Introduction
Welcome to the wonders of Roman bathing. The goal of this site is to teach you, the reader, all about the fascinating bathhouses that the Roman’s so loved. I will explain to you what a Roman bathhouse is and how they were laid out, while also covering literary and archaeological sources to paint a full picture of their importance and charm. When you click off of this page I would hope that you are a little more informed on what it was like to bathe with the Romans and maybe a little bit grateful (or jealous) of your own bathing conditions!
What is a Roman Bathhouse?
Tepidarium at the Forum baths in Pompeii by Hansen, Joseph Theodor (1848-1912) Source: Wikimedia Commons
A Roman bathhouse, also known as balneae or thermae, was a public building used for bathing and even socializing in ancient Rome. These bathhouses were important for maintaining personal hygiene and were a big part of Roman culture. As a rule of their society, Romans bathed every day, spending a fair amount of time in their often-fanciful public baths. (Yegül, 2010, p. 2). Inside the bathhouses, there was a specific order of rooms and bath types one would take, varying in temperature and room size. In a typical Roman bathhouse, you would first start in the tepidarium or the medium heat room. Then you would progress into the caldarium or the hot room, before finally ending the bathing process in the frigidarium or the cold room. The caldarium and the frigidarium were usually the most luxurious and architecturally imposing of all the rooms. However, in the later centuries of the Roman imperial period, the bathhouses become more elaborate, getting physically larger and adding rooms for sensual pleasures and much more (Yegül, 2010, p. 17-18). They were also used as activity spaces for things such as sports and recreation, massages, and relaxation. On the social side, they were used similarly to how a community centre would be utilized today, hosting spaces for social gossip and business meetings. They were seen all over the Greco-Roman world but it was the Romans who seemed to have a certain love for bathing and the environment that bathhouses provided. They began to become very widespread across the Roman Empire by the end of the first century B.C.E., having two hundred of these small bathhouses constructed. By the fourth century C.E. it was reported in an urban census document (Notitia Urbis Regionum, c. 334-57, and Curiosum Urbis Romae Regionum, 357-403) that there were now “856 plus 10 or 11 thermae,”, wherein the ten or eleven thermae were the biggest and most luxurious of the bathing complexes (Yegül, 2010, p. 3). Yegül, in his book Bathing in the Roman World, even argues that with the exception of temples, there were more baths than any other ancient building type (Yegül, 2010, p. 3). The public baths were said to be an embodiment of the ideal Roman way of living and were a big part of the community where they were located. Roman communities would pride themselves in the quality and quantity of their bathhouses, since it was such an important space for them. It was amongst the most severe punishments to a city when people such as high administrative officers (or even the emperor) closed down the local baths (Yegül, 2010, p. 3).
Archaeological Evidence
There is a large amount of surviving archaeological evidence for Roman bathhouses, not just in the large Roman cities, but all over the Roman empire. This is mostly due to their sturdy craftsmanship and foundations, but also the hypocausts (a small gap beneath the floor of an ancient roman building used for dispersing hot air for the baths). These hypocausts were below the Roman walking level, and thus were mostly preserved and are a very characteristic element of a Roman bathhouse. As to the aspect of the women in Roman baths, there does not seem to be much evidence for women-specific Roman bathhouses. Referring back to Maréchal’s writings, there is one mention of female bathers having not their own separate bathhouses entirely, but separate wings on already existing male bathhouses. This separation of the sexes is said to be found in Roman bathhouses now located in modern Egypt and Palestine (Maréchal, 2020, p.146).
In an archaeological site written in a journal article in The Harvard theological review, 1992, Vol.85 it talks about some of the oldest archaeological evidence we have on Roman baths. These sites are called the Forum and Stabian baths from Pompeii, and interestingly they conflict with literary evidence provided for that time. The literary evidence states that the bathhouses for men and women were equal, and both connected to the same rooms; Marcus Terentius Varro wrote in 43 B.C.E. in his book called Vitruvius Polio De architectura that the first bathhouse was a public establishment where two connected buildings would be used for bathing, one in which the men would bathe and the other, the women (Ward, 1992, p. 128 ). However, the archaeological evidence suggests that the women’s bath was a smaller set of bath rooms and they did not all have access to the same rooms. So, the facilities were separate, but not equal. (Ward, 1992, p. 131). The women’s bath would often not have access to the palaestra, a large room used how a modern gymnasium would be used. Another example of a women’s section of a bathhouse are within the baths belonging to a former Roman Emperor Hadrian, at Hadrian’s Villa. In an article by American author Henry D. Mirick, there are mentions of a women’s bath in the north section of the large bathhouse. This further shows the division of women’s and men’s bathing and how important it was that they get their own sections to bathe and converse in. However, surprisingly, it did not remain this way for all of Roman history.
