Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: June 26, 2025
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.
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. "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.
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.
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.
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.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking