History of Sanitation

Our present elaborate system of water distribution was of humble origin. It was not a rapid growth, but a gradual evolution. Its four principal stages were: First, distribution from natural sources by water carriers; second, aqueducts conveying water to communities where a system of sub-conduits or aqueducts conveyed the water from the main aqueduct to reservoirs at different points in a city; third, a system of distributing mains through which water was furnished to householders at certain hours only during the day; and fourth, our present system of continuous supply at all hours of the day and night. In the first stages of water distribution, water was carried on the backs of water carriers in earthenware jars constructed especially for the purpose, or in goat or other animal skins properly tanned and sewed to hold water. While this method of water distribution is of great antiquity, it is still practiced in most tropical countries, and to this day water carriers, some with the burdens on their backs, others with goatskins of water on donkeys' backs or with jars of water in two-wheeled carts, may be seen plying their trade in Mexican and Egyptian cities.

The earliest record we have of any effort to supply a community with water conveyed in tunnels or aqueducts from a great distance, dates from the year 727 B. C. King Hezekiah or Ezekias, who reigned in Jerusalem at that time, was much troubled over the poor quality of water furnished to the city and undertook to provide a better supply.

He had built at the gates of the city a vast reservoir, the "Pool of Siloam," but when it was completed, found that a sufficient quantity of water could not be had without conveying it from a distant source on the easterly side of a range of hills of solid rock, over which it would be impossible to convey it. In no way daunted he set to work to pierce the hills with a tunnel or aqueduct, capable of supplying the city with water. Work was commenced simultaneously at both ends of the tunnel and progressed uninterruptedly until the workmen met in the center under the mountain or hill. An inscription in old Hebrew characters, found close to Jerusalem and preserved in the Constantinople Museum, throws some interesting light on this, for that period, remarkable engineering work. Translated, the inscription reads: "The piercing is terminated. When the pick of one had not yet struck against the pick of the other, and while there was yet a distance of 3 ells, it was possible to hear the voice of one man calling to another across the rock separating them, and the last day of the piercing, the miner's pick met against pick. The height of rock above the heads of the miners was 100 ells. Then the water flowed into the reservoir over a length of 1,200 ells." This tunnel was cut through a mountain of solid rock. The tunnel varied in dimensions from ⅝ of a yard to a yard in width, and from 1 to 3 yards in height, according to the hardness of the rock.

It is doubtful if this method was used in constructing the tunnel at Jerusalem. In fact it can be stated with considerable assurance that the entire tunnel was cut by drilling and chiseling, as the tool marks are plainly discernible. It further is evident that, as stated in the tablet found near Jerusalem, the tunnel was worked from both ends until the miners met in the center. This is evidenced by the direction of the tool marks, which plainly show that the cutting on each side of the center was done in different directions.

Prior to the construction of the tunnel, the ancient city of Jerusalem was supplied with water through two aqueducts, one of which supplied water from the famous pools of Solomon, to the south of the city, and the other poured its contents into the pools of Hezekiah, outside the walls of the city.

The Greeks were the next in point of time to construct tunnels in connection with the building of aqueducts. In 625 B. C. the Greek engineer Eupalinus constructed a tunnel 8 feet broad by 8 feet high and 4,200 feet long, through which was built a channel to supply the city of Athens with water.

This period marks the beginning in Greece and Rome of a school of architects and engineers whose works have left a lasting impression on art and engineering science, and to this day are monuments of proportion and beauty of design that are studied by all students of architecture and engineering. It is quite probable that Greece supplied the first engineers that constructed aqueducts in Carthage and Rome. The similarity in design of these various works points forcibly to the conclusion that they were all designed by disciples of one school.

Whether the first aqueducts were built in Carthage or in Rome is a matter of some uncertainty, although the fact that an aqueduct supplied Carthage with water at the time it was destroyed by the Romans would point to the Carthagenian aqueduct as the prior. The first Roman aqueduct was built in the year 312 B. C., and the city of Carthage, which, after a protracted struggle of 118 years, from 265 B. C. to 147 B. C., was finally conquered and destroyed by the Romans, was at that time supplied with water from distant springs through an aqueduct.

It is quite probable that Carthage was supplied with water from two different sources. The cisterns already mentioned provided a supply of rain water for industrial and most domestic uses, while the aqueduct, the channel of which had a cross-section of 10 inches square, brought drinking water from springs in the Zaghorn Mountains, some 60 kilometers distant. The aqueduct contoured the hillside for a considerable distance, at times went under ground, and on approaching the city was carried on arches of magnitude seemingly out of proportion to the size of the channel. At present it is suffering the fate of most ancient ruins. It is used as a quarry from which stones are taken to construct buildings in nearby towns and villages.

While the ruins of aqueducts and tunnels at Jerusalem, Athens and Carthage give some idea of the skill and knowledge of hydraulic and sanitary matters possessed by the engineers of that period, we must turn to Rome and study their system of water supply, drains for sewage and the ruins of their magnificent baths to form a true conception of the skill of the early school of Roman engineers and the lavish expenditures of treasure by the inhabitants to secure an adequate water supply for Rome. No aqueducts were built in Rome before the year 312 B. C. Prior to that time the inhabitants supplied themselves with water from the Tiber or from wells, cisterns or springs. The first aqueduct was begun by Appius Claudius, the censor, and was named after him the Aqua Appia. This aqueduct had an extreme length of 11 miles, and almost all of the work was entirely under ground. Remains of this work no longer exist. After the Aqua Appia was completed the building of aqueducts seems to have become almost a habit of the Romans, and it was not long—272 B. C.—before M. Aurius Dentatus began a second one called the Anio Vetus, which brought water from the river Anio, a distance of 43 miles. This aqueduct was constructed of stone and the water channel was lined with a thick coat of cement—no doubt Pozzolana cement—made from rock of volcanic origin, which, upon being pulverized and mixed with lime, possessed the hydraulic property of setting under water. Indeed, there can be but little doubt that were it not for this natural cement the construction of Roman aqueducts would have been more difficult to accomplish.

The water furnished by the Anio Vetus was of such poor quality that it was almost unfit for drinking. A further supply being found indispensable, the Senate commissioned Quintus Marcius Rex, the man who had superintended the repairs of the two already built, to undertake a third, which was called after him the Aqua Marcia. This was the most pretentious aqueduct undertaken. It was 61 miles long, about 7 of which were above ground, carried on arches, and of such height that water could be delivered to the loftiest part of Capitoline Mount. A considerable number of the arches of this aqueduct are still standing. Remains are also standing of the Aqueduct Tepula (127 B. C.) and the Aqua Julia (35 B. C.), which, if we except the Herculea branch, are next in point of date. Near the city of Rome the three aqueducts were united in one line of structure, forming three separate water courses, one above another, the lowermost of which formed the channel of the Aqua Marcia and the uppermost that of the Aqua Julia.

Thirteen years after the Julia, the Virgo aqueduct was built. This aqueduct was 14 miles long and is said to be so named because the spring from which it is supplied was first pointed out by a girl to some soldiers who were in search of water. This aqueduct still exists entire, having been partly restored by Nicholas V and the work completed by Pope Pius IV in 1568.

It might be interesting at this point to deviate a little from the history of the Roman aqueducts and draw aside the curtain to catch a glimpse of the aquatic sports or pastimes of a Roman emperor of that period. The naumachia of Augustus was a rectangular basin 1,800 feet long by 1,200 feet wide, in which actual sea fights between rival fleets were held for the amusement of the emperor and his friends. The combatants in these sea fights were usually captives, or criminals condemned to death, who fought as in gladiatorial combats, until one party was killed, unless saved by the clemency of the emperor. The vessels engaged in the sea fight were divided into two parties, called respectively by names of different maritime nations, as Persians and Athenians. The sea fights were conducted on the same magnificent scale and with the same disregard of life as characterized the gladiatorial combats and other public games of the Romans held in the Colosseum. In Nero's naumachia, sea monsters were swimming around in the artificial lake to make short work of any poor unfortunate that was unlucky enough to go overboard.

In some of the sea fights exhibited by different emperors, the ships were almost equal in number to real fleets. In one battle there were 19,000 combatants and 50 ships on each side.

It was for the purpose then of supplying one of these artificial lakes with water that the Augusta aqueduct was constructed.

Perhaps the best known aqueducts of Rome are the Claudia and the Anio Novus. The completion of these waterways, which was accomplished respectively in 50 and 52 A. D., doubled the supply of water to Rome. The Claudia aqueduct was 46 miles in length and the Anio Novus 58 miles in length. The Claudia was commenced by Caligula in the year 38, but was completed, as was the Anio Novus, by the Emperor Claudius.

