Ut nova dona tibi, Cæsar, Nilotica tellus Tantus veris honos, et odoræ gratia Floræ, [It appears also from this epigram, that, as the supply of native roses did not equal the excessive demand for them at Rome, roses were imported from Egypt; and this in winter. Of course means were used for keeping them as fresh as possible on the road.] Comp. iv. 28. But it is not necessary to suppose that in every case where rosa hibernæ are mentioned, we must understand roses artificially forced in hot-houses. The roses of Pæstum bloomed for a second time in the autumn, biferi rosaria Pæsti, Virg. Georg. iv. 119; Mart. xii. 31; and when in mild winters the rosa pallida is seen to bloom in Germany in the open air at Christmas, and even in January, why should not the same thing have been possible in a milder climate. Roses and garlands of wax are not in any case to be thought of. [That they had artificial flowers, is beyond all doubt. See the Excursus on the Chaplets and Games. Fruit-trees were, partly, to be found in the midst of large gardens, among other sorts of trees (Plin. Ep. v. 6, 35), although Becker interprets this passage differently; partly in the fields, or in orchards (pomaria), where they stood in a quincunx. Col. de Arb. 19. Their cultivation was very common; hence Varro says, R. R. i. 2: non arboribus consita Italia est, ut tota pomarium videatur. See also Cato, Varro, Columella, and others passim. But it afterwards degenerated into luxury. Plin. H. N. xix. 19: Ferendum sane fuerit exquisita nasci poma, alia sapore, alia magnitudine, alia monstro pauperibus interdicta. xi. 1. The chief kinds of fruits among the Romans are as follows.] Honey-apples, melimela, a sapore melleo. Plin. xv. 10, 14, 15. These were one of the earliest species of apples; but did not last long; while, on the other hand, the Amerina kept longest. Plin. 16. On the melimela, which are often mentioned by Martial, see Schneider ad Varro, i. 59. [Besides these, there were the orbiculata, cotonea, Sestiana, Matiana, Amerina. Colum. xii. 45; v. 10; Macrob. ii. 15.] Among the sorts of pears (of which Pliny enumerates thirty), the most valued were the Crustumian. Plin. xv. 16; Voss ad Virg. Georg. ii. 88, the Falernian, and the Syrian. Mart. v. 78, 18. Comp. Colum. v. 10, 17. The volema, fist-pear, was chiefly celebrated on account of its size. Virg. gravis. Col. ib. Cat. 7, 3; perhaps the same that Pliny calls libralis. Macrob. ii. 15. 1 There were numerous varieties of plums, ingens turba prunorum, says Pliny, xv. 12. Among these were the Armeniaca, cereola or cerima, Damascena. [Col. x. 404.] The latter were imported dry from that country. Mart. xiii. 29. [The drying of fruits was also very common in Italy. Pall. iii. 25, xii. 7; Col. xii. 14. They had also cherries, quinces, peaches, pomegranates (malum Punicum, Colum. v. 10; de Arb. 23 ; Plin. xv. 11); several sorts of figs (Macrob. ii. 16; Plin. xv. 19; Col. v. 10); nuts (Macrob. ii. 14; Col. v. 10; Plin. xv. 24; Cat. 8); chestnuts (Pallad. xii. 7; Col. iv. 33; Plin. xv. 25, xvii. 34); almonds, medlars, and mulberries. (Plin. xv.) The cultivation of wine and olives was of great importance. The oil (Col. v. 8) was used for food as well as for burning and anointing. The Venafran and Tarentine were celebrated. Varro, R. R. i. 2. On the different sorts of olive-trees (olec), see Plin. H. N. xv. 1, xvii. 29; Macrob. Sat. ii. 16; Col. v. 8; Cat. 6. The vine was either grown in vineyards (vinea) attached to poles; or to trees (such gardens were called arbustum); or it grew against houses, or the arcades of the interior. Plin. ii. 165. Vine-arbours were called pergulæ. In this branch, which was considered by the Romans quite the climax of horticulture, they displayed much cleverness; upon which they prided themselves not a little. Plin. xiv. 2. There were more than thirty sorts of grapes, partly for the table, partly for wine: the Aminea, Nomentana, euganea, Allobrogica, Apicia, gemella, were among the best. Col. iii. 5.; Pallad. ii. 10; Cato 6; Macrob. ii. 16; Plin. xiv. xvii. 35. See more in Excurs. 4. Sc. IX. On the vegetables, see Excurs. 