115 
which arises in order of time, is the origin of the pentagonal 
form of the city. It has been generally supposed, and perhaps 
taught, that Roman camps and cities were always rectangular. 
This is only partially true as there are many exceptional cases, 
caused generally by some peculiarity in the chosen site. The fine 
‘city known to us as Silchester is octagonal and is so because its 
walls were built on the lines of a British encampment, Pevensey 
is an irregular oval, the plan following the form of the ground. 
Adhering to the first theory, in a paper printed in the 
“Proceedings of the Somerset Archzological Society,” Vol. 31, 
1884, it is argued that the outline of Bath was originally rect- 
_ angular having the full dimensions of a large Roman camp. The 
boundaries it is asserted were, on the east the river ; on the west 
the now Avon Street and the side of Queen’s Square; on the 
north a line a few yards to the north of George Street; and on 
the south a line parallel with this last drawn at right angles to 
Stall Street at its junction with the Lower Borough-walls ; the 
whole containing about eighty six acres. A plan is given which 
greatly aids towards understanding the argument. In this plan 
the North Gate has a central position in the northern line, some- 
where near the top of Milsom Street but suggests no road 
-attached to or passing through it, The pentagonal form it was 
argued was the outcome of circumstances, such as when peace 
reigned after the subjugation of the Britons, there being no 
necessity for a full sized camp, the plan was reduced practically 
to one fourth the original size by cutting off the northern part 
and building a wall at the offcut on the line now known as the 
Upper Borough-wall. But the part remaining must have still 
been rectangular and no way pentagonal. Also with this sugges- 
tion the North Gate must have been shifted from its assumed 
central position in the first wall, a necessity overlooked or left 
unaccounted for by the writer. Continuing his argument the 
same author, in the next year’s Proceedings, Vol. 32, attempted 
to show that Bath was a military station occupied by the XX 
H 
