Bath

BATH. — The daily bath in specially built thermal establishments had become so much a part of general custom in the Roman empire that ancient Christian literature contains continual references to it; for example, in the letter written by the faithful of Lyons to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 1: PG 20, 409); Tertullian declares that "ad lavacra frontem crucis signaculo terimus" (De corona, 3: PL 2, 99); he chooses the most suitable hour (Apol., 42: PL 1, 555-56) or deplores the Christian virgins who appear at the baths in sumptuous dress (De virg. vel., 12: PL 2, 955); Clement of Alexandria (Paed., 3, 5: PG 600), St. Cyprian (De habitu virg., 19: PL 4, 471-72) and St. Jerome (Adv. Iovin., 2, 36: PL 23, 349-50) deplore those faithful who frequent promiscuous baths, lavacra mixta, which are explicitly condemned in 320 by the Council of Laodicea (Mansi, II, 569); indeed in this regard St. Ambrose extols the ancient Roman traditions of modesty (De officiis, 1, 18: PL 16, 51).

St. John Chrysostom sees in the bath a symbol of the Church, removing by it the stains that disfigure the soul (In ep. ad Cor., hom. XV: PG 61, 510) Reprehensio eorum qui aberant ab ecclesia: PG 51, 146).

Among the personnel employed at the baths a certain Cucumius is known, who wished to record on his tomb that he had been keeper of the wardrobe of the Antoninian (of Caracalla) baths: Capsarius de Antoninianas (G. Marchi, I monumenti primitivi dell'arte cristiana, Rome 1844, p. 27). There is often documentation that baths for the use of the faithful were built in the vicinity of sacred buildings. Pope Damasus donated a balneum iuxta titulum which he had established near the theatre of Pompey (Lib. pontif., ed. Duchesne, I, Paris 1886, p. 183). Pope Hilary built cold and hot baths near the basilica of St. Lawrence on the via Tiburtina (ibid., p. 245) and Symmachus near St. Pancras on the Aurelia (ibid., p. 262). In the 6th century a certain Eusebius erected one at St. Paul's on the via Ostiense.

A fragment of a metrical inscription coming from the basilica of St. Martin ai Monti contains a series of precepts relating to baths (O. Marucchi, I monumenti del museo cristiano Pio lateranense, Milan 1910, pl. 45, 1.).

Outside Rome Eusebius recalls the baths built by Constantine near the basilica of the Apostles at Constantinople (De vita Costantini, IV, 59; PG 20, 1209). At Ravenna in 540 the bishop Victor built one adjoining the Episcopium. An inscription of the 7th century records among the works carried out by the bishop St. Damian at Pavia, together with the episcopium, also the baths. In the deaconry (v.) established at Naples by the bishop St. Agnello around the middle of the 7th century, soap for bathing was distributed twice a year (Gesta episcop. Neapol., ed. Waitz, ch. 39, p. 419). Besides public baths, descriptions of baths are also found in private Christian buildings. Thus Sidonius Apollinaris emphasizes the sobriety of the decoration of his bath at Avitacum (Ep., II, 2: PL 58, 474-76); Cassiodorus the baths he had built in the monastery of Vivarium (De instit. divin. litterarum, 29: PL 70, 1143-44); the poet Fortunatus, the baths of the villas of Leontius, bishop of Bordeaux, and of Praemiacum (Miscellanea, 28: PL 88, 84-85).

Enrico Josi

CONDUCT OF THE CHURCH REGARDING THE BAGNO

Some (cf. e.g., B. Russell, Le mariage et la morale, Paris 1930, p. 49) have sought to accuse the Church of having, under the vain pretext that everything which contributes to the care of the body is an incentive to sin, condemned and fought the use of baths to the point of making them disappear in the Middle Ages. Hence a second accusation, that the Church is an enemy of hygiene.

The answer is easy: 1) In the Gospel there is no condemnation of baths. Jesus Christ himself wished to submit to the symbolic bath of penance and purification instituted by the Precursor (Mt. 3, 17-18) and in turn raised the bath in Baptism to the dignity of a Sacrament. He reproached the Pharisees, it is true, for their frequent ablutions and purifications, but only because these had become for them a pure formality, without any inner spirit accompanying them. 2) The same can be said for later times; neither the Fathers nor the Councils ever formally condemned baths. Besides the examples cited in the first part, many others could be adduced, drawn from the customs and regulations of monasteries, from the very declarations of the Fathers and Councils. "It was the custom of Christians to wash on Saturday in honor of Sunday, and to change their garments in order to enter the earthly house of the king of heaven, that is, the church, pure in soul and body" (Vita a Melanit, [d. ca. 530], in Acta SS. Ianuarii I, ed. Paris 1863, col. 334). And St. Gregory the Great warns: "If someone wishes to take a bath for reasons of lust and pleasure, we do not permit it on any day; if instead it is taken because the body feels the need of it, we do not forbid it even on Sunday. For it is written: 'No one hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cares for it'" (Eph. 5, 29); (Epist. Gregorii M., lib. XIII, ep. 1: PL 77, col. 1254; cf. P. Galland, L'Eglise et l'hygiène au moyen-âge, Paris 1933, pp. 15-29). 3) If in the Fathers and Councils one reads severe words and prohibitions, sometimes excessive, this is explained or understood by one who considers the circumstances. In the first centuries of Christianity the public baths of the pagan cities did not enjoy a good reputation, given the promiscuity of the sexes and the libertinism of the pagans (Juvenal, Satira 6, 422; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, III, 5). The same inconveniences also occurred in the course of the Middle Ages and especially at the beginnings of the Renaissance. The Church therefore could not fail to intervene to deplore abuses and harm to souls. 4) Abstinence from baths, practiced for a longer or shorter time and proclaimed by ascetics, derived rather from the spirit of penance and mortification, proof sufficient to demonstrate how much importance was attributed to baths. 5) If in this matter there were no lack of exaggerations or excesses, this must be attributed to individuals, not to a nonexistent ecclesiastical legislation.

BATHING AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY

Baths of water or of sun, taken in moderation, are useful for hygiene, health and the care of the body; they invigorate and strengthen the nerves, confer agility and well-being, and also accustom one to a natural and easy attitude toward oneself. However, the Christian must bear in mind that all this does not dispense from the laws of propriety and modesty; and that concupiscence, given original sin, can play nasty tricks. All the more so since the step to deplorable excesses in theory and practice is easy (v. NUDISM); and the danger for souls, given the promiscuity and excessive freedom of modern beaches, becomes considerable. The Church therefore cannot refrain from intervening to warn the faithful and to require certain customs that safeguard modesty and decency. To this end, civil authority too, solicitous as it ought to be for public honesty, is obliged to cooperate for the good and the morality of citizens.

Celestino Testore