1. Scene IX. Comp. Cic. de Sen. 16.] In conclusion, we may remark, that in Rome there were also window-gardens (flower-pots in the windows): we cannot otherwise understand what Martial says, xi. 18: Donasti, Lupe, rus sub urbe nobis; Sed rus est mihi majus in fenestra. [Above all, Plin. H. N. xix. 19: Jam in fenestris suis plebs urbana in imagine hortorum quotidiana oculis rura præbebant, antequam præfigi prospectus omnes coëgit multitudinis innumeratæ sæva latrocinatio. Respecting the solaria, see above.] EXCURSUS I. SCENE VII. TH THE BATHS. HE bath was a most important event in the every-day life of the Romans of that period which is here principally described, and one of their most essential requirements. Bodily health and cleanliness, although its original object, had long ceased being the only one; for the baths, decorated with prodigal magnificence, and supplied with all the comforts and conveniences that a voluptuary could desire, had become places of amusement, whither people repaired for pastime and enjoyment. In earlier times, bathing was much less frequent, as Seneca tells us, citing the authority of more ancient authors. Epist. 86: Nam, ut aiunt, qui priscos mores urbis tradiderunt (perhaps Varro) brachia et crura quotidie abluebant, quæe scilicet sordes opere collegerant: cæterum toti mundinis lavabantur. Cato, de lib. educ. in Non. iii. 5, v. ephippium: Mihi puero modica una fuit tunica et toga, sine fasciis calceamenta, equus sine ephippio, balneum non quotidianum, alveus rarus. And Columella does not approve of the slaves bathing daily or frequently, (i. 6, 20): nam eas quoque (balneas) refert esse, in quibus familia, sed tantum feriis lavetur, neque enim corporis robori convenit frequens usus earum. Hence the ancient baths, both public and private, being in the words of Seneca, in usum, non oblectamentum reperta, were of very simple construction. In the villa of Scipio Africanus, where Seneca found so much cause for instituting a comparison between the ancient and modern times, there was a balneolum angustum, tenebricosum ex consuetudine antiqua. Then he says: non videbatur majoribus nostris caldum, nisi obscurum; and further on: In hoc balneo Scipionis minimæ sunt rimæ magis quam fenestræ, ut sine injuria munimenti lumen admitterent. So also he designates the public baths as obscura et gregali tectorio inducta. The ancients seem to have confined themselves merely to a cold and a warm bath, the temperature of which was under the superintendence of the ædiles, as Seneca relates in the letter mentioned. Eventually, sweating and hot-water baths were added. [The ædiles superintended not merely the temperature, and cleanliness of the baths, but also preserved public decorum; particularly in reference to the two sexes; who were not allowed to bathe together.] We are rich in means to enable us to form a clear idea of the arrangement of the Roman baths, as we not only possess the works of several ancient writers who have either given plans for constructing baths, or descriptions of them, but also considerable remains, which agree with the accounts that have been handed down to us. Of the authors, we must mention first Vitruvius, (v. 10), and Palladius, (i. 40), who treat of the plan of the baths. In addition to whom, Lucian, ('Iππías † Baλávetov); Pliny, in both the letters about his villas (ii. 17); Statius, (Balneum Etrusci); Silv. i. 5; Martial, (vi. 42); and Sidon. Apoll., (Epist. ii. 2), have left interesting accounts; and we obtain from the epigrams of Martial, and from Seneca, (Epist. 