understood, adopting, in my restoration, the established rules of
proportion of Classical architecture, which may, more or less, have
been strictly adhered to when the baths were built; indeed, in the
best specimens of Roman work a licence was given to the architect
as to detail and proportion, that was refused him on the Classical
revival. The pilasters of these baths spring, as I have said before,
from an Attic base, of somewhat coarse proportions, 14in. high.[23]
The attached pilasters that supported the arcade that was carried
longitudinally along the bath are without a base; they must have been,
within a few inches, more or less, not lower than 10ft. in height,
including the impost moulding, of which there are fragments. The
arches springing from them would be about 14ft. wide. I have not
been able to find any fragments of the archivolt. The pilasters that
supported the arches which crossed the _schola_ have bases similar to
the larger pilasters. I can hardly speak positively of their elevation
or that of the arches, but I am inclined to think the height of the
impost moulding was raised, so that the arch, although a smaller span,
was the same in height as the longitudinal arches.

[Footnote 23: 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
completely _worked_, or that they were coated with plaster and
decorated as in the western bath, now being excavated.]

The great pilasters, fronting the bath, stand on plain pedestals,
breaking forward into the water, on which rested the Attic base, the
shaft with Doric (?) capital rising 18ft. above. A complete cornice,
the architrave (which we have) and frieze, gave an additional height
of nearly 5ft. This cornice ran over the arcade horizontally, but