ostia
C.4 Baths of Trajan, Rome C.29 Baths of the Philosopher, Ostia
C.5 Baths of Sura, Rome C.30 Baths on the Via della Foce, Ostia
C.6 Baths on FUR fr. 33, Rome C.31 Baths on the Via del Tempio
C.7 Baptisterium Baths, Rome Rotundo, Ostia
C.8 Baths of Caracalla, Rome C.33 Severan Baths, Vicus Augustanus
C.l 0 Lateran Baths, Rome Laurentium
C.ll Baths of Diocletian, Rome C.35 Central Baths, Cales
C.13 Baths of Constantine, Rome C.37 Via Terracina Baths, Fuorigotta
C.14 Baths on Isola Sacra, Rome (between Neapolis and Puteoli)
C.15 Baths of the Swimmer, Ostia C.38 Forum Baths, Herculaneum
C.16 Baths of Buticosus, Ostia C.39 Suburban Baths, Herculaneum
C.17 Baths of the Christian Basilica, Ostia C.40 Stabian Baths, Pompeii
C.l8 Baths of the Six Columns, Ostia C.41 Republican Baths, Pompeii
C.19 Baths by the Sullan Wall, Ostia C.42 Forum Baths, Pompeii
C.20 Baths of Trinacria, Ostia C.43 Suburban Baths, Pompeii
C.21 Baths ofMithras, Ostia C.44 Sarno Baths, Pompeii
C.22 Baths of the Seven Sages, Ostia C.45 Palaestra Baths, Pompeii
C.23 Baths of Drivers, Ostia
 Appendix 3 385

C.46 Balneum Venerium et Nongentum, C.81 "Imperial" Baths, Augusta

Pompeii Treverorum
C.47 Central Baths, Pompeii C.84 Baths, Juliobona
C.49 Baths, Venusia C.85 Vicus Baths, Mambra
C.50 Large Baths, Paestum
C.51 Large Baths by Porta Marina Sud,
Velia GALLIA LUGDUNENSIS
C.52 Vignale Baths, Velia
C.53 Baths, Teate Marrucinorum C.90 Baths, Isarnodurum
C.57 Double Baths, Forum Sempronii C.91 Cluny Baths, Lutetia Parisiorum
C.58 Baths, Faesulae C.92 Forum Baths in Rue Gay-Lussac,
C.59 Double Baths, Ferentum Lutet:ia Parisiorum
C.60 Capitol Baths, Florentia C.94 City Baths, Noviodunum
C.61 "Baths of Nero", Massaciuccoli C.95 Baths, Verdes
C.62 Baths, Musarna C.96 Baths, Vertillium
C.63 Baths, San Gaetano di Vada
C.64 Baths, Volaterrae GALLIA NARBONENSIS

SICILY C.97 North Baths, Arelate

C.98 Arsenal Baths, Forum Julii
C.66 "Daphne" Baths, Syracuse C.99 Platform Baths, Forum Julii
C.67 Baths in Region IV, Tyndaris C.lOO Baths, Glanum
C.lOl North Baths, Vasio Vocontiorum
THE WESTERN PROVINCES C.l02 Large Baths, Vienna

ALPES MARITIMAE GALLIA CISAPLINA

C.68 East Baths, Cemenelum C.103 Baths, Forum Julii

C.69 North Baths, Cemenelum C.l04 Double Baths, Nesactium
C.70 West Baths, Cemenelum C.l 05 Baths, Veleia
CORSICA HISP ANIA BAETICA

C.71 Santa Laurina Baths, Aleria C.l06 Late Baths, Baelo

C.l 07 East Baths, Italica
GALLIA AQUIT ANIA C. lOS West Baths, Italica
C.l 09 Baths, Munigua
C.72 Large Baths, Derventum
C.73 Small Baths, Derventum HISPANIA TARRACONENSIS
C.74 Baths, Divona
C.75 Forum Baths, Lugdunum C.ll 0 Baths, Arcobriga
Convenarum C.lll Baths, Baetulo
C.76 North Baths, Lugdunum C.112 Baths, Belligio
Convenarum C.l13 Baths, Los Bafiales
C.77 Baths, Segodunum C.114 Baths, Segobriga
GALLIA BELGICA LUSITANIA

C.78 Baths below the Agnetenkaserne, C.l15 Augustan Baths, Conimbriga

Augusta Treverorum C.l16 Flavian Baths, Conimbriga
C.79 Barbara Baths, Augusta Treverorum C.l17 Hospedaria Baths, Conimbriga
C.80 "Green" Baths, Augusta Treverorum C.l18 Baths outside the City Wall,
Conimbriga
 Appendix 3 386

C.119 Double Baths, Mirobriga

C.158 City Baths, Aventicum

C.160 City Baths, Castellum Mattiacorum

MAURErANIA TINGIT ANA C.162 City Baths(?), Grinario

C.164 Vicus Baths, luliomagus

C.120 Fresco Baths, Banasa

C.170 West City Baths, Nida

C.l21 North Baths, Banasa

C.l71 East City Baths, Nida

C.122 Large West Baths, Banasa

C.l23 Small West Baths, Banasa

C.124 Baths, Debar Jdid

NORICUM
C.125 Christian Baths (Bath J), Lixus

C.l26 Theatre Baths, Lixus

C.185 City Baths II, Aguntum

C.127 Double Baths, Thamusida

C.186 City Baths I, Lauriacum

C.l28 Early Baths, Volubilis

C.l87 City Baths III, Lauriacum

C.129 Gallienic Baths, Volubilis

C.189 City Baths, Virunum I (?)

C.130 North Baths, Volubilis

PANNONIA

SARDINIA C.l90 Decumanus City Baths, Aquincum

C.191 Double City Baths, Aquincum

C.131 Forum Baths, Forum Trajani

C.192 Large City Baths, Aquincum

C.132 Sea Baths, Nora

C.194 Insula IV Baths, Camuntum

C.133 Small Baths, Nora

C.195 City Baths, Camuntum

C.l34 Baths (Terme di "Convento

Vecchio"), Tharros RAEfiA

C.l35 Central Baths, Turris Libysonis
C.197 The Bath-house, Cambodunum

THE NORTHER FRONTIER C.l98 Large City Baths I, Cambodunum

PROVINCES C.199 Large City Baths II, Cambodunum

C.200 Small City Baths, Cambodunum

BRITANNIA C.205 City Baths, Turicum

C.l38 City Baths, Calleva Atrebatum THRACIA (WEST)

C.l47 Early City Baths, Viroconium
Comoviorum C.206 City Baths, Serdica

C.l48 City Baths (Insula 5), Viroconium

Comoviorum THE NORTH AFRICAN
PROVINCES
DACIA
C.207 Julia Memmia Baths, Bulla Regia

