ROMAN REMAINS AT BATH 



BY 



JOHN BELLOWS 



(Read at the Bath Meeting, June 27, 1898) 



It is interesting to compare the points of similarity and 

 of difference between Gloucester and Bath. Both date 

 from the earliest occupation of Britain by the army of 

 Claudius ; but while Gloucester, from all its lines, shows 

 that it was meant for a fortress of extreme strength, Bath 

 owed its importance then, as it does now, to its hot 

 springs, not to its strategic position. The first thing that 

 strikes one, in comparing the ground plans of the two 

 cities, is the much more perfect preservation of the minor 

 or sub-dividing streets, in Gloucester than in Bath ; and 

 the next is the greater regularity of Gloucester in its outline : 

 it approaches very clearly to a square, while Bath, in its 

 southern portion, is irregular— approaching more to the 

 form of Silchester, or of Kenchester (the Roman Magna). 

 That is, the last two cities were British modified by 

 Roman occupation : they were not originally founded by the 

 Roman invaders, hke Gloucester, Chester, and some other 

 fortresses. Some of the Roman lines in Bath are, how- 

 ever, well preserved. There is the main cross, formed 

 by Union and Stall streets, traversed by Westgate street 

 and Cheap street; while in the north-west quarter the 

 sub-division into three blocks, which is so general a 



