![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ahorbinskiBibliographic Data: Fagan, Garret. Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Main Argument: Bathing was a social event in the Roman world, and one that stretched across the world in time and in space. Fagan argues that this was "a deeply rooted communal bathing habit, where the act of getting clean has become a social process, to be shared not only with invited guests (in private baths) but with everyone (in public ones)" (1).
Historiographical Engagement: The prior scholarship on baths, which is a lot of archaeology and a lot of idealism
Introduction: Argument, Sources, Examples Fagan looks at the three great contemporary bathing traditions--Finnish, Japanese, and Islamic--and draws some general conclusions that may be used to illuminate aspects of Roman practice: first, that bathing in public can be "a cultural choice,"; second, "the corporeal pleasures of bathing, when shared, tend to promote a sociability that in turn transforms essentially pragmatic public baths into meeting places and venues for social interaction;" third, bathing is often thought to be medically beneficial; and fourth, "regular bathing is often associated with civilized living and spiritual purity" (4). Fagan focuses on "public baths," by he means baths that were publicly accessible in urban centers, thus excluding military and religious baths, as well as some other issues; he focuses on the western empire in the "central period" (200 to 200), with occasional forays elsewhere. As for sources, there are principally literary and archaeological, but they don't necessarily speak to each other or to us very well. The other issue (as usual) is that of typicality. Fagan concludes by describing the Roman bathing ritual, which was complex.
Chapter 1: Argument, Sources, Examples In this chapter, we take a visit to the baths with Martial, whose poetry offers a rich and candid guide to the experience of the baths, when supplemented with other sources. Martial seems to differentiate between thermae and balneae, a distinction which is unclear to modern eyes; Martial seems to draw it based on luxuriousness (thermae were richly appointed, while balneae were not). Some baths were considered fashionable, while others were not, and people were judged by which baths they used. Baths acted as meeting places for dinner guests, and it seems clear both that nudity and mixed bathing were the norm, the latter of which can partly be demonstrated by repeated attempts to ban it. However, mixed bathing was also a matter of preference that varied over time, etc, and facilities that separated bathers by gender could also be found. Beyond Martial, it is clear that the baths were also sites where drinking (and eating) and sex (both paid and unpaid) could be had, which is partly the reason that they were also sites for theft and violence. All in all, "Martial has made it clear that to visit the baths was not only to touch a nerve center of ancient urban life but to participate in a complex social convention defined by fashion" (39).
Chapter 2: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter reviews the growth of the bathing habit and concludes that "public bathing had come to occupy a central place in the daily routine of the Romans by the early second century" (40). In general, in the C1 BCE, "Romans began bathing in public more frequently and in greater numbers than before," leading to baths taking up a more conspicuous space in daily life, at the city and throughout the peninsula, and by the C1 CE, "bathing appears to have become noticeably more popular," with the result that the habit spread to the provinces in the C2 CE, the so-called "golden age of bathing" in the Roman world (43). As for origins, it appears that public bathing began in Campania in the C3-2 CE, an area that "lay at a confluence of cultures (Etruscan, central Italian, Greek, and Roman) and was a prosperous, vibrant, and architecturally innovative place" (44). Baths reached Rome some time in the C3 BCE and were apparently gender segregated.
Chapter 3: Argument, Sources, Examples Why did Romans like baths? Baths felt good. Also, Roman town and city life was much more communal than modern Western life today; many living quarters for the poorer classes lacked kitchens, baths, and even latrines, which do exist in multiple seaters and had no gender segregation. "Public baths therefore served a necessary function in much the same way as the snack bars and taverns did, and as necessities, they can be expected, once introduced, to have grown in popularity all but automatically" (78). The takeoff in the spread of bathing in the C1 BCE can be attributed in part to the general growth of public magnificence as the Republican warlords competed with each other for the hearts of the populace and the greater glory of themselves. This led to a climate in which smaller investors and entrepreneurs built baths against the backdrop of "a society [that] was growing more accustomed to the provision of luxuries" (80). The city's population was growing and also becoming more diverse, bringing with it more people who were used to bathing as a matter of course, and finally, improved building technology--specifically, advancements in vaulting technology and concretes--made it possible to build ever grander.