C.l51 City Baths, Sarmizegetusa C.208 Northeast Baths, Bulla Regia

C.209 Antonine Baths, Carthago

C.210 West Baths, Gigthis

GERMANIA INFERIOR C.211 Baths, Kerkouane

C.212 Early Baths, Leptis Magna

C.153 City Baths, Colonia Ulpia Trajana

C.213 Hadrianic Baths, Leptis Magna

C. I 54 City Baths, Coriovallum C.214 Hunting Baths, Leptis Magna

C.215 Unfinished Baths, Leptis Magna

C.216 Large East Baths, Mactaris

GERMANIA SUPERIOR C.217 Region VII Baths, Sabratha

C.218 Winter and Summer(?) Baths,

C.155 City Baths (Bath 3), Arae Flaviae

Sufetula

C.l56 Women's Baths, Augusta Raurica

C.220 Large Baths, Thaenae

C.157 Central Baths, Augusta Raurica C.221 Baths of the Months, Thaenae

 Appendix 3 387

C.222 Summer Baths, Thuburbo Maius

C.261 Large Baths on the Lechaion Road,

C.223 Winter Baths, Thuburbo Maius

Corinth

C.224 Licinian Baths, Thugga

C.262 South Stoa Baths, Corinth

C.225 West Baths, Thysdrus

C.263 Baths in the Delian Agora, Delos

C.264 Monastery Baths, Delos

MAUREr ANIA CAESARIENSIS C.269 Baths, Marathon

C.270 Baths, Nicopolis

C.226 Large West Baths, Colonia Claudia

C.276 Baths, Palaiopolis on Kerkyra

Caesarea
C.277 Baths, Same on Kephallinia

C.227 Baths of Pompeianus, Oud

C.278 Baths, Zevgolatio

Athmenia

C.228 Southeast Baths, Rusguniae

AEGYPTUS

NUMIDIA C.279 Double Baths, Abu Mena

C.280 K6m al-Dikka Baths, Alexandria

C.229 Large South Baths, Cuicul

C.281 Baths, Cheikh Zouede

C.231 South Baths, Hippo Regius

C.282 Baths, Karanis

C.232 North Baths, Hippo Regius

C.283 Double Baths, K6m al-Ahmar

C.234 Hunters' Baths, Lambaesis

C.285 Baths, K6m Trougah

C.235 Large Baths ("Palais du Legat"),

Lambaesis
ARABIA
C.236 Large Summer Baths, Madauros

C.237 Small Winter(?) Baths, Madauros

C.286 South Baths, Bostra

C.238 Large East Baths, Thumugadi

C.289 Building V Baths, Mampis

C.239 Large South Baths, Thamugadi

C.240 Small East Baths, Thamugadi

ASIA
C.241 Small Central Baths, Thamugadi

C.242 Large North Baths, Thamugadi

C.291 Meydan Kiran Baths

C.243 Philadelphes Baths, Thamugadi

C.294 Baths, Didyma

C.244 Small North Baths, Thamugadi

C.296 Varius Baths, Ephesos

C.245 Small South Baths, Thamugadi

C.299 Agora Baths, Ephesos

C.246 West Baths, Thamugadi

C.304 Capito Baths, Miletus

C.247 "Sertius Market" Baths, Thamugadi

C.305 Hlimeitepe Baths, Miletus

C.248 Small Northeast Baths, Thamugadi

C.306 Faustina Baths, Miletus

C.249 Northwest Baths, Thamugadi

C.307 Augustan Baths, Pergamum

C.250 "Capitol" Baths, Thamugadi

C.309 Small Baths, Pergamum

C.251 Forum Novum Baths, Thubursicum

Numidarum
CILICIA

C.316 Bath III 2B, Anemurium

THE EASTERN PROVINCES C.317 Bath II 11b, Anemurium

C.318 Bath II 7A, Anemurium

ACHAEA C.319 Bath 11115, Anemurium

C.320 Bath I 12A, Antiochia ad Cragum

C.252 Large Baths, Argos

C.321 Bath 5B, lotape

C.253 Baths, Asine

C.322 Bathll lA, Syedra

C.254 Southwest Baths, Athens

C.255 Olympieion Baths, Athens

CYRENAICA
C.256 Bath C, Athens

C.257 East Baths (Bath W), Athens

C.325 Large Baths, Apollonia

C.258 Bath U, Athens

C.326 Small Baths, Apollonia

C.259 West Baths (Bath X), Athens

C.327 Myrthusa Baths, Cyrenae

C.330 Double Baths, Ptolemais

 Appendix 3 388

C.361 Bath C3, Dura-Europos

C.362 Bath E3, Dura-Europos

DALMATIA
MOESIA INFERIOR
C.332 Baths, Clambetae

C.333 Baths, Doclea

C.366 Bath I, Istrus

C.334 Large Baths, Salona

C.367 Bath II, Istrus

C.335 South Baths, Salona

PAMPHYLIA
JUDAEAIPALAESTINA
C.369 Large Baths, Aspendos

C.337 Lower Slope Baths, Cyprus

C.370 South Baths, Perge

C.338 Baths, Emmaus

C.371 Harbour Baths, Side

C.340 West Baths, Gerasa

C.372 Large Baths, Side

C.341 Baths of Placcus, Gerasa

C.373 Agora Baths, Side

C.347 Baths, Philoteria

C.348 Baths, Rama

SYRIA

LYCIA C.374 Bath C, Antiochia on the Orontes

C.375 Bath E, Antiochia on the Orontes

C.349 Bath MK 1, Oenoanda

C.376 Bath B, Antiochia on the Orontes

C.350 Bath B, Tlos

C.377, Bath A, Antiochia on the Orontes

C.351 Bath A, Tlos

C.379 Public Baths, Athis/Neocaesarea

C.380 Double Baths, Babisqa

MACEDONIA C.381 Baths, Barade

C.382 Baths of Diocletian, Palmyra

C.353 Baths, Buthrotum

C.383 Baths, Philippopolis

C.354 Baths, Nesi Alexandrias

C.384 Baths, Sha'arah

C.355 Baths, Philippi

C.385 Baths, Sergilla

C.357 Baths connected with Basilica A,

C.386 Baths, Torpak-en-Narlidja

Thebae Phthiotis

C.358 Baths near Basilica A, Thebae

THRACIA (EAST)
Phthiotis

C.387 Kalenderhane Baths,

MESOPOTAMIA Konstantinopo lis

C.360 Bath F3, Dura-Europos

* * *
 Appendix 3 389

B. MANDERSCHEID
Whereas NIELSEN's catalogue lists individual bath buildings, MANDERSCHEID's is
organized according to the sites where they are found, with buildings itemized thereafter. As a
result, I have here not listed specific buildings, but indicated multiple baths at one site by a
bracketed number after the entry.

Unless otherwise specified by MANDERSCHEID (e.g. "Thermalbad" indicating a bath fed by

thermal springs), I have taken all entries in his catalogue to be public baths of the type
investigated in this dissertation.

Entries are arranged alphabetically.

ITALY M.39 Septempeda

M.40 Seripola

M.l Abano Terme M.41 Tarentum

M.2 Acetum
M.42 Tarracina

M.3 Aeclanum
M.43 Trebula Suffenas

M.4 Albintimilium
M.44 Tuscana

M.5 Ancona
M.45 Veleia (M. lists one not inN.)

M.6 Aosta
M.46 Verona

M.7 Aquileia
M.47 Vibo Valentia

M.8 Beneventum
M.48 Vicerallo

M.9 Caralis
M.59 Volsinii

M.lO Cales (M. lists one not inN.)

M.ll Canusium (2)

SICILIA
M.12 Capua

M.13 Carsulae
M.50 Catana (2)

M.14 Centumcellae
M.51 Soluntum

M.15 Comiso
M.52 Tauromenium

M.16 Cosa

M.17 Cures Sabinae

THE WESTERN PROVINCES
M.18 Florentia (M. lists one not in N.)

M.19 Gnathia
ALPES POENINAE
M.20 Herdonia

M.21 Interamnia Praettutiorum

M.53 Tarnaiae

M.22 Julium Carnicum

M.54 Forum Claudii Vallensium (3)

M.23 Lavinium

M.24 Lucus Feroniae (2)

GALLIA AQUITANIA
M.25 Mevania

M.26 Mevaniola
M.55 Antigny

M.27 Mediolanum
M.56 Argentomagus

M.28 Minturnae
M.57 Augustoritum Lemovicum

M.29 Neapolis (2)

M.58 Canac

M.30 Nuceria Alfatema

M.59 Cassinomagus

M.31 Ocriculum
M.60 Limonum Pictonum

M.32 Ostia (M. lists 2 not inN.)

M.61 Queaux

M.33 Ostra
M.62 Lugdunum Converarum (M. lists one

M.34 Paestum (M. lists one not inN.)

not inN.)

M.35 Portus Romae

M.63 Mediolanum Santonum

M.36 Puteoli

M.37 Saepinum (2)

M.38 Sentinum

 Appendix 3 390

GALLIA BELGICA M.98 Caetobriga

M.99 Olisippo
M.64 Divodurum Mediomatricorum (3)
M.65 Fontaine-Valmont MAURET ANIA TINGIT ANA
M.66 Juliobona (M. lists one not inN.)
M.67 Marner M.lOO Aln el-Hammam

M.68 Samarobriva M.lOl Volubilis (M. lists one not inN.)

GALLIA LUGDUNENSIS SARDINIA

M.69 Aragenua, France Lugdun. M.102 Nora (M. lists one not inN.)
M.70 Augustodorum M.l 03 Turris Libisonis (M. lists one not in
M.71 Isarnodurum N.)
M.72 Joigny M.l 04 Tharros (M. lists one not in N.)
M.73 Lugdunum
M.74 Lutetia Parisiorum (M. lists one not THE NORTHERN BORDER
in N.) PROVINCES
M.75 Noviomagus Lexoviorum
M.76 Scoliva BRITANNIA
M. 77 Subdinum
M.78 Trigueres M.l 05 Braughing
M.l 06 Caerwent
GALLIA NARBONENSIS M.l07 Calleva Atrebatum (M. lists one not
inN.)
M.79 Arelate (M. lists one not inN.) M.l08 Durovemum Cantiacorum
M.80 Seyssel M.l 09 Noviomagus Regensium
M.81 Tavel M.ll0 Durnovaria
M.82 Tolosa (2) M.lll Durovigutum
M.83 Vasio Vocontiorum (M. lists 2 not in M.112 Londinium (2)
N.) M.ll3 Venta Icenorurn
M.84 Vienne (M. lists one not inN.) M.ll4 Verulamium

HISPANIA BAETICA DACIA

M.85 Castulo M.115 Aquae

M.86 Corduba M.ll6 Romula
M.87 Las B6vedas

HISPANIA TARRACONENSIS GERMANIA INFERIOR

M.88 Aguilas M.ll7 Colonia Claudia Iulia Ara Agrippina

M. 89 Ampurias M.ll8 Colonia Ulpia Trajana (M. lists one
M.90 Aurgi not inN.)
M.91 Baetulo (M. lists one not inN.) M.ll9 Grobbendonk
M.92 Barcino M.l20 Gerniniacum
M.93 Bilbilis M.l21 Novaesium
M.94 Lancia M.122 Tolbiacum
M.95 Lucentum (2) M.123 Traiectum Superius
M.96 Segobriga (M. lists one not inN.) M.124 Vecvoz

LUSITANIA GERMANIA SUPERIOR

M.97 Augusta Emerita M.125 Arae Flaviae (M. lists one not in N.)
 Appendix 3 391

M.126 Aventicum (M. lists 3 not in N.)

M.160 Themetra

M.127 Bern-Engehalbinel
M.161 Thuburbo Maius (M.lists one not in

M.128 Brocomagus
N.)
M.129 Eburodunum
M.l62 Thuburnica
M.130 Hochscheid
M.l63 Thugga (3)
M.131 Lopodunum
M.164 Uthina.

M.132 Lousonna
M.165 Utica

M.133 Mirebeau

M.134 Sumelocena (2)

MAURErANIA CAESARIENSIS
M.135 Tasgaetium

M.l66 Choba
MOESIA M.167 Cuicul (M. lists 3 not inN.)

M.l68 Igilgili

M.136 Histria (2)

M.169 Iol Caesarea (3)

M.137 Nicopolis ad Istrum

M.170 Khalfoun

M.l38 Singidunum
M.l71 Saldae (2)

M.l72 Tiaret

NORICUM M.l73 Tipasa (2)

M.139 Carnuntum(M.listsonenotinN.)
NUMIDIA
M.140 Teurnia

M.174 Cirta

PANNONIA M.175 Calama (2)

M.l76 Morsott

M.141 Andautonia
M.177 Tebessa

M.142 Emona (2)

M.178 Timgad (M.lists one not inN.)

M.143 Sirmium
M.179 Thubursicum Numidarum (M. lists

M.144 Sopianae
one not inN.)

RAEfiA THE EASTERN PROVINCES

M.145 Augusta Raurica (M. lists one not in

ACHAEA
N.)
M.146 Heidenheim
M.l80 Eleusis
M.l81 Corcyra
THE NORTH AFRICAN M.182 Thera

PROVINCES
AEGYPTUS
AFRICA PROCONSULARIS
M.l83 Antinoupolis
M.147 Acholla (2)

M.148 Ammaedra
ARABIA
M.149 Belalis Major

M.150 Bulla Regia (M. lists 4 not inN.)

M.184 Petra

M.151 Cincari

M.152 Gigthis (M. lists one not inN.)

ARMENIA
M.153 Mactar (M. lists one not inN.)

M.154 Naraggara
M.l85 Pityus (Georgia)
M.155 Ruspae,

M.156 Sabratha (M. lists 3 not inN.)

ASIA
M.l57 Sicca Veneria

M.158 Simitthus
M.186 Alabanda

M.l59 Thelepte
M.l87 Aphrodisias (M. lists one not inN.)

 Appendix 3 392

M.188 Colophon
LYCIA
M.189 Heraclea ad Latmum

M.190 Hierapolis (M. lists one not inN.)

M.204 Arycanda, Lycia

M.191 Iasos
M.205 Cadyanda

M.192 Kaunos
M.206 Idebissus

M.193 Labraunda (2)

M.207 Limyra

M.194 Nysa
M.208 Myra

M.195 Sardis (M. lists one not in N.)

M.209 Patara

M.210 Pinara

BITHYNIA Ef PONTUS
MACEDONIA

M.196 Byzantium (M. lists one not inN.)

M.211 Dion

CILICIA
PAMPHYLIA

M.197 Anazarbus

M.198 Augusta Ciliciae

M.212 Perge (M. lists one not inN.)

M.199 Hierapolis ad Pyramum

PHOENICIA

DAlMATIA
M.213 Berytus (2)

M.200 Cvijina Gradina

M.214 Tyrus

M.201 Krupa

SYRIA

JUDAEA
M.215 Apamea

M.202 Amathe

M.203 Nicopolis

 Appendix 4 393

APPENDIX 4*

THE NON-IMPERIAL BATHS OF ROME AND THEIR

POSSIBLE BUILDERS/OWNERS

Bath Date Builder I_ owner !!e!erence

Bal(neum) none otherwise unattested ILS 3720

Verul(ani)

Thermae none 1). an M. F alerius was a senator in the late CIL 6.29806
Falerianae 1 2nd/early 1st cent. BC (RE 6.1971, s.v. "Falerius"
(no. 1) [Munzer]);
2). "Falerius" was a signum of Gallienus, cf. PJ/(2
3.117, s.v. "Falerius".

