The Excavations of Roman Baths at Bath written by Charles E. Davis
C >>
Charles E. Davis >> The Excavations of Roman Baths at Bath
Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 13582-h.htm or 13582-h.zip:
(http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/1/3/5/8/13582/13582-h/13582-h.htm)
or
(http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/1/3/5/8/13582/13582-h.zip)
ON THE EXCAVATIONS OF THE ROMAN BATHS AT BATH.
Re-printed from the _Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire
Archaeological Society_, Vol. Viii., Part I.
[Plate V: City of Bath. Plan of Roman Baths.]
Leland, on his visit to Bath in the year 1530, with tolerable fulness
describes the baths, and after completing his description of the
King's Bath goes on to say "Ther goith a sluse out of this Bath and
servid in Tymes past with Water derivid out of it 2 places in Bath
Priorie usid for Bathes: els voide; for in them be no springes;" and
further on he says "The water that goith from the Kinges Bath turnith
a Mylle and after goith into Avon above Bath-bridge."
These two sentences have hitherto been difficult of explanation, but
the excavations, which it has been my good fortune to superintend, and
the discoveries I have made, have fully explained Leland's meaning, at
the same time that I have brought to light the great Roman Bath, which
I purpose describing in detail in this paper, writing only of previous
excavations and those I have conducted in connection with this work,
so far as their description may the more fully render my account
perfect of the Great Bath itself. I desire to confine my paper within
such limits as the space afforded me in this Journal necessarily
imposes.
Some time during the last century the ruins of a mill wheel were found
to the south of the King's Bath. I have in my excavation discovered
the _mediaeval_ sluice that led to this wheel. Leland speaks of "two
places in Bath Priorie used for Bathes els voide."
In a map of Bath preserved in the Sloane Collection of the British
Museum, drawn by William Smith (_Rouge Dragon Pursuivant at Arms_)
a few years previous to 1568,[1] is an open bath immediately to the
south of the Transept of the Abbey called "the mild Bathe."[2] This,
or at any rate what I may consider was the "mild bath," I found in my
explorations beneath the soil at a situation in York Street, connected
with the Hot-water drains, the bath being still provided with a wooden
hatch, and of the dimensions of a good sized room.[3] The other place
mentioned by Leland was discovered in 1755, and this discovery led
the way to the excavations of a great bath (afterwards called Lucas's
Bath), when the eastern wall of the great Hall of the recently found
bath was first laid open, although from its position not having
been properly noted previous to its being covered up, its situation
remained unknown for nearly 130 years.
[Footnote 1: 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: 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: Evidently the ruin of a portion of the Roman Thermae,
repaired in the 12th or 13th century.]
In Dr. Sutherland's "_Attempts to revive Ancient Medical Doctrines_,"
(page 16), _et infra_, he says: "In the year of our Lord 1755[4]
the old Priory or Abbey house was pulled down. In clearing away the
foundations, stone coffins, bones of various animals, and other things
were found. This moved curiosity to search still deeper. Hot mineral
waters gushed forth and interrupted the work. The old Roman sewer
was at last found; the water was drained off. Foundations of regular
buildings were fairly traced." An illustration of these discoveries
is given in Gough's "Camden," and a plan of them was published by Dr.
Lucas and again by Dr. Sutherland (_Pl. V._) copied in 1822 by Dr.
Spry with discoveries to that date (_Pl. VI._), and by Mr. Phelps,
the latter re-published by the Rev. Preb. Scarth in his _Aquae Solis_,
1864. I have, in part, myself and also when assisted by Mr. T. Irvine
(the architect, under Sir Gilbert Scott, of the restoration of the
Bath Abbey), examined the small portion of these discoveries that
are still left _in situ_. I quote Dr. Sutherland, 1763, p. 17, for
an account. "Assisted by Mr. Wood, architect," Dr. Lucas examined
the ruins as they then appeared. He gives the following description:
"Under the foundations of the Abbey house, full 10ft. deep, appear
traces of a bath, whose dimensions are 43ft. by 34ft. Within and
adjoining to the walls are the remains of twelve pilasters, each
measuring 3ft. 6in. on the front of the plinth by a projection of
2ft. 3in. These pilasters seem to have supported a roof.[5] This bath
stood north and south. To the northward of this room, parted only by
a slender wall with an opening of about 10in. in the middle, adjoined
a semi-circular bath, measuring from east to west 14ft. 4in., and
from the crown of the semi-circle to the partition wall that divides
it from the square bath 18ft. 10in. The roof of this seems to have
been sustained by four pilasters, one in each angle and two at the
springing of the circle. This bath seems to have undergone some
alterations, the base of the semi-circle is filled up to about the
height of 5ft., upon which two small pilasters were set on either
side from the area, between two separate flights of steps into the
semi-circular part which seems to be all that was reserved for a bath.
