Hot Mineral Springs

Plate VIII. Plan of Great Roman Bath, Bath. Discovered 1880-81 and measured 1884, by Charles E. Davis, F.S.A.(Plate VIII.)

I should not omit mentioning the mark of a woodenseat in the northern rectangular recess, and the place of a wooden rail for clothes, that was let into the pilaster at one end with theslotin a pilaster at the other.

In my plan (Pl. VIII.) I have endeavoured to show the massive lower paving and the fragmentary upper pavement. Both are much worn; and, where the upper pavement has disappeared against the upper step of the bath, especially the step on the westernschola, it has been worn down on the inside to the depth of several inches. The lower pavement through the south-western door is worn in holes, and across by the angular fountain are similar wearings, marking "a short cut" into the northernschola; and this is continued in a less degree to the other doors,—save the north-western one, where the upper paving in part exists, showing that this doorway was closed before the baths were allowed to get so shamefully out of repair. This sadly dilapidated pavement must have caused considerable inconvenience to the bathers, and could only have been put up with by those too poor to incur the expenses of repair; the baths therefore were continued to be used by less prosperous citizens than those who provided them. Is not this a strong argument that the Romans left behind them, when they abandoned Britain (A.D. 420), a people almost as great lovers of the baths as themselves, with, however, less ability to maintain them; and that the residents of Aquæ Sulis daily frequented them during the 150 yearsthat succeeded until the city was overthrown by our more immediate ancestors, who destroyed before abandoning it to desolation?

The springs flooded the courts and corridors of the Thermæ until the washings of the land filled them. Rushes, withies, and trees grew beneath the shadow of its ruins. Bathancastra (Akemancastra) was founded;26the memory of the baths was lost; its architectural magnificence was the quarry of the builders, who little dreamt that beneath the soil was buried the rich treasure which we in this century, and those who have preceded us in the last, have had the privilege of laying bare.

The Romans left behind them in Bath a Palace of Health and Luxury unequalled except in Italy.

In making some excavations (1885) beneath the Cross Bath, the walls of the Roman well were found, and at a considerable depth two altars, which are placed forexhibition in the Great Bath. One of these is a plain rectangular altar; the other is carved on three sides, having on the front face two figures (Æsculapius offering a lamb to Hegiea), on another side a serpent coiled round the trunk of a tree, and on the third sculptured side a dog with a curly tail (see Professor Sayce and Rev. Preb. Scarth).

Footnote 1:(return)Mr. Peach, in the preface to "the Historic Houses in Bath," page 5, quotes 1572; but this is the date of the completion of Mr. Smith's book, the drawings of which occupied many years.

Mr. Peach, in the preface to "the Historic Houses in Bath," page 5, quotes 1572; but this is the date of the completion of Mr. Smith's book, the drawings of which occupied many years.

Footnote 2:(return)Mr. Smith gives a list of "Wonders in England": 1st. "The Baths at ye Citty of Bath are accompted one although yet they are not so wonderfull seeing that ye Sulphur and Brimston in the earth is the cause thereof but this may pass well enough for one."

Mr. Smith gives a list of "Wonders in England": 1st. "The Baths at ye Citty of Bath are accompted one although yet they are not so wonderfull seeing that ye Sulphur and Brimston in the earth is the cause thereof but this may pass well enough for one."

Footnote 3:(return)Evidently the ruin of a portion of the Roman Thermæ, repaired in the 12th or 13th century.

Evidently the ruin of a portion of the Roman Thermæ, repaired in the 12th or 13th century.

Footnote 4:(return)Monday, August 18, 1755, Bath. A most valuable Work of Antiquity has been lately discovered here. Under the foundation of the Abbey House now taking down, in order to be rebuilt by the Duke of Kingston, the workmen discovered the foundations of more ancient buildings, and fell upon some cavities, which gradually led to further discoveries. There are now fairly laid open, the foundations and remains of very august Roman baths and sudatories, constructed upon their elegant plans, with floors suspended upon square-brick pillars, and surrounded with tubulated bricks, for the equal conveyance of heat and vapour. Their dimensions are very large, but not yet fully laid open, and some curious parts of their structure are not yet explained.—(Gentleman's Magazine.)