Many other aqueducts besides those mentioned were built at different periods to add to the water supply of Rome. A table is given below showing the date of the constructions and their lengths.

The magnificence displayed by the Romans in the construction of aqueducts was not confined to the capital. Wherever Roman colonies were established, it would appear that vast sums were expended in providing the community with a suitable supply of water. Ruins of aqueducts built by the Romans may still be seen at many points in Spain, France, Africa, Greece, and even England can point to the ruins of a water tower built by this prolific school of Roman engineers. At the present time there are probably one hundred or more structures of this kind in existence, some of which are in daily use, supplying water to inhabitants of communities for whose ancestors they were built centuries ago.

ROMAN AQUEDUCTS, ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

(The miles above given are Roman miles, of 4,854 feet. The entire length of aqueduct in English miles would be 398.)

The constructive details of these old water courses are as interesting as are their general design. At the mouth of each aqueduct there generally was constructed a reservoir in which to collect water from the springs or streams that supplied it, and in which impurities could settle before the clarified water was delivered into the channel. The water channel was usually formed either of stone or brick coated on the inside with cement to make it water-tight. It was arched over on top, and at certain intervals vent holes were provided through which access could be had to the channel to make repairs. When two or more channels were carried one above another, the vent holes of the lower ones were placed in the sides. When possible, aqueducts were carried in a direct line, but frequently they were given a tortuous course either to avoid boring through hills, where their construction would have entailed too great expense, or else to avoid very deep valleys or soft marshy ground. In every aqueduct, besides the principal reservoirs at its mouth and terminal, there were intermediate ones at certain distances along its course, in which any remaining sediment might be deposited. In addition to serving as sediment basins, these reservoirs made it more easy to superintend and keep in repair the different sections, and provided service reservoirs to furnish irrigation water for fields and gardens and water for stock. The principal reservoir was that in which the aqueduct terminated. This reservoir or castella, as it was called, far exceeded any of the others in grandeur of architecture, or in magnitude and solidity of construction. The ruins of a work of this kind that still exist on the Esquiline Hill at Rome, are about 200 feet long by 130 feet wide, and had a vaulted roof that rested on 48 immense pillars disposed to form rows so as to form 5 aisles and 75 arches. From the description of this interesting reservoir, the interior must have greatly resembled many of the covered slow-sand fillers recently constructed in this country, in which elliptical groined arches form the roof, which is carried on brick columns spaced as in the reservoirs at Rome, about 15 feet from center to center. Judging from the fact that not only the aqueducts but also the reservoirs were covered to exclude light, it seems reasonable to conclude that Roman engineers were aware that absence of light prevented or altogether checked the growth of algæ and other objectionable forms of water vegetation. Nowhere in the writings of the early historians is any mention made of trouble due to this cause, but as the water supply of Rome was obtained from both ground (spring) and surface sources, which in many cases were mixed together, the resultant mixture would have furnished the best possible soil for algæ, the ground water providing the necessary mineral food and the surface water furnishing the seed. It is quite probable, therefore, that the aqueducts and reservoirs were covered to prevent such growths.

Besides the principal reservoir, each aqueduct had a number of smaller ones at different points in the sections they supplied, to provide that neighborhood with water. It is estimated that all told there were 247 of the auxiliary public reservoirs scattered throughout the city. These reservoirs were supplied from the principal reservoir through pipes of lead, burned earthenware, and in some cases bored out blocks of stone. Burned earthenware pipes were generally used not only on account of their greater cheapness, but because the Romans were aware of the injurious effect of lead poisoning, and looked with suspicion on water that had been conducted through lead pipes.

When a number of individuals living in the same neighborhood had obtained a grant of water, they clubbed together and built a private reservoir into which the whole quantity allotted to them collectively was transmitted from the public reservoir. The object of private reservoirs was to facilitate the distribution of the proper amount of water to each person and to avoid puncturing the main aqueduct in too many places. When a supply of water from the aqueduct was first granted for private use, each householder granted the privilege obtained his quantity by tapping a branch supply pipe into the main aqueduct, and conducting the branch to a domestic reservoir within his own house. Later when the system of private reservoirs was adopted, each domestic supply of water was obtained from the private reservoir and piped to the domestic reservoir which was made of lead.