In this was placed a stone chair 18in. high and 16in. broad. The two
flights of steps were of different dimensions, those to the west were
3ft. 9in. broad, those to the east 4ft. 2in. Each flight consists of
steps 6in. thick, and seem to have been worn by use 31/2in. out of the
square. These flights are divided by a stone partition on a level with
the floor. Along this division and along the west side of the area, a
rude channel of about 3in. in depth was cut in the stone. The floor
of this bath seems to be on a level with that of the square bath.
Eastward and westward from the area and stairs of this semi-circular
bath stood an elegant room on each side, sustained by four pilasters.
Separated by a wall stood the _Hypocausta Laconica_, or _Stoves_, to
the eastward. These consisted of two large rooms, each measuring 39ft.
by 22ft. Each had a double floor, one of which lay 1ft. 9in. lower
than the area round the square bath. On this lower floor stand rows
of pillars composed of square bricks of about 13/4in. thick and 9in.
square. These pillars sustain a second floor composed of tiles 2ft.
square and 2in. thick, over which are laid two layers of firm cement
mortar, each about 2in. thick, which compose the upper floor.
[Plate VI: Facsimile of Dr. Sprys' plan published 1822 shewing
discoveries to that date.]
[Footnote 4: 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: In the library of the Society of Antiquaries is a drawing
of this bath with an imaginary restoration.]
"To the northward, separated by a wall of 3ft. 11in., stood the other
_Hypocaustum_, with a door of communication. The floor of this is
about 18in. higher than the other. These two rooms are set round with
square-brick tubes of different lengths, from 16in. to 20in. in length
and 63/4in. wide. These flues have two lateral openings of about 2in.
square, 5in. asunder. These open into the vacuum between the two
floors and rise through the walls. The north wall of the last stove
was filled with tubes of a lesser size, placed horizontally and
perpendicularly. The stones and bricks between the pillars bear
evident marks of fire, while the flues are strongly charged with soot,
which plainly points out their uses.
"Heat was communicated to these flues by means of _Praefurnia_. In
the middle of the northern wall of the second stove, the ruins of one
of these furnaces appear. It consists of strong walls of about 16ft.
square, with an opening in the centre of about 3ft. wide, which
terminates conically in the north wall of the stove 2 ft. wide where
part of the broken arch bears evident marks of fire. About the mouth
of the furnace there were scattered pieces of burnt wood, charcoal,
&c., evident proofs of their use.
"On each side of the furnace, adjoining to the wall of the
northernmost stove, is a semi-circular chamber of about 10ft. 4in.
by 9ft. 6in. Their floors are nearly 2ft. 6in. lower than that of the
next stove into which they both open. The pavements are tesselated
with variegated rows of pebbles and red bricks. To the northward of
these there appear ruins of two other square chambers of more ordinary
work." Thus far Lucas.
Dr. Sutherland goes on to say, "Since the time of his (Lucas's)
publication the ground has been further cleared away. There now
appears another semi-circular bath to the southward, of the same
dimensions exactly with the first. What he calls the Great Bath, with
its semi-circular _Hypocausta Laconica_, &c., forms only one wing
of a spacious regular building. From a survey of these, our ruins,
we may, with some certainty, determine the nature of these _Balnea
pensilia_.... The Eastern Vapour Baths are now demolishing in order
to make way for more modern improvements. Whenever the rubbish that
covers the eastern wing of the Roman ruins comes to be removed similar
_Balnea pensilia_ will doubtless be found.
"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 6ft. or 8ft. westward under that causeway that leads from the
Churchyard to the Abbey Green. When, as we may suppose, they have run
a length proportionable to the width, they compose a bath which may
indeed be called _Great_, 96ft. by 68ft.
[Plate VII: A Ground Plan of the Antient Roman Bath lately discovered
in the City of Bath, Somersetshire, with a Section of the Eastern
Wing.]
"Adjoining to the inside walls of this central bath, there are bases
of pilasters, as in Lucas's. Between the wall and the bath there
is a corridor paved with hard blue stone 8in. thick.[6] From the
westernmost side of Lucas's bath a subterranean 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.... Assisted by Mr.
Palmer, an ingenious builder, I have ventured to exhibit a complete
ground plot of the Roman Baths,[7] a discovery of no less curiosity
than instruction.... This ground plot is exhibited in the plate
annexed (_Pl. V._) as far as the earth is cleared away. The remainder
is supposed and drawen out in dotted lines. The plate exhibits also an
elevation of the section of the wing discovered, with references."[8]
[Footnote 6: A correspondent in the _Bath 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: _Fac-simile Pl. V._]
[Footnote 8: 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.]