Monday, August 18, 1755, Bath. A most valuable Work of Antiquity has been lately discovered here. Under the foundation of the Abbey House now taking down, in order to be rebuilt by the Duke of Kingston, the workmen discovered the foundations of more ancient buildings, and fell upon some cavities, which gradually led to further discoveries. There are now fairly laid open, the foundations and remains of very august Roman baths and sudatories, constructed upon their elegant plans, with floors suspended upon square-brick pillars, and surrounded with tubulated bricks, for the equal conveyance of heat and vapour. Their dimensions are very large, but not yet fully laid open, and some curious parts of their structure are not yet explained.—(Gentleman's Magazine.)

Footnote 5:(return)In the library of the Society of Antiquaries is a drawing of this bath with an imaginary restoration.

In the library of the Society of Antiquaries is a drawing of this bath with an imaginary restoration.

Footnote 6:(return)A correspondent in theBath Chronicle, purporting to be Richard Mann, the builder employed under me to excavate the greater portion of the discoveries, but whose services were dispensed with, quotes the above as follows: "Adjoining to the inner walls of the central bath there are bases of Pilasters, as in Lucas's between the walls and the bath. There is a corridor paved with hard blue stone eight inches thick." The full-stop being placed at the word "bath," instead of before the word "between," gives to the quotation a totally different meaning from that conveyed by Dr. Sutherland.

A correspondent in theBath Chronicle, purporting to be Richard Mann, the builder employed under me to excavate the greater portion of the discoveries, but whose services were dispensed with, quotes the above as follows: "Adjoining to the inner walls of the central bath there are bases of Pilasters, as in Lucas's between the walls and the bath. There is a corridor paved with hard blue stone eight inches thick." The full-stop being placed at the word "bath," instead of before the word "between," gives to the quotation a totally different meaning from that conveyed by Dr. Sutherland.

Footnote 7:(return)Fac-similePl. V.

Fac-similePl. V.

Footnote 8:(return)In the plate the reference describes the bath to be 90ft., but in the text of Sutherland the dimensions are given as 96ft. which agrees with the scale on the plan.

In the plate the reference describes the bath to be 90ft., but in the text of Sutherland the dimensions are given as 96ft. which agrees with the scale on the plan.

Footnote 9:(return)These baths and adjoining rooms occupied the block between Church Street and York Street, including Kingston Buildings.

These baths and adjoining rooms occupied the block between Church Street and York Street, including Kingston Buildings.

Footnote 10:(return)"But the old municipal independence seems to have been passing away. The record of the battle in the chronicle of the conquerors connects the three cities (Bath, Gloucester, and Cirencester) with three Kings; and from the Celtic names of these Kings, Conmael, Condidan, or Kyndylan, and Farinmael, we may infer that the Roman town party, which had once been strong enough to raise Aurelius to the throne of Britain, was now driven to bow to the supremacy of native chieftains. It was the forces of these Kings that met Ceawlin at Deorham, a village which lies northward of Bath, on a chain of hill overlooking the Severn valley, and whose defeat threw open the country of the three towns to the West Saxon army."—Green's "Making of England,"p. 128.

"But the old municipal independence seems to have been passing away. The record of the battle in the chronicle of the conquerors connects the three cities (Bath, Gloucester, and Cirencester) with three Kings; and from the Celtic names of these Kings, Conmael, Condidan, or Kyndylan, and Farinmael, we may infer that the Roman town party, which had once been strong enough to raise Aurelius to the throne of Britain, was now driven to bow to the supremacy of native chieftains. It was the forces of these Kings that met Ceawlin at Deorham, a village which lies northward of Bath, on a chain of hill overlooking the Severn valley, and whose defeat threw open the country of the three towns to the West Saxon army."—Green's "Making of England,"p. 128.