The façade of an aqueduct reservoir known as the "Trophies of Marius" may be seen in the accompanying reproduction of a woodcut made in the sixteenth century. The ground plan shows part of the internal construction. The stream of water is first divided by the round projecting buttress into two courses which are again sub-divided into five minor streams that discharge into the reservoir as indicated in the cut.

There is no reason to believe that conditions in Rome were different from those existing to-day in our large cities, and it is more than probable that the poor people of Rome were but scantily supplied with water from the aqueducts. The supply obtained by them from ground sources should therefore be added to that supplied by the aqueducts, and it would then be found, as most writers assert, that the per capita daily supply of water to Rome was equal to about 100 U. S. gallons.

Such enormous quantities of water could not be poured daily into a limited area without material and physical injury resulting if provision were not made to dispose of the surplus. Hence it was that a system of drains was evolved in Rome, which, while not the first in point of time, nevertheless were the only ones known to have been constructed by the ancients, until within a comparatively recent date ruins of sewerage systems were unearthed in Bismya, an ancient Symerian or pre-Babylonian city.

CHAPTER III

Recent explorations in Jerusalem have brought to light extensive drains for the removal from the vicinity of the temples of offensive matters peculiar to the bloody sacrifices of that ancient people; and in an August, 1905, issue of the Scientific American, Edgar James Banks, field director of the Babylonian expedition of the University of Chicago, gives an interesting description of house drains and sewage disposal wells constructed at Bismya some 4,500 years ago. The following account is abstracted from that article:

"Babylonia is perfectly level. From Bagdad to the Persian Gulf there is not the slightest elevation save for the artificial mounds or an occasional changing sand drift. In most places there is a crust of hard clay upon the surface, baked by the hot sun of summer time so hard that it resembles stone. Beneath the crust, which at Bismya is seldom more than 4 feet in thickness and in places entirely lacking, is loose caving sand reaching to an unknown depth.

"Drainage in such a country, without sloping hills or streams of running water, might tax the ingenuity of the modern builder. In constructing a house, the ancient Sumerian of more than 6,000 years ago first dug a hole into the sand to a considerable depth. At Bismya several instances were found where the shaft had reached the depth of 45 feet beneath the foundation of the house. From the bottom he built up a vertical drain of large cylindrical terra cotta sections, each of which is provided with grooved flanges to receive the one above. The sections of one drain were about 19 inches in diameter and 23½ inches in height; others were larger and much shorter. The thickness of the wall was about 1.06 inches. The tiles were punctured at intervals with small holes of about ¾ inch in diameter. The section at the top of the drain was semi-spherical, fitting over it like a cap and provided with an opening to receive the water from above. Sand and potsherds were then filled in about the drain and it was ready for use. The water pouring into it was rapidly absorbed by the sand at the bottom, and if there it became clogged the water escaped through the holes in the sides of the tiles.

"The temple at Bismya was provided with several such drains. One palace was discovered with four. A large bath resembling a modern Turkish bath and provided with bitumen floor, sloping to one corner, emptied its waste water into one. The toilets in the private houses of 6,000 years ago were almost identical with those of the modern Arab house—a small oblong hole in the floor, without a seat. Several found in Bismya were provided with vertical drains beneath.

"In clearing out the drains a few of them whose openings had been exposed were filled with the drifting sand. Others were half full of the filth of long past ages. In one at the temple we removed dozens of shallow terra cotta drinking cups not unlike a large saucer in shape and size. Evidently it received the waste water of the drinking fountain and the cups had accidentally dropped within.

"In the Bismya temple platform, constructed about 2750 B. C., we discovered a horizontal drain of tile, each of which was about 3 feet long and 6 inches in diameter and not unlike in shape those at present employed. It conducted the rain water from the platform to one of the vertical drains. One tile was so well constructed that for a long time it served as a chimney for our house, until my Turkish overseer suggested that its dark, smoked end project from the battlements of the house to convince the Arabs that we were well fortified; thus it served as a gun until the close of the excavations."

The first sewers of Rome were built between 800 and 735 B. C., and therefore antedate the first aqueduct by between 440 and 487 years. It is evident, therefore, that as originally planned the sewers of Rome were intended to carry off the surface water and in other ways serve to drain the site of the ancient city. Indeed, the Cloaca Maxima, which was constructed during the period of the Kings, from 735 to 510 B. C., was intended to drain the marshy hollow between the Capitoline, Palatine and Esquiline hills, and afterwards, by a process of development, became part of a combined sewage system for the city.