51, 56, and 86), numerous notices on the nature of the baths, and life in the same. But the remains, at present in existence, of ancient baths themselves, are much more instructive than all these written accounts; among which are the ruins of the baths of Titus, Caracalla, and Diocletian, in Rome. It would be difficult to explain, with any degree of certainty, the proper connexion of the various parts of these extensive establishments, and to do so would require not only a good architect, but also a learned antiquarian and philologist; and it is on this account that there is so much diversity in the plans that have been given of them. We shall here, however, refer only to the general customs and manners which can be with certainty determined, rejecting all hypotheses about these baths, and simply giving a description of other smaller ones, which, being in a better state of preservation, will afford us a clearer idea of the essential parts of a Roman bath. A specimen of this kind is to be found in the ruins discovered in 1784 at Badenweiler, though they are only just enough preserved to enable us to distinguish the individual divisions from each other. Far more important than these, are the thermo, discovered some years since at Pompeii, which were in such a condition when excavated, as to allow of our assigning with certainty to most of the parts their particular destination. Of more modern writings on this subject, besides several passages in the works of Winckelmann, the following are particularly worthy of consideration: Cameron, The Bath of the Romans; Le terme dei Romani disegnate da A. Palladio, con alcune osservazioni da O. B. Scamozzi; Description des Bains de Titus, (a work, however, which is occupied far more with the paintings found there, than with the baths themselves); Stieglitz, Archæol. der Bauk, ii. 267; Hirt, Gesch. der Bauk, iii. 233; Weinbrenner, Entwürfe und Ergänzungen antiker Gebäude, which contains the bath of Hippias, after Lucian, and the ruins of Badenweiler. Besides which, we have the remarks of the editors of Vitruvius, particularly Schneider, ii. 375-391. Stratico is more superficial, and Marini has done little more than repeat the old erroneous opinions. Concerning the baths of Pompeii, we have detailed accounts from Gugl. Bechi, in the Mus. Borb. ii. t. 49-52, and in Gell's Pompeiana: the topography, edifices, and ornaments of Pompeii. The result of excavations since 1819. Lond. 1835. i. 83, ii. 80. The baths of Pompeii, which were discovered complete not only in their essential parts, but also in their ornaments, inscriptions, and even utensils, are adapted above all others for making us generally acquainted with the internal arrangements of Roman baths. Moreover, we may assume that other baths were laid down after the same plan, as those at Stabiæ, and (as far as regards the caldarium at least) that found in the villa of Diomedes, (see Voyage pittor. de Naples. Liv. 10 et 11, pl. 79), agree almost entirely with that of Pompeii; and the arrangement of baths in private houses and villas was no doubt similar, though they were of course not on so large a scale as the great public thermo. A description of the baths of Pompeii would on this account be appropriate here, and we therefore extract the principal parts of Sir W. Gell's account, which seems preferable, because it is not only more general, but also dwells on interesting peculiarities, and thus presents a most comprehensive view of the plan and internal arrangements. In other respects, we cannot deny that Bechi, with far more extensive antiquarian research, often gives more correct explanations, as we shall have occasion to observe in our parentheticals remarks. The plates we here give represent: I. The bath we are about to describe; II. The baths of Stabiæ, (according to Gell, i. 131); and III. The well-known and instructive painting, representing the section of a Roman bath, found in the baths of Titus. The grand entrance (such are the words of Gell, i. 88) seems to have been that in the street of Fortune, so called, at present, from the temple of that goddess. [Bechi, on the contrary, considers that marked 21 ̊, on the opposite side, to have been the grand entrance. B.]* All or many of the rooms opening into the street, on each side this entrance, seem to have been vaulted, thus contributing to the support of the arches thrown over the larger chambers in the interior. This entry or passage, marked 21a on the plan, opened into a court, 20, about sixty feet long, bounded on two sides by a Doric portico, and on the third by a crypt. Over the crypt was a second story, where the doubtful indications of a chimney may be observed. The passages in brackets marked B. are inserted by Becker. Transl. |