Footnote 11:(return)As there have appeared in local papers considerable discussions as to these baths, I quote from one of the letters the following as being remarkably clear and explanatory:—"In 1755, Dr. Lucas discovered a Roman bath, east of, and immediately adjoining, the Great Bath, which is now attracting so much attention. Lucas's Bath stood north and south—an important fact to bear in mind, as the great Roman Bath stands east and west—and measured 43ft. by 34ft. But this was not all. 'To the north of this room,' he says, 'parted only by a slender wall, adjoined a semi-circular bath, measuring from east to west, 14ft. 4in.' After the publication of Lucas's 'Essay on Waters,' the ground was further cleared away, and there appeared another semi-circular bath to the south, of the same dimensions as that to the north. The extreme length of Lucas's bath—including the N. and S. Baths, exclusive of the central semi-circular recesses—would be, roughly speaking 69ft.; and this fact should be carefully borne in mind, as we shall see presently to what use it was turned. Dr. Lucas's discoveries were pushed one stage further by Dr. Sutherland, who in his work entitled 'Attempts to revive Ancient Medical Doctrines' (1763) clearly indicates (Pl. V.) that he was on the track of another bath, the Great Roman Bath, in fact, with which we are now so familiar. His words are as follows: 'From each, corner of the westernmost side of Lucas's Bath, a base of 68ft., there issues a wall of stone and mortar. These walls I have traced six or eight feet westward under that causeway, which leads from the Churchyard to the Abbey Green. When, as we may suppose, they have run a length proportionable to their width, they compose a bath which may indeed be called great, 96ft. by 68ft.... From the westernmost side of Lucas's Bath a subterraneous passage has been traced 24ft., at the end of which was found a leaden cistern, raised about 3ft. above the pavement, constantly overflowing with hot water. From this a channel is visible in the pavement, in a line of direction eastward, conveying the water to Lucas's Bath' (pp. 20-21). Thus then in 1763 (1) the north and south walls of the great Roman Bath had been traced 6ft. or 8ft. west of Lucas's Bath. (2) Furthermore, starting from the centre of the west side of Lucas's Bath, a line had been traced to the east steps of the great Roman Bath. These are plain historical facts, open to everyone who will look into the plans of our baths, as given by Sutherland in 1763, and by Prebendary Scarth in his 'Aquæ Solis' in 1864. But our City Architect has been charged with suppressing these facts for his own glorification. Now, Sir, I think no unprejudiced man, who has heard Major Davis's addresses and read his books, can justly bring this charge. If I mistake not, he fairly stated the case in 1880, both in his address before the Society of Antiquaries, and in his lecture at the Bath Literary Institution. He has most certainly concealed nothing in his published works 'The Bathes of Bathe's Ayde' and 'Guide to the Roman Baths.' In the former work he says (p. 81), 'Dr. Sutherland indicates a large bath westward of that which had been discovered in his time, in fact there can be little doubt that the steps at the eastward end of a great bath had then been found;' in the latter, whilst alluding to the published plans of Sutherland, he says (p. 10), 'These plans indicate a large bath westward of that discovered in 1754 (? 1755), in fact the eastward steps of a bath had then been found.' Here then is a full and candid admission of all the facts known about the great Roman Bath in the middle of the last century; and this anyone can see by reference to the map in Prebendary Scarth's 'Aquæ Solis'—the diagram (copied from Spry) there being almost similar to Sutherland's conjectural plan of the baths, except that the section of Lucas's Bath, correctly represented in Sutherland's map is figured upside-down by Spry and Scarth. It is quite clear what Sutherland knew of the great Roman Bath; it is equally clear that when he proceeded, on the strength of his very limited observations, to draw a conjectural plan of the whole bath, he fell into absolute errors, such as, commonly enough, spring out of hasty generalisations based on scanty data. Thus, he gives the dimensions of the enclosure of the great bath as 96ft. by 68ft.; whereas, as a matter of fact, they are 111ft. by 68ft. How is this discrepancy to be explained? 