The Cloaca Maxima was one of the largest and most celebrated of the ancient sewers. The solidity of this structure can be judged by the fact that it has been in uninterrupted service for over 2,400 years, and at the present time is still in use, with no signs of immediate failure. The arches were made of neatly jointed stones fitted together without cement. It is stated by Pliny that a cart loaded with hay could pass down the Cloaca Maxima. It should be borne in mind, however, that a Roman cart and load of hay were of smaller dimensions than a modern one. The actual dimensions of the mouth of the sewer are 11 feet wide by 12 feet high. The lateral branches of the main sewer were of a size in proportion with their requirements and in proportion to the main or trunk sewer. The dimensions of these sewers are evidenced by the service they performed for Nero, who threw into them the unfortunate victims of his nightly riots.

While each street in Rome was provided with an adequate sewer, it is more than probable that only a small percentage of the population had branches extending into their houses. In those that had, the latrines were located adjacent to the kitchen, where through the untrapped end of the sewer noxious gases were continually arising to vitiate the surrounding air. The only ventilation the sewers of Rome had was through these untrapped ends.

Many of the houses of Rome were lofty and inhabited near the top by the poor, who—drainage systems not extending above the first floor—had very imperfect means for carrying off rubbish and other accumulations. A practice seems to have grown up then of throwing such liquid and solid matter from the windows, sometimes to the discomfort or injury of hapless pedestrians.

To provide against accidents due to this cause, the Dejecti Effusive Act was passed, which gave damages against a person who threw or poured out anything from a place or upper chamber upon a road frequented by passersby, or on a place where people used to stand. The act, however, gave damages only when the person was injured, but nothing was recoverable if the wearing apparel was damaged. A strange provision of this act was that it applied only in the daytime and not to the night, which, however, was the most dangerous time for passersby.

CHAPTER IV.

It perhaps was among the Greeks that bath tubs were first introduced. The early Greek bathing vessels (see preceding woodcuts) were made of polished marble, shaped something like a punch bowl, stood about 30 inches high, and were not occupied by the bather as in a modern bath tub, but served only to hold the water which was applied to the bather by an attendant, who dashed or poured, as circumstances required, a vessel full of water on his head or body. Both woodcuts shown were reproduced from ancient Greek vases and convey a fair idea of the way these baths were used. One of the bathers is shown with an iron, bone, bronze or ivory instrument called a strigilis, in his hand, which was used to scrape off perspiration when the bather emerged from the hot room, or induced a flow by exercising in the gymnasium, which was generally connected with the baths. The inscription on the woodcut, representing men bathing, shows that this was a public bath, and is probably the earliest picture of a bathing establishment extant. The women's bath bowl differed but slightly from the men's. It was a trifle lower and considerably deeper, but the method of using was the same as for the men.

While the Greeks were prior to the Romans in the use of the bath, they considered it effeminate to use warm water, and consequently their bathing establishments never attained the luxury and splendor that later marked the Roman baths. When bath tubs were first introduced into Rome, the wealthy inhabitants fitted up their houses with a bathroom much as do the people of our own time. As the luxury, pleasure and benefit of the bath became better known, more elaborate bathing facilities similar to a modern Turkish bath were installed. In some houses several rooms were devoted to this purpose. The anointment of the body with oils was one of the characteristics of a Roman bath. The practice was indulged in by people of both sexes, and the time when applied depended much on the treatment the bather was taking. For instance, most bathers anointed the body as the finishing touch of the bath, while some bathers applied the oil before going to the hot or sweat room.

No luxury can be monopolized by the rich, and it was not long before public bathing establishments, in which a small entrance fee was charged, were built by private capital. Following quickly on the heels of these private enterprises, came the establishment of public baths, then, according to the authority of Pliny, for 600 years Rome needed no medicine but the public baths.

When the public baths were first instituted they were only for the lower classes, who alone bathed in public. The people of wealth and those who held positions of state bathed in their own homes. But this monopoly of the poor was not long enjoyed. In the process of time even the emperors bathed in public among their subjects, and we read of the abandoned Gallienus amusing himself by bathing in the midst of the young and old of both sexes, men, women and children.

In the earlier stages of Roman history a much greater delicacy was observed with respect to promiscuous bathing, even among men, than obtained at a later period. Virtue passed away as wealth increased, and the public baths became places of meeting and amusement where not only did men bathe together in numbers, but even men and women stripped and bathed promiscuously in the same bath.