Balineum none otherwise unattested CIL 6.29764

Juliorum
, _____
Akariorum
- ----~----"'~-'-"''""
' __,_ --- _,_,,__," ,_,, --­ " _______, ____ ,_
_
··­
Balneae c.56 BC otherwise unattested Cic.pro
Seniae Cael., 61-62

Balneum Augustan otherwise unattested; the name "Polyclitus" occurs Schol. ad

Polycleti only 10 times in Rome, cf. SOLIN, Namen­ Horat. Sat.,
buch, 1.138, s.v. 5.32

Balneum Neronian or 1). M. Vettius Bolanus, cos. AD 66 (RE FTUR, 8.3.

Bolani later 2.8A,2.1857-8, s.v. "Vettius" (no. 25) cf. 8.150
[Stattmann]);
2). M. Vettius Bolanus, son of above, cos. AD
111 (cf. ibid., s.v. "Vettius" (no. 26)
[Stattmann]).

Balneum mid-1 st cent. 1). D. Junius Silanus Torquatus, cos. AD 53 (P/Rl FTUR,
Torquati2 AD(?) I 837); 8.178-179
2). L. Junius Silanus Torquatus, Julio-Claudian
senator, (P!Rl I 828).

Balneum Flavian Vespasian (?),perhaps before elevation; FTUR,

Vespasiani possibly named after statue of emperor on premises 8.180

Balneum Domitianic 1). T. Flavius Abascantus, freedman of Domitian FTUR, 8.3,

Abascanti (PIW F 194); very tentative identification, cf. cf. 8.149
Ch. 5,n. 61.
 Appendix 4 394

Balneum 1st cent. AD Stein comments that "Charinus" is a common name Mart., 7.34
Charini used by Martial for perverts, so it may be a
joke: "The Pervert's Bath" (cf. RE 3.2143, s.v.
"Charinus" [Stein]); that the name is attested
only three times in Rome would tend to support
this suggestion, cf. SOLIN, Namenbuch,
11.1298, s.v.
Balneum/ 1st cent. AD 1). Claudius Etruscus, Domitianic eques (PJ/{2 C Mart., 6.42;
thennulae 860) Stat. Silv.,
Claudi 1.5
Etrusci
Balneum 1st cent. AD 1). Faustus, poet (RE 6.2091, s.v. "Faustus" (no. Mart., 2.14
Fausti3 4) [Stein]);
2). Faustus, undated senator (ibid., 2091 (no. 5)
[Goldfinger]);
3). Glabrio Venantius Faustus, undatedpraefectus
urbi, (ibid., 2092 (no. 15) [Seeck])

Balneum 1st cent. AD Fortunatus, freedman of L. Antistius Vetus, cos. Mart., 2.14
Fortunati4 AD 55 (P/W F 480)
Balneum 1st cent. AD otherwise unattested Mart., 2.14
Grylli
Balneum 1st cent. AD 1). Lupus, friend of Martial (P/W L 421); Mart., 2.14
Lupi 5 2). Lupus who had place reserved for him at the
Colosseum (RE 13851, s.v. "Lupus" (no. 9)
[Seeck])
Balneum 1st cent. AD otherwise unattested; the name "Stephanus" is very Mart., 11.52
Stephani common in Rome, with 236 occurrences, cf.
SOLIN, Namenbuch, 111.1182-6, s.v.
Balneum 1st cent. AD the strongest possibility is the Neronian praetorian Mart., 3.20;
Tigillini prefect, cf. RE 17.2056-2061, s.v. "Ofonius Gloss. Lat.,
Tigellinus" [Stein] (here the baths are 111.657.14
associated with him)
Balneum et 1st cent. AD possibly a rival epigrammist of Martial, cf. RE Mart., 9.75
Thermae 2.7A.765, s.v. "Tucca" (no. 4) [Frank]
Tuccae
Balneum 1st cent. AD This bath may not have existed, the verse possibly Pers., 5.126
Crispini deriving from Hor. Sat., 1.3.137-139 (cited in
Ch. 3, n. 38) cf. R.A. HARVEY, A
Commentary on Persius (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1981), p. 126.
 Appendix 4 395

Baln(eum) 1st cent. AD 1) L. Scribonius Libo, cos. 1st cent. BC (RE CIL 15.7188
Scribon­ (?) 2.2A.881, s.v. "Scribonius (Libo)" (no. 19)
iolum6 [Miinzer]);
2). L. Scribonius Libo, Augustan senator (ibid.,
881-885 (no. 20) [Munzer]);
3). L. Scribonius Libo, cos. AD 16 (ibid., 885
(no. 21) [Fluss]);
4). L. Scribonius Libo, son of no. 3 (ibid., 885
(no. 22) [Fluss]);
5). L. Scribonius Libo Drusus, Augustanffiberian
senator (ibid., 885-887 (no. 23) (Fluss]);
6). (L. Scribonius?) Libo Frugi, cos. AD 96/8
(ibid., 887-888 (no. 24) [Groag]).

Balneum mid-2nd 1). M. Petronius Mamertinus, praefectus praetorio FTUR, 8.3,

Mamertini cent AD (RE 19.1217-9, s.v. "Petronius" (no. 44) cf. 8.165­
[Hoffman]; 166
2). M. Valerius Mamertinus, opponent of Heredes
Atticus (RE 14.951, s.v. "Mamertinus" (no. 1)
[Stein]).

Balineum Severan (?) 1). Asellius Claudianus, Severan senator (PIW A CIL 6.29767
Claudianum7 or later 1212);
2). (T.?) Carminius Claudianus, 2nd/3rd cent.
senator (RE 3.1596, s.v. "Carminius" (no. 3)
[Groag]);
3). T. Fl(avius?) Claudianus, mid-3rd cent. cos.,
(PIW F 231);
4). Several Late Imperial Claudiani, cf. RE
3.2651-2661, s.v. "Claudianus")

Lavacrum Severanor if "Plautini", otherwise unattested; HA Hel., 8.6

Plauti <a>ni earlier if "Plautiani", possibly the Severan praetorian
prefect C. Fulvius Plautianus (PJI(l F 554) ,
cf. the Teubner edition of vita Elagabali (ed. E.
HOHL, 1971)

[B]alineum Severan or otherwise unattested; 20 occurrences of this female Forma Urbis

Ampe[l] id[is] earlier name are known from Rome, cf. SOLIN, Romae, fr.
Namenbuch, 11.1074, s.v. "Ampelis". 47 (=CIL 6.
29844.30)

[Ba]lneum Severan or unlikely to have been the work of Caesar the Forma Urbis
[Ca]esaris earlier Dictator or a later emperor; perhaps named after Romae, fr.
a statue ofDivus Julius, or a later ruler 43

Balne(um) Severanor otherwise unattested Forma Urbis

Cotini earlier Romae, fr.
43 (=CIL 6.
29884.33)
 Appendix 4 396

not specified Severns and text on statue base: L. Ceius L. F. Privatus, quod CIL 6.354
Caracalla cum exampliaretur balneum sub princeps
voverat princeps castr. perigrinorum v(otum)
s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Privatus is otherwise
unattested

not clear Severan unnamed bath restored by P. Altius Maximus CIL 6.1474
Numerius Avitus, sevir eq. R. (cf. no. 253,
[Table 7] and note)

Balneum c. 270 Flavius Antiochianus, praejectus urbi (PIR2 F FTUR, 8.3,

Antiochiani 203). cf. 8.149

Balneum Constantin­ otherwise unattested FTUR, 11.1­

Dafnidis ian or ealier 2

not c. 360 Naeratius Cerealis, v.c. cons. ord., described on ILS 5718
specified8 statue base as conditor balnearwn

not 367-375 text: Fl. Antigonus, v.p., p(rae)p(ositus) ILS 5732

specified9 colymbum, nemus vetustate lapsum testacio
picturis ac statuis cum omni cultu ador[navit]

Balneu(m) possibly otherwise unattested CIL 6.33765

Augustae 10 Christian

NOTES

* It must be stressed once again that the identifications offered in this Appendix are very tentative. I
would like to thank in particular Dr. Christer Bruun of Oxford University for several comments and pointers.
1 The main problem with the first identification is that the term thermae is not applied to a bathhouse
in any Republican source (cf. above, pp. 68-69). It is possible that the term was later applied to a building
erected in the Republic, though this sounds like special pleading. More likely, the builder was an otherwise
unattested "Falerius" or "Falerianus".
2 Note that Martial reports that a Torquatus built thermae at Rome (Ep., 10.79.2-3).
3 Note that Stein (RE 6.2091, s.v. "Faustus" (no. 3)) lists a Faustus as owner of the baths, but offers
no identifications.
4 Stein notes the baths of Fortunatus, but offers no identifications, cf. RE 7.55, s.v. "Fortunatus" (no.
4).
5 Note that Stein (RE 13.1851, s.v. "Lupus" (no. 5) mentions a balneum Lupi but offers no
identification (as does PJR2 L 420). Seeck (RE loc. cit. in table) comments that the Lupus attested in the
Colosseum could be identified with any of the previous entries. Of course, lupus could simply mean "wolf", in
reference perhaps to some prominent decorative feature.
6 A slave collar. The text reads: Hilarionis so (sic). tene meet revoca me quia fugi de r(egione) XII a
baln(eum) Scriboniolum (sic) Rom(a)e. The bath lay in the Regio XII and is otherwise unknown. Note that the
slave belongs to a Hilario, who is either the owner of the bathhouse, or a regular at the Balneum Scribonio/um.
The CIL entry suggests that the bathhouse was a private one and owned by the Scribonii Libones.
7 This may be a private bathhouse. Concerning identification no. 1 here, note that this Asellius
Claudianus has recently been idendified with (A.?) Sellius Clodianus known from an inscription from Rome (AE
1974.11). If so, he is unlikely to have been the founder of the Balneum Claudianum, cf. C. BRUUN, "Die
Historia Augusta, die Proskriptionen des Severns und die curatores operum publicorum", Arctos 24 (1990), 5-14,
esp. 6-9.
 Appendix 4 397

---------------------~----

8 For Naeretius Cerealis, cf. PLRE 1 Cerealis 2 (pp. 197-199).

9 For Flavius Antigonus, cf. PLRE 1 Antigonus (pp. 50-51).
10 An otherwise unknown bathhouse at Rome. Cf. CJL 6.39087. The editor of CJL suggests it was
an inscription pertaining to a Christian woman.
 Appendix 5 398

APPENDIX 5

PARTS OF BATHS MENTIONED IN THE EPIGRAPHIC

SAMPLE AS HAVING BEEN BUILT, RESTORED,
EXTENDED OR ADORNED

Name Reference and work done

apodyteriwn nos. 115 (adorned); 136 (restored and adorned), 159 (built) (Table
5); 180 (restored and adorned), 184 (built or restored) (Table 6);

aequeductum (?) thermarum no. 38 (built) (Table 2); 56 (built?) (Table 3);

alriwn thermarum nos. 29 (built and adorned) (Table 2); 164 (built) (Table 5);

baptisteriwn no. 206 (adorned) (Table 6);

basilica nos. 7 (restored), 19 (restored and adorned) (Table 1);

caldmium nos. 144 (built and adorned) (Table 5); 185 (built and adorned)
(Table 6);

camerae nos. 128 (restored? and adorned); 171 (built) (Table 5);

cella balnearwn no. 171 (restored) (Table 5);

cella ftigidari no. 151 (built and adorned) (Table 5);

cella natatoria no. 131 (built) (Table 5);