'A Citizen' in your last weekly issue, says 'The alleged discrepancies in the measurements, which Mr. Davis has used to prove his case, are but the differentiations of the external measurements with the sinuous subterranean windings.' These are indeed brave words, indulged in rather to diminish Major Davis credit than to rescue Sutherland; but a truer explanation of the real discrepancies stares any man in the face who will open Dr. Sutherland's work. There is no occasion to be wise beyond what is written: 'When, as we may suppose, they have run a length proportionable to their width, they compose a bath, which may indeed be called great, 96ft. by 68ft.' The fact is, Sutherland supposed that the dimensions of the great Roman Bath would observe the same relative proportions as Lucas's Bath. The room of Lucas's Bath, let it be remembered, was 43ft. by 34ft., or rather 30ft. 6in. from the face of the pilasters. In other words, the length was equal to the diagonal of the square of the base. Then, having observed that the base of the room of the great Roman Bath—formed by the length of Lucas's Bath—was 68ft., Sutherland assumed that its length also would be equal to the diagonal of the square of base, namely 96ft. This patent error, assuming that the unknown would have a relative correspondence with the known quantities, was the fruitful source of many more. (1) The dimensions of the outer rectangular area formed by the room of the great Roman Bath being false, the dimensions of the inner rectangular area formed by the water surface of the bath were necessarily false also. (2) Steps were observed at one end only of the water surface of Lucas's Bath; therefore it was inferred that steps would be found at one end only of the water surface of the great bath, the eastern end as figured in the maps of 1763 and 1864, whereas we now know that steps run all round. (3) Theexedraeat the back of thescholahaving no existence in Lucas's Bath, were omitted from the conjectural plan of the great Roman Bath. (4) Lucas's Bath being a plain hall without piers, Sutherland assumed the same form for the hall of the great Roman Bath, and altogether omitted the arcades that divide it into three aisles. (5) Not to dwell on other errors built on the baseless fabric of conjecture, it is evident that Sutherland imagined a system of baths existed west of the great Roman Bath similar in all respects to that known to exist east of the great Roman Bath. But here, again, theory has been upset by facts. And now is a fitting opportunity to draw attention to what has been actually discovered west of the great Roman Bath, namely, the octagon Roman Well, which I should be disposed to consider Major Davis's greatest discovery, though I observe that hostile critics take no notice of this, possibly because it is beyond the region of dispute. If any one, able to point what he reads, still believes that the great Roman Bath was ever practically opened up in the last century I would refer him to Mr. Moore's able and suggestive paper, entitled 'Organisms from the recently discovered Roman Baths in Bath,' read to the members of the Bath Microscopical Society, in May, 1883. Once more I insist that we must clearly separate what Sutherland knew from what he conjectured. Indeed, Sutherland himself fairly draws the distinctions. On page 21 he says, 'This ground plot is exhibited in the plate annexed, as far as the earth is cleared away. The remainder is supposed, and drawn out in dotted lines.' These dotted lines represent a vastterra incognitacovering, practically, the whole of the ground recently opened up. That the existence of the great Roman Bath has been transferred from the region of conjecture to the region of fact we owe entirely to the enthusiasm and unwearied zeal of Major Davis, and no fair mind can deny him the credit of being the practical discoverer of the great Roman Bath. More credit than this he has never claimed; less than this only the churlish and envious will grudge him."

