Chapter 2

"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) The _exedrae_ at the back of the _schola_ having 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 vast _terra incognita_ covering, 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."]

All these fragments I have lately proved to be portions of the great Roman Bath (_Plates VII. and VIII._), and being within instead of without that building. The Rev. Prebendary Scarth omits altogether to figure the southern rectangular _exedra_, found at the same time as the last named discovery. He also omits the discoveries made in 1809 (?) beneath the houses at the north-western end of York Street. In 1790 very valuable discoveries were made in digging the foundation of the present Pump Room. Many writers have treated of them and expressed opinions as to the character of the work and the meaning of the design, and Mr. Scharf, in _Archæologia_, Vol. XXXVI., has done ample justice to these most interesting vestiges: They have been described by Pownall, Lysons, Warner, Collins, Scharf, Tite, and Scarth, as being portions of a Temple of the usual type, dedicated to Sul Minerva. Whitaker, in a review of Warner's History of Bath, printed in the _Anti-Jacobin_, Vol. X., 1801, differs from all these writers, although believing the remains to be a portion of a temple, and thought they were a part of a building of the form of "_a rotunda_," as the Pantheon. "The _Pantheon_ of Minerva _Medica_, an agnomen very similar in allusiveness to our prænomen _of Sulinis_, for Minerva is noticed expressly by Ruius and Victor in their short notes concerning the structures of Rome, as then standing in the Esquiline quarter. The form of a Pantheon is made out by the multiplicity of niches,... and such, we believe, was our own Temple of Minerva at Bath." It would occupy too much space were I to attempt to add to this paper my views of this discovery, but I may briefly say, that I am satisfied that they were not the remains of a Temple, but a portion of the central Portico and grand Vestibule of the Baths. I have not gone fully into the reasons that induced Whitaker to believe that the discoveries showed that the building was a Rotunda, but it is curious that he should have thought they had a similarity to the Pantheon at Rome, which antiquaries since his time have proved was not 'built for a temple, but that it was an entrance hall or vestibule of the Baths of Agrippa, although it is doubtful if the Rotunda was built at the same time as the Portico, which was, without doubt, erected B.C. 27.

The grand Roman enclosure of the Hot well (_Pl. VII[12]_) (which I have lately discovered and excavated, beneath the King's Bath, on the south of this principal Portico) is again utilised, and forms a tank for the mineral water, from which are fed the baths and fountains with water, pure as it rises from "depths unknown," and secured from any possibility of contamination in its passage, through the newly discovered water ducts and drains of the Romans.

[Footnote 12: 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.]

In 1871, whilst making some necessary excavation to remedy a leak from the King's Bath that apparently ran beneath Abbey Passage, I found that the hot water, that was reached through layers of mud, Roman tiles, building materials, and mixed soil, was one and the same with the hot water of the Kingston Bath that then occupied the site of the Bath called Lucas's Bath, discovered in 1755; and the levels were the same. I pumped out this water with powerful pumps, emptying by so doing the Kingston Baths. This enabled me to sink to a depth of 20ft., passing in so doing a flight of four steps at the point (A) on the plan (_Pl. VIII._), to the bottom of a bath which was coated with lead.[13] Being compelled by the then owner of the Kingston Baths to discontinue pumping, I was obliged to abandon my work; and having little hope that I should ever be allowed to recommence it, I removed a portion of the lead, which proved to be a thickness of about 30lbs. to the foot, placed on a layer of brick concrete 2in. to 2¼in. thick, and this again on a layer of freestone 12in., or rather a Roman foot 11-5/8in. in thickness, which was again bedded on rough stonework, the depth of which I could not ascertain. Fortunately I did not again fill in the soil, but arched it in, building walls of masonry to keep it in position. The Corporation having obtained possession of the hot water supplying the Kingston Baths, I should rather say, the right to the water that leaked from the King's Springs, I again drained off the water, maintaining it at a low level by a laborious excavation and re-construction of the Roman drain which was conducted at great expense for two or three years. This drain I followed several hundred feet until it reached the great well previously mentioned, making various and important discoveries; but, as I have already read a paper on this subject before the Society of Antiquaries of London, which will shortly be in the press, I will not repeat it here, but avail myself of the space allotted me in the Transactions of this Society for an account of the Great Bath, which I have, in great part, laid bare, soliciting a pardon if the account is somewhat tedious.

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

The bath, placed in a great hall 110ft. 4½in. long by 68ft. 5in. wide, is about 6ft. 8in. deep. The bottom, 73ft. 2in. by 29ft. 6in.[14] is formed as described in the last page.[15]

[Footnote 14: 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: This bath is drawn to a large scale in Pl. VIII.]

