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