As there have appeared in local papers considerable discussions as to these baths, I quote from one of the letters the following as being remarkably clear and explanatory:—

"In 1755, Dr. Lucas discovered a Roman bath, east of, and immediately adjoining, the Great Bath, which is now attracting so much attention. Lucas's Bath stood north and south—an important fact to bear in mind, as the great Roman Bath stands east and west—and measured 43ft. by 34ft. But this was not all. 'To the north of this room,' he says, 'parted only by a slender wall, adjoined a semi-circular bath, measuring from east to west, 14ft. 4in.' After the publication of Lucas's 'Essay on Waters,' the ground was further cleared away, and there appeared another semi-circular bath to the south, of the same dimensions as that to the north. The extreme length of Lucas's bath—including the N. and S. Baths, exclusive of the central semi-circular recesses—would be, roughly speaking 69ft.; and this fact should be carefully borne in mind, as we shall see presently to what use it was turned. Dr. Lucas's discoveries were pushed one stage further by Dr. Sutherland, who in his work entitled 'Attempts to revive Ancient Medical Doctrines' (1763) clearly indicates (Pl. V.) that he was on the track of another bath, the Great Roman Bath, in fact, with which we are now so familiar. His words are as follows: 'From each, corner of the westernmost side of Lucas's Bath, a base of 68ft., there issues a wall of stone and mortar. These walls I have traced six or eight feet westward under that causeway, which leads from the Churchyard to the Abbey Green. When, as we may suppose, they have run a length proportionable to their width, they compose a bath which may indeed be called great, 96ft. by 68ft.... From the westernmost side of Lucas's Bath a subterraneous passage has been traced 24ft., at the end of which was found a leaden cistern, raised about 3ft. above the pavement, constantly overflowing with hot water. From this a channel is visible in the pavement, in a line of direction eastward, conveying the water to Lucas's Bath' (pp. 20-21). Thus then in 1763 (1) the north and south walls of the great Roman Bath had been traced 6ft. or 8ft. west of Lucas's Bath. (2) Furthermore, starting from the centre of the west side of Lucas's Bath, a line had been traced to the east steps of the great Roman Bath. These are plain historical facts, open to everyone who will look into the plans of our baths, as given by Sutherland in 1763, and by Prebendary Scarth in his 'Aquæ Solis' in 1864. But our City Architect has been charged with suppressing these facts for his own glorification. Now, Sir, I think no unprejudiced man, who has heard Major Davis's addresses and read his books, can justly bring this charge. If I mistake not, he fairly stated the case in 1880, both in his address before the Society of Antiquaries, and in his lecture at the Bath Literary Institution. He has most certainly concealed nothing in his published works 'The Bathes of Bathe's Ayde' and 'Guide to the Roman Baths.' In the former work he says (p. 81), 'Dr. Sutherland indicates a large bath westward of that which had been discovered in his time, in fact there can be little doubt that the steps at the eastward end of a great bath had then been found;' in the latter, whilst alluding to the published plans of Sutherland, he says (p. 10), 'These plans indicate a large bath westward of that discovered in 1754 (? 1755), in fact the eastward steps of a bath had then been found.' Here then is a full and candid admission of all the facts known about the great Roman Bath in the middle of the last century; and this anyone can see by reference to the map in Prebendary Scarth's 'Aquæ Solis'—the diagram (copied from Spry) there being almost similar to Sutherland's conjectural plan of the baths, except that the section of Lucas's Bath, correctly represented in Sutherland's map is figured upside-down by Spry and Scarth. It is quite clear what Sutherland knew of the great Roman Bath; it is equally clear that when he proceeded, on the strength of his very limited observations, to draw a conjectural plan of the whole bath, he fell into absolute errors, such as, commonly enough, spring out of hasty generalisations based on scanty data. Thus, he gives the dimensions of the enclosure of the great bath as 96ft. by 68ft.; whereas, as a matter of fact, they are 111ft. by 68ft. How is this discrepancy to be explained? 'A Citizen' in your last weekly issue, says 'The alleged discrepancies in the measurements, which Mr. Davis has used to prove his case, are but the differentiations of the external measurements with the sinuous subterranean windings.' These are indeed brave words, indulged in rather to diminish Major Davis credit than to rescue Sutherland; but a truer explanation of the real discrepancies stares any man in the face who will open Dr. Sutherland's work. There is no occasion to be wise beyond what is written: 'When, as we may suppose, they have run a length proportionable to their width, they compose a bath, which may indeed be called great, 96ft. by 68ft.' The fact is, Sutherland supposed that the dimensions of the great Roman Bath would observe the same relative proportions as Lucas's Bath. The room of Lucas's Bath, let it be remembered, was 43ft. by 34ft., or rather 30ft. 6in. from the face of the pilasters. In other words, the length was equal to the diagonal of the square of the base. Then, having observed that the base of the room of the great Roman Bath—formed by the length of Lucas's Bath—was 68ft., Sutherland assumed that its length also would be equal to the diagonal of the square of base, namely 96ft. This patent error, assuming that the unknown would have a relative correspondence with the known quantities, was the fruitful source of many more. (1) The dimensions of the outer rectangular area formed by the room of the great Roman Bath being false, the dimensions of the inner rectangular area formed by the water surface of the bath were necessarily false also. (2) Steps were observed at one end only of the water surface of Lucas's Bath; therefore it was inferred that steps would be found at one end only of the water surface of the great bath, the eastern end as figured in the maps of 1763 and 1864, whereas we now know that steps run all round. (3) Theexedraeat the back of thescholahaving no existence in Lucas's Bath, were omitted from the conjectural plan of the great Roman Bath. (4) Lucas's Bath being a plain hall without piers, Sutherland assumed the same form for the hall of the great Roman Bath, and altogether omitted the arcades that divide it into three aisles. (5) Not to dwell on other errors built on the baseless fabric of conjecture, it is evident that Sutherland imagined a system of baths existed west of the great Roman Bath similar in all respects to that known to exist east of the great Roman Bath. But here, again, theory has been upset by facts. And now is a fitting opportunity to draw attention to what has been actually discovered west of the great Roman Bath, namely, the octagon Roman Well, which I should be disposed to consider Major Davis's greatest discovery, though I observe that hostile critics take no notice of this, possibly because it is beyond the region of dispute. If any one, able to point what he reads, still believes that the great Roman Bath was ever practically opened up in the last century I would refer him to Mr. Moore's able and suggestive paper, entitled 'Organisms from the recently discovered Roman Baths in Bath,' read to the members of the Bath Microscopical Society, in May, 1883. Once more I insist that we must clearly separate what Sutherland knew from what he conjectured. Indeed, Sutherland himself fairly draws the distinctions. On page 21 he says, 'This ground plot is exhibited in the plate annexed, as far as the earth is cleared away. The remainder is supposed, and drawn out in dotted lines.' These dotted lines represent a vastterra incognitacovering, practically, the whole of the ground recently opened up. That the existence of the great Roman Bath has been transferred from the region of conjecture to the region of fact we owe entirely to the enthusiasm and unwearied zeal of Major Davis, and no fair mind can deny him the credit of being the practical discoverer of the great Roman Bath. More credit than this he has never claimed; less than this only the churlish and envious will grudge him."

