صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[graphic]

introducing a high degree of symmetry into the cian coinage. In his Public Economy of Athe had treated the Euboic talent as closely approximat talent introduced by Solon, but he has since seen his judgment.

We know the value of the Solonian Attic tal the extent of depreciation which Solon introduc therefore, that the talent, as it stood before his de considerably less than the Æginæan talent. Apar lonian Attic, the Eginæan and the Euboic are of which we find any mention throughout Greece earlier periods of Grecian history: the scale preva was not the Æginæan; and there is presumpti tive and positive, that the Euboic, which derived the Ionic cities of Euboea, and which we know for many centuries afterwards in the Ionic city Asia Minor, was also adopted in the metropoli race, just as the chief seat of the Eginæan sca the cities of Dorian race.

Admitting the Euboic talent to have been tha at Athens down to the legislation of Solon, it sto næan talent in the ratio of 5: 6, and to the Sol the ratio of 25 18: the drachma belonging to weight of 93.5 English grains. And this weigh siderable degree, borne out by the remaining c cities in Euboea, as well as by those of the Cha Rhegium in Italy, and Naxos in Sicily (Metrol.

In the ninth chapter of the Metrologie, M. Boe the proceeding of Solon in respect to the Atheni establishes upon grounds, very sufficient and extent of depreciation which he introduced. He much probability, that the precise point to whic his depreciation was determined by the definite a which he desired to establish with the Æginæan

[graphic]

into the systems of Gre
of Athens, our author
pproximating to the Attic
ince seen reason to alter

Attic talent, as well as introduced: we know, e his depreciation, was . Apart from the Sopic are the only scales Greece Proper, in the le prevalent at Athens resumption, both negaderived its name from e know to have lasted onic city of Priene in metropolis of the Ionic inæan scale was among

been that which existed on, it stood to the Egi o the Solonian talent in nging to it being of the is weight is, to a conaining coins of various the Chalkidic cities of Metrol. viii. 3, 4). M. Boeckh investigates Athenian monies, and t and satisfactory, the d. He supposes, with to which Solon carried efinite and simple ratio ginæan talent-at that

• of beef:—βοειοῦ κρέως μίαν I do not perceive that M. Es referred to this in his Metro

[graphic]

and manner in which this change was brought al clearly made out.

Such is the extensive and interesting analogy wh has established between the units and scale of monetary scales founded upon them, throughout t tions of the Hellenic and Oriental world: and s tion, which he has been the first to set forth clear three principal monetary scales prevalent in Gre næan, the Euboic, and the Attic. Of the copio

particular facts, and the luminous reasonings by clusions are sustained, I cannot, in the present sh tend to give any adequate idea. I now pass on which he has not been equally successful.

He lays it down, (Metrol. ix. 2. p. 122) as a tain and precise, that the Roman pound was of of 100 Solonian standard drachmæ: and this rat quently in the course of his work, appealing to of establishing numerous ulterior conclusions. But which it rests is neither adequate nor convincing. to the stipulation in the treaty between the Romans king, Antiochus. During the first negociations ca Romans with that defeated prince, they required pay them 15,000 Euboic talents, by stated instal xxi. 14) but in the second nogociations, or final treaty, the conditions stood as follows-Apyvpiov Αττικοῦ ̔Ρωμαίοις ἀρίστου τάλαντα 12,000, ἐν ἔτεσι 12, ἔτος χίλια· μὴ ἔλαττον δὲ ἑλκέτω τὸ τάλαντον λιτρῶν Ῥωμαϊ xxii. 26). Antiochus engages to pay to the talents of the finest Attic silver, each talent to than 80 Roman pounds. Because Attic silver is M. Boeckh contends that no other can be me talents: but this is an unfounded inference, as examining the treaty concluded a short time befo Romans and Etolians, wherein the latter thus cover Αἰτωλοὶ ἀργυρίου μὴ χείρονος Αττικού, παραχρῆμα μὲν 200 τῷ στρατηγῷ τῷ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι· ἀντὶ τρίτου μέρους τοῦ ἐὰν βούλωνται, δίδοντες, τῶν δέκα μνῶν ἀργυρίου, χρυσία (Polyb. xxii. 15). Here we find an engagem

brought about, cannot be

nalogy which M. Boeckh
scale of weight, and the
oughout the various por-
1: and such is the rela-
Forth clearly, between the
t in Greece-the Egi
the copious collection of
ings by which his con-
resent short paper, pre-
w pass to other points
-ssful.