Chapter 4: Argument, Sources, Examples Romans believed (correctly) that bathing was good for them, and baths were associated with healthfulness in Roman medical thought, as is attested from medical and non medical writers, decorations at the baths, and also the possibility that doctors worked at the baths. This association possibly began with Asclepiades of Bithynia, who was hugely famous at Rome in his lifetime and afterward, partly due to his high society connections when he was there around the turn of the C1 BCE. He advocated bathing as a form of medical treatment, and also gave public lectures as well as practicing forms of "high" medicine, which would have assured the dissemination of his ideas to all levels of society. Given the already-existing baths, his advocacy of baths as not only pleasurable but also healthy probably acted as a catalyst for the rise of their popularity.
Chapter 5: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter begins looking at the people who built baths in Rome, starting with the emperors. In this respect, it is notable that each successive imperial baths exceeded predecessors in size (except for those of Decius and Constantine, built in straitened financial circumstances) and that most large-scale thermae were built in the beginnings of reigns were built "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," suggesting that "these emperors were trying to emphasize the stability of the new age and the concern of the new rulers for their people by erecting the very structure that best symbolized peace, stability, and prosperity, as well as power and benevolence" (123). The private builders of balneae cannot be identified for the most part, and thus it seems like that "the people who built baths, no matter how low their social status was, must have been economically and socially prominent in at least their area of the city" (126).
Chapter 6: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at people who built baths in Italy and the provinces, chiefly by looking at inscriptions. Central authorities accounted for about 20% of activity and did not build, only renovate, repair, etc, baths. Most constructional bath benefactions were undertaken by locals as euergetism. In the earlier period, private benefactors are the majority, while in the C3 CE and later, local authorities are more common. Common types of non constructional bath benefactions include providing free bathing and free oil, and improving the water supply or heating system. Why did they do this? One, wealth and status came at the price of euergetism in the Roman world. Two, baths were seen as enhancing and natural to the dignity of a city, which put them into the realm of things that could be competed over with other cities. The end result, "the erection by the grateful beneficiaries of an inscription honoring the benefactor," was also part of the reason for public works (175).
Chapter 7: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the physical environment of the baths; in general, "public baths appear to have been places where a high degree of decorative opulence was expected" (179). That said, it appears from the evidence that many baths were nevertheless usually operating in some state of disrepair, and that water quality was probably somewhat less than desirable from both an ancient and modern perspective, doubtless not helped by the healthy and the ill bathing together. It also seems to have not been uncommon for smoke and odors from the heating systems to have troubled bathers.
Chapter 8: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter reviews the evidence for who the bathers were and concludes that the baths were indeed the site of what Fagan calls a "social melange"--although emperors and slaves did not usually use the great urban thermae, on the other hand, it was also not unusual for them to do so, particularly for those slaves of high class or status. Moreover, the rich and the poor mingled together in the baths without distinction of rank, making the baths a place that some scholars have argued was a a "social equalizer." Fagan, however, argues that the baths rather funcionted "very much like any other public venue--as places where the rich went deliberately to flaunt, show off, and thereby reinforce their claim to social superiority" (215). [That they could do this even while naked, given the role of clothing and adornment in delineating status in Roman society, rather compounds the effect.] According to Fagan, baths were instead "reproducers of the social order in Roman communities," albeit ones that "promoted a broad community spirit" (218).
Conclusion: Argument, Sources, Examples The baths "stand as a striking illustration of just how deeply ingrained in Roman society were the divisions imposed by hierarchy and status, while at the same time the wide popularity of the baths and their socially diverse clientele laid emphasis on the essential unity of the community" (222).
Critical assessment: This book does what it says on the tin and offers a wealth of interesting tidbits of evidence. I continue to really enjoy Fagan's work; he seems to have both a lively intellectual curiosity and his head screwed on straight, which are not two things that can be said of everyone.
Further reading: Grey, Constructing Community in the Late Roman Countryside
Meta notes: Now I really want to watch Spirited Away and go to an onsen. And also to the baths in Finland and/or Turkey.