Some idea of the magnitude of the baths at Rome can be gained from a statement of the number of bathers they could accommodate at one time. The baths of Diocletian, which were perhaps the most commodious of them all, could accommodate at one time 3,200 bathers. One hall of this famous bathing institution was at a later date converted by Michael Angelo into the church of St. Marie de gli Angeli.

The baths of Caracalla, built A. D. 212, were perhaps the most famous of the baths of Rome. They were not as commodious however as many other baths, and they had accommodations at one time for only 1,600 bathers, or just one-half that could be accommodated by the baths of Diocletian.

The following description of the Roman baths, together with the historical sketch of the people of that period who indulged in the luxury, is abstracted from an old dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities, published in London, England, almost a century ago. The illustrations are from woodcuts appearing in the article.

"In the earlier ages of Roman history a much greater delicacy was observed with respect to promiscuous bathing, even among the men, than was usual among the Greeks; for according to Valerius Maximus, it was deemed indecent for a father to bathe in company with his own son after he had attained the age of puberty, or son-in-law with his father-in-law, the same respectful reserve being shown to blood and affinity as was paid to the temples of the gods, toward whom it was considered an act of irreligion even to appear naked in any of the places consecrated to their worship. But virtue passed away as wealth increased, and when the thermæ came into use, not only did the men bathe together in numbers, but even men and women stripped and bathed promiscuously in the same bath. It is true, however, that the public establishment often contained separate baths for both sexes adjoining each other, as will be seen to have been also the case at the baths of Pompeii. Aulus Gellius relates a story of a consul's wife who took a whim to bathe at Teano, a small provincial town of Campania, in the men's baths, probably because in a small town the female department, like that at Pompeii, was more confined and less convenient than that assigned to the men, and an order was consequently given to the quaestor to turn the men out. But whether the men and women were allowed to use each other's chambers indiscriminately, or that some of the public baths had only one common set of baths for both, the custom prevailed under the empire of men and women bathing indiscriminately together. This custom was forbidden by Hadrian, and Alexander Severus prohibited any baths common to both sexes from being opened in Rome.

When the public baths were first instituted they were only for the lower orders, who alone bathed in public, the people of wealth, as well as those who formed the Equestrian and Senatorian orders, using private baths in their own houses. But this monopoly was not long enjoyed, for as early even as the time of Julius Cæsar, we find no less a personage than the mother of Augustus making use of the public establishments, which were probably at that time separated from the men's, and, in process of time, even the emperors themselves bathed in public with the meanest of the people. Thus Hadrian often bathed in public among the herd, and even the virtuous Alexander Severus took his bath among the populace in the thermæ he had himself erected, as well as in those of his predecessors, and returned to the palace in his bathing dress; and the abandoned Gallienus amused himself by bathing in the midst of the young and old of both sexes, men, women and children.

The baths were opened at sunrise and closed at sunset, but in the time of Alexander Severus, it would appear that they were kept open nearly all night, for he is stated to have furnished oil for his own thermæ, which previously were not opened before daybreak and were shut before sunset; and Juvenal includes in his catalogue of female immoralities that of taking the bath at night, which may, however, refer to private baths.

The price of a bath was a quadrant, the smallest piece of coined money from the age of Cicero downward, which was paid to the keeper of the bath. Children below a certain age were admitted free, and strangers, also foreigners, were admitted to some of the baths, if not to all, without payment.

The baths were closed when any misfortune happened to the republic, and Sentonius says that the Emperor Caligula made it a capital offence to indulge in the luxury of bathing upon any religious holiday. The baths were originally placed under the superintendence of the ædiles, whose business it was also to keep them in repair, and to see that they were kept clean and of a proper temperature.

The time usually assigned by the Romans for taking the bath was the eighth hour or shortly afterward. Before that time none but invalids were allowed to bathe in public. Vilruvins reckoned the best hours adapted for bathing to be from midday until about sunset. Pliny took his bath at the ninth hour in summer and the eighth in winter; and Martial speaks of taking a bath when fatigued and weary at the tenth hour and even later.

When the water was ready and the baths prepared, notice was given by the sound of a bell. One of these bells with the inscription Firmi Balneatoris was found in the thermæ Diocletiane, in the year 1548.