Footnote 12:(return)Pl. VII.gives a correct plan of former discoveries as far as I have been able to ascertain, and these I have made up to April 19th, 1884.

Pl. VII.gives a correct plan of former discoveries as far as I have been able to ascertain, and these I have made up to April 19th, 1884.

Footnote 13:(return)The water, on ceasing pumping, rose to a height above the lead of 7ft. 6in.

The water, on ceasing pumping, rose to a height above the lead of 7ft. 6in.

Footnote 14:(return)The dimensions must not be taken to be quite correct in all cases, as there are discrepancies and inaccuracies in the building that prevent measurements being always reliable.

The dimensions must not be taken to be quite correct in all cases, as there are discrepancies and inaccuracies in the building that prevent measurements being always reliable.

Footnote 15:(return)This bath is drawn to a large scale inPl. VIII.

This bath is drawn to a large scale inPl. VIII.

Footnote 16:(return)The construction of the steps to the baths deserves remark (some of the stones being 10ft. long). The depth of the riser to the steps that were beneath the water is unusually deep, and the treads narrow. This is compensated by the increased buoyancy of a human body when immersed, or partially immersed, in water. The steps have, on the contrary, a shallower rise and a wider tread when they approach the top. The next notable point is the formation of the tread of the upper flooded step. This is grooved by a somewhat circular sinking, from 4 to 5in. wide, immediately against the riser of the topmost step. Everyone frequenting a public bath must have noticed the dashing of the water against the wall or upper step, and the nuisance created from the breaking of the water against it. The grooving would remedy, I believe, this annoyance, as the little waves of water would be made to take a curved form before reaching the step; consequently the water would fall back into the bath instead of dashing over the surrounding platform. And in the ends of every upper step but one, and on the steps lower down, have been square sockets, cut in the stone and filled up again with pieces of stone. These mark the position of balusters to a hand-rail for the use of bathers that were removed some time previous to the abandonment of the baths, and the stones were inserted. These hand-rails were doubtless of bronze, and therefore of value.