The lead in sheets (of about 10ft. by 5ft. square) was turned up at the edges and _burnt_, not soldered together, but these joints are in many cases now imperfect. This well secured bottom, or floor, appears to have been placed in position, rather to keep the hot water from ascending into the bath from the springs beneath than to make the bath water-tight. Enclosing the bath all round the four sides are six steps, the sixth landing the bather on the _Schola_, or platform. The riser of the bottom steps varies in depth from 15in. to 11in., with a tread of 14in., the next riser is 14in. with a tread of 11in., as also is the next step and the one following. The step above has a rise of 12in., and a tread of 14in. This step was scarcely covered with water, but it is evident the water flowed over it when bathers agitated it. The riser or the step above, 10in. to 12in., completes the flight and helped to keep the water within proper bounds, giving a total depth of 6ft. 8in. to the bath, and from 5ft. 9in. to 5ft. 11in. for the water. These steps are quite devoid of lead (except, in places, the riser of the lower step and at the north-west corner), and it is not clear whether they had at any time such a covering, although I am inclined to think so, as it evidently went beneath the piers and under the central pedestal. At the bottom step, in the north-east corner, was a bronze sluice. The frame of this sluice, with an opening of 13in. by 12in., I found in position when I excavated my way up the drain, but I was obliged to remove it in order to force my way into the bath. It has not been replaced, but is preserved in the Pump Room, and weighs more than 1 cwt. 2 qrs. An overflow was provided, immediately above the hatchway, by a grating 15in. wide that was doubtless of bronze also, but it had been removed, the stud-holes in the stones alone remaining.[16] The extreme surface of the water measured 82ft. 10in. by 40ft. 11in. and was a parallelogram, except that the north-western angle was cut off by the steps being carried obliquely in three tiers from the bottom a length of 7ft. at an angle of 39° with the western end. Resting on the platform, formed by these three steps, is a quarter circle pedestal,[17] on which stands a large stone 6ft. 8in. long and 9in. thick, over-hanging its base, and presenting a concave line towards the bath with an _ovolo_ section in its thickness. This stone spans a large channel 2ft. 3in. wide, within which is fitted a very thick lead pipe, gradually narrowed _horizontally_ and turned up under the _ovolo_ concave stone. Through this aperture the mineral water was thrown into the bath in a sort of spray, so that it might be cooled in its passage. A deposit from the water is incrusted over the stone and pipe several inches in thickness, until the petrification entirely stopped the flow of water, which was then compelled to flow _over_ instead of under the stone.[18] The water was conducted a distance of 38ft. in the thickness of the lower pavement (which I shall presently describe) of the _Schola_, the stone being removed a width of 2ft., the bed being concreted. On this was laid a lead pipe which filled the whole orifice, but, unfortunately, a length of 25ft. of it has been removed. This conduit takes a diagonal direction, and leads direct to the north-west angle of the hall, turning beneath a large doorway in the western wall, when it again resumes its original direction (the pipe, where perfect, is 1ft. 9in. by 7in. deep), as far as the outer surface of the wall of the octagon well. At this point the wall of the well is not original work, and the pipe is cut off. I have no doubt that it was at one time carried up vertically until it reached the level of the surface of the water of the well, which was about 2ft. 6in. higher at the least, thus giving a sufficient elevation to the "spray" into the bath. Another bronze hatchway, which must have been here, has been stolen in mediaeval times, its having been less than 2ft. below the bottom of the King's Bath making it accessible, whilst the 25ft. length of the lead pipe beneath the _schola_ must have been stolen much earlier, and in all probability on the destruction of the baths in the sixth century. In addition to the arrangement for the supply of mineral water to the baths, which must have been capable of affording a flow of water, very nearly, if not exceeding, the yield of the spring, there was also another, which I have every reason to think was for the delivery of cold water, and conveyed in a lead tubular pipe of 2¼in. in diameter. A length of 25ft. 6in. of this pipe, in its original position, has been found and laid bare. It is made with a roll along the top, and burnt, as was usual before the invention of "drawn pipes." This pipe is particularly interesting as there are also in it two soldered joints at intervals of 9ft. in the method of making which we have clearly not improved on the work of our Roman predecessors. This pipe starts from the same point in the north-west angle of the hall as the other supply, and is sunk in the lower pavement of the _schola_, which (wanting the pipe) is continued to the centre of the north side of the bath, where stands a stone pedestal 3ft. 3in. long, 1ft. 6in. wide, and 2ft. 6in. high. This pedestal has small vertical rails, or balusters, at the angles and on the shorter sides, and that towards the bath has some appearance of having once had a tablet of either bronze or marble inserted in it. At the top is a circular hole 3½in. in diameter, through which the pipe previously mentioned must have passed. The upper portion of this pedestal is sculptured, and much mutilated, and appears to me to be the drapery covering the feet of a figure that has perished. It is true that the work bears some resemblance to a small recumbent figure; but if so it is not worthy of the name of sculpture, as it is in the worst taste, and altogether out of keeping with the architecture or the other sculpture we have found.[19] There are several grooves in the _schola_ for branches of this pipe: 1st. The continuation of it to the northern semi-circular bath of 1755. 2nd. From the first soldered joint to baths on the north of the Great Bath. 3rd. Along the western end of the latter to baths on the south, and along the _schola_ to the south circular bath of Lucas's. Beneath the mutilated sculpture is a second pedestal, or plinth, perfectly plain, with the upper surface sunk to a level corresponding with a similar indentation on the third step. Within this must have stood a marble on bronze sarcophagus, the base of which was 6ft. 9in. long by 2ft. 5in. wide. The water flowing through the aperture previously described would run into the sarcophagus (I use the word in its modern sense) and from it into the bath. This water was not poured in sufficient volume to perceptibly cool the bath, but was provided for the thirst of the bathers. In the modern baths of Bath there is no such provision.

[Footnote 16: 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: A statue of some size doubtless stood on this pedestal.]

[Footnote 18: 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: With reference to the sculpture, one piece, of debased character, has been found--a Minerva with a breast-plate, helmet, and shield in _alto relievo_ within a niche.]