Main Argument: Bathing was a social event in the Roman world, and one that stretched across the world in time and in space. Fagan argues that this was "a deeply rooted communal bathing habit, where the act of getting clean has become a social process, to be shared not only with invited guests (in private baths) but with everyone (in public ones)" (1).
Historiographical Engagement: The prior scholarship on baths, which is a lot of archaeology and a lot of idealism
Introduction: Argument, Sources, Examples Fagan looks at the three great contemporary bathing traditions--Finnish, Japanese, and Islamic--and draws some general conclusions that may be used to illuminate aspects of Roman practice: first, that bathing in public can be "a cultural choice,"; second, "the corporeal pleasures of bathing, when shared, tend to promote a sociability that in turn transforms essentially pragmatic public baths into meeting places and venues for social interaction;" third, bathing is often thought to be medically beneficial; and fourth, "regular bathing is often associated with civilized living and spiritual purity" (4). Fagan focuses on "public baths," by he means baths that were publicly accessible in urban centers, thus excluding military and religious baths, as well as some other issues; he focuses on the western empire in the "central period" (200 to 200), with occasional forays elsewhere. As for sources, there are principally literary and archaeological, but they don't necessarily speak to each other or to us very well. The other issue (as usual) is that of typicality. Fagan concludes by describing the Roman bathing ritual, which was complex.
Chapter 1: Argument, Sources, Examples In this chapter, we take a visit to the baths with Martial, whose poetry offers a rich and candid guide to the experience of the baths, when supplemented with other sources. Martial seems to differentiate between thermae and balneae, a distinction which is unclear to modern eyes; Martial seems to draw it based on luxuriousness (thermae were richly appointed, while balneae were not). Some baths were considered fashionable, while others were not, and people were judged by which baths they used. Baths acted as meeting places for dinner guests, and it seems clear both that nudity and mixed bathing were the norm, the latter of which can partly be demonstrated by repeated attempts to ban it. However, mixed bathing was also a matter of preference that varied over time, etc, and facilities that separated bathers by gender could also be found. Beyond Martial, it is clear that the baths were also sites where drinking (and eating) and sex (both paid and unpaid) could be had, which is partly the reason that they were also sites for theft and violence. All in all, "Martial has made it clear that to visit the baths was not only to touch a nerve center of ancient urban life but to participate in a complex social convention defined by fashion" (39).
Chapter 2: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter reviews the growth of the bathing habit and concludes that "public bathing had come to occupy a central place in the daily routine of the Romans by the early second century" (40). In general, in the C1 BCE, "Romans began bathing in public more frequently and in greater numbers than before," leading to baths taking up a more conspicuous space in daily life, at the city and throughout the peninsula, and by the C1 CE, "bathing appears to have become noticeably more popular," with the result that the habit spread to the provinces in the C2 CE, the so-called "golden age of bathing" in the Roman world (43). As for origins, it appears that public bathing began in Campania in the C3-2 CE, an area that "lay at a confluence of cultures (Etruscan, central Italian, Greek, and Roman) and was a prosperous, vibrant, and architecturally innovative place" (44). Baths reached Rome some time in the C3 BCE and were apparently gender segregated.
Chapter 3: Argument, Sources, Examples Why did Romans like baths? Baths felt good. Also, Roman town and city life was much more communal than modern Western life today; many living quarters for the poorer classes lacked kitchens, baths, and even latrines, which do exist in multiple seaters and had no gender segregation. "Public baths therefore served a necessary function in much the same way as the snack bars and taverns did, and as necessities, they can be expected, once introduced, to have grown in popularity all but automatically" (78). The takeoff in the spread of bathing in the C1 BCE can be attributed in part to the general growth of public magnificence as the Republican warlords competed with each other for the hearts of the populace and the greater glory of themselves. This led to a climate in which smaller investors and entrepreneurs built baths against the backdrop of "a society [that] was growing more accustomed to the provision of luxuries" (80). The city's population was growing and also becoming more diverse, bringing with it more people who were used to bathing as a matter of course, and finally, improved building technology--specifically, advancements in vaulting technology and concretes--made it possible to build ever grander.