(cella?) piscinalis nos. 160 (restored), 163 (restored and adorned), 173 (adorned)
(Table 5);

cella soliaris nos. 160 (restored?), 163 (restored and adorned), 165 (restored)
(Table 5);

cella thermarwn no. 158 (adorned) (Table 5);

cella unctuaria no. 125 (restored) (Table 5);

cella vestibula no. 135 (built and adorned) (Table 5);

cohors no. 144 (built and adorned) (Table 5);

colimbwn no. 154 (extended by addition of porticus) (Table 5);

crypta (?) no. 151 (built and adorned) (Table 5);

 Appendix 5 399

exceptorium nos. 162 (built) (Table 5); 164 (demolished) (Table 5);

exedrae no. 192 (built) (Table 6);

foculus nos. 177 (built or added), 186 (built and added) (Table 6);

labrum nos. 120 (built), 136 (built), 141 (built) (Table 5); 177 (built), 187

(built) (Table 6);

lacus no. 174 (built?) (Table 5);

lavacrum (thermarwn or nos. 13 (restored) (Table 1); 68 (built) (Table 3); 171 (restored)

balnearwn) (Table 5); 240 (restored water supply), 262 (heated) (Table 7);

musaeum no. 157 (built) (Table 5); [note also no. 158 (Table 5) for opus

musaeum, apparently a decorative technique]

nymphae calidae no. 190 (built) (Table 6);

oceanwn no. 165 (built) (Table 5);

paganicum no. 144 (built and adorned) (Table 5);

TTCX.lOtaKf)ov no. 191 (built and adorned) (Table 6);

patinas no. 129 (restored) (Table 5);

TIEptCHqJOV no. 198 (built and adorned) (Table 6);

pisdna nos. 136 (built), 140 (built), 162 (built), 174 (built) (Table 5);

ponicus nos. 6 (restored), 7 (restored), 19 (built) (Table 1); 21 (built)

(Table 2); 140 (built), 143 (adorned), 144 (built and adorned), 147
(restored), 150 (built and adorned), 154 (built), 160 (restored)
(Table 5);

proneum no. 160 (restored) (Table 5);

npOOTOOV no. 44 (built) (Table 3);

scalae no. 159 (built) (Table 5);

sedes no. 177 (built) (Table 6) [cf. no. 159 (Table 5) for mention of

cathedrae]

sofia nos. 128 (built), 129 (repaired), 160 (built) (Table 5); 196 (built)

(Table 6); 236 (improved) (Table 7);

sphaeristerium nos. 6 (restored) (Table 1); 130 (built), 133 (built) (Table 5);

aT6a no. 193 (built) (Table 6);

 Appendix 5 400

suspensurae no. 171 (built) (Table 5) [apparently here denoting tubulation in

vaults];

tepidariwn no. 174 (restored) (Table 5);

9CiKOV no. 191 (built and adorned) (Table 6);

unnamed rooms nos. 18 (restored) (Table 1); 49 (built) (Table 3); 142 (built), 145
(built) 149 (built and adorned), 151 (restored), 159 (adorned), 160
(restored?), 161 (built) (Table 5); 197 (restored), 206 (adorned)
(Table 6).
 Appendix 6 401

APPENDIX 6
BALNEUM DARE INSCRIPTIONS

THE TEXTS (listed chronologically, according to meaning)

A. Built

1. CIL 10.4884 ( =ILS 5664)

P. Lucanius L. f. Ter. Quadratus Ilvir, augur, q. II, balneum solo peq. sua dedit.
Cassia P. f. uxor et Lucania P. f. Procula.
NOTES: From Venafrum. No date.

2. CIL 12.2493/4 (= ILS 5768)

C. Sennius C. f. Vol. Sabinus, praef. fabr. 1 balineum, campum, porticus, aquas iusque
1 earum aquarum tubo ducendarum, ita ut recte I perfluere possint, vicanis Albinnensibus,
d(e) s(uo) d(edit)
NOTES: From Vicus Albinnensis in Sapaudia, Gallia Narbonensis. No date. Cf. CIL 12.2495 where
this same benefaction is recorded in three versions of an inscription.

3. CIL 12.3304

divi Augu[sti --] Is sphaeristeria d[edit?]

NOTES: From Nemausus, Gallia Narbonensis. No date. Note that the noun is in the plural, implying
the ball-courts were part of a bathing establishment of considerable size.

4. AE 1946.239

Ti. Claudius Ti. fil. 1 Matemus, aedilis, 1 sphaeristerium d(e) s(ua) d(edit).

NOTES: From Aventicum. No date. Cf. no. 133 (Table 5).

5. CIL 11.720 (= ILS 5674)

divus Aug. parens I dedit; 111111111 Augustus I Germanicus ///I refecit. I in huius balinei
lavation. HS CCCC I nomin. C. Aviasi T. f. Senecae f. suiT. Aviasius Servandus I
pater testament. legavit, ut ex reditu eius summ. I in perpetuum viri et impuberes utriusq.
sexsus 1 gratis laventur.
NOTES: From Bononia. Early Julio-Claudian. Cf. nos. 1-2 (Table 1), 218 (Table 7).

6. CIL 11.7285 (=ILS 8996)

....... I praefectus Aegypt[i, et] I Terentia A. f. mater eiu[s, et] 1 Cosconia Lentulii
 Appendix 6 402

(sic) Malug[inensis f.] 1 Gallitta uxor eius, ae[dificiis] I emptis et ad solum de[iectis] I
balneum cum omn[i ornatu I Volusiniens]ibus ded[erunt I ob publ]ica co[mmoda].
NOTES: From Volsinii. Tiberian. Cf. no. 85 (Table 4).

7. CIL 2.5489

L. Aemilius Daphnus sevir thermas 1 sua omni impensa municipibus Murg(itanis) I dedit
et quo die eas dedicavit X (denarios) sinl[g]ulos civibus et incolis epulum dedit; I
[q]uamdiu vixisset eodem die daturum I seX (denarios) singulos eisdem promisit et in I
[tute]lam earundem thermarum quam 1 diu ipse vixisset annuos X (denarios) CL I
pollicitus est
NOTES: From Murgi, Baetica. Dated to the Flavian period (letterform). Cf. no. 254 (Table 7).

8. CIL 2.3361 (= ILS 5688)

C. Sempronius C. f. Gal. Sempronianus Ilvir bis, 1 pontufex perpet(uus), Sempronia

Fusca Vibia Anicilla 1filia, thermas aqua perducta cum silvis agnuar. I trecentarum
pecunia impensaque sua omni d(ono) d(ederunt) (?)
NOTES: From Aurgi, Tarracconensis. Dated to Trajan (letterform). Presumably, the area of woodland
(300 agnuars, 1 agnuar = 120 square feet of land- Varro R.R., 1.10.2; Columella 5.1.5) was to be used
to supply the fuel for the baths, cf. no. 265 (Table 7).

B. Unclear
1. CIL 5.5136
L. Cluvienus L. f. Anilcilo I balneum et I aquas dedit

NOTES: From Bergomum. No date. Cf. no. 82 (Table 4).

2. CIL 5.6522

[Terentia Q. f. Postu]mina suo et I [C. Veturi L. f. Lucum]onis viri sui et I [C. Veturi C.
f. Postum]ini f. sui nomine I [balineum s]olo privato et I [lavationem] gratuitam in I
[perpetuum] dedit
NOTES: From Novaria. No date. Cf. no. 211 (Table 7).

3. CIL 13.11353 (= ILS 7060a)

[in honore]m domus Augustae I .... [Celeris f. sac]erd. Rom. et Aug. piscin. et
campum I ... (Med]iomatricis et advenis dedit.

NOTES: From Mediomatrix, Belgica. No date. May not refer to baths at all.

4. CIL 14.3472 (= ILS 2637)

M. Helvius M. f. Cam. Rufus I Civica prim. pil., 1 balneum I municipibus et incolis 1

dedit.
NOTES: From Vallis Digentiae (near Tibur). This appears to be the Helvius Rufus who won the
 Appendix 6 403

corona civica inN. Africa against Tacfarinas in AD 20 (Tac. Ann., 3.21.3). If so, he appears to have
adopted the title civica as a signum. Cf. PJR2 H 75; no. 217 (Table 7).

5. CIL 2.5354

in hon(orem) dom(us) divinae 1 G. Auf(idius) G. f. Gal(leria) Vegetus 1 Ilvir II (iterum)

curat(or) balineu(m) I aedificavit et G. Auf(idius) G. f. Gal(leria) 1 Avitus f(ilius) Ilvir
desig(natus) I d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit) I et circens(ibus) [ded(icavit)].

NOTES: From Burgvillos, Baetica. Dated by letterform to before mid-2nd cent. (accepted by NIELSEN,
Therm., 1.65, n. 9). Nos. 63 (Table 3), 222 (Table 7).

6. AE 1961.109

Q. Avelio Q. f. Serg(ia tribu) Prisco I Severio Severo Annavo Rufo, flamini divi I
Augusti, patrono municipii 1 primo omnium Corfiniensium quaestori reipublicae I
Illlvir(o), aedili, Illlvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo), Illlvir(o) quinqu(ennali), pontif(ici)
Laurent(ium) Lavinat(um) I hie ob honorem quinq. munus gladiatorium edidit, et ob 1
honorem Illlvir(atus) ludos scaenicos dedit. et ob honor( em) aedilitat ludos deae
Vetidinae I fecit, et in subsidium annonae frument. HS L m(ilia) n(ummarum) reip.
Corfmiens. et Balineum Avelianum I Muliebre cum HS XXX m(ilia) n(ummarum)
donavit frequentesque epulationes et divisiones nummar. I universis civibus ex suo
distribuit et onera reip. gratuita pecunia saepius iuvit. 1 Corfmienses publice ob insignem
I eius erga rempublicam adfectum I Avelius Priscus honore usus impens(am) remisit.
NOTES: From Corfinium. 180 +. NIELSEN, Therm., I. 40, n. 25 includes it among baths built. Cf.
no. 258 (Table 7).

7. CIL 9. 4196

L. Julius Pompilius I Betulenus Apronianus c. i. I balneas Amiterninis I patriae suae

dedit.

NOTES: From Amitemum. The Principate (this man's name appears in PJR2, but there is no article
for him).

*
COMMENTS
This group of 15 inscriptions records the "giving" of baths to a community. As can be
ascertained at a glance, most come from Italy, with some emanating from Gaul and Spain. Most
date to the Principate.