The construction of the steps to the baths deserves remark (some of the stones being 10ft. long). The depth of the riser to the steps that were beneath the water is unusually deep, and the treads narrow. This is compensated by the increased buoyancy of a human body when immersed, or partially immersed, in water. The steps have, on the contrary, a shallower rise and a wider tread when they approach the top. The next notable point is the formation of the tread of the upper flooded step. This is grooved by a somewhat circular sinking, from 4 to 5in. wide, immediately against the riser of the topmost step. Everyone frequenting a public bath must have noticed the dashing of the water against the wall or upper step, and the nuisance created from the breaking of the water against it. The grooving would remedy, I believe, this annoyance, as the little waves of water would be made to take a curved form before reaching the step; consequently the water would fall back into the bath instead of dashing over the surrounding platform. And in the ends of every upper step but one, and on the steps lower down, have been square sockets, cut in the stone and filled up again with pieces of stone. These mark the position of balusters to a hand-rail for the use of bathers that were removed some time previous to the abandonment of the baths, and the stones were inserted. These hand-rails were doubtless of bronze, and therefore of value.

Footnote 17:(return)A statue of some size doubtless stood on this pedestal.

A statue of some size doubtless stood on this pedestal.

Footnote 18:(return)This deposit must, from the thickness, have taken several years to form, and the fact of its being of precisely the same character as the present deposit from the mineral spring is an evidence of the unchanging nature of the water.

This deposit must, from the thickness, have taken several years to form, and the fact of its being of precisely the same character as the present deposit from the mineral spring is an evidence of the unchanging nature of the water.

Footnote 19:(return)With reference to the sculpture, one piece, of debased character, has been found—a Minerva with a breast-plate, helmet, and shield inalto relievowithin a niche.

With reference to the sculpture, one piece, of debased character, has been found—a Minerva with a breast-plate, helmet, and shield inalto relievowithin a niche.

Footnote 20:(return)The house over the bath having been purchased by the Corporation, the Antiquities Committee (of which Mr. Murch was chairman) with a liberal subscription from the Society of Antiquaries, the Duke of Cleveland, and many noblemen and gentlemen of Bath and the neighbourhood, bore the expense of the removal of the soil from the bath and the general opening out of the rains, the arches beneath the Poor Law Office and the Viaduct supporting Abbey Street.

The house over the bath having been purchased by the Corporation, the Antiquities Committee (of which Mr. Murch was chairman) with a liberal subscription from the Society of Antiquaries, the Duke of Cleveland, and many noblemen and gentlemen of Bath and the neighbourhood, bore the expense of the removal of the soil from the bath and the general opening out of the rains, the arches beneath the Poor Law Office and the Viaduct supporting Abbey Street.

Footnote 21:(return)The arches in the adjoining apartment west of this were built of a sort of a tufa.

The arches in the adjoining apartment west of this were built of a sort of a tufa.

Footnote 22:(return)On the falling of the roof one of the piers was thrust out of the perpendicular, the upper half toppling over, and the lower would have again returned to its original position had a stone not fallen into the vertical joint, catching the pilaster as a wedge. The pier is still fixed out of the perpendicular by the stone in the joint.

On the falling of the roof one of the piers was thrust out of the perpendicular, the upper half toppling over, and the lower would have again returned to its original position had a stone not fallen into the vertical joint, catching the pilaster as a wedge. The pier is still fixed out of the perpendicular by the stone in the joint.

Footnote 23:(return)The bases of the columns found, on the contrary, are most carefully designed and of most delicate proportions, which appear to justify the belief that the bases of the pilasters were never completelyworked, or that they were coated with plaster and decorated as in the western bath, now being excavated.

The bases of the columns found, on the contrary, are most carefully designed and of most delicate proportions, which appear to justify the belief that the bases of the pilasters were never completelyworked, or that they were coated with plaster and decorated as in the western bath, now being excavated.

Footnote 24:(return)Professor Middleton considers this a cornucopia.

Professor Middleton considers this a cornucopia.