When the bath was used for health merely or cleanliness, a single one was considered sufficient at a time, and that one only when requisite. But the luxuries of the empire knew no such bounds, and the daily bath was sometimes repeated as many as seven and eight times in succession. It was the usual and constant habit of the Romans to take the bath after exercise, and previous to the principal meal; but the debauchees of the empire bathed also after eating, as well as before, in order to promote digestion so as to acquire a new appetite for fresh delicacies. Nero is said to have indulged in this practice.

Upon quitting the bath, it was usual for the Romans, as well as the Greeks, to be anointed with oil; indeed, after bathing, both sexes anointed themselves, the women as well as the men, in order that the skin might not be left harsh and rough, especially after hot water. Oil is the only ointment mentioned by Homer as used for this purpose, and Pliny says the Greeks had no better ointment at the time of the Trojan war than oil perfumed with herbs. A particular habit of body or tendency to certain complaints, sometimes required the order to be reversed and the anointment to take place before bathing. For this reason, Augustus, who suffered from nervous disorders, was accustomed to anoint himself before bathing, and a similar practice was adopted by Alexander Severus. The most usual practice, however, seems to have been to take some gentle exercise in the first instance, and then after bathing to be anointed either in the sun or in the tepid or thermal chamber, and finally to take their food.

The Romans did not content themselves with a single bath of hot or cold water, but they went through a course of baths in succession, in which the agency of air as well as water was applied. It is difficult to ascertain the precise order in which the course was usually taken, if indeed there was any general practice beyond the whim of the individual. Under medical treatment, of course, the succession would be regulated by the nature of the disease for which a cure was sought, and would vary also according to the different practice of different physicians. It is certain, however, that it was a general practice to close the pores and brace the body after the excessive perspiration of the vapor bath, either by pouring cold water over the head, or by plunging at once into the tank. Musa, the physician of Augustus, is said to have introduced the practice which became quite the fashion, in consequence of the benefit which the emperor derived from it, though Dion accuses him of having artfully caused the death of Marcellus by an improper application of the same treatment. In other cases it was considered conducive to health to pour warm water over the head before the vapor bath, and cold water immediately after it; and at other times a succession of warm, tepid and cold water was resorted to.

The two physicians, Galen and Celsus, differ in some respects as to the order in which the baths should be taken; the former recommending first the hot air of laconicum, next the bath of warm water, afterward the cold, and finally to be well rubbed; while the latter recommends his patients first to sweat for a short time in the tepid chamber without undressing, then to proceed into the thermal chamber, and after having gone through a regular course of perspiration there, not to descend into the warm bath, but to pour a quantity of warm water over the head, then tepid, and finally cold; afterward to be scraped with the strigil and finally rubbed dry and anointed. Such in all probability was the usual habit of the Romans when the bath was resorted to as a daily source of pleasure, and not for any particular medical treatment; the more so as it resembles in many respects the system of bathing still in practice among the Orientals who succeeded by conquest to the luxuries of the enervated Greeks and Romans.

Having thus detailed from classical authorities the general habits of the Romans in connection with their systems of bathing, it now remains to examine and explain the internal arrangements of the structures which contained their baths, which will serve as a practical commentary upon all that has been said. Indeed, there are more ample and better materials for acquiring a thorough insight into Roman manners in this one particular than for any of the other usages connected with their daily habit.

In order to make the subjoined description clear, a reproduction from an old woodcut of a fresco painting on the walls of the thermæ of Titus at Rome, is here reproduced, showing in broken perspective the general arrangement of one of the baths known as the thermæ. Heat was supplied to warm the apartments and the water used in the baths by the furnace shown extending under the entire floor of the establishment. This furnace was known as a Hypocustum. To the right may be seen the vessels in which water for the baths was heated. The topmost vessel, the Frigidarium, contained cold water from which the hot water tanks and the various baths were supplied. Next in order is the tepidarium, in which water of moderate temperature was stored, and in the lowest, the caldarium, was heated the hottest water used in the baths. After the end of the republic, large establishments used to have a separate steam bath, the laconicum, and in this apartment, or sometimes adjoining the tepidarium, was the Clipeus, a small circular chamber covered by a cupola. The Clipeus received its light through an aperture in the center of the dome, and this aperture served also as a vent from the chamber. The Clipeus was heated by means of a separate heating apparatus, and its temperature could be raised to an enormous degree or could be regulated to suit the bather by raising or lowering the shield.