In many cases the phrase balneum dare (and variants) simply means "built". The
construction of other public buildings is recorded in this way: walls (e.g. ILS 104; CIL 11.5),
temples (e.g. CIL 5.2149, 5.8720, l/10.4.32),basilicas (/LRRP 568), porticoes (e.g. CIL
11.3614; Athenaeum 54 (1976), 65) and others (e.g. CIL 11.1924; ILS 1379; Athenaeum 44
(1966), 137-44). The phrase may derive from thefaciundum dare formula found in certain
Republican texts (e.g. AE 1978.323, where it reflects the letting out of contracts by duumviri at
Luna), although it is a logical extension of the use of dare in the sense of making or forming
something (cf. TU, 5.1.1685.58-82). Altogether, however, it is used far less frequently to
denote building than the more familiar facere, constituere, and construere formulae.
 Appendix 6 404

With regard to the balneum dare texts, those that mention outlay (with phrases like
pecunia sua) can usually be taken to reflect the construction of a bath (cf. Texts, Section A).
This seems all but certain for A.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 which all mention the giving of a bath or part
thereof from the personal funds of the the benefactor.

The other texts in Section A are:

A.3: fragmentary, referring only to sphaeristeria, but on analogy with A.4 it is

included here; a d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) may be lost

A.5: this text can reasonably be taken to commemorate a bath construction, as the
building, "given" by Augustus, is repaired by Gaius or Nero. The later restoration becomes
understandable if the original construction was carried out by a predecessor; it may even have
been a consequence of Augustus's construction.

A.6: a construction more than likely stands behind this text, as the benefactors
are reported to have bought up and demolished buildings that stood on the bath site, and the
wording echoes texts commemorating baths built, extended or restored "with every refinement"
(cf. e.g. nos. 7, 8, 11, (Table 1), 48 (Table 3), 80 (Table 4), 126, 144 (Table 5)).

However, the presence of a phrase such as de sua pecunia, although a strong indicator,
does not automatically reflect a bath construction. An inscription from Burguillos in Baetica (cf.
Section B, no. 5)) shows this clearly. Here a duovir builds a set of baths, and his son, a duovir
designatus, "gives" them to the town at his own expense. The most likely explanation here (as
discussed below, s.v. B.5) is that the son offered free bathing in the building. The main point,
though, is that the presence of d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) does not here indicate a construction.

For the remaining documents (collected above in Section B), determining what
benefaction they commemorate is more difficult Most simply record a bath "given" to a town.
Because the word balneum can denote the act of bathing as well as the building where it took
place, there are really only three possibilities:

a). The baths were built by the donor.

b). An existing structure was given over to public ownership (cf. no. 261 (Table
7) for the transfer of a private bath to public ownership).

c). Free bathing was offered in the building.

It is often difficult to decide which is the most likely case. We shall therefore proceed with a
text-by-text analysis.

B.1: Here, either possibility a) orb) appears the most likely. Aquae may refer to
an aqueduct, or to water sources located on the benefactor's land made available for use by the
bathhouse (cf. no. 226 [Table 7]). Because other texts record the construction or restoration of
aqueducts and bathhouses together (e.g. nos. 91 [Table 4], 160, 176(?) [Table 5], 230 [Table
7]), possibility a) may be seen to have a slight edge in this case.

B.2: As the text expressly states that the benefactor offered free bathing in the
baths in perpetuum, possibility c) can be eliminated for the first part of the clause. In which
case, balneum privato solo ... dedit means that either the benefactor gave private baths located
on her property over to the ownership of the town, or she built the baths on her private ground
 Appendix 6 405

and then opened them for free (analogous to the siruation in B.5). The presence of a phrase
such as sua pecunia would favour the latter possibility, but in its absence the ambiguity remains.

B.3: A fragmentary inscription. It is not clear if the piscina and the campus were
part of a bathhouse, but it is certainly possible that they were. Mention of specific groups
(residents at Mediomatrix and people who visited the town) makes possibility c) the most likely
here, compare the wording of e.g. nos. 207-209, 212-214,223 (Table 7) and B.4 below. The
word balnewn, possibly abbreviated, may be missing directly before [Med]iomatricis.

B.4: CENERINI, RSA 17-18 (1987 -1988), 213 believes that this text refers to
the transference of ownership of a building. However, given the naming of specific groups of
beneficiaries, possibility c) appears to me the most appropriate interpretation (see previous
entry).

B.5: Since the father built the baths, possibility b) might appear the most likely
explanation for what the son did. However, if that is the case, it is difficult to see the
significance of d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia). It might refer to the circus games Avirus gave to mark the
building's dedication, but the positioning of the d.s.p. acronym is clearly with the dedit rather
than circens(ibus) [ded(icavit)]. The most reasonable explanation, therefore, is possibility c):
that Avitus spent money on giving free baths to the people, for an unspecified length of time
(perhaps only on opening day, when the circenses were being held).

B.6: Possibilities a) and b) seem the most appropriate here, though b) may have
the edge since no expense is incurred as a result of the "giving" of the baths, whereas a specific
sum is reported as accompanying the act of "giving." All this is appropriate to the transference
of an already existing structure to public ownership, with an accompanying fund for the tutela
and calefactio thereof (i.e. HS30,000, presumably for these purposes; DUNCAN-JONES,
Econ., no.1308a, p. 215 who posits an income of HS 1,800 per annum if the interest was 6% ).
B.7: Any of the possibilities is applicable here.

Balnewn dare texts, then, offer particular problems of interpretation due to the
ambiguous meaning of the word balneum, and the various possible benefactions afforded by the
baths themselves. Broadly speaking, the presence of a phrase such as pecunia sua or impensa
sua can tentatively be taken to suggest a construction. If particular beneficiaries are listed (e.g.
municipibus, incolis), even if an "expense" formula is present, then the benefaction of offering
free bathing becomes the more likely explanation. The transference of a bath from private to
public ownership may lie behind some inscriptions, but identifying such cases securely is
extremely difficult. In certain cases, the wording is just too terse to be sure which of the three
possibilities carries the most weight. Caution must therefore be exercised in reading such texts,
and each should be assessed on its own merits.
ILLUSTRATIONS

 Illustrations: Fig. 1 407

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 a e !Oms

Figure 1: The thermal establishment at Gortys. Arcadia; groundplan (final phase) !after
GINOUVES, Bulan., fig. 153]
 Illustrations; Fig. 2 408

OLVMPfA
DiE BADE ANLAGEN
LAGEPLAN p ,0. L A I

·-·-·-·-·-·-·- WAS5f:RLEITUNoEN
0~~~~=-~~~~--~
.. o ao 'o"' HOR.D

t
c

I
.I
I

r
------­
B
• •

Figure 2: The sanctuary at Olympia with the baths marked A and the "Heroon· marked B lafter
KUNZE & SCHLEIF, Olympia, Taf. 11I

 Illustrations; Fig. 3 409

FtU[R.UNG

- W!irrltBlWllTl
- Ai.TfRf MAU£RN
• WWJ'Dil MAUlllH 'fi'
~ lKIW!tN£ GI.WI•
l88&IJ8 Wn6£ AHIIAUTOI

.lR~
.:· ?.~.:· 4 MliODlll

w~~.J. •

OLYMPiA DiE BADER 5 » GRiECHiSCHES HYPOKAU5TENBAD«

100 0 4
~ 4 r--eeeeJ L..1 t t ( IV ) 6RUNORi5S
'"'

Fi~ure 3: The "Greek.hypocaust bath" at Olympia: groundplan !after KUNZE & SCHLEIF.
Olymp1a, Taf. 191
 Illustrations: Fig. 4 410

HYPOKAU.STENPLAN
~00
0 4 5

'"' 0

Fi~ure 4: The hypocaust system in building IV at Olympia !after KUNZE & SCHLEIF.
Olympia, Abb. 25, p. 52]
 Illustrations; Fig. 5 411

0 ,,...,

N---­

Figure 5: The Greek hip-bath rotundas in the Harbour Baths at Eretria; groundplan (after
GINOUVES. Balan.. fig. 160)
 Illustrations; Fig. 6 412

I
"'
XI ·..---··

0 10 ,.,
m

1: vestibule VII: part of praejunrillm B: porticu, sundial found at x

II: men's apodyt~ri11m Vlll: timber-storage yard (?) C:pa/Msrro
Ill: men's repidmi~~m IX: women's caldarillm D: notatio
IV: men's.frigUillrilllff X: women's tepidarillm E: out-door changing room
V: men's caldari~~m XI: women's apodyteri111n F. G: wing rooms of notatio
VI: 3-cauldron prufomillln A: main entrance Q: •toggia"; brazier findspot

Figure 6: The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: groundplan, (Eschebach's room numbers) (after
HEINZ, Rom Therm., Abb. 45, p. 56]
 Illustrations: Fig. 7.1 413

, TIE~ORUNNEN
2 8RUNNENRAUM
3 BA.CEZELLEN
4 L..IJTRON
:) (3Yp...t~AS10N
6 NE2ENRA.UME
7 VERLAUF CER
ALTSTAUTMAvER
( PAPPAM()NTE"-'iAUER ')
8 GRABEN
9 HY?CGEUM

, . . . . . GESIC><ERT

rp:::: ERGANlT

REKONS 'RUKTIONS •
VERSUC><
UNTERIRDISCHES
6AUWEPK

2(:­
0

Fi~ure 7.1: The Stabian Baths, Pompeii: Eschebach's Period I (5th cent. BC) [after
ESCHEBACH. Stab. Thenn., Taf. 34a]
 Illustrations: Fig. 7.2 414

j
<./
~rE=O~V~f'.EJrr,j
OR ....... ~E~RAIJ~

Bl...:O£ZEL:..E:
4 <Q,R.:JOR
5 ;:.A_:..SiRA
6 ~£:£"1iRAVME. :>ER PA:..A.S,.RA.
? PC=i,.·:JS
S lA\.:..-~1"'--A

~£KO~$TRUM..T•:;)'S •
v:::~su.::N
u~·ER!O:liSCH ES
3A.;WERK

~w____s~~oL_________
'o----~--~~~

Fi~ure 7.2: The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: Eschebach's Period II (4th/3rd cent. BC) (after
ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm .. Taf. 34bl
 Illustrations: Fig. 7.3 415

0 10 20m

fi~ure 7.3: The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: Eschebach's Period Ill (3rd cent. BC) [after
ESCHEBACH, Srab. Therm.. Taf. 36bJ
 Illustrations; Fig. 7.4 416

5 0 tO 20m

Fi~ure 7.4: The Stabian Baths, Pompeii: Eschebach's Period IV (c. 140-120. BC) (after
ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., Taf. 36aJ
 Illustrations; Fig. 7.5 417

-,~====-'
rr:m:: +----.,.
,, i
U I '
I

I avl't'~
ur.tcr'-gt
... t•t
jtH>9"' lystor.C
1
••
1

CJ

:::;;::>
I'
IIII
=.'::J
1 f -,I! I -.-.' ,-,

s 0 10 20m

Figure 7.5: The Stabian Baths, Pompeii: Eschebach's Period V (c. 80 BC) [after
ESCHEBACH. Stab. Thenn., Taf. 37c]
 Illustrations; Fig. 7.6 418

10 20m
5 0

Figure 7.6: The Stabian Baths, Pompeii: Eschebach's Period Vlff (1st cent.BC- 1st cent. AD)
(after ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., Taf. 37d]
 1llustrations; Fig. 8 419

0 50 100 150cm
~~~~--~--~

Figure 8.1: The Stabian Baths, Pompeii: Eschebach's 5th-cent. hip-bath from the North Wing
(after ESCHEBACH, Stab. Therm., Abb. 16, p. 51]

0 n
\ ...._/
..._

·v \ l
0
'""

Figure 8.2: Greek hip-baths from the Agora at Athens (5th century BC) (after GINOUVES,
Balan., fig., 151]
 Illustrations; Fig. 9 420

fufo~

-·---·­ --- ---t:-:===::::'-­ ·---···--­ ---·- ·-·----------­ ----.­ ·­

r- .... _, r ... . , ~- ......
' g§
~~~~~#f~n11·,
d•lfe
lli___i=i__j~--_E~--~~--ggl__lEi___E~--~~~~~~~ruJp~nJ~r~
-+~~t~-40-------41--------r---~-METRf

fi~ure 9: The Stabian Baths. Pompeii: reconstruction of the niche arrangement in the women's
caldarium and repidarium (rooms IX and X in fig. 6 respectively) !after
NIELSEN. Therm .. 11.72. fig. 351
 Illustrations; Fig. 10 421

fillure 10: The Forum Baths. Pompeii: groundplan !after RICHARDSON. Pompeii, fig. 20.
p. 1491

 Illustrations: Fig. 11 422

c~.ra ciPIIa "'a"l' 'UJJta.