Footnote 25:(return)A small drawing of these pieces I shall also on a future occasion communicate.

A small drawing of these pieces I shall also on a future occasion communicate.

Footnote 26:(return)"The foundation of a monastery by an under-King of the Hwiccas [Osric, Nov. 6, A.D. 676,] within its walls, reveals to us the springing up of a new life in another of the cities which had been wrecked by Ceawlin's inroad, the city of Bath."—Green's "Making of England," p. 356.Professor Earle throws some doubt on the authenticity of the record.

"The foundation of a monastery by an under-King of the Hwiccas [Osric, Nov. 6, A.D. 676,] within its walls, reveals to us the springing up of a new life in another of the cities which had been wrecked by Ceawlin's inroad, the city of Bath."—Green's "Making of England," p. 356.

Professor Earle throws some doubt on the authenticity of the record.

Printed at the Herald Office, North Gate, Bath.

FOUNDED by the Romans in the First Century.

Daily yield 507,600 gallons at 120° Fah.

These Waters are beneficial in all forms of Gout, Sub-acute, Chronic and Muscular Rheumatism—Neuralgias, Sciatica, Lumbago, certain forms of Paralysis, Nervous Debility, Diseases of Women, Disorders of the Digestive System, Tropical Anoemia, Metallic Poisoning, Eczema, Lepra, Psoriasis, and all the Scaly Diseases of the Skin. Some Surgical Diseases of the Joints, general Weakness of Limbs after injury, and Diseases of the Throat and Air Passages.

Upwards of £40,000 have been lately expended by the Corporation of the City to enlarge and perfect the various appliances, rendering them, in the words of one of the greatest Hygienic Physicians of the day, THE MOST PERFECT IN EUROPE. Thermal Vapour, Douche with Massage by doucheurs and doucheuses from Continental Spas, Pulverised and Vapour Douche, Spray, Dry and Moist Heat, and Shower, with luxurious Cooling Rooms.

BAND DAILY IN THE PUMP ROOM.

Last Return of the Medical Officer of Health for Bath 17'9 per 1000.

First Class Reclining Bath with Massage (1 Doucher) 3s.6d., Attendant's Fee, 6d.

Attached to these Baths is a

Daily supplied with Fresh Mineral Water.

For Ladies' use on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

With use of Private Room for 1 Person, 1s.; 2 Persons, 1s.6d.; 3 Persons, 2s.

Public Room, 6d.Bathing Dresses, 2d.Attendant's Fee, 1d.

This Bath is available for Gentlemen on Tuesdays, till 1 p.m., Thursdays, Saturdays, and on Sunday Mornings up to 9.30 a.m., at 1s.each Person.

Attendant's Fees. 2d.& 3d.

No Attendant's Fees. This Bath is closed on Thursdays at 1 p.m.

This Bath is available for Females on Thursdays, under the charge of a female attendant. Fee, including bathing dress, 2d.

First Class Reclining Bath with Massage (1 Doucher) 3s.Attendant's Fee, 6d.

GROUND FLOOR.

Portable Baths, at a temperature not exceeding 106°, Fahrt., can be supplied at private residences, by arrangement. Also Mineral Water in Bottles.

The Grand Pump Room is open each Week-day from 8.30 a.m. till 6 p.m., and on Sundays after the Morning service till 2 p.m.

CHARGES—

Single Glass 2d.Per Book of 20 Coupons 1 6

Single Glass 2d.

Per Book of 20 Coupons 1 6

One Coupon must be given up each time of Drinking the Water, at either the Grand Pump Room or the Hetling Pump Room.

Ticket for Drinking the Water for 12 Months, for One Person £1.For a Family £2.

Ticket for Drinking the Water for 12 Months, for One Person £1.

For a Family £2.

Tickets for Bathing must in all cases be obtained at the Ticket Office adjoining the Grand Hotel, and all baths are booked by the clerk in charge; and such baths must be paid for at the time of booking.

All Fees to Attendants are included in the charge paid for Tickets.

Any irregularities or incivility on the part of any of the Attendants should at once be reported to the General Manager.

Back to Index Next