Chapter 4: Argument, Sources, Examples Romans believed (correctly) that bathing was good for them, and baths were associated with healthfulness in Roman medical thought, as is attested from medical and non medical writers, decorations at the baths, and also the possibility that doctors worked at the baths. This association possibly began with Asclepiades of Bithynia, who was hugely famous at Rome in his lifetime and afterward, partly due to his high society connections when he was there around the turn of the C1 BCE. He advocated bathing as a form of medical treatment, and also gave public lectures as well as practicing forms of "high" medicine, which would have assured the dissemination of his ideas to all levels of society. Given the already-existing baths, his advocacy of baths as not only pleasurable but also healthy probably acted as a catalyst for the rise of their popularity.
Chapter 5: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter begins looking at the people who built baths in Rome, starting with the emperors. In this respect, it is notable that each successive imperial baths exceeded predecessors in size (except for those of Decius and Constantine, built in straitened financial circumstances) and that most large-scale thermae were built in the beginnings of reigns were built "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," suggesting that "these emperors were trying to emphasize the stability of the new age and the concern of the new rulers for their people by erecting the very structure that best symbolized peace, stability, and prosperity, as well as power and benevolence" (123). The private builders of balneae cannot be identified for the most part, and thus it seems like that "the people who built baths, no matter how low their social status was, must have been economically and socially prominent in at least their area of the city" (126).
Chapter 6: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at people who built baths in Italy and the provinces, chiefly by looking at inscriptions. Central authorities accounted for about 20% of activity and did not build, only renovate, repair, etc, baths. Most constructional bath benefactions were undertaken by locals as euergetism. In the earlier period, private benefactors are the majority, while in the C3 CE and later, local authorities are more common. Common types of non constructional bath benefactions include providing free bathing and free oil, and improving the water supply or heating system. Why did they do this? One, wealth and status came at the price of euergetism in the Roman world. Two, baths were seen as enhancing and natural to the dignity of a city, which put them into the realm of things that could be competed over with other cities. The end result, "the erection by the grateful beneficiaries of an inscription honoring the benefactor," was also part of the reason for public works (175).
Chapter 7: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter looks at the physical environment of the baths; in general, "public baths appear to have been places where a high degree of decorative opulence was expected" (179). That said, it appears from the evidence that many baths were nevertheless usually operating in some state of disrepair, and that water quality was probably somewhat less than desirable from both an ancient and modern perspective, doubtless not helped by the healthy and the ill bathing together. It also seems to have not been uncommon for smoke and odors from the heating systems to have troubled bathers.
Chapter 8: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter reviews the evidence for who the bathers were and concludes that the baths were indeed the site of what Fagan calls a "social melange"--although emperors and slaves did not usually use the great urban thermae, on the other hand, it was also not unusual for them to do so, particularly for those slaves of high class or status. Moreover, the rich and the poor mingled together in the baths without distinction of rank, making the baths a place that some scholars have argued was a a "social equalizer." Fagan, however, argues that the baths rather funcionted "very much like any other public venue--as places where the rich went deliberately to flaunt, show off, and thereby reinforce their claim to social superiority" (215). [That they could do this even while naked, given the role of clothing and adornment in delineating status in Roman society, rather compounds the effect.] According to Fagan, baths were instead "reproducers of the social order in Roman communities," albeit ones that "promoted a broad community spirit" (218).
Conclusion: Argument, Sources, Examples The baths "stand as a striking illustration of just how deeply ingrained in Roman society were the divisions imposed by hierarchy and status, while at the same time the wide popularity of the baths and their socially diverse clientele laid emphasis on the essential unity of the community" (222).
Critical assessment: This book does what it says on the tin and offers a wealth of interesting tidbits of evidence. I continue to really enjoy Fagan's work; he seems to have both a lively intellectual curiosity and his head screwed on straight, which are not two things that can be said of everyone.
Further reading: Grey, Constructing Community in the Late Roman Countryside
Meta notes: Now I really want to watch Spirited Away and go to an onsen. And also to the baths in Finland and/or Turkey.