Dr. Sutherland published the plan of the bath with this description
having "_drawen_ out in dotted lines" the supposed arrangement of the
baths. To make the account of these discoveries of 1755 complete,
I must explain that the _Hypocausta Laconica_, or stoves, to the
eastward, which he described as each measuring 39ft. by 22ft., were,
I believe, the _tepidarium_ and the _caldarium_. The two semi-circular
recesses, or small rooms, to the north, I should consider were each
a _sudatorium_ if the floors had not been 2ft. 6in. lower than the
adjoining apartment. In the centre was the stove by which the system
was heated (the _praefurnium_). To the north of these, Dr. Sutherland
figures, in dotted lines, three chambers omitted in my plan. Although
I believe he had some authority for giving them, I am somewhat at a
loss to assign a use to these rooms. They might be stoves, as, if
the Romans desired to have a bath artificially heated, this would be
the correct position for the brazen vessels, described somewhat
unintelligibly by Vitruvius, as three in number. If this was the case,
each semi-circular recess just described was a _calda lavatio, balneum
or labrum_. [A similar _labrum_, but of smaller scale, was discovered
at Box, near Bath, last year, and I have discovered on the property of
Mr. Charles I. Elton, F.S.A., M.P. (author of "Origins of History")
a similar one.] The floor being 2ft. 6in. lower than the adjoining
apartment points to this belief. These, I have little doubt, were
those artificially heated baths, and were cased either with lead,
stone, marble, or small white tesserae, as at Box. To the south of
the _tepidarium_, Dr. Sutherland gives a precisely similar suggested
plan as that to the north, but here again I have not copied him,
believing he had not sufficient data. In all probability here was an
_apodyterium_ (which might or might not be heated with a _hypocaust_)
where the bathers deposited their clothes. Dr. Sutherland thought that
to the east of the discoveries which he described there would be found
probably at some future day "similar _Balnea pensilia_."[9] In opening
the Roman drains I found a branch one at this place, which induces
me to think that a large cold or swimming bath occupied the eastern
wing, the _baptisterium_ or _frigida lavatio_. Still farther eastward
are fragments of Roman buildings which I have seen only in a very
fragmentary way, as no excavations of any extent have been made. I
believe the apartments necessary to complete the system of the modern
Turkish bath, or rather the ancient bath, with the requisite waiting
rooms and corridors, stood there.
[Footnote 9: These baths and adjoining rooms occupied the block
between Church Street and York Street, including Kingston Buildings.]
After these discoveries of the middle of the last century but very
partial excavations were made in proximity to the baths, and those
that were made were never sunk to a depth sufficient to reach the
ruins. The flood of hot water had no drain to carry it off, and was
maintained at such a height in the soil that whenever a sinking was
made, it was impossible without pumping machinery to sufficiently
overcome it. To my discovery of the Roman drain, or rather to
Mr. Irvine's, and the excavating, opening, and reconstructing it
which followed (under my superintendence, at the charges of the
Corporation), enabling me to drain off the hot water from the soil, I
owe the ability to reveal what had been hidden since the destruction
of the city of Bath in the year A.D. 577.[10] The stopping up and
destruction of the drain prevented the water from flowing away, so
that the buildings of the baths were filled with water of a height
until it reached the level of the adjoining land, covering, as a
guardian, the lead and other valuables. Soil then gravitated into the
ruins and thus further assisted in preserving the antiquities, so that
they were altogether hidden from the people who re-built the ruined
city of Bath, and from those who in successive generations succeeded
them. The subterranean "passage traced 24ft." from the western side
of Lucas's bath, "at the end of which was found a leaden cistern,"
was not in any way Roman work, but mediaeval, and was formed some time
after the construction of the Abbey house, as an aqueduct for the hot
water with which the soil was saturated. This construction is the
only evidence of an early discovery of this eastward wing of the bath,
indeed the only evidence of mediaeval work of any kind in connection
with the baths, except the enclosure of the various springs or wells.
The King's Bath, the Cross, and the Lepers' Bath were simply the wells
or cisterns of the springs which were bathed in to the damage of the
purity of the water, without dressing-rooms of any kind.
[Footnote 10: "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.]
This concludes the particulars of the important discoveries which we
possess of the last century, which were then correctly believed to be
only portions of still greater baths.[11] In 1799 (or, as I believe,
in 1809, the more correct date) a portion of what has proved to be the
north-west semi-circular _exedra_ of the Great Bath was found, and six
to nine years later a part of the south-west rectangular _exedra_ of
the same bath. The discovery of 1799 (or rather 1809) is shown on the
Rev. Prebendary Scarth's map as being the northern apse of a bath on
the western end of the great bath, as suggested by Dr. Sutherland's
plan and was to correspond with Lucas's Bath. The semi-circular
_exedra_ discovered subsequently to a deed dated Sept. 1808 (therefore
in that year or subsequently) is also figured by the Rev. Prebendary
Scarth, as on the south end of the same western bath and a piece of a
rectangular _exedra_ as the eastern wall of this western bath and the
boundary between it and the Great Bath.
[Footnote 11: 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 'Aquae 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 'Aquae 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."]