The Baths of Trajan Decius — or of Philip the Arab?
The Literary Evidence
Page 2
The Notitia urbis Romae, a catalogue of buildings in Rome compiled or updated in the mid-4th c., provides crucial information about the location of Decius’ baths: “REGIO XIII ADVENTINUS continet: Armilustrium. Templum Dianae et Minervae. Nymfae III. Thermas Suranas et Decianas.”3
The compiler lists the thermae Decianae as one of two major baths in the Aventine region. The other, the thermae Suranae is a well-attested complex dating to the reign of Trajan.4
A second reference to the Baths of Decius comes from the Chronica urbis Romae. This document lists the Roman emperors up to the death of Licinius (324 C.E.), , with brief notices of the events of their reigns and their building activities in Rome.5 “Decius imper. annum unum m. XI d. XVIII. cong. ded. X CCL. hoc imp. thermae Commodianae dedicatae sunt.”6
“Decius reigned for one year, eleven months, eighteen days. He distributed largess in the amount of 250 denarii. While he was reigning the baths of Commodus were dedicated.”7
Here the text is corrupt because a copyist erroneously repeated a sentence. Just a few lines earlier the phrase hoc imp. thermae Commodianae dedicatae sunt appears in its proper place, under the reign of Commodus.8 As Theodore Mommsen noted, in the later passage we expect thermae Decianae rather than thermae Commodianae.9 We may accept Mommsen’s emendation with confidence.
Eutropius’ Breviarium, composed about 370 C.E.,10 offers a slightly fuller summary of Decius’ reign and a less confused account of his building activity at Rome: “post hos Decius, e Pannonia inferiore Budaliae natus, imperium sumsit. Bellum civile, quod in Gallia motum fuerat, oppressit; filium suum Caesarem fecit. Romae lavacrum aedificavit.”11
“After these [the Philippi] Decius, born in Budalia in Lower Pannonia, assumed power. He suppressed a civil war which had arisen in Gaul. He elevated his son to the rank of Caesar. He built a bath at Rome.”
Eutr. Brev. 9. 4
Finally, in the 6th c., we have the following report in Cassiodorus’ Chronica: “Decius lavacra publica aedificavit, quae suo nomine appellari iussit.”12
“Decius built a public bath, which he ordered to be named after himself.”
Cass. Chron. 956
The wording of this account suggests that there was something unusual about the situation. Cassiodorus records several other imperial building projects, but nowhere else does he use similar language.13 The fact that the emperor had to order ( iubere) the baths to be named after himself implies that there was some question as to who deserved the credit. Cassiodorus culled most of his information on public buildings from Jerome’s Chronicle but here he used another source.14 That source may have spelled out more completely the unusual circumstances surrounding the completion and dedication of the baths.
3 Nordh, ed. (1949). For discussion of the date, see Chastagnol 183-84 (arguing for a date between 337 and 357).
4 The >thermae >Suranae are attested in literary sources (Cass. Dio. 68. 15. 3, Aur. Vict. Caes. 13. 8), on an inscription recording a repair under Gordian III (Paribeni 141-42), and on the marble plan of Rome (Carettoni et al. 79, 205, pl. 23). See also Platner-Ashby 532-33; Richardson 395-96; M. Andreussi, s. v. “Aventinus Mons” in Steinby 150.
5 Mommsen, ed. (1892) 141-48. The Chron. urb. Rom. was appended to the compilation of the Chronographer of 354, probably at the time the latter was assembled or not long thereafter. In Mommsen’s opinion, the Chron. urb. Rom. and the two other documents added to the Chron a. 354 appear close in time and place to the main collection: “>id >tam >apte >explent >et >tempore >locoque >tam >prope >ad >id >accedunt, >ut >non >magis >pro >alienus >haberi >debeant” (ibid., 37). Henri Stern divides the materials on the Chron a. 354 into pagan and Christian components, but concludes that “Cette différence considérable entre les deux parties de l’ouvrage n’empêche que l’appartenance de toutes deux à une seule et même édition soit évidente.” (Stern 9).
6 Mommsen, ed. (1892) 147, lines 34-35.
7 The abbreviation must be completed as >hoc >imp(>erante), not >hoc >imp(>eratore) as in La Follette (1994) 83, app. I, no. 3. Compare in the same text: >hoc >imp. >mula >hominem >comedit (!) (Mommsen, ed. [1892] 147, lines 30-31).
8 Chron. urb. Rom, Mommsen, ed. (1892) 147, lines 6-7. Commodus’ bath complex has never been located. See Platner-Ashby 525; Richardson 390. According to the Notitia urbis Romae (Nordh, ed. 73) it was in >regio >I, so identification with the Baths of Decius in >regio >XIII is out of the question.
9 Mommsen (1892) 147, n. to line 34. The passage thus emended would follow the formula used for the other accounts of imperial baths in the same text: >Thermae >Severianae >dedicatae >sunt (ibid. line 11); >thermae >Antonianae >dedicatae >sunt (ibid. line 14); >thermae >Alexandrinae >dedicatae >sunt (ibid. line 24).
10 The Breviarum includes events through the death of Jovian, (364 C.E.). For the date of composition, see Syme (1973) 310.
11 >Lavacrum is a late term. It seems to refer to public baths on a scale less monumental than >thermae. However, other possible uses of the term have been noted. See Yegül 491 and Nielsen I, 3, 139.
12 Cass. Chron. 956. Mommsen, ed. (1894) 147. In this section a scribal error caused the consul list to fall out of synchronization with Cassiodorus’ historical notes. As a result, the construction of the baths is placed in the year of Gallus and Volusian, who did not assume the consulship until after Decius’ death (252 C.E.). However, it is clear that Cassiodorus does not mean to imply that the baths were completed posthumously, since his account of the deaths of Decius and Herrenius Etruscus his account of the construction of the baths.
13 When describing the erection of public buildings, Cassiodorus leans heavily on two predictable verbal formulas, one active, one passive: >Titus >amphitheatrum >Romae >aedificavit (712); >Antoninus >Romae >thermas >sui >nominis >aedificavit (900); >Aurelianius >templum >soli >aedificavit (990); >templum >Romae >et >Veneris >factum >est (789); >thermae >Commodianae >Romae >factae >sunt (857); >thermae >Severianae . . . >factae, >et >Septizodium >instructum >est (879).
14 Jerome does not mention the building of a bath under either Philip or Decius. On Cassiodorus’ sources see Mommsen (1894) 111-13 and his marginal notes ibid. 120-61. Also, O’Donnell 37-38.