Literary Evidence
There are a fair number of examples of Roman bathhouses in literature, mostly due to the abundance of sources from late antiquity but also because of how important the bathhouses were to the Romans and their society. In my research, however, I am choosing to focus on the examples that include the mention of women and their respective bathhouses to highlight the difference between the two bathhouse styles and how they were separated from the men. In the book Public baths and bathing habits in late antiquity by Sadi Maréchal, there are plenty of examples of different ancient texts and authors who speak of Roman bathing and mention women and their role in this practice. One specific example is when Maréchal is writing about the Historia Augusta, or “history of the emperors” which is a late Roman collection of biographies covering history from 117 to 284 C. E. In the Historia Augusta, it is said that men bathing with women was “…out of the question.” (Maréchal, 2020, p. 48). It is said that a person was at his weakest in the baths, and the prolonged bathing of women was an explanation as to why they were so much weaker than men. They would be seen as being at their weakest in a bath due to a few things, first, it was seen by the Romans that spending too long in a bath was bad and could even be seen as a sin if it was excessive. But also when mixing genders the sexual atmosphere a nude bath can provide was also seen as making people weak to control their desires. To me, this feels like a very “man in antiquity” thought. To think that the longer you bathe, the weaker you become is quite absurd. Cassiodorus (a Roman scholar) has a different view on the issue of the mixing of sexes in bathhouses: he says that due to how nice and pure the fountains are, that the women are allowed to bathe with the men as they can enjoy the bath together. One passage, as translated by Hodgkin (1886), states the following: “Yet more wonderful is the moral purity of this fountain. Should a woman descend into the bath when men are using it, it suddenly grows hotter, as if with indignation that out of its abundant supply of waters separate bathing-places should not be constructed for the two sexes, if they wish to enjoy its bounty .” (Maréchal, 2020, p. 59). This shows how the view of the mixture of men and women in the bathhouses was not always consistent across all of Rome and how some of the writers would clash, especially ones who were Christian. The last mention of women in written evidence of baths that I will mention from Maréchal’s book is the concern and criticism of bathhouses from Christian authors such as Jerome, Philoxenos, and John of Nikiu. The Christians’ main concern was that the practice of men and women bathing together, or a balnea mixta, invited unnecessary sexual temptations in the baths. This was mostly focused on virgins and ascetics, but nevertheless was a strong warning from the Christians of ancient Rome.
In this section of my research, I focused heavily on the aforementioned insightful journal article written by Roy Bowen Ward simply called Women in Roman Baths. In this article, Ward writes about how Roman baths shifted alongside Roman society and culture, as in the beginning the baths were suggested to be just for men. Ward writes that around 125 B.C.E., a wife of the consul in Rome wanted to bathe in the men’s bath in Teanum Sidicinum, an ancient capital. So, the quaestor (a public official) of Sidicinum was told to have all the men exit the bathhouse just so that she could bathe; this is one of the earliest recorded examples of a woman who used the public baths. (Ward, 1992, p. 127-128). As the baths became more popular and spread further across the Roman empire it was said that they represented a new social phenomenon, attested to by the roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca in a letter he wrote to Lucilius as seen in the book Seneca Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. Lucilius said: “Now that spick-and-span bathing establishments have been devised, men are really fouler than of yore.” Sometime in the early empire, between the rule of Augustus and Claudius, Roman bath architecture had changed. It was no longer about separate sets of bathrooms for men and women, but now a single set of rooms, for both sexes (Ward, 1992, p. 131). Concurrent with this shift in bath culture, there emerged more literary evidence of women bathing with men. Some sources even speak about women being amorously involved with men in Roman bathhouses. John Percy Balsdon (a British historian) went further with the interpretation of some sources of women in bathhouses and started to stretch the interpretations of the translations. He supposed that authors like Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, a Roman educator, was talking about these women as if they were prostitutes. However, it is not at all clear that this is the case; instead, Quintilian was talking about these women’s behaviour as adultery, but not as prostitution. Balsdon continued in his works to say that Quintilian “so reasonably condemned” mixed bathhouses. But, in reality, Quintilian compares the acts of adultery in the bathhouses to that of young men having intimate relationships with young women in the baths (Ward, 1992, p. 135-137). When looking back at the works of Quintilian, Ward states that there is nothing to suggest the women in these bathhouses were prostitutes, but there was also nothing saying that they were not. Balsdon stating that women “of the lowest character” were the ones that frequented the baths is more reflective of his personal moral evaluation and not of the texts themselves.
In another historical reference to women in Roman bathing, it was said that mixed bathing was banned as two sources say Hadrian commanded the sexes to bathe separately. However, as Ward shows in this article, most scholars fail to realize both sources referencing the passages in which mixed bathing was supposedly banned are problematic. This first source is a passage based on Dio Cassius paraphrased by a monk of Constantinople in the eleventh century. The second source is a passage from the Historia Augusta previously mentioned in this research as part of Maréchal’s writing on Roman baths. The reliability of the Historia Augusta is questionable, some people even considering it to be a genuine hoax. So, whether or not mixed bathing was actually banned cannot be said for certain. What we do know is that the archaeological evidence shows that segregated wings of bathhouses were no longer being built during and after the time of Hadrian, as this was well after the time of the one set of baths. Some scholars, such as Jerome Carcopino, argue that there was indeed a ban on mixed bathing and explained the one set of baths as the men and women switching times in which they would bathe, with only one sex being allowed to bathe at a time (Ward, 1992, p. 140 ). Others have agreed with Carcopino’s view, such as Russell Meiggs, who noted that based on his work at Roman Ostia, “it is probable that special hours were reserved for women.” Even the aforementioned archaeologist Yegül, who is one of the best-informed people on Roman baths, accepts that there were different times of bathing for different sexes (Ward, 1992, p. 141).
Greek Bathhouses
The Greeks did not love their baths quite as much as the Romans did, but there is still a fair amount of evidence showing women in baths so I figured it would be relevant to talk about in my research. In a book called Greek baths and bathing culture : new discoveries and approaches by Sandra K. Lucore and Monika Trümper there are both primary and secondary sources of evidence for women in antiquity bathing in Greek bathhouses. One source referenced throughout the book quite frequently is pottery decoration. The pottery depicts women (and men sometimes) in baths and athletic complexes in Greek bathhouses. Many of these pieces depict nude women washing themselves or doing domestic tasks and seem to be highlighting the display of female nudity. The scenarios depicted in the pottery are thought to be imaginary (Lucore & Trümper, 2013, p. 15). In another series of vases from around 500 B.C.E. there are scenes that depict women in public at a fountain in one of the bathhouses in Greece provoking the interest of men. It is said that these so-called courting scenes are showing women trying to get the desire of men, but never taking any initiative while also not refusing the men’s courtship. As put by Lucore & Trümper: “The images apparently do not aim at a judgment of men’s behaviour; they merely point out that the encounter of men and women at the fountain may occur and that the fountain is a possible locale for the availability of women.” (Lucore & Trümper, 2013, p. 17).
Conclusion
As seen in the sources I researched there is unfortunately not an abundance of evidence showing the true reality of the separation of men and women in the bathhouses of the Greco-Roman world. However, there is enough evidence in the literary, archaeological, and primary evidence to paint a small picture of the culture surrounding the bathhouses in ancient Rome and how important they were to their society for both men and women. While I learned a lot doing the research for this project I really enjoyed focusing on the aspect of women where you can see how separated and discriminated they were by not only the male Romans of the Roman Empire but even now by male historians who make assumptions through problematic evidence.
References
Yegül. (2010). Bathing in the Roman world. Cambridge University Press.
Ward. (1992). Women In Roman Baths. The Harvard Theological Review, 85(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000028820
Maréchal. (2020). Public baths and bathing habits in late antiquity : a study of the evidence from Italy, North Africa and Palestine A.D. 285-700. Brill.
Lucore, & Trümper, M. (2013). Greek baths and bathing culture : new discoveries and approaches. Peeters.
Mirick. (1933). The Large Baths at Hadrian’s Villa. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 11, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/4238577
All pictures from Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Women in Antiquity 