1"\, ' ...., I'
I
•• II
I q)
':l
~-
~ I'·I ~
~
1:1
...

~
~ ~
"()
I ~
~
~
~
·S-.
~
~
\J

~ ~

I
;-;,J

fi~ure II: The Republican Baths. Pompeii: groundplan !after MAIURI. NSc (1950). fig. 1,
p. 1171

 Illustrations; Fig. 12 423

Fi~ure 12: The Suburban Baths. Pompeii: groundplan (after JACOBELLI. RSP 1988. fig.
51. p. 203]
 Illustrations: Fig. 13 424

F 1 l!. ... \) Pumpr 11 IPumptil Cemr.d H.Hh\ ~(

tt'; w RP'~l·l t'( .d I \)-h p "'I()".. )

t'i~ure 13: The Central Baths, Pompeii: groundplan (after NIELSEN. Therm., 11.100, fig.
79]; scale is provided in Nielsen's caption
 Jllustrations; Fig. 14 425

•• Q.

-~
<~
~
f­
­
~==
;: -<:

1
~ X
=='~
~ ~
~ -
~ ~

-=~

t'i~ure 14: The Suburban Baths, Herculaneum; groundplan !after NIELSEN. Therm., 11.99,
fig. 76]: scale is provided in Nielsen's caption
 11lustrations; Fig. 15 426

Urrutopher Parslow

PRAEDIA IVLIAE FELICIS

Pompeii, Reg lo 2.4 1- 12
Plan

Mtters

VIa dell' Abbondanu

l'igure 15: The Praedia Juliae Felicis, Pompeii; groundplan (after PARSLOW, Praedia, fig. 8]
 Illustrations; Fig. 16 427

Fi~ure 16: The Palaestra Baths, Pompeii; groundplan (after RICHARDSON. Pompeii, fig. 45

p. 299)
 Illustrations; Fig. 17.1 428

,,,:,.-: :·.: ..... ~

'

lluk 4 IriCk On on
U~lu lhck :_______ .:' /
IIIC~ Quill
---..:_
0,_1 IICI!II•
loick
o,., llllnlah• 1 2 34 5 10 20M
h~~~~ Faci•l Co~gX~~z:a~~W~»~Y&~m=:gp~•==========~l

Fi~ure 17.1: The Sarno Baths. Pompeii; groundplan of Level 1 (street level) (after KOLOSKI
OSTROW, Sarno, fig. 11
 Illustrations; Fig. 17.2 429

Black 'Brick Quoins

Ashl~r Black

Block Ouoiu

Opus lncertum

Brick

o,us Reticulatu111

Rubble fatiRI

fi~ure 17.2: The Sarno Baths. Pompeii: groundplan of Level 4 (bath level) (after KOLOSKI
OSTROW, Sarno. fig. 4)
 Illustrations; Fig. 18.1 430

A: Stabian Baths, c. 140 BC B·F

. orum Baths, c. 80 BC C: Republican Baths. c. 100-90 BC

. baths of Pornpen,
l'igure 18.1·• Th e pub he .. c. 60 BC
 Illustrations; Fig. 18.2 431

A: Stabian Batha, c. 140 BC B: Forum Baths, c. 80 BC C: Suburban Baths, Tiberian (7)

figure 18.2: The public baths of Pompeii, c. AD 30-40

 Illustrations; Fig. 18.3 432

A: Stabian Baths, c. 140 BC B: Forum Baths, c. 80 BC C: Suburban Baths, Tiberian (?)

D: Central Baths, AD 62-79 E: Balneum V~n~rium et F: Palaestra Baths, AD 62-79

Nong~llfllm, AD 62-79

G· Sarno Baths, Ad 62-79

t'igure 18.3: The public baths of Pompeii. AD 79

 Illustrations; Fig. 19 433

,­- - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­- - :::;-""?"::-:--=---:-----==?...--=~
I
I

/ :I

,,

,
/

25

75

10
..

II

t'igure 19: The comer-bath near the Horrea Lolliana on fr. 25 of the Forma Urbis Romae
[after E.R. ALMEIDA, Forma Urbis Marmorea: Aggiomamenro genera/e,
(Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1980), Tav. XVIII]
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Here listed are the main secondary works consulted in the compilation of this thesis (material
such as commentaries on specific authors can be found in the relevant notes).

ABBOTI, F.F. & JOHNSON, A.E., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926)

ALFOLDY, G., The Social History of Rome (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988,
2nd. ed.)

ALMEIDA, E.R., Forma Urbis Marmorea: Aggiomamento generale (Rome: Edizioni Quasar,
1980)

AMULREE, LORD, "Hygiene Conditions in Ancient Rome and Modern London", Medical
History 17 (1975), 244-255
AMELING, W., Herodes Atticus (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1983)

ANDREAU, J., "Fondations privees et rapports sociaux en Italie romaine (Jer -me s. ap. J.C.)",
Ktema 2 (1977), 157-209
ARTHUR, P., "Problems of the Urbanization of Pompeii", Anti 66 (1986), 29-44

ASHBY, T., The Aqueducts ofAncient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935)

ASTIN, A.E., Cato the Elder (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978)

BAADER, G., "Der art.zliche Stand in der romischen Republik", Acta Conventus XII "Eirene",
1968 (Warsaw, 1971), pp. 7-17

-------- "Der art.zliche Stand in der Antik:e", Jahrbuch der Universitiit Dusseldorf, 1977/1978,
pp. 301-315

BADIAN, E., Roman Imperialism on the LaJe Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971,
2nd ed.)

BALDWIN, B., "The Date, Identity and Career of Vitruvius", Latomus 49 (1990), 425-434

BALSDON, J.P.V.D., Life and Leisure in the Roman World (London: Bodley Head, 1974)

-------- Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1979)

BATIAGLIA, G.B., Le ciste praenestine (Rome: Consiglia nazionale della Ricerche,1979)

BEARD, M. & CRAWFORD, M.H., Rome in the Late Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985)

BEHR, C.A., P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works, 2 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981,
1986)

434

 435

BENEDUM, J., "Die Balnea Pensilia des Asklepiades von Prusa", Gesnerus 24 (1967), 93-107

BLACK, E.W., The Roman Villas ofSouth-East England (Oxford: BAR British Series 171,
1987)

-------- Cursus Publicus: The Infrastructure ofGovernment in Roman Britain (forthcoming)

BLAKE, M.E., Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus
(Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute Publications, 1947)

BLOMNER, H., Romische PrivataltertUm.er (Miinchen: C.H. Beck, 1911)

BOATWRIGHT, M.T., "The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century AC", AJP 112
(1991), 513-540

-------- "Plancia Magna of Perge: Women's Roles and Status in Roman Asia Minor" in S.B.
POMEROY (ed.), Women's History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill: UNC Press,
1991), pp. 249-272

BOERSMA, J., Amoenissima Civitas. Block V.ii at Ostia: Description and Analysis ofits
Visible Remains (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985)
-------- "Le terme tardoromane di V alesio (Salento)" in Les thermes romains: actes de la table
ronde organisee par l'Ecole fran.faise de Rome (Rome: Collection de I'Ecole fran~ise de
Rome 142, 1991), pp. 161-173

BOETHIUS, A., Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (London: Penguin, 1978, 2nd ed.)

BOURNE, F.C., The Public Works ofthe Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton: n.p., 1946)

BOWMAN, A.K., "Public Buildings in Roman Egypt", JRA (5) 1992, 495-503

BRODNER, E., Die romischen Thermen und das Antike Badewesen: Eine kulturhistorische
Betrachtung (Darmstadt: Wissentschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983)
BROISE, H. & JOLIVET, V., "Le bain en Etrurie a l'ep9que hellenistque" in Les thermes
romaim;;: actes de Ia table ronde organisee par !'Ecole franfaise de Rome (Rome:
Collection de l'Ecole fran<;aise de Rome 142, 1991), pp. 79-95

BROUGHTON, T.R.S., Magistrates ofthe Roman Republic (California: APA Monographs

XV, 1952, repr., 1984)

BROWN, F.E., Cosa: The Making ofa Roman Town (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1980)

BRUNT, P.A., "Free Labour and Public Works at Rome", JRS 70 (1980), 81-100

------Italian Manpower (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971)

BRUUN, C., "Die Historia Augusta, die Proskriptionen des Severns und die curatores operum
publicorum", Arctos 24 (1990), 5-14
 436

-------- The Water Supply ofAncient Rome. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration
(Helsinki: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 93, 1991)

BURFORD, A., The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros (foronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1969)

BURNHAM, B.C. & W ACHER, J., The "Small Towns" of Roman Britain (London: Batsford,
1990)

BURTON, G.P., "The Curator Rei Publicae, A Reappraisal", Chiron 9 (1979), 465-488

CARCOPINO, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome (London: Penguin, 1956)

CARETTONI, G. et al, La pianta marmorea di Roma antica: Forma Urbis Romae (Rome: n.p.,
1955)

CARTER, J., "Civic and Other Buildings" in I.M. BARTON, (ed.), Roman Public Buildings
(Exeter: Exeter Studies in History No. 20, 1989), pp. 31-65

CASSATELLA A. & IACOPI, 1., "11 balneum presso le Scalae <;aci sui Palatino" in Les
thennes romains: acres de Ia table ronde organisee par /'Ecole fra.Tlfaise de Rome (Rome:
Collection de l'Ecole fran9aise de Rome 142, 1991), pp. 129-138

CASTREN, P., "Hellenismus und Romanisierung in Pompeji", Hellenismus in Mirtelitalien

(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 356-365

CENERINI. F.. "Evergetismo ed epigrafia: lavationem in perpetuom". RSA 17-18 (1987­

1988). 199-220

CHARLESWORTH, M.P., "The Virtues of a Roman Emperor. Propaganda and the Creation of
Belief'. PBA 23 (1937). 105-130

COARELLI, F., "Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla", PBSR
32 (1977). 1-23

COHN-HAFT. L.. The Public Physicians ofAncient Greece. (Northampton. Mass.: Smith
College Studies in History XLII. 1956)

COLLINGWOOD. R.G. & WRIGHT. R.P.• The Roman Inscriptions ofBritain II (Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 1965)

CRAWFORD, M., "Greek Intellectuals and the Roman Aristocracy in the First Century BC", in
P.D. GARNSEY & C.R. WHITIAKER (edd.).lmperialism in the Ancient World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978)

CROOK. J.A.. Law and Life of Rome. (London: Thames & Hudson. 1967)

CUNLIFFE. B.. Roman Bath Discovered (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1984. rev. ed.)

CURCHIN. L.A.. The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain (foronto: University of Toronto
Press. 1990)

DALY. L.W .. Aesop Without Morals (New York: Yoseloff. 1961)

 437

D' ARMS, J .H., Romans on the Bay ofNaples: A Social and Cultural Study of TheVillas and
Their Owners from 150 BC to AD 400 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1970)

DeLAINE, J., "Recent Research on Roman baths", IRA 1 (1988), 11-32

-------- "Some Suggestions on the Transition from Greek to Roman Baths in Hellenistic Italy",
IMA 2 (1989), 111-125
--------"The Balneum of the Arval brethren", IRA 3 (1990), 321-324

a
DELORME, J.. Gymnasio_n. Etudes sur les monuments consacres /'education en Grece (Paris:
Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran~aises d'Athenes et de Rome 198, 1960)

DIONISOTTI, A.C., "From Ausonius's Schooldays? A Schoolbook and its Relatives", IRS 72
(1982), 83-125

DUNCAN-JONES, R.P., "The Procurator as Civic Benefactor", IRS 64 (1974), 79-85

-------- The Economy ofthe Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982, rev. ed.)

--------"Who Paid for Public Buildings in Roman cities?" in GREW, F. & HOBLEY, B. (edd),
Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western Empire (CBA Research Report
59, 1985), pp. 28-33

-------- StrUcture and Scale in the Roman Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990)

DUTHOY, R., "Curatores rei publicae en Occident durant le Principat", AncSoc 10 (1979),
171-239

-------- "Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie", AncSoc 15-17 (1984-6), 121-154

DYSON, S.L., Community and Society in Roman Italy (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 1992)

ECK, W., Die staatliche Organisation ltaliens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Munich: C.H. Beck,
1979)

EDELSTEIN, E.J. & L., Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation ofthe Testimonies, 2 vols.
(Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1945)

--------"The Dietetics of Antiquity", in 0. & C.L. TEMKIN (edd.), Ancient Medicine: Selected
Papers ofLudwig Edelstein (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1967), pp. 303-316
ESCHEBACH, H., Die stiidtebauliche Entwicklung des antiken Pompeji (Heidelberg/Rome:
Romische Mitteilungen XVII, 1970)

--------Die Stabianer Thennen in Pompeji (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979)

 438

-------"Die innerstiidtische Gebrauchswasserversorgung dargestellt am Beispiel Pompejis", in

J.P. BOUCHER (ed.) Joumees d'etudes sur les aqueducs romains (Paris: Les belles
Lettres, 1983), pp. 81-132
-------Die Anzhiiuser in Pompeji (Antike Welt Sonderlleit 15, 1984)
ETIENNE, R., La vie quotidienne aPompei (Paris: Hachette, 1977, 2nd ed.)
EVANS, H. B., "Water Distribution: quorsum et cui bono?", in A.T. HODGE (ed.), Future
Currents in Aqueduct Studies (Leeds: Cairns, 1991), pp. 21-27
FARRINGTON, A., "Imperial Bath Buildings in South-West Asia Minor" in F.H.
THOMPSON (ed.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London: Society of
Antiquaries, 1987), pp. 50-59
FEISSEL, D. & GASCOU, J., "Documents d'archives romains inedits au Moyen Euphrate (IIIe
Siecle apres J.-C.)", CRAI 1989, 535-561
FERRARY, J.L., Philhellinisme et imperialisme. Aspects ideologiques de la conquete romaine
du monde hellenistique (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran~aises d'Athenes et de Rome
271, 1988)
FISCHER, K. D., "Zur Entwicklung des artzlichen Standes im romischen Kaiserreich",
Medizinhistorisches Journal14 (1979), 165-175
FONTANILLE, M.T., "Les bains dans la medicine greco-romaine" in A. PELLETIER (ed.), La
Medicine en GauZe: villes d'eaux, sanctuaires des eaux (Paris: Picard, 1985)
FREDERIKSEN, M. (ed. N. PURCELL), Campania (Rome: British School at Rome, 1984)
FREZOULS, E., MORANT, M.-J., & LONGPIERRE, D., "Urbanisme et principaux
monuments de Kadyanda", Ktema 11 (1986), 225-238
FRIEDLANDER, L., Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (Leipzig: Scienta Verlag,
1964, 1Oth ed.)
GARNSEY, P., Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1970)
-------- "Urban Property Investment" in M.I. FINLEY (ed.), Studies in Roman Property
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 123-136
-------- & R. SALLER, The Roman Empire. Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1987)
GASPARRI, C., "Sculture provenienti dalle Terme di Caracalla e di Diocleziano", RIA series 3,
no. 6 (1983-1984), 133-150.
GINOUVES, R., L'Etahlissement Thermal de Gortys d'Arcadie (Paris: Ecole fran~aise
d'Athenes; Etudes Peloponnesiennes, 1959)
---- Balaneutike: recherches sur le bain dans l'antiquite grecque (Paris: Bibliotheque des
Ecoles franc;aises d'Athenes et de Rome 200, 1962)
 439

GAUTHIER, Ph., Les cites grecques et leurs beinjaiteurs (Paris: BCH supplement 12, 1985)

GREEN, R. MONTRAVILLE, Aclepiades. His Life and Writings (New Haven: E. Licht, 1955)

a
GROS, P., Architecture et Societe Rome et en Italie centro-meridionale aux deux derniers
siecles de la Republique (Brussels: Collection Latomus 156, 1978)
GRUEN, E.S., The Last Generation ofthe Roman Republic (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 197 4)

--------The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984)

HAMILTON, J., "Scribonius Largus on the Medical Profession", Bulletin ofthe History
Medicine 60 (1960), 209-216
HANDS, A.R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1968)

HARIG, R., "Zum Problem 'Krankenhaus' in der Antike", Klio 53 (1971), 179-195

HEINZ, W., Romische ThermeTL Badewesen und Badeluxus im romischen Reich (Munich:
Hirmer, 1983)

HERMANSEN, G., "The Population of Imperial Rome", Historia 27 (1978), 129-168

-------Ostia: Aspects ofCity Life (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1981)

HILL, P.V., The Monuments ofAncient Rome as Coin Types (London: Seaby, 1989)

HILTON TURNER, J., "Sergius Orata, Pioneer of Radiant Heating", CJ 43 (1947/1948), 486­
487

HODGE, AT., "Aqueducts" in I.M. BARTON (ed.), Roman Public Buildings (Exeter: Exeter
Studies in History No. 20, 1989), pp. 129-147

HOPKINS, K., Death and RenewaL Sociological Studies in Roman History II (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983)

HUSS, W., Die Karthager (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1990)

JACKSON, R., Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire (London: B.M. Publications, 1988)

-------- "Roman Doctors and Their Instruments: Recent Research into Ancient Practice", JRA 3
(1990), 5-27

JACOBELLI, L.,"Lo scavo delle Terme Suburbane. Notizie preliminari", RSP 1 (1987), 151­
154

-------- "Terme Suburbane: stato attuale delle conoscenze", RSP 2 (1988), 202-208
 440

JACQUES, F., Les curareurs des cites dans !'Occident romain (Paris: Etudes
prosopographiques 5, 1982)
-------- Le privilege de
liberte: politique imperiale et autonomie municipale dans les cites de
l'Occident romain (Paris: Collection de l'Ecole fran~aise de Rome 76, 1984)
JOCELYN, H. D., "The Ruling Class of the Roman Republic and Greek Philosophers", BRL
59 (1977), 323-366
JOHANNOWSKY, W., "Relazione preliminare sugli scavi di Cales", BA 46 (1961), 258-268
-------- "Considerazioni sullo sviluppo urbano e Ia cultura materiale di Velia", PP 37 (1982),
225-246
JONES, A.H.M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Oxford Uuniversity
Press, 1940)
-------- The Later Roman Empire, AD 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1964)
JONES, G., Social Hygiene in Twentieth Century Britain (London: Croom Helm, 1986)
JOHNSTON, D., "Munificence and Municipia: Bequests to Towns in Classical Roman Law",
JRS 75 (1985), 105-125
JORDAN, D.R., "Curses from the Waters of Sulis", IRA 3 (1990), 437-441
JOUFROY, H., "Le financement des constructions publiques en Italie: initiative municipale,
initiative imperiale, evergetisme prive", Ktema 2 (1977), 329-337
--------La construction publique en ltalie et dans !'Afrique romaine (Strasbourg: AECR, 1986)

KARMl, G., "State Control of the Physicians of the Middle Ages: An Islamic Model" in A.W.
RUSSELL (ed.), The Town and State Physician in Europe from the Middle Ages to the
Enlightenment (Wolfenbuttel: Wolfenbutteler Forschungen 17, 1981), pp. 63-84
-------"The Colonisation of Traditional Arabic Medicine" in R.S. PORTER (ed.), Patients and
Practitioners: Lay Perceptions ofMedicine in Pre-Industrial Society (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 315-339
KERENYI, C., Asklepios (New York: Pantheon, 1959)
KOEBLING, H.M., Arzr und Patient in der antiken Welt (Munich: Artemis, 1977)
-------- "Le mooecin dans Ia cite grecque", Gesnerus 46 (1989), 29-43

KOLB, F., "Zur Statussymbolik im antiken Rom", Chiron 7 (1977), 239-260

KOLENDO, J., "I.-a repartition des places aux spectacles et Ia stratification sociale dans !'Empire
romaine. A propos des inscriptions les sur grad ins des amphitheatres et theatres", Ktema
6 (1981), 301-315
KOLLESCH, J., "Artzliche Ausbildung in der Antike", Klio 61 (1979), 507-513
 441

KOLOSKI OSTROW, A, The Sarno Bath Complex (Rome: Bretschneider, 1990)

KRUG, A, Heilkunst und Heilkult. Medizin in der Antike (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1985)

KUDLIEN, F., "Schaustellerei und Heilmittelvertrieb in der Antike", Gesnerus 40 (1983), 91­
98

KONZL, E., "Operationsraume in romischen Thermen", Bonner Jahrbuch 186 (1986), 491-509

KUNZE, E. & SCHLEIF, H., N. Bericht Uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Berlin: de
Gruyer, 1944)

KYLE. D.G., Athletics in Ancient Athens (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987)

LeROUX, P., "Cite et culture municipale en Betique sous Trajan", Ktema 12 (1987), 271-284

LEZINE, A., ArchiteCTUre romaine d'Afrique (Tunis: Publications de l'Universite de Tunis,

1961)

-------- Les thermes d'Antonin a Carthage (Tunis: Publications de l'Universite de Tunis, 1969)
LIEBESCHUETZ, J.H.W.G., Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman
Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972)
LUGLI. G .. Fontes ad Topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes. 7 vols. (Rome:
Universita di Roma, 1952-1969)

MAIURI. A.• L'ultimafase edilizia di Pompei (Rome: Istituto di studi Romani 20, 1942)

--------"Pompei: scoperta di un edificio termale nella Regio VIII. Insula 5. n. 3-6". NSc 1950,
116-136

-------- "Significato e natura del solium nelle terme romane", PP 5 (1950). 223-227

MALLWITZ. A. Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich: Prestel, 1972)

MacDONALD, W.L.. The Architecture ofImperial Rome. 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University
Press. 1965. 1986)

MacMULLEN. R.. "Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces", HSPh 64 (1959). 207-235

--------"The Emperors' Largesses". Latomus 21 (1962). 159-166

--------Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)

-------"The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire". AJP 103 (1982). 233-246

------- Corruption and the Decline ofRome (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988)
MANDERSCHEID. H .. SkulfJIUTenausstOJtUng der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen (Berlin:
Gebr. Mann. 1981)
 442

-------- Bibliographie zum romischen Badewesen (Munich: DB Drucken, 1988)

-------- "Romische Thermen. Aspekte vom Architektur, Technik und Ausstattung" in Geschichte
der Wasserversorgung, Band 3: Die Wasserversorgung antiker Stiidte (Mainz: P. von
Zabern, 1988), pp. 101-125

MARQUARDT, J., Das Privatleben der Romer (Liepzig: S. Hirzel, 1886, 2nd ed.)

