Amendments and revisions

It seems, unfortunately, that however carefully one attempts to check one's text, some errors—ranging from simple misprints to those which need correcting because new information is received—will inevitably remain. All such errors which come to light will be corrected on this page, and it is hoped that too much inconvenience will not have been caused to any of the book's readers—please do not hesitate to contact the author if you find any further errors, and thank you for your forbearance.

This colour is used to show the latest entries, added on 10 March 2018

321, 329, and  331   Due to an unfortunate oversight, the numbering of the endnotes to Chapters 3, 14, and 18 does not coincide with that of the references to them in the text.

In order to minimise any inconvenience this might cause to those who wish to refer to them, clicking here will lead to a correction page.

This is designed to be printed as four A4 pages, with a 3cm space at the foot of each page so it can be trimmed and easily slipped into your copy of the book.
42 I am most grateful to @JJ_Gazette who brought the 1889 Ordnance Survey map of Dublin to my attention and who, helped by @AnFearBui, convinced me that the map was correct and that I had misunderstood the contemporary accounts in the Dublin Builder. This resulted in my locating Barter's Lincoln Place Turkish Baths next to Trinity College, rather than on the opposite side of the road. The fourth paragraph on the page should now more correctly state:

'The new Dublin baths, opened on 2 February 1860, were in Lincoln Place. The main frontage, about 186 ft (56.7m) wide, comprised three sections, the central one slightly recessed and with an entrance porch. Adjoining this, opening off the obtuse angled pavement leading to Leinster Street, was a refreshment room and the entrance to the Turkish bath for horses and other animals, which was at the rear of the main baths.'
Street map
62 In the caption to Fig 7.22, for 'Dunkerqouis' read 'Dunkerquois'.
79 Col.2; last paragraph; line 2: for 'frigidarium' read 'tepidarium'.
147 Col.2; penultimate paragraph: for 'Cookridge Road' read 'Cookridge Street'.
148 Caption to Fig 14.10: for 'Cookridge Road' read 'Cookridge Street'.
149 Caption to Fig 14.11: for '1858' read '1868'.
159 It appears that I have not been alone in incorrectly assuming that the Ashton-under-Lyne baths (in the building known as Hugh Mason House, Henry Square) were the baths and swimming pool Mason erected for his tenants and workforce.

Since this section of the book was written, a piece about the mill owner has appeared on the town's website, making it clear that not only did Alderman Mason not pay for the baths but,

'had in fact been a dissenter over the enormous costs of the project, and he had pointedly stayed away from the grand procession and foundation stone laying ceremony. It is ironic, therefore, that the building now bears his name.'

The piece suggests that the naming decision may have been influenced by the misunderstanding over the earlier baths which had also confused me and determined that they be included in my section on philanthropy. In fact, the baths were built,

'at the public expense, at a final cost of £16,000. It had been hoped to raise money for the building by public subscription, but there were not enough people willing to start off the contributions, so the council was obliged to take out a loan to meet the costs.
'Fortunately, the land was provided by the Lord of the Manor, the Earl of Stamford and Warrington, who granted the site free of rent for perpetuity.'
231 col.1; para 3; line 3. The centigrade equivalent of 230°F should, of course, read 110°C
256 The paragraph which states that 'The high decorative standard of the two English liners, and the facilities provided for First Class passengers…were far superior to those on the German liner Imperator launched three years later' could be taken to mean, as Ken Marschall has emailed me to rightly point out, that this applied to the liners in their entirety. But I had intended the comparison to refer only to the Turkish baths on the liners, and the facilities within them.

The wonderful swimming pool on the Imperator, for example, used as a model for that in the Royal Automobile Club, was, of course, far superior to those on the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary.

But the Turkish baths on the Imperator were described by John Dempsey, masseur on the ship after it was renamed Berengaria, as being 'tiled with parquet and small Italian mosaic tiles. It wasn't very bright but it was very warm.' Instead of the magnificent cooling-rooms of the Olympic and Titanic 'There were a number of cubicles with small lockers and beds on which passengers relaxed after their "treatment".' While the massage room 'was rather bland'.
281 The author of the book Nouvelles demonstrations d’accouchemens, credited in the caption to Fig 26.5, should be Jacques-Pierre Maygrier.
335 Chapter 24 Footnote 3: the reference should be to page 162.
346 The forename of Davide Ritarose, great great great grandson of Charles Bartholomew, has been incorrectly spelled in the Acknowledgments, for which I apologise. 
Top of the page