Thermae: Agrippa

In 25 B.C. Rome’s first public baths were built by Agrippa in the *Campus Martius, just S of the *Pantheum, W of the *Saepta Iulia and the *Stoa of Poseidon, and directly E of the *Stagnum Agrippae (Dio Cass. 53.27.1). The baths included a gymnasium and a sweat-bath which Agrippa called the Laconian Pyriaterion (τὸ πυριατήριον τὸ Λακωνικὸν: Dio Cass., loc. cit.; cf. Vitr., De arch. 5.10.5: laconicum). Perhaps when first initiated the complex was a Greek-style gymnasium with a palaestra, sporting grounds and gardens (Yegül 135, Tortorici). The baths were only fully realized in 19 B.C. with the completion of Agrippa’s *Aqua Virgo which supplied the Campus Martius and *Trans Tiberim with water (Frontin., Aq. 10.1). The baths had elaborate decorations: Lysippus’ Apoxyomenos stood before the entrance, paintings were hung throughout, stuccoes adorned the walls and vaults, and encaustic decoration was applied to the terracotta surfaces (Pliny, NH 34.62: M. Agrippa ante thermas suas; 35.26, 36.189; Pliny is the first author known to use the term ‘thermae’ in relation to Agrippa’s baths). During Agrippa’s lifetime the baths may have been private, since Pliny notes the seeming contradiction between Agrippa’s call to make all paintings public property and the existence of paintings in the hottest rooms of his thermae (NH 35.26). At his death in 12 B.C., Agrippa bequeathed his Baths to the people of Rome and made provisions so that they might bathe free of charge (Dio Cass. 54.29.4: τὸ βαλανεῖον). The plan of the bath complex survives only in part. The Severan Marble Plan depicts a large circular chamber surrounded by blocks of rooms to the W and S; due to the circumstances of the fragment’s preservation, the areas N and E of the rotunda do not survive (Rodríguez Almeida, Forma pl. 31 frag. 38). A large section of this circular, domed space is preserved along Via dell’Arco della Ciambella (Ghini). Numerous 16th-c. plans reconstruct portions of the complex now lost (Ghini); while they allow for the restoration of a series of rooms N of the rotunda (Hülsen, esp. pl. 3; Ghini), the differences among the designs of various Renaissance architects, as well as discrepancies with the representation on the Marble Plan, suggest caution is warranted when attempting to reconstruct the interior arrangement of the baths (note the varying efforts of Hülsen, Nielsen, and Yegül). The structure was restored on numerous occasions (SHA, Had. 19.10; Pliny, NH 35.26) and substantially rebuilt after the fire of A.D. 80 (Dio Cass. 66.24.1); as a result, only a small portion of the original opus quadratum and reticulatum masonry survives (Ghini). Preserved throughout these restorations were asymmetries of the bath’s original layout and its N–S orientation, an axis derived from the pre-existing buildings and street pattern (rather than adopting the canonical orientation toward the SW: Vitr., De arch. 5.10.1; Yegül 130). For these reasons, the 3rd-c. A.D. and later plans are thought to reflect the Agrippan layout of the baths, if not their specific details (most hestitant to accept this is Ghini, boldest is Richardson). Thus, the bath is depicted conservatively on our map with a simple, rectangular shape representing the greatest known physical extent of the structure; monuments bordering the complex on the E, W, and S provide firm boundaries, though the extent and nature of the northernmost portion of the thermae remains elusive (Tortorici proposes laconica behind the Pantheon, 50). In addition, the relationship — both topographical and functional — between the baths and the Stagnum is not clear. Coarelli postulates that the latter served as a natatio (unheated swimming pool) for the baths, while Lloyd speculates that the baths may have drained into the basin. The image on the Severan Marble Plan suggests the two were in close proximity, and perhaps even physically linked, though it is far from conclusive.