MARSHALL, B.A., Crassus: A Political Biography (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1976)

MARVIN. M., "Freestanding Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla", AlA 87. (1983), 347­
384

MERTEN, E.W., Biider und Badegepjlogenheiten in der Darstellung der Historia Augusta
(Berlin: Habelt, 1983)

MERTENS, J., Alba Fucens, 3 vols. (Brussels: Centre beige de recherches archeologique,
1969-82)

MEUSEL, H., Die Verwaltung und Finanzierung der offentlichen Biider zur romischen
Kaiserzeit (Koln: n.p., 1960)
MILLAR, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (London: Duckworth, 1977)

--------"The World of the Golden Ass", JRS 71 (1981), 63-75

MILLER, S.G. (ed.), Nemea. A guide to the Site and Museum (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1990)

MROZEK, S., Les distributions d'argent et de nourriture dans les villes italiennes du Haw­
Empire romain (Brussels: Collection Latomus 198, 1987)
MURRAY, 0. (ed.), The Greek City (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)

NIELSEN, I., "Considerazioni sulle prime fasi dell' evoluzione dell' edificio termale romano",
ARID 14 (1985), 81-112
-------- Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History ofRoman Public Baths
(Arhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990)

NUTION, V., Galen: Problems and Prospects (London: Wellcome Institute, 1981)

-------- "The Beneficial Ideology", in P.D. GARNSEY & C.R. WHIITAKER (edd.),
Imperialism in the Ancient World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)
-------- "Murders and Miracles: Lay Attitudes Towards Medicine in Classical Antiquity" in R.S.
PORTER (ed.), Patients and Practitioners: Lay Perceptions ofMedicine in Pre-Industrial
Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 23-53
-------"The Perils of Patriotism: Pliny and Roman Medicine" in R. FRENCH & F.
GREENAWAY (edd.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His
Sources and Influence (London: Croom Helm, 1986), pp. 30-58
 443

OLESON, J.P., "Humeima Hydraulic Survey, 1989", EMC 9.2 (1990), 145-163

PACKER, J.E., The Insulae ofImperial Ostia (Rome: American Academy in Rome, Memoirs
31, 1971)

--------"Middle and Lower-Class Housing in Pompeii and Herculaneum" in B. ANDREAE &

H. KYRIELIS (edd.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji (Recklinghausen: A. Bongers,
1975), pp. 133-146

PALMER, R., "Physicians and the State in Oost-Medieval Italy" in A.W. RUSSELL (ed.), The
Town and State Physician in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment
(Wolfenbiittel: Wolfenbiitteler Forschungen 17, 1981), pp. 47-61

PARSLOW, C.C., The Praedia Iuliae Felicis in Pompeii (Durham, NC: Dissertation, Duke
University, 1989)

PASQUINUCCI, M., Terme romane e vita quotidiana (Modena: Edizoni Panini, 1987)

PEDLEY, J.G., Paestum: Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy (London: Thames & Hudson,
1990)

PETROCHILOS, N., Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens: S. Saripolo's Library 25, 1974)

PFLAUM. H.G., "Titulature et rang social sous le Haut-Empire" inCl. NICOLET (ed.),
Recherches sure les structures sociales dans l'antiquite classique (Paris: Editions du
C.N.R.S, 1970), pp. 159-185

PHILLIPS, E.D., Greek Medicine (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973)

PHILLIPS, J.H., "The Emergence of the Greek Medical Profession in the Roman Republic",
Transactions and Studies ofthe College ofPhysicians ofPhiladelphia, n. s. 2 (1980),
267-275

PURCELL, N., "Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy", JRS 75 (1985), 1-19

RAKOB, F., "Hellenismus in Mittelitalien: Bautypen und Bautechnik" , Hellenismus in

Mittelitalien (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 366-386
RAWSON, E., "The Life and Death of Asclepiades of Bithynia", CQ 32 (1982), 358-370

-------- Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985)
REBUFFAT, R., "Vocabulaire thermal: documents sur le bain romain" in Les thermes tomains:
acres de Ia table ronde organisee par /'Ecole frallfaise de Rome (Rome: CoJJection de
l'Ecole fran<;aise de Rome 142, 1991), pp. 1-34

REINHOLD, M., "Usurpation of Status and Status Symbols", Historia 20 (1971), 275-302

RICHARDSON, L. Jr., Pompeii: An Architectural History (Baltimore: John Hopkins

University Press, 1988)

ROBINSON, O.F., "Baths: An Aspect of Roman Local Government Law" in Sodalitas. Scritti
in onore di Antonio Guarno 3 (Naples: Jovene, 1984), pp. 1065-1082
 444

-------Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration (London: Routledge, 1992)

ROSE, K.F.C., The Date and Author ofthe Satyricon (Leiden: J.J. Brill, 1971)

ROOK, A., Roman Baths in Britain (Princes Risborough: Shire Archaeology, 1992)

Ste. CROIX. G.E.M. de, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London: Duckworth,

1981)

SARTON, G., Galen ofPergamon (Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1954)

SCARBOROUGH, J ., Roman Medicine (London: Thames & Hudson, 1969)

SCOBIE, A. "Slums, Sanitation and Mortality in the Roman World", Klio 68 (1986), 399-433

SEGAL, E., Roman Laughter: The Comedy ofPlautus (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1987, 2nd ed.)

SESTIERI, P.C., Paestum (Rome: Itinerari dei Musei, Gallerie e Monumenti d'Italia, 1987, 9th
ed.)

SHACKLETON-BAILEY, D.R. (ed.), Cicero's Letters to Attlcus, 6 vols. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1966-7)

-------- (ed.), Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)

SHAW, B.D., "The Noblest Monuments and the Smallest Things: Wells, Walls and Aqueducts
in the Making of Roman Africa" in AT. HODGE (ed.), Future Currents in Aqueduct
Studies (Leeds: Cairns, 1991), pp. 63-91
SHERWIN-WHITE, AN., Letters ofPliny (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966)

SHIPLEY, F.W., "Chronology of the Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to
the Death of Augustus", MAAR 9 (1931), 7-60

-------- Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome (St. Louis: Washington University Studies n.s. 4,
1933)

SKYDSGAARD, J.E., "Public Building and Society in Ancient Rome" in K. de FINE LICHT
(ed), Citta e architettura nella Roma imperiale. Atti del seminaro del27 ottobre 1981 (=
AnalRom Suppl. 10, 1982)
SOBEL, H., Hygieia. Die Gottin der Gesundheit (Darmstadt: Wissentschaftliche Buch­
gesellschaft, 1990)

SOLIN, H., Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, 3 vols. (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1982)

STRONG, D.E., "The Administration of Public Building in Rome during the Late Repub1ic and
Early Empire", BICS 15 (1968), 97-109
 445

TALBERT, R.J.A., "Pliny the Younger as Governor ofBithynia-Pontus" in C. DEROUX

(ed.), Studies in Lalin Literature and Roman History II (Brussels: Collection Latomus
168, 1980),pp. 412-435

-------- The Senate ofImperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)
T AMM, B., Neros Gymnasium in Rom (Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Classical
Archaeology VII, 1970)

THOMPSON, H.A., "The Impact of Roman Architects and Architecture on Athens: 170 BC-AD
170" in F.H. THOMPSON (ed.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London:
Society of Antiquaries, 1987), pp. 1-17

THORNTON, M.K. & R.L., Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A Quantitative Study in

Political Management (Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1989)
TOMLIN, R.S.O., "The Curse Tablets" in B. CUNLIFFE (ed.), The Temple ofSufis Minerva
at Bath II: The Finds from the Sacred Spring (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology, Monograph 16, 1988), pp. 59-277

TOMLINSON, R.A., Epidauros (London: Granada, 1983)

TREGGIARI, S., Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969)

VEYN~ !.·· Le Pain et le Cirque. Sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique (Paris:
J:.Oitions du Seuil, 1976 (abridged translation: Bread and Cicruses by B. PEARCE
[London: Penguin Press, 1990])

WALLACE-HADRILL, A., "The Emperor and His Virtues", Historia 30 (1981), 298-323

WARD, A.M., Marcus Crassus and the Late Republic (London: University of Missouri Press,
1977)

WARD-PERKINS, J.B., "Taste, Tradition and Technology: Some Aspects of the Architecture
of the Late Republic and Early Empire" in G. KOPCKE & M.B. MOORE (edd.),
Studies in Classical An and Archaeology. A Tribute to Peter H. von Blanckenhagen
(New York: Augustin, 1979)

--------Roman Imperial Architecture (London: Penguin, 1981, 2nd ed.)

WESCH-KLEIN, G., Liberalitas in Rem Publicam. Private Au.fwendung zugunsten von
Gemeinden im romischen Afrika bis 284 n. Chr. (Bonn: Habelt, 1990)
WILLIAMS, M.T., Washing "The Great Unwashed": Public Baths in Urban America, 1840­
1920 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991)
WISEMAN, T.P., Catullus and his World: A Reappraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985)

WISSEMANN, M., "Das Personal des antiken romischen Bades", Glotta 62 (1984), 80-89
 446

YAVETZ, Z., "The Living Conditions of the Urban Poor in Republican Rome", Latomus 17
(1958), 500-517 (= R. Seager, The Crisis ofthe Roman Republic [Cambridge: Heffer,
1969], pp. 162-79)

-------- Plebs and Princeps (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969)

YEGOL, F.K., "The Small City Bath in Classical Antiquity and a Reconstruction Study of
Lucian's Baths of Hippias ", Arch Class 31 (1979), 108-131

YOUTIE, H.C., "Records of a Roman Bath in Upper Egypt", AJA 53 (1949), 268-270 (= id.
Scriptiunculae II (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1973), pp. 990-993)
ZIENKIENWICZ, J.D., The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon II: The Finds (Cardiff:
Welsh Historic Monuments, 1986)