Euboic talents of fair Attic silver: thus evincing that the mention of "the best Attic silver," in the treaty with Antiochus, neither implies any reference to Attic talents, nor sustains the inference which M. Boeckh builds upon it-of the normal ratio 60 80 between the Roman pound and the Solonian Attic talent. To me there appears something anomalous in defining a recognised Grecian metallic standard by a given weight in Roman

:

pounds: and, accordingly, we find in the other treaties that when the Euboic standard is specified, no mention is made of Roman pounds, nor of any foreign weight. The fact, that in this final treaty with Antiochus, all specification of a Grecian standard is omitted, and a standard composed of Roman pounds substituted in its place, seems to me to indicate that the talent, so defined, was a mere denomination of weight, chosen for the occasion—not identified with any known Grecian system, though approximating to the Attic talent. It is to be remembered, that what the Romans wanted, was, not Grecian coins, but Grecian silver of a given weight and fineness: this is shewn by the stress laid upon the quality of the silver-"fair Attic silver"—" the best Attic silver." When, in their first negociations, they required Antiochus to pay 15,000 Euboic talents, or, when they demanded from Carthage 10,000 Euboic talents, (Polyb. xv. 7) they could not have meant to insist upon receiving that enormous sum in didrachms and tetradrachms of the Euboic scale: such coins, if brought to Rome, must be melted and re-coined before they could be made available. The essential object with them, was to define the weight of silver to be paid to them, and a definition by Roman pounds would be most easily acted upon by Roman commissioners. The word talent was received in many different senses, in Sicily, Italy, and Greece: a special meaning was put upon it for this particular occasion: just as, in any payment required to be made from

22) as a ratio both cer-
was of the Attic mina
this ratio he cites fre-
ling to it as a means
s. But the proof upon
ncing. First, he refers
Romans and the Asiatic
tions carried on by the
equired that he should
instalments: (Polyb.
or final and amended
γυρίου δὲ δότω Ἀντίοχος
τι 12, διδοὺς καθ' ἕκαστον
• Ρωμαϊκῶν 80. (Polyb.
the Romans 12,000
ent to weigh not less
Iver is here specified,

De meant than Attic
e, as we may see by
e before, between the
: covenant-Δότωσαν δὲ

να μὲν τάλαντα Εὐβοϊκά
ους τοῦ ἀργυρίου χρύσιον,
χρυσίου μνᾶν δίδοντες.
agement to pay 200

8 Livy, in reciting the treaty between the Romans and Antiochus, gives the sum-" Argenti probi 12,000 Attica talenta talentum ne minus pondo octoginta Romanis ponderibus pendat," (xxxviii. 38). But this, I conceive, is not to be attended to, when we have before us the far higher authority as well as the much more specific statement of

Polybius. When Livy recites the former treaty with the Etolians, he describes the sum to be paid simply as Euboica talenta: without any regard to the additional words of Polybius, ἀργυρίου μὴ χείρονος Αττικοῦ : which words, nevertheless, are essential to the comprehension of the mode and form in which the payment was to be made, (xxxviii. 9).

[graphic]

England to America, an arbitrary rate of exchang removed from the ordinary rate, might be determin between the pound sterling and the dollar,

The only other testimony adduced by M. B alleged exact ratio of the Roman pound and the mina (3:4), is contained in a sentence of the the Benedictine Analekta; in the interpretation of sumes as certain, what is at best doubtful, that' in the language of so very late a writer, means s nian drachmæ. But even if we grant this assum dentiary force of the passage will still remain ve For there are several statements in the other metro (see Galen, Dioskorides and Kleopatra, as printed Thesaurus, besides Priscian de Ponderibus, v. 33) tradicting it, and announcing other proportions; an has shewn no reason why they should all be set authority of the Benedictine Analekta exclusively true that there is much contradiction and discrep various statements of the ratio between mina, d and uncia (Metrol. p. 116-120); but the reasona even from this irreconcileable confusion, is, that t of weight were in the beginning radically distinc point of actual contact, and no exact or normal them. If, as M. Boeckh supposes, there had be and original correspondence between the two scale portion of 60 minæ, or 1 Solonian talent to 80 R would not this fact have been intimated by Pliny Both of these authors treat the Attic drachma a lent of the denarius, 84 to the Roman pound: the Attic mina as 100: 84, in reference to the F Now this was nothing more than an approxima derived from the comparison of the degraded coi states; and if M. Boeckh's supposition be cor have superseded the ancient, precise normal ratio which must have been as well known as the rati χους and μετρήτης to the Roman congius and ampl lence of Pliny and Celsus is to me a strong reaso that no such exact proportion between the Attic

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »