f exchange, not widely by M. Boeckh, of the that 'Αττικὰς δραχμάς, roximative ratio first tically exact, being involved in the normal sch systems-and he dwells upon it as a capital poin intentional contact between them. It is in this siders it, in very many passages of his book, as a matter proved, and appeals to it confiden for farther inferences: it is in this light that I cons I maintain that he has produced no sufficient ev him to do so. To point out an instance of his employment blematical ratio as an ascertained premise in ult we need only pass to the 17th chapter, in which establish the deduction of the Roman cubic f length, from the Eginæan weight and the Grec sure and the intentional ratio of the Roman foot foot, as the cube root of 9 to the cube root of 10 (p. 284). He first seeks to prove that "the Gre properly speaking, the Æginæan) pound is to the as 10 9" next, that the Grecian cubic foot is cubic foot in the same ratio-10: 9; and his argu as follows (p. 285): : "It is a matter of fact that the Roman pound of the Æginæan mina as 9: 10; for it (viz. the R is to the Attic mina as 3:4; and the Attic mina i næan mina as 3: 5, consequently the Roman po Æginæan mina as 9:20, or to the half of the A as 9:10. But this half Æginæan mina was a p be shewn hereafter it is therefore demonstrated, th næan and the Roman pound were in the ratio of remains still to demonstrate, that the Olympic cubic Roman quadrantal, stood in the same relation; but be done with equal strictness." Unable to offer a of this ratio of 10 9 between the Grecian cubic f Roman quadrantal, M. Boeckh gives some genera tions in the way of indirect evidence, and he here in the front rank the precise ratio between the Grecian pound which he supposes himself to have just before de "We acknowledge a complete coincidence of the G Roman pound in the ratio of 10 9, which impli mal schemes of the two al point of original and In this light that he conbook, when he treats it onfidently as a ground I consider it also, when ent evidence to entitle yment of this very proe in ulterior reasoning, n which he proposes to cubic foot and foot of the Grecian cubic meaman foot to the Grecian Dot of 10; 39: 10." "the Grecian (or more is to the Roman pound foot is to the Roman his argument proceeds an pound is to the half viz. the Roman pound) Etic mina is to the Egi Coman pound is to the of the Eginaan mina was a pound, strated, that the Egi e ratio of 10: 9. It pic cubic foot, and the tion; but this cannot to offer a strict proof an cubic foot and the me general considera d he here again puts he Grecian and Roman st before demonstrated of the Grecian and hich implies that the 20 BOECKH, ON ANCIENT WEIGH far from the truth (see xxiv. 2. p. 343); so th impossible to rely upon it as evidence of origi relationship between the Roman and the Ægin if we consider the expression Eginaan pound 20 I now come to the ratio which M. Boeckh subsisted between the Olympic cubic foot, and t foot or quadrantal: as 10: 9. Of this he has hi the passage already cited from p. 285) that he i sufficient direct proof: and the general consideratio enters (pp. 286, 287) will not be found to con absence of such proof. Yet he introduces in o unproved ratio for the purpose of establishing ulter for example in p. 277, (xv. 2) he says: "The Att tains 72 Roman sextarii: but the Greek cubic fo hereafter shewn, 10 of the Roman quadrantal, wh sextarii: the Greek cubic foot is therefore 53 se Attic metretes of the Greek cubic foot." Her conclusions, the authority of which rests entirely up sion of the ratio of 10 9 between the Greek cubi Roman quadrantal-which M. Boeckh believes h proved, but has not proved: and again these tw sions the equality of the Greek cubic foot to 53 F and the ratio of the same to the Attic metretes, as 20 in other parts of his volume as if they too were matte (see xiii. 7. p. 242; xiv. 3. p. 263; xvi. 2. p. 282). such as these of M. Boeckh, unless the fundamenta placed beyond all doubt, the subsequent deductions be and are but too well calculated to illustrate the impre which he has himself delivered in his preface, aga metrological hypotheses. : The well-known correspondence between the Atti capacity, both liquid and dry, and the Roman meas city, both as to positive quantities and scale of divis very striking and remarkable. Now the Roman capacity exhibit an exact proportion with the Roman amphora or quadrantal weighing precisely 80 Roman a congius (the parallel both in quantity and denomin Attic xous) weighing precisely 10 pounds. This cor ; so that it is altogether of original and intrinsic - Eginæan pound, even pound as admissible. Boeckh alleges to have , and the Roman cubic has himself stated (see at he is unable to offer siderations into which he d to compensate for the ces in other places this ning ulterior conclusions: The Attic metretes concubic foot is, as will be antal, which contains 48 re 53 sextarii, and the E." Here are two new ntirely upon the adm Greek cubic foot and believes himself to ha.re these two new conclut to 531 Roman sextarii, etes, as 20:27-appear were matters ascertained, p. 282). In researches undamental positions are ductions become illusory, the impressive warning, reface, against finespun n the Attic measures of man measures of cape le of division—is a fact e Roman measures of he Roman weights: an 0 Roman pounds, and d denomination of the This correspondenc a fact certain but hitherto unexplained, M. Boeckh wishes to trace to a supposed original correspondence of the scale of weight, transmitted from Babylon first to Greece and then to Rome: the cubical unit being in all the three cases (he asserts) determined by a given weight of rain-water (see pp. 286, 287). I have already said that his deduction of the Æginæan scale of weight from the Babylonian, appears to me sufficiently sustained, and the light which he has thereby thrown upon the statical systems, both of Greece and the East, is new and valuable. But in extending the same deduction to Rome-in tracing the acknowledged correspondence of Roman and Attic cubical measures to a primitive correspondence of Roman and Attic weights, he has, in my judgment, altogether failed. I am the more anxious to point this out, because his copious erudition may perhaps enable him either to strengthen his proof, or to discover some better mode of explanation: and I am very sure that there is no man in Europe more capable of solving a problem at once so difficult and so interesting to philological enquirers. I pass over M. Boeckh's remarks on the relation of the Grecian and Roman foot of length: his eleventh chapter contains ample particulars as to the actual length both of one and the other, but his attempt to connect them in theory, as if the Roman foot had been originally adapted to the Grecian in the ratio of 24 : 25, is an hypothesis resting upon unsupported analogies (compare xi. 8. p. 199; and xvii. 2, 3, 4. pp. 288-292). I come to the positions which he lays down, respecting the relation of Grecian weights and measures one with another: wherein I discover much which appears to me erroneous and illusory. It has been already mentioned that there exists in the Roman system, a precise, determinate connection between the weights and the cubic measures: the amphora or quadrantal weighing by legal standard 80 pounds; and the congius (= Attic xoûs) weighing 10 pounds. Now M. Boeckh thinks that he can establish the like precise and determinate connection between the Grecian weights and Grecian cubic measures. The Roman amphora contains 48 sextarii, the Attic metretes 72 sextarii: the former weighs 80 Roman pounds, therefore the latter weighs 120 Roman pounds : but the Roman pound is of the Attic mina: therefore the Attic. |