A discourse of the Romane foot and denarius from whence, as from two principles, the measures and weights used by the ancients may be deduced / by Iohn Greaves ...

OF THE DENARIVS.

AS I have made for measures the Ro∣mane foot, the foundation of my inquiry, and therefore have hand∣led it in the precedent Treatise: so for finding out of weights, I shal take the denarius as an undeniable principle, from whence those of the ancients by a necessa∣ry consequence may be inferred. For as the u∣nity is in respect of numbers, or the sestertius in discourses de re nummariâ: so is the denarius for weights, a fit rise, or beginning, from whence the rest may be deduced. Not but that it were better (as I gave the caution before) if we absolutely consider the exactest waies of discovering weights, to begin vvith the grea∣ter, and by them to find out the lesse, then by the lesse, to produce the greater; but if we look upon the condition of times, and consi∣der the means that are left after so many revo∣lutions, and changes of the Romane Empire, it will be safer to alter our method. For to this day there are many thousand denarii left, and a∣mongst these some so perfect, and intire, as if they had been but newly brought from the mint, whereas of the Romane librae, and ounces, there are but few extant, if compared vvith these. Lip∣sius, and Gruterus in their inscriptions mention some, and Paetus some others, besides such as I have seen in the hands of Antiquaries, and many of mine own: most of which differ from one another, either as having been consumed

by rust, and time, or it may be also by the men that then lived, for their advantage lessened: a thing too often practised amongst us. Where∣fore I think it more convenient by the denarius to deduce the proof, and evidence of these, then by the diversity, and uncertainty of these to conclude the denarius: And yet if some of the best, and fairest of them, shall agree with this, I shall think my self so much the more assured.

Now seeing the denarius may be considered in a double respect, either as nummus, or as pondus: in the first acception, the valuation of it in civill affairs is remarkable, in the later, the gravity, and ponderousnesse: I shall speak no farther of the former, then as it may conduce in some sort to illustrate the later. The denarius was a silver coin in use amongst the Romanes, passing at the first institution for dena aera, or ten asses. And soa 1.1 Vitruvius expresly writes, Nostri autem primò decem fecerunt antiquum numerum, & in denario denos aereos asses constitúerunt. The same thing is attested byb 1.2 Volusius Metianus. Dena∣rius primò asses decem valebat, unde & nomen traxit.c 1.3 Pliny, besides a confirmation of the same valuation, assigns also the time, in which it was first stamped. Argentum signatum est an∣no Vrbis* 1.4 quingentesimo octogesimo quinto, Q. Fabio consule, quinque annis ante primum bellū Punicum, & placuit denarius pro decem libris aeris: that is, for ten asses. For the asses both then, and under the first Consuls were librales. Dionysius Ha∣licarnasseus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The assis was a brasse coine, weighing a pound. Where by the way it is worth the obser∣vation,

the strange, and in mine opinion, the un∣advised proportion, betwixt the brasse, and sil∣ver monies, of those times: that x. pounds of brasse should be but answerable to the 84^th part (for so much, or neer•• it, was the denarius) of a pound of silver; or to speak more cleerly, that one pound in silver should be equall in valuati∣on to 840 pounds in brasse. Neither can there be any excuse of that errour, unlesse this, that there then was an infinite plenty of the one, and as great a scarcity of the other. Howe∣ver it were, the same proportion is testified by Varro, who farther addes; that the Romanes took the first use, and invention of the denarius, from the Sicilians.d 1.5 In argento nummi, id à Si∣culis, denarii quòd denos aeris valebant. And ac∣cording to this valuation the denarius had an impresse upon it of the figure X, denoting the decussis, or number of the asses, as Valerius Pro∣bus witnesses, and sometimes this character X̶; both vvhich I have seen, and can shew, in se∣verall ancient ones. This later by the ig∣norance of Scribes formerly in MSS. and of our Printers of late in the edition of Cel∣sus, and of Scribonius Largus, is represented by an asterisc *; and by a worse errour in the same authors, the figure X expressing the dena∣rius, as a pondus, is confounded with the figure X expressing a number. From this figure on the denarius, or decussis,e 1.6 Vitruvius cals the inter∣sections of lines, decusses, and decussationes. And f 1.7 Columella useth the phrase in stellam decussari, when lines meet diamond-wise, or lozenge-like, as these in the character X or X̶▪ Neither did the

denarius long passe at the valuation of X. asses, nor the asses which before, and then were libra∣les, continue at one stay, but with the exigencies of the Romane State, the rate of the denarius rose, and the weight of the asses fell; that is in effect, both the silver, and the brasse monies, came to be augmented in their estimation. For by a publick edict of Fabius Maximus the Dictator, the Common-wealth being hardly pres∣sed upon by Hannibal, the denarius came to be priced at XVI. asses, and the asses which were then se ••tantarii, or the sixth part of the Romane pound, (for in the first Punick war, by reason of the excessive expenses of the State, they first fell from being librales, to be sextantarii) came now in the second Punick war to be unciales. The whole progresse, and manner of this alteration, is by none so well, and fully exprest as byg 1.8 Pliny, and therefore I shall a litle insist upon his words. Silver, saies he, came to be coined in the 585^th year of the City, Q. Fabius being Consul, five years before the first Punick war, and then the denarius passed for X. pounds of brasse, the Qui∣narius for five, the sestertius for two pounds and an half. The weight of the assis in brasse was diminished in the first Punick war, the Common-wealth not being able to support the expenses, and then it was decreed that the asses should be coined sextantario pondere; that is, with the weight of the sixth part of a pound, or two ounces, whereas before they were librales. Though Alciatus here upon a very grosse mistake con∣tends that they were then coined dextantario pondere, and not sextantario, but yet that they

were called asses sextantarii, because the sextans or sixth part of an ounce was wanting: where∣as h 1.9 Festus expresly writes. Grave aes dictum à pondere, quia deni asses singuli pondo librae effi∣ciebant denarium ab hoc ipso numero dictum: sed bello Punico populus Romanus pressus aere a∣lieno, ex singulis assibus libralibus senos fecit, qui tantundem valerent. And these words of Pliny, which immediately follow those before recited, put it out of controversie.i 1.10 Whereby, saies he, five parts were gained, & the debts (of the Common-wealth) discharged. I would gladly see by what Arithmetick Alciatus can demonstrate, that the Common-wealth shall gain five parts, making the asses sextantarii in his sense; whereas on the contrary, taking them in this interpretation (as bothk 1.11 Agricola, andl 1.12 Villalpandus doe) it is a thing most evident. For the whole pound, or assis, before consisting of XII. ounces, being now reduced to two ounces, and these two passing at as high a rate in the valuation of things vendible, as the vvhole libra did, it is plain that the Common-wealth by this dimi∣nution of weight, keeping the same constant tenure of the estimation of the assis, gained ten parts in twelve, that is, five in sixe; and not one in six, as Alciatus would have it. But to omit this digression, and to return tom 1.13 Pliny. After∣wards being oppressed by Hannibal, under Q. Fa∣bius Maximus the Dictator, the asses were made unciales, and the denarius passed for XVI. asses, the quinarius for VIII. and the sestertius for IIII. And hereby the Common-wealth gained half, yet in the pay of the Militia the denarius was alwaies

accounted for ten asses. The impresse of the silver [that is, of the denarius] were the bigae, and quadrigae; from whence they are called biga∣ti, and quadrigati. Not long after by the lex Papiria the asses came to be semunciales. Livius Drusus Tribune of the people mixed an eighth part of brasse with the silver: thus far Pliny. Out of which vvords it is most evident (omitting many passages of his, worth our consideration) that as the denarius at the first institution pas∣sed fo•• ten asses, so afterwards it vvas valued at XVI. And Vitruvius gives a reason why next to ten, they made choice of XVI. rather then of XII. or any other proportion.n 1.14 Quoniam ani∣madverterunt utrosque numeros esse perfectos, & sex, & decem, utrosque in unum conjecerunt, & fecerunt perfectissimum decussissexi, whereo 1.15 Bu∣daeus reads decussissexis: butp 1.16 Villalpandus decus∣si sex, that it may the better, as he imagines, an∣swer to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.q 1.17 Hujus autem rei, saith Vitruvius, autorem invenerunt pedem. E cu∣bito enim cùm dempti sint palmi duo, relinquitur pes quatuor palmorum, palmus autem habet quatuor digitos, ita efficitur uti pes habeat sex∣decim digitos, & totidem asses aereos denarius. r 1.18 Metianus also purposely treating of this argu∣ment, after that he had related that the dena∣rius, at the first institution, was valued at ten asses, adds now it is worth sixteen. And not to cite more authorities, the impresse or stamp of XVI, as well as of X found upon several denarii, and seen both bys 1.19 Antonius Augustinus (a man very accurate in coins, as appears by his dia∣logues) and by Villalpandus, besides one with the

inscription of C. Titinius, with the same chara∣cter, mentioned by Fulvius Vrsinus, andt 1.20 Dale∣champius, puts it out of controversie. And this valuation of the denarius, as it is more then probable, continued from the first institution of it in the second Punick war, without any inter∣ruption, to Justinians' time, and it is likely lon∣ger; since there is no proof out of any ancient Author, nor any character on any ancient dena∣rius, found to the contrary. As for those autho∣rities, which are alleaged, and pressed by Budae∣us, and Alciatus, of Varro, Apuleius, Arruntius; and Pompeius, affirming, that after the second Punick war, the denarius contained ten asses, the Quinarius, or Victoriatus five, the sestertius two and an half: we may give a true, and easie soluti∣on, that these Writers expressed the valuation of them, as they were in their first originall, and beginning, with reflection to their primitive denomination: in which respect the Treviri mo∣netales, or officers of the mint, usually imprin∣ted on the denarius the character X, rather then XVI. the former being the impresse of its first institution, and the latter of its after valua∣tion. And so in like manner may those citations be answered of Plutarch, Dionysius, and others, produced by some learned men to strengthen their assertion, that the denarius after the second Punick warre returned to its first estimation. Which thing could not have been effected, with∣out extreme losse, and prejudice to particular men, in their private fortunes, and estates; which the justice, and wisdome of the Romane Se∣nate, under the Consuls, was not likely to have

introduced, or the people to have admitted.

To conclude, the denarius, as it is evident by many irrefragable authorities before alleaged, in the highest valuation passed for sixteen asses, and according to that proportion the quina∣rius, or Victoriatus for eight, the sesteritius for four: but in the lowest valuation, or first insti∣tution, it passed for ten asses: and then the proportion of the quinarius was five, of the se∣stertiu two asses and an half, and therefore was thus marked IIS, or thus HS. as the Quina∣rius had this character, V. and also this X. as it is to be seen in a Victoriatus of mine own (besides several others) with the face & inscription of M. Cato. By which coin that place may not unfitly be explained, which troubledx 1.21 Budaeus, why the Ordo decussatus, and ordo quincuncialis, signifie in the ranking of trees the same thing, although the quinarius, or quincunx, give the denomination to the one, & the denarius, or decussis, to the other. The reason is, because the Quinarius had the character X imprinted on it,* 1.22 as well as the de∣narius, or decussis. Besides in Temporarius, we finde the quincunx to bee thus {fivedash} repre∣sented, as the uncia thus ‐ so that five of these unciae making the quincunx, and these five being ranged like the figure X (the character of the decussis) it is no wonder if the ordo de∣cussatus, and quincuncialis, were taken for the same.

That the denarius should have passed at any other rate between XVI, and X. asses, as there is no coin extant to prove it, so there is no ex∣presse authority to conclude it. Though some

infer out ofy 1.23 Polybius, that it was valued al∣so at XII. asses: because he defines the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or semissis, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the fourth part of the Attick obolus; and six obol•• being in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to which drachma they sup∣pose the denarius equall, therefore there must be XXIV. semisses, or XII. asses in the denarius▪ But with much better reason we may hence in∣fer, that the drachma was somewhat bigger, then the denarius, as we shall prove in this in∣suing discourse; and therefore Polybius allow•• XII. asses to it: whereas, if it had been precise∣ly equall to the denarius, he would have valued it at X, or else XVI. of the lesser sort of asses. So that Sir H. Savile, a man of exquisite judgment, and learning, in his discourse at the end of Taci∣tus, justly blames Hottoman for altering the text of Polybius, and is himself to be censured, as alsoa 1.24 Lipsius, in inferring thence that the denari∣us contained XII. asses.

The severall parts of the denarius, excepting the quinarius, and sestertius, of both which I have spoken before, are all comprized in this de∣scription ofb 1.25 Varro, with which I shall conclude▪ Nummi denarii decima libella, quòd libram po•• do as valebat, & erat ex argento parva; sem∣bella quòd sit libellae dimidium quòd semis assis▪ Teruncius à tribus unciis sembellae quod valet di••midium, & est quarta pars sicut quadrans assis▪ By which proportions it appears, that the libell•• was the X^th part of the denarius, when it vva•• currant at ten asses, the sembella the XX^th, the teruncius the XL^th. And thus much of the dena∣rius as it is nummus.

The second, and our principall consideration of the denarius is as it is pondus. In which accep∣tion it will be necessary to praemise a second di∣stinction; that the denarius was either* 1.26 Consu∣laris, or Caesareus. The Consularis was that which was made under the government of the City by the Consuls, the Caesareus un∣der the Caesars: The Consularis, (I mean the Consularis after the second Punick war, and under the later Consuls) contained precise∣ly the seventh part of the Romane ounce, as the other did the eighth part, or somewhat neer it.

First, that the denarius Consularis of the later Consuls, was the seventh part of the Romane ounce: this shall be our principall inquiry, be∣cause it is more evident of the two, and will give us the best light to discover the true weight of the denarius, in the notion, and ac∣ception of the ancients, both Greeks and La∣tines. It is most apparent both by severall fair coins, which I have perused of the later Consuls, as also by Cornelius Celsus, who li∣ved in the beginning of the Romane Emperors,

before there happened a generall diminution o•• the denarius, that it was then the seventh part of the ounce, who thus writes,c 1.27 Sed & ante•• sciri volo in unciâ pondus denariorum esse septem. The same proportion is also expressed byd 1.28 Scri••∣bonius Largus, who lived not long after Celsus as some imagine, his words are these. Erit au••tem nota denarii unius pro Graecâ drachmâ; aequ•• enim in librâ denarii octoginta quatuor apud nos quot drachmae apud Graecos incurrunt.c 1.29 Pliny also confirms the same. Miscuit denario triumv•• Antonius ferrum, alii (he means under the Em••perours) è pondere subtrahunt, cùm sit justum oct••••ginta quatuor è libris signari. Out of vvhi•••• vvords of his, and of Scribonius Largus, it wi•• by a necessary consequence be inferred, that th•• true weight of the denarius Consularis is the s••••venth part of an ounce. For if we multipl•• twelve the number of the ounces in the Roman libra (as by all it is confest) by seven the numb•• of the denarii, of which the ounce then consiste•• the sum will be LXXXIIII. denarii; and so man•• say Scribonius, and Pliny, ought justly to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Romane pound. And these are the one cleer, and positive authorities that are to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 found in Classicall Authours; most of the w••••tings of the Ancients de ponderibus & mensur•• having long since been lost; or else those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fragments that are left, of Cleopatra, Dioscorid•• and of others, are so corrupted, that litle tr•••• with any certainty can be collected. Fro•• whence it will by way of corollary follow, th•• if either the denarius Consularis be given, the R••••mane

ounce, and libra, in the same proportion will necessarily be thence deduced; or if the Romane ounce, and libra be given, the denarius will as necessarily be concluded.

But before we farther treat of this argument, we shall indevour also to demonstrate the de∣••arius, by the drachma Attica. For Scribonius ••eems, and so doe other ancients, to make them equall. And therefore Pliny writes:f 1.30 Drachma Attica denarii argentei habet pondus: whereas the drachma Aeginaea vvas much larger, this con∣taining X. such oboli as the Attick contained VI. ••nd therefore the Athenians in hatred of the Ae∣••inaeans called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asg 1.31 Pollux testifies. And here as we considered the denari∣us, as nummus, and as ••ondus; so likewise must vve take the drachma Attica, as nummus, and as pondus: in the prosecution of both vvhich rela∣tively to the denarius, I shall insist so much the ••onger, because it is an argument that hath scarce ••t all, or very perfunctorily been handled. The drachma as nummus, vvas a silver coin in use a∣mongst the Athenians, (for I intend only to speak of the drachma Attica, for the same reason that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pliny doth. Ferè enim Atticâ observatione utun∣••ur medici) and so it vvas the measure of things ••endible, as all coins are: and as pondus,h 1.32 so was it ••he measure of their gravity, & weight. Now the drachma, as nummus, passed in the estimation of ••he best Authors, both Greek and Latine, at the ••••me rate, and valuation as the denarius did. And ••herefore, as often as the Latines are to expresse ••he Greek drachma, they render it by the denari∣••s, and on the contrary, the Greeks the denari∣us

by the drachma. Thus vvhati 1.33 Tully renders by the denarius, Dio in his 45^th book expresseth by the drachma. Their words, both speaking of Augustus, are these, Veteranos quique Casilini, & Calatiae sunt (as Tully relates) perduxit ad suam sententiam, nec mirum, quingenos denarios dat.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saithk 1.34 Dio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In like mannerl 1.35 Pliny writes, venisse murem ducentis nummis, (that is, denariis; for nummus absolutely put is often, though not alwaies, taken for the denarius, as on the con∣trary the denarius is taken for nummus in Hesy∣chius, * 1.36〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Casi∣linum obsidente Annibale, eúmque qui vendidera•• fame interisse, emptorem vixisse annales tradunt. The same thingm 1.37 Valerius Maximus reports in his 7^th book, and 6^th ch. andn 1.38 Strabo in his 5^th book; the former writing that it was sold for 200 denarii, and the later that it vvas bought for 200 drachmae. To these Authorities I shall adjoino 1.39 Cleopatra. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Italian denarius containeth one drachma: and* 1.40 A. Gellius, Lais 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 poposcit, hoc facit nummi nostratis, dena∣riûm decem millia.

These two thus passing the one for the other, being also at the first institution much of the same finenesse in respect of silver, it must necessarily be admitted, either that they were exactly the same for weight, vvhich is our next inquiry, or else that they vvere not much different. For in comparing of forain coins, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or nummularii, in ancient times, must have taken the same course, which our most knowing ban∣kers

doe practise now. First, to respect the pure∣nesse, and finenesse of the coins, whither they be alike for the intrinseck; and next, whither they have the same weight; and if they differ in either, or both of these, according to those differences to proportion their exchanges. Those other accidentall causes of the rising, and falling, of exchanges of monies, since they are meerly contingent, depending upon the necessities, ei∣ther of times, or places, or persons, I purposely pretermit, as not so proper, and essentiall to our inquiry. As for the extrinseck of coins, by which I mean the outward form, or character, and inscription of the Prince, or State, though this may raise the valuation of them in those Countries, which are subject to the Prince, or State, and lessen them in those which are out of their dominions; yet this can produce no remarkable difference, more then what is usu∣ally▪ assigned by the Masters of the Mint, for the wast in coining, and for the labour of the vvork.

With these cautions if we shall examine the Attick drachma, and by such writings of the An∣cients, or by such coins as are extant, inquire their true weight, we shall come to such a pre∣cisenesse, as may be hoped for in a work of this nature.p 1.41 Suidas tels us in the generall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The drachma is the weight of the silver money. Andq 1.42 Hesychius more particularly informs us. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The drachma is the eighth part of the ounce: andr 1.43 Fannius yet more distinctly writes,

In scrupulis ternis drachmam, quo pondere doctis Argenti facilis signatur pondus Athenis.

To which vve may addes 1.44 Cleopatra,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The drachme hath three scruples, sixe oboli, nine lupini, eighteen siliquae, forty eight aere∣ola. Thet 1.45 Scholiast of Nicander also makes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the fourth part of the [Attick] ounce. In the same propor∣tion are we to take those other silver Athenian coins mentioned byu 1.46 Julius Pollux, namely, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which consisted of three drach∣mes, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which by a Syncope, is the same with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, containing foure drachmes, or the half ounce. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saithy 1.47 He∣sychius; thoughz 1.48 Ammonius puts a distinction between them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This the Greeks also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asa 1.49 Cleopatra, and b 1.50 Epiphanius witnesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Cleopatra, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the stater weighs four drachmes, this they call the tetra∣drachme. And this also may most cleerly be collected out ofc 1.51 S. Matthew, where seeing the originall expresseth it more fully then our tran∣slation, I shall recite the vvords as they are in the Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which the Vulgar renders thus, Et cum venissent Caper∣naum, accesserunt, qui didrachma accipiebant, ad Petrum, & dixerunt ei, Magister vester non sol∣vit didrachma? and our Translation thus; And

when they were come to Capernaum, they that re∣ceived tribute money, came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? In the 27^th verse of the same chapter, our Saviour answers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nothwithstan∣ding, lest we should offend them, goe thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first com∣meth up: and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a peece of money: that take, and give unto them for me, and thee. This, which our Translation cals tribute mony, in the 24^th ver. is called in the originall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or two drachmes, & so much was paid by the pole, according tod 1.52 Iosephus, for each particular person. Our Saviour there∣fore paying for himself and S. Peter, in the 27^th verse, bids him to give a stater, that is, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or four drachmes, namely, the double to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which our Translatiō renders too ge∣nerally by a peece of mony: But thee 1.53 Persian Tran∣slation interprets it distinctly by four drachmes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou shalt finde four drachmes in it, that take, and give for thee, and me.

With this Attick tetradrachme, or silver sta∣ter, the Hebrew, and Samaritane 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shekell, that is, sicle, did also agree. For if we give credit to Iosephus, who inf 1.54 Scaligers esteem is, Diligen∣tissimus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 omnium scriptorū, we shal finde them to be the same.g 1.55 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉The sicle is a sort of mony amongst the Hebrews, that contains four Attick drachmes. The same pro∣portion is evidently collected out of* 1.56 ^h Philo, where for L. shekels mentioned in the Law he renders CC. drachmes, and for XXX. an hundred and twenty.i 1.57 Hesychius likewise testi∣fies as much, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sicle is [in valuation] the Attick tetradrachme: and k 1.58 S. Hierome, the ablest of the Fathers in the Jewish Antiquities,* 1.59 Siclus, id est stater, habet quatuor drachmas Atticas.

These testimonies are so positive, and from so good Authors (to which also I might adjoin l 1.60. Epiphanius in his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did I not con∣ceive him to be full of errours in that discourse), that I cannot sufficiently wonder at that strange opinion ofm 1.61 Grsepsius, and some others, intro∣duced out of affectation of novelty, of a double shekel, the one sacred, equall to the tetradrach∣me, the other prophane, weighing the didrach∣me: that used in the Sanctuary, this in civill commerce, without any solid foundation in the writ, or without any probability of reason, that in any wise State, the Prince and people should have one sort of coin, and the Priests should have another: and that this of the San∣ctuary should be in a double proportion to the other, and yet that both should concur in the same name. It is true there is often men∣tion in then 1.62 Scriptures of the weights of the San∣ctuary, not as if these were different from what were used vulgarly in the City; but because the Standards, and originals, the rules of com∣mutative justice, and therefore of an high and sacred use, were kept (as it is more then pro∣bable) in the Sanctuary; For God himself makes this one of the Priests offices,o 1.63 ut sint super om∣ne pondus at{que} mensurā. And it is no wonder that God, who so much hated ap 1.64 false balance, and a false measure, should commit the charge of these to the Priests, as things most holy; since the Heathens themselves out of a reverent e∣stimation of them, placed them in their tem∣ples, as appears by that inscription of the con∣gius of Vespasian before alleaged, and now ex∣tant

in Rome; and by these verses ofq 1.65 Fan∣nius, treating of the Romane measures,

Amphora fit cubus, quam, ne violare liceret, Sacravere Iovi Tarpeio in monte Quirites.

And afterwards in the times of Christianity they were kept in Churches, as it is to be seen in ther 1.66 Authenticks of Iustinian; where he commands, that the weights and measures should be kept, in sacratissimâ cujusvis civitatis ecclesiâ, As for those allegations taken out of the intepretation of the LXX. whereby Grsepsi∣us, and others goe about to prove a double she∣kell, they are all well, and solidly, in my judge∣ment, answered bys 1.67 Villalpandus, and others, to whom I shall refer the judicious Reader. For I intend not here to speak of the Hebrew shekel, or Attick drachme, more then what may serve to illustrate the denarius.

Seeing therefore, as we have proved, that the Attick drachma was equall in the notion, and acception of the Ancients, to the denarius: if therefore an intire, either Attick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were found, wee might thence conclude the denarius. Again, since the Hebrew shekel hath likewise been demon∣strated to be equall to the Attick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this Attick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to four denarii, by the common, and received* 1.68 axiome of Geome∣tricians, we may conclude, that the Hebrew she∣kell was also equall to 4 denarii, that is, that 4 Romane denarii, the Attick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were all respectively equall to one another. If therefore an Hebrew shekel, fair, & intire, were found, we might as necessarily

thence infer the denarius, as by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We shall indevour by both these to inquire out the truth, and first by the Attick tetradrach∣mes in silver: because of these I have seen, and weighed many, some of them very fair, and perfect, and found at many severall places, as Athens, Constantinople, Tenedos, and other parts: where the art of counterfaiting coins is not as yet crept in, and where it is to litle purpose to practise it: seeing in those places there are few so curious as to buy them, or that will give a greater valuation, then what they are worth in the intrinseck. Wherefore having in Italy, and elsewhere, perused many 100 dena∣rii Consulares, I finde by a frequent, and exact triall, the best of them to amount to LXII. grains English, such as I have carefully taken from the Standards of the Troy, or silver weights, kept in the Tower in London, and in Goldsmiths Hall, & in the Vniversity of Oxford: on the other side weighing many Attick tetra∣drachmes, with the image of Pallas on the fore part, and of the noctua on the reverse. I find the best of these to be CCL XVIII. grains, that is, each particular drachme LXVII. grains.

And that no man may doubt whither these were true Athenian tetradrachmes, we are to ob∣serve, that the Ancients used severall impresses on their coins, by which they might be known, and distinguished. And therefore argentum sig∣natum, in the description of Quintius his tri∣umph over Philip, is byt 1.69 Livy opposed to argen∣tum infectum, whichu 1.70 Pollux terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as x 1.71 Tully cals the former sort factum, atque sig∣natum, and they 1.72 Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus

the denarius had the impresse of the biga, or quadriga, as Pliny informs us: and thereforez 1.73 Li∣vy uses the word bigati for denarii, &a 1.74 Pliny both bigati and quadrigati. The brasse coins of the Ro∣manes were thus marked.* 1.75 Nota aeris fuit ex alte∣râ parte Ianus geminus, ex alterâ rostrum navis, in triente vero & quadrante rates. The Persi∣ans stamped on the reverse anb 1.76 archer: vvhich occasioned that conceit of Agesilaus, mentioned by* 1.77 Plutarch, that the King of Persia had beaten him back with ten thousand archers, when with so much mony he had corrupted the Grecians. The Carthaginians on the one side signed the face of a woman, (I suppose in memory of Queen Dido) on the reverse the head of an horse, or in Virgils' expression* 1.78 ca∣put acris equi, both vvhich I have seen. The Peloponnesians had the impresse of a tortoise on their mony, whence that witty Greek proverb took its originall.c 1.79〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The mony at Tenedos had on the one side a double hatchet, and on the other∣side two heads, one of a man, and another of a woman, a rising from the same stemme, or neck, in memory of a Law made by the King of that Island (whom* 1.80 Heraclides names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, placing him ancienter then the Trojan war), that a man, and a woman, taken in adultery should have their heads struck off vvith an hatchet. In which kind I met with two very rare, and an∣cient coins in silver, at Constantinople, both made vvith a very fair relevy, and both agreeing in the same image, and inscription: the one weighed lesse then the Attick tetradrachme, the other wanted somewhat of the drachme. And

because the coin hath not, I think, been seen by any Antiquary, and the history is remarkable, I shal here express the figure of the fairest of these.

[illustration]

And the history I shall relate out ofd 1.81 Hera∣clide. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They say King Tennes made a law, that if one took another in adultery, he should kill him with an hatchet. His sonne being found so, and he that took him, asking the King what he should do, he answered execute the Law: and for this reason of one side of his money there was an hatchet imprin∣ted, on the other the face of a man, and of a woman, arising out of one neck. From hence is it said of severe actions, to be cut with a Tenedian hatchet. For vvhich exemplary justice those of Tenedos▪ as it is probable, deified King Tenes. e 1.82 Tully writes, Tenedi Tenem [Deum appellant]: and again, ^f Tenem apud Tenedios putant esse san∣ctissimū

Deum, ac eorū Vrbem condidisse. Where his name is truer writ thē in Heraclides. For the coin hath onely a single N. and so hath* 1.83 * Eustathius.

The mony of Chios, as Iulius Pollux wit∣nesses, had the effigies, or resemblance, of Homer: no doubt in honour of his memory; thoughg 1.84 Herodotus relates, that whilst he vvas living he found at first but cold entertainment in that Island. Theseus the tenth King of the Athenians signed his mony with the impresse of an oxe; hence that proverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This ash 1.85 Iulius Pollux testifies was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: vvho farther adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This was an ancient coin amongst the Athenians, and was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it had the figure of an oxe instamped. They imagine that Homer knew this, when he said, nine hecatombes of oxen, and also in the laws of Draco, it is to pay the mulct of ten oxen. And they say, that at the solemn shew at Delos, the crier when any gift is to be given, cries so many oxen shall be given, and for every oxe so many Attick didrachmes are given. The same l 1.86 Author writes, that the Attick tetradrachme was stamped vvith the face of Minerva, and he might have added with the noctua on the re∣verse. This* 1.87 Eubûlus pleasantly cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Minervae pullum. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had the

face of Iupiter, it may be it is an error in Pollux, for Pallas, and on the other side the noctua. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had on the one side Jupiter, according to* 1.88 Pollux, (I conceive it to be a mistake for Pal∣las, or Minerva) on the other side two noctuae, be∣cause it was the double to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From the diobolū,k 1.89 Plautus uses the term diobolaris Servorū Sordidulorum, Scorta diobolaria, whichl 1.90 Festus in∣terprets thus, meretrices diobolares appellatas, ex ••o quòd duobus obolis ducerentur. To which I may adjoin, out of such ancient coins as I have seen, that ••he triobolum (whence that phrase ofm 1.91 Plau∣tus, homo trioboli, and of the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which byn 1.92 Pollux is called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, had the face of Pallas on the one side, and the noctua on the other; and so likewise had the ••bolus, and drachma, of such as I perused, and all of them on the reverse the inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And I think I may safely add, that on such coins as we finde the noctua, with a deep relevy, we may conclude them to be Athenian coins.o 1.93 Plutarch ••s of the same opinion in the life of Lysander, where he discourses of Gylippus a Commander, ••s famous for defeating the Athenians in Sici∣••y, as infamous for stealing the silver consigned ••o him by Lysander, for the city Sparta. When 〈◊〉〈◊〉 arrived, saith Plutarch, at Sparta, he hid the ••••lver that he had stoln under the tiles of his house, ••nd delivered into the hands of the Ephori the bags, ••••ewing them the seals [intire]: Which being ope∣••ed, and the money told, they found the sums to ••••sagree from the labels: wherewith being troubled 〈◊〉〈◊〉 servant of Gylippus in obscure tearms intima∣••ed to them, That under the tiles of his Masters

house there were hid many noctuae, or owles; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the greatest part (as it seems) of the money then had the stamp of the noctua, by reason of the Athenians: who not long before, as Thucydides, and the best Hi∣storians of those times shew, were the richest, and most flourishing State amongst the Gre∣cians.

Having therefore had the opportunity to have bought, or else the favour to have weigh∣ed many fair, and perfect Attick tetradrachmes, found at remote places, with the Pallas galea∣ta on the one side, and the noctua, vvith the in∣scription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the reverse, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being placed for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proves the antiquity of them. (For the Atticks at the first used not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) I finde by the best of these (to reassume what I said before) that the At∣tick tetradrachme is 268 grains, and the drach∣me 67 of our Troy, or English standard. Which may farther be confirmed by an Attick drachme of mine own, found in the Black Sea, vvith this inscription, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by a* 1.94 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or semidrachme bought by me a•• Alexandria: that weighing neer 66 grains, and this 30 and better: the face of Minerva, ei∣ther by use, or time being a litle diminished in both: but yet so litle, that they cannot have lost above two or three grains of their primi∣tive vveight. And as this single Attick drachme of mine is much to be valued by Antiquarie•• for the vveight, and therefore vvas desired by the learned Peireskius: so is the inscription

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no lesse vvorth considerati∣on, for the explication of a place inp 1.95 Livy: who describing the naval triumph of L. Aemilius, vvrites thus. Pecunia translata nequaquam tan∣ta pro specie regii triumphi. Tetracina Attica CCXXXIII. millia, Cistophori CCCXXII. mil. Whereq 1.96 Budaeus, and Rhodiginus in stead of tetracina, read tetradrachma. Tetracinum enim quid sit, nemo ut arbitror novit, saith Budaeus: I vvould rather read it, as the coin doth, Tinar∣nica: this having almost the same letters vvith Tetracina, vvhich by the Scribes, I suppose, have been inverted. Neither is there any reason, why Livy might not as vvell mention in this triumph, Attica Tinarnica, as Tetradrachma; these being the fourth part of the tetradrachme; and therefore better agreeing with his descrip∣tion: Pecunia translata nequaquam tanta pro specie regii triumphi: and also better agreeing vvith the Cistophori he here mentions: a sort of coin about half of these Attica Tinarnica, where∣as the tetradrachma were eight times as great. Forr 1.97 Festus expressing the talentum Euboicum, renders it by 7500 cistophori, and by 4000 dena∣rii, or Attick drachmes, that is, M. tetra∣drachmes. Euboicum talentum nummo Graeco septem millium & quingentorum cistophorûm est▪ nostro quatuor millium denariorum.

And as these testimonies above alleaged are beyond all exceptions, so the gold coins of the Grecians, which I have examined, doe most evi∣dently prove this proportion assigned to the Attick drachme. Which that vvee may the better understand, vve are to observe vvhat pro∣portion

the valuation of the gold of those times had to the silver; and next, vvhat proportion it had in respect of weight.

For the first,s 1.98 Iulius Pollux in very perspicu∣ous tearms, puts it down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That the gold was in a ten∣fold proportion to the silver one may evidently learn out of Menanders' paracatathece.t 1.99 The Scholiast of Aristophanes implies as much. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Darics are golden stuters, each of them is worth as much as that which is named by the Atticks the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They are called so not from Darius the Father of Xerxes, but from another King more ancient then hee. Some say that the Darick is valued at XX. drachmes of silver, so that V. Darics are worth a mina of silver. For the Attick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or mina, containing an hundred drachmes in weight, as it is very cleer out ofu 1.100 Pliny,* 1.101 * Pol∣lux, and others. Mna (saith Pliny) quam no∣stri minam vocant, pendet drachmas Atticas cen∣tum. And Pollux, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The mina with the Athe∣nians containeth an hundred Attick drachmes, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Da∣rius, consisting of two drachmes in weight, as vve shall presently prove, it vvill necessarily follow that the proportion of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was

to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in decuplâ ratione: and therefore that five Daricks, or ten drachmes of gold, were equall in valuation to an hundred drachmes in silver, that is, to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The same proportion may be collected out ofy 1.102 Polybius, vvhen the Romanes upon a summe of mony to be received, concluded a peace with the Aeto∣lians. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which wordsz 1.103 Livy renders thus. Pro argen∣to si aurum dare mallent, dare convenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus valeret. This being granted, as certainly of necessity it must, I would correct that place ofa 1.104 Hesychius concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and read it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. & not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. as it is in the printed copies. And by this of Hesychius I would supply the defect of b 1.105 Suidas, who writes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and make it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For without the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there is no sense: And I beleeve Suidas took these very words out of Hesychius.

Having thus found the proportion that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had to the silver, our next inqui∣ry is, how many of these drachmes in weight the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or aureus contained. c 1.106 Iulius Pollux gives us in this particular the best, and most positive information of any, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The golden sta∣ter [or aureus] contains two Attick drachmes. The same is confirmed byb 1.107 Hesychius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Polemarchus saies that the aureus amongst the Athenians contains two drachmes; and that the drachme of gold is worth ten drachmes of silver. And to this of Pollux and Hesychius all the aurei of the ancient Grecians, which have passed through my hands, doe very well correspond. Now these aurei as they had severall impresses upon them, so had they severall names, by which they are distin∣guished. For they were either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the like, all which we may prove by Xenophon,* 1.108 Harpo∣cratio, the Scholiast of Aristophanes, and others, to have been equall unto two Attick drachmes, and therefore respectively equall to one ano∣ther. Neither is this much to be wondred at, that the Grecians, and Persians, though at enmi∣ty amongst themselves, yet should agree in the aurei; seeing that in our times, the Venetian Chequeen, the Barbary Ducat, the Aegyptian, and Turkish Sherif, are almost all of the same purenesse in respect of the gold, and not diffe∣ring above a grain in the weight. Which diffe∣rence we may also allow to those of the An∣cients, without any prejudice to our inquiry. Concerning these aurei, or golden staters, the observation ofe 1.109 Iulius Pollux is worth our con∣sideration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of the staters some were denominated from Darius, some from Philip, some frō Alexander & were al of gold. And when you say

the aureus, the stater is understood, but if you say the stater, the aureus is not always meant. And this is most true; for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or aureus (I speak not here of the aureus Romanus, this being somewhat lesse then these mentioned by Pollux) did alwaies imply the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not alwaies infer the aureus: the stater being more generall, signifying as well the argenteus, as the aureus, and that was double to this; the stater argenteus being four drachmes, as we proved before, and therefore the same with the tetra∣drachme, & the aureus two drachmes, and there∣fore equall in weight to the didrachme. Where∣fore every aureus was rightly called a stater, but every stater could not rightly be called an aureus.

From these aurei then, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vve may deduce the silver Attick drachme, if we either had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some of which to this day are found in Persia, or if we had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To passe by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because I have not perused any of them, and to speak onely of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which there are many extant.

Concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.110 Snellius writes thus. Philippi nummum unicum, & Alexandri Macedonum, solertissimus veterum nummorum aestimator Nicolaus Rockoxius possidet, utrumque eodem ponere granorum 179. Now CLXXIX. grains of gold in Holland, such as Snellius used, are answerable to an hundred thirty four grains English and an half. Neer vvhich proportion I have observed two others, with the inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, excepting onely a grain, or two.

As for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I finde the weight of

one of the fairest for impression, and character, I think in the world, which I bought at Alexādria, with the image, and inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be exactly of English grains 133 ••, and ano∣ther at Constantinople 133, and in the same pro∣portion severall others. With which comparing one of mine honoured and learned friend Iohn Marshā Esquire, I find his a grain defective: And weighing since some others out of that choice, & rare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of ancient coins collected by the noble Sir Simonds D' Ewes, Knight Baronet, I observed two of his to exceed 133 by ½ a grain.

Wherefore I may conclude (allowing onely half a grain for so much wanting by time, or by the mint) from the aureus being double to the Attick drachme, that it hath been rightly assigned by me to be LXVII. grains; And from this with those limitations above mentioned I may conclude the denarius Consularis, (which is our principall inquiry) seeing* 1.111 Galen li. 8. c. 3. de compositione Medicam: according to the La∣tine manner of division), speaking of an anti∣dote prescribed by Asclepiades, whereof the do∣sis was to be one drachme, or denarius, writes thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I suppose, that he means the silver drachme, for so all the later Physicians are wont to call it, neither will the nature of the thing suffer us to understand any other. And it is manifest ••hat in such things as we all now name the drachme,

the Romanes name the Denarius.

The denarius also, as we proved before out of Philo, Iosephus, Saint Hierome, and Hesychius, may be inferred by the Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel: the shekel, by the joint testimony of all of them, being equall in valuation to the At∣tick stater argenteus, or tetradrachme, and the Attick tetradrachme, as we have shewed, to 4 denarii Consulares: if therefore an Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel in silver, fair, and not impaired, were found, we might by this as well discover the denarius, as by the tetradrachme, or the aureus. And here I must confesse I have not seen so many perfect, and entire, with the Sa∣maritane characters, vvhich certainly are the best, and truest, (For those with the later cha∣racters, invented, as some suppose, by Esdras, are most of them counterfait) as to give my self satisfaction. For though I have perused that of Arias Montanus, now in the University of Oxford, which he describes in his tract de Siclo, and from whence he deduces the proportion of the Hebrew shekel, yet to speak the truth, there is no trust to be given to it: Not but that the coin is very ancient, and the inscription upon it in Samaritane characters well made; but the sides of it have been so filed away, that it hath very much lost of the true weight. For I finde it to be scarce the weight of twenty pence of our English Standard. Whereas Montanus, if he made his observation exactly, equals it to al∣most four Spanish rials, or to four Romane Iu∣lios': bo•••• which exceed two of our English shil∣lings. So that till such time as I may procure out

of the East, (whither I have often sent) some perfect shekels, I must be content to take up the relations of others. And here I shall begin with Moses Nehemani Gerundensis a Jew, a learned expositor of the Pentate••ch, who as Arias Mon∣tanus tels us, flourished in Catalonia above 400 years since. His words, as Montanus hath deli∣vered them in his tract de Siclo, are these.g 1.112 In comment, Exod. 39. multis verbis disserens signi∣ficabat se non facile ad Salomonis Iarrhaei, qui ante illum in Galliâ scripserat, sententiam de siclo accedere; cum Salomon affirmasset, Siclum esse dimidiam argenti unciam. Postea jam absolu∣to in omnem Legem Commentariorum opere, i∣dem Moses Gerundensis capite ad eam rem pro∣priè addito, sicli aestimationem à Salomone illo indi∣catam, re ipsâ doctus, ingenuè, & apertè, ut viros doctos, & veri inveniendi, atque docendi cupidos decet, comprobavit. Narrat autem se eo anno, quo illa scriberet, in Palaestinam ex Hispaniâ sacrorū locorum visendi causâ navi delatum Acconam, quam nunc Iachan vocant, devenisse; ibidémque sibi ab incolis ostensum fuisse nummum argent••∣um antiquissimum, expressis tamen signis & lite∣ris conspicuum; in cujus altero latere forma esse•• vasculi illius, quod mannâ plenum in sacra arca ad saeculorum monumentum, Dei jussu, & Mosis procuratione fuerat repositum: & in altero ra∣mus ille admirabilis, quem in fasciculum virgu∣larum plurimarum Aaronis nomine illatum (cùm illius sacerdotali dignitati ab aemulis quibusdam obtrectaretur) posterâ die populus omnis florentem, amygdaláque explicantem vidit; inscriptiones eti∣am fuisse in eodem nummo Samaritanis ch••racteri∣bus,

quae olim communes totius Israelis literae fue∣rant, ante discessionem decem tribuum à duabus, lingua planè Hebraica, quarum exemplum ex al∣terâ parte erat SEKEL ISRAEL, quod Lati∣nè sonat Siclus Israelis: ex alterâ verò IERV∣SALEM KEDESSAH, hoc est Ierusalem sancta: qui nummus antiquitatem cùm primis magnam probabat, utpote cusus nomine Israelis, eo tempore quo omnes XII. tribus communi concor∣dia Israelis nomen obtinebant; quóque Hieroso∣lyma ipsis omnibus regia urbs, sanctaque erat; ea∣demque communis omnibus & religionis, & publi∣cae rei & monetae, atque literarum ratio, quae po∣stea discessione factâ, alia atque alia utrique parti fuit. Namque Iudaei, ut omnes ferè scriptores asserunt, ne cum Schismaticis Israelitis ullo Sa∣crorum usu communicarent, eam Literarum for∣••••am, quae nunc etiam in usu est, hoc est qua∣dratam, mutatis valde alterius prioris figuris, ad∣••invenêre. Affirmat praeterea idem Gerundensis, nummum illum, qui Siclus inscribebatur, sibi in staterâ pensum dimidiae argenti unciae pondus red∣didisse, ostensam quoque alteram monetam dimi∣diato pondere minorem, iisdem omnino vasis & rami figuris quae tamen non SEKEL, sed HHAS∣ZI SEKEL, ho•• est dimidius Siclus diceretur▪ probari itaque sibi vel maximè Salomonis Iar∣rhaei, de sicli pondere, & valore, sententiam. Thus far Gerundensis: who if he had expressed with what half ounce he compared his shekel, or if Montanus had done it for him, they had given the judicious Reader better satisfaction. But this I suppose, by a a probable conjecture, may be supplyed, in saying that he living in Catalo∣nia

weighed it with the Catalonian, or Spanish half ounce; whichh 1.113 Villalpandus, andi 1.114 Ciaco∣nius, both of them Spaniards, make equall to the half ounce now used at Rome, that is, to two shillings three pence farthing, q. of our mony. This conjecture of mine will exceeding well confirm those many observations of Vil∣lalpandus, a man in this kinde very curious, which he made of severall ancient shekels in filver, who thus writes.k 1.115 Igitur ante aliquot an∣nos appendimus Siclum unum apud F. Vrsinum, & postmodum eos omnes, quos praecedenti capite percensuimus, atque comperimus singulos argenti siclos ex aequo semunciae Romanae antiquae responde∣re; ita ut ne minimum quidem hordei aut fru∣menti granulum, huic, vel illi lanci addi potuerit, quin in eam examen propenderet. Nec mirum cuiquam videri debet, antiquissimos nummos suo pristino ponderi nunc respondere, neque ullam ar∣genti partem vetustate consumptam tot saeculis fuisse. Nam singulari Dei beneficio nobis conti∣git, tot integros appendere potuisse siclos. Id quod nummi ipsi integri vetustatem maximè prae se ferentes, literae expressae, extantésque, argenti color, atque alia id genus multa, facile probant. With these observations of Villalpandus I finde the weight of a very fair Samaritane shekel of the truly noble, and learned M. Selden to agree: to whom I stand obliged for this favour, as he doth for the coin to the honourable Antiquary Sir Robert Cotton. To these testimonies, though (it may be) sufficient of themselves, I shall add * 1.116 one more, for farther illustration of the weight of the Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel, and that

is of an ancient, and fair one, in silver, amongst his Majesties coins, perused by the most reverend Primate of Ireland, a man of exquisite learning, and judgement, who hath often assured me that it weighs two shillings five pence of the En∣glish standard; which proportion excepting some few grains, in which it doth exceed, does well correspond with those of Villalpandus. And this may farther be confirmed out of the Tal∣mud l 1.117 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Argentum omne cujus in Lege fit mentio, intelligitur argentum Tyrium (ponderis & bonitatis ut in urbe Tyri: as m 1.118 Schlinder interprets it) sed Rabbinorum argentū intelligitur argentum commune provinciale. Ta∣king therefore the silver mony of Judea, as the Talmud doth, to be equall to the Tyrian, and that of Carthage to be equall to that of Tyre: as it is very probable, that the Carthaginians, being a plantation of the Tyrians, might observe their proportions in coins, as vvell as their customes, in religion, we may by these discover the shekel to be much about the same weight that hath been assigned. Forn 1.119 Ant. Augustinus, describing in his dialogues the weight of two fair Cartha∣ginian coins in silver, writes, that they are each of them somewhat more then four drachmes, that is, as he elsewhere explains himself, a litle more then half the Romane ounce. If therefore we shall adhere to the observation of Gerunden∣sis, made four hundred years since, or to these later of Villalpandus, and others; or to this conjecture of mine, the Hebrew shekel, and half the present •• Romane ounce, are either both

the same, or else very neer in proportion.

And this may easily be granted; but if it be, how vvill 4 denarii Consulares, 4 Attick drach∣mes, and the Hebrew shekel, be reciprocally equall one to another, as they should be by those severall testimonies before alleaged? Whereas ••y many hundred denarii Consulares, tried by a•• exact balance, I finde the best of these to contain LXII. grains English, and the Attick drachme LXVII. And the fourth part of the shekel to be but LIV. grains ¾ if we admit of Gerundensis, and Villalpandus' observations. Which notwithstanding according to Philo, Io∣sephus, Saint Hierome, Epiphanius, and Hesychi∣us, should be equall to the Attick drachme, and the Attick drachme by the testimonies of the ancients should be likewise equall to the dena∣rius. For the solution of this objection I an∣swer. First, that the denarius, and Attick drach∣me, being distinct coins of different States, and not much unequall in the true vveight, it is no wonder, especially in Italy, and in the Romane dominions, that they should passe one for ano∣ther: no more then that the Spanish rials in our Sea Towns in England, should passe for testars, or the quarters of the dolar be exchanged for our shillings: whereas the riall in the intrinse∣call valuation is better then our testar by four grains, and somewhat more, and the quarter of the dolar is better then our shilling by more then 8 grains, or a penny; but because they want the valuation, character, and impres∣sion of our Princes, vvhich I call the extrinseck of coins, therefore doth the Spanish mony fall

from its true value with us, and so would ours doe in Spain. By the same analogy must vve conceive the Attick drachmes, though in the in∣trinseck they were somewhat better worth then the denarius, yet for want of the extrin∣seck, to have lost in Italy, and thereby to have become equall in valuation to the denarius. And this seems to be implied byo 1.120 Volusius Me∣tianus. Victoriatus enim nunc tantundem valet, quantum quinarius olim. At peregrinus nummus loco mercis, ut nunc tetradrachmum, & drachma, habebatur. Which words of his loco mercis, plainly shew they made some gain of the tetra∣drachmum, and drachma: as our Merchants, and Goldsmiths doe of the Spanish rials, and quar∣ters of a dolar: Which they could not doe, if they were precisely equall, but must rather be losers in the melting, or new coining of them. And therefore allp 1.121 modern Writers that have treated of this argument, some of them making the drachma lesse then the denarius, others e∣quall, but none greater, have been deceived by a double paralogisme, in standing too nicely upon the bare words of the Ancients, without carefully examining the things themselves. First, in making the denarius, and Attick drachme pre∣cisely equall, because all ancient Authors ge∣nerally expresse the Attick drachme by the de∣narius, or the denarius by the drachme; either

because in ordinary commerce, and in vulgar e∣stimation they passed one for another, in the Romane state; or else if any were so curious to observe their difference, as surely the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were, yet by reason of their neernesse, and to avoid fractions, and having no other names of coins that were precisely equall, whereby to render them, therefore all Greek, and Latine Authours, mutually used one for the other. And secondly, because some Writers, as Dioscorides and Cleopatra affirm, that the Romane ounce contained eight drachmes, therefore modern Authors infer, that the denarius being equall to the drachme, and eight drachmes being in the Romane ounce (as so many were in the Attick) that therefore there are eight denarii in the Romane, and consequently that the Romane, and Attick ounces are equall. Whereas Celsus, Scribonius Largus, and Pliny, as we shewed before, expresly write, that the Romane ounce contained in their time, which was after Dio∣scorides, seven denarii. And being naturall Ro∣manes, and purposely mentioning the propor∣tion of the denarius to the ounce, thereby the better to regulate their doses in physick, it is not probable, but they must better have known it then the Grecians. Besides, vvho with any cer∣tainty can collect out of these imperfect frag∣ments of Dioscorides, and Cleopatra (for those tracts of theirs de ponderibus are no better) whither at the first they wrote in that man∣ner, as they are now printed? Or if they did, why might not they indevour to introduce in∣to the Romane ounce, in imitation of the At∣tick,

that manner of division, which is now ge∣nerally received in our times, of making the ounce, of vvhat kinde soever it be, to contain eight drachmes. And surely this of eight being a compound number, as Arithmeticians use to speak, was much fitter then seven, used by the Romanes, which being a prime number, is there∣fore incapable of any other division. And then for to conclude, that because the Attick ounce had eight drachmes, and the Romane as ma∣ny, that therefore their ounces are equall: is all one as to conclude, that the Paris, and English ounces are equall, because the French as well as we (and so doe all Physicians of all Countries that I know) divide their ounce by eight drachmes. And thus, I suppose, I have suf∣ficiently answered the first part of the objection, concerning the Denarius, and the Attick dra••••∣me: that if we respect the vulgar and popular estimation, in which sense classicall Authours understood them (For they could not wel other∣wise render them, then as they were currant) so were they equall; but if we respect the intrin∣secall valuation, which depends upon the weight, especially when coins are of a like finenesse, so were they unequall: the Attick drachme being of our mony eight pence far∣thing q, and the denarius Consularis seven pence half penny farthing: allowing for the standard * 1.122 VIII. English grains to the silver penny.

Neither do I know any authority, that either expresly, or by a true, & logical consequence, can be produced out of Classical Authors to infringe this assertion of mine, unlesse it be one in Fan∣nius, which being a fragment is the lesse to be valued: and another in Livy, who thus writes, lib. 34. in his description of the triumph of Quinctius. Signati argenti octoginta quatuor millia fuere Atticorum, tetradrachmum vocant; trium ferè denariorum in singulis argenti est pon∣dus. Which words of his occasionedp 1.123 Georgius Agricola, not knowing how to answer them, to bring in a distinction of three sorts of denarii: the Gravis, weighing an Attick drachme, and an half, the Mediocris, one & a seventh part, the L••∣vis, most cōmonly one; without any cleer proof, or evidence in any ancient Author, and directly contrary to all ancient coins of the Atticks, and Romanes, which I have seen: of which errour he would not have been guilty (For there is no man that hath writ either de ponderibus, & men∣suris, or de re metallicâ, more solidly, and judi∣ciously then he) if he had been so happy as to have perused many intire Grecian aurei, & tetra∣drachmes, or else to have examined a greater, and more select quantity of Romane coins. To satisfie my self concerning that place of Livy, I had recourse to our MSS. here (and I could wish I had done the like in Italy) and these I finde to agree with the printed copies; though the coins, which are much ancienter then any MSS. constantly disagree. Wherefore if it be not a mistake in Livy himself, which I am not apt to beleeve in so grave an Authour, I would

correct the copies by the coins, and instead of III. ferè denariorum, make it thus, IV. ferè dena∣riorum. Where the figure V, being resolved in∣to two lines, and left a litle open at the bot∣tome, might easily be taken by the scribe for the figure II. And this I doe certainly* 1.124 beleeve is the true ground of that errour, wherewith so many of late have been perplext. However it were, it is as ancient as Priscian, or Pseudo-Priscian (as Capellus styles him) who, in his tract de ponderibus, reads those words of Li∣vy in the same manner, trium ferè denariorum.

As for the denarius aureus, a name I think not known to the Ancients, which Salmasius and others collect out ofq 1.125 Livy, de foedere Ae∣tolico. Pro argento si aurum dare mallent, dare convenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus valeret. I see no solid foundation for that opi∣nion; all that can be collected thence is, that the gold then was in decuplâ ratione to the silver, which I have proved before. And where∣as r 1.126 Plautus hath his denaria Philippea.

Nummi octingenti aurei in marsupio infuerūt, Praeterea centum denaria Philippea.

this is a metaphorical, or comical expression of him, and no certain sort of coin: which he pleasantly cals denarii, because half the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were equall in weight to the drach∣ma, and so also was the Romane denarius sup∣posed to be.

Nor are we to take the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is thrice mentioned by Saint Matthew, and once by Saint Mark, for the denarius, as some have done: no, nor for any other sort of coin. For it is pre∣cisely

the Latine word census, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tributū, and so is it rendred by Saint Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; vvhere Saint Matthew, and Saint Mark have it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Though Hesychius, and Moscopulus, both upon an errour, interpret it a sort of coin. Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as M. Casaubone corrects it: and Moscopulus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the census is a coin equall in weight to the drachme, that is, in the notion of the Greeks equall to the denarius. The errour of these two Greek Grammarians, is a misunderstanding the propriety of the Latine word census: and that occasioned them to take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the same. But the Evangelist Mat∣thew puts a manifest difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tributum, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the mony that was paid for tribute. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, writes Saint Matthew, shew me the mony of the tribute: or as our new Translation renders it, Shew me the tribute mony. And the three E∣vangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, immedi∣ately after expresly tearm this mony the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And they brought unto him a penny. Which being a Roman coin, and currant amongst the Jews, being then in subjection to the Romanes, it is more then probable that they paid their tribute to Caesar, in the same species of mony that was used by Caesar: and not with any new, or peculiar sort of coin, according to Baronius (which M. Casau∣bone hath justly confuted) but with the ordinary currant mony of Rome, and that was the denari∣us.

Our next solution should be of the shekel, how it could be equall to the tetradrachme, and con∣sequently to 4 denarii, when by the constant weight of the best Hebrew, or Samaritane shekels, extant, wee finde them to bee much lesse. And here I am a little unsatisfied, how to reconcile the coins to Philo, Iosephus, Epi∣phanius, Saint Hierome, and Hesychius: or else, if we admit of the coins (as I know no just ex∣ceptions against them) how to excuse these Aut••ours of too supine negligence in compa∣ring them, if so be they ever vvere so curious as to collate them vvith the Attick tetradrach∣mes. For if vve shall say that the silver stater, or Attick tetradrachme, vvas a forain coin, in re∣spect of the Rep. of the Jews, and therefore that in Judaea it might somewhat fall from its true valuation, vve shall say no more then what reason, and experience confirm. But then that the tetradrachme should sink so low, as to loose four pence half penny, if vve take the reverend Primates' observation before mentioned, or vvhich is more six pence q. if vve follow that of Gerundensis, and Villalpandus, or those of mine, upon two shillings nine pence half pen∣ny, for so much vvas the tetradrachme of our mony, it may seem too great a diminution: espe∣cially the Attick mony being as pure, and fine▪ as that of the shekel: and therefore no Gold∣smith amongst the Jews, but vvould have gi∣ven a greater rate onely to melt it, and turn it into bullion. Yet on the other side, vvhen I consider the practise of the mony-changers a∣mongst the Iews at this day, vvhich it may be 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

The sextarius, saith Fannius, contains one pound and eight ounces, whither vve weigh cleer water, or vvine: where by wine, according tod 1.127 Agricola, is to be understood, vinum fulvū, such as the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; rather I imagine that wine, which Galen cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sextarius then being one pound eight ounces of cleer water, or pure wine, and sixe sextarii being in the Congius, it is most evi∣dent that the Congius contains ten pounds of vvater, or of wine. This also appears by a Plebiscitum of the two Silii, Publius, and Marius, which is to be seen in the best copies ofe 1.128 Sextus Pompeius.

VTI. QVADRANTAL. VINI. OCTOGINTA. PONDO. SIET CONGIVS. VINI. DECEM. IS. SIET SFX. SEXTARII. CONGIVS. SIET. VINI DVO. DF. QVINQVAGINTA. SEXTARII. QVADRANTAL. SIET. VINI SEXTARIVS. AEQVVS. AEQVO. CVM. LIBRARIO. SIET

The same is confirmed byf 1.129 Dioscorides: who, for farther certainty, mentions with what sort of vvater vve should measure it: and that is with rain* 1.130 water, which he makes to be the most infallible of all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Chus, (that is, the Congius) contains ten pounds, the se∣micongius five, the sextarius one pound, and eight ounces, &c. The weight of water, and of Vine∣gar is the same. They say that if it be filled up with rain water, the weight will be most certain.

* 1.131 The Congius weighs seven hundred and twen∣ty drachmes. An Anonymus Greek Author, falsly reputed to be Galen in the edition at Venice, confirms the same,f 1.132 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Amongst the Romanes is found the Congius, con∣taining in measure six sextarii (that is) XII Cotylae: but in weight, of rain water, which is most infalli∣ble, DCCXX. drachmes. And whereasg 1.133 Dioscorides elsewhere writes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Congius hath nine pounds, the semicongius four and an half, the sextarius one and an half; there is no repugnan∣cy

between this, and his former assertion. For here he speaks of the Congius filled with oil, and before of the same Congius filled with water, or wine: and that this should be but nine pounds, whereas the former is ten, is no more repug∣nant to reason, then it is to nature, that oil should be lighter then water, or wine: which h 1.134 Ghetaldus, in his Archimedes promotus, hath de∣monstrated the most accurately of any man, to be in the proportion that 1 is to 1 1/11 in re∣spect of water, and as 1 is to 1 4/55 in respect of wine: which is almost the same with Dio∣scorides. The not observing this difference of weight, arising from the different gravity of severall liquors, in vessels of one and the same capacity, is that which hath occasioned much incertainty, and confusion, in modern writers. And therefore we shall for farther perspicuity insert that distinction, which is often inculcated byi 1.135 Galen, that the Romanes used two sorts of ounces, and pounds: and those were either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ponderall, or mensurall: the one had respect solely to the gravity, the other to the moles, and gravity conjointly: the for∣mer were alwaies certain and fixt, consisting of solid matter: the later were Vasa (frequent∣ly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) being receptacles, and measures of liquid substances: and therefore the librae, and unciae mensurales, in these vvere greater or lesse, according as the liquor to be measured vvas heavier, or lighter. Whencek 1.136 Galen blames Physitians for not expressing this difference. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And he gives the reason of it.l 1.137 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the ponde∣rall examine the weight of bodies, but the mensural the moles. But to return to the Congius, and by it to our discovery of the denarius. The water then must be naturall, either of some fountain, or of rain. For if it be artificiall, such as are made by distillations, whither by a strong reverberation, or by a gentle, in an alembeck, these having some∣what of the property of fire vvill be lighter then the naturall, asm 1.138 Agricola, and others observe. I shall produce two observations of the Congius vvit•• fountain vvater, made by two very emi∣nent, and able men, Villalpandus, and Gassendus, the one at Rome, with the Romane weights, from the* 1.139 originall Congius it self, the other at Aix, with the Paris weights, from a model, or copy of that at Rome, procured by Peireskius. And here to compare the denarius Consularis vvith their observations, it is necessary to have ex∣actly both the Romane, and Paris weights. The former, with as much accuratenesse, as it was

possible, were taken in Rome. The other vvere sent me by Monsieur Hardy, a learned man of honourable quality in Paris, who compared them vvith the Standard. To begin vvith that of Villalpandus, who gives us a large descripti∣on, with how much caution, and circumspecti∣on, and vvith how exquisite a balance he twice made his experiment, whereby he discovered the vveight of it in vvater to be exactly an∣swerable to ten such pounds, as are now used in Rome: Whence he concludes,n 1.140 Constanter asserimus antiquam Romanorum libram, unciam, ac pondera, tot aetatum successione, ac Romani imperii perturbationibus minimè immutata fuisse, sed eadem per manus tradita usque ad nostra tem∣pora perdurasse. This Romane pound of his reduced to the English Standard for silver, or

Troy vveight, vvith vvhich I have faithfully col∣lated it, is 5256 grains English, such as the Troy pound is 5760: the whole Congius there∣fore consisting of ten pounds, will be 52560 Eng∣lish grains. The other observation is related byo 1.141 Gassendus, in his elegant discourse de vitâ Peireskii. Vt paucis ergo res dicatur, cautiones adhibuimus easdem, quas Lucas Paetus, & Villal∣pandus, dum vas ipsum, ad summum collum pute∣ali aquâ opplevimus, expendimus, vasis pondus subduximus. Deprehendimus autem aquam, quae Romano pondere esse debuit decem librarum, seu unciarum centum viginti, esse pondere Parisiensi (quale nempe Parisiis exploratum, missumque est) librarum septem, minus unciae quadrante: seu unciarum centum undecim, & quadrantum unciae trium. Deinde ex hac proportione collegimus unci∣am Romanam continere grana quingenta, & tri∣ginta sex, qualium quingenta septuaginta sex in Parisiensi continentur: unde & illis in drachmas collectis, obvenere cuilibet drachmae grana sexa∣ginta septem: idque proinde censuimus pondus denarii Caesarei, quem dictum est fuisse* 1.142 drachma∣lem. Now the Paris ounce sent come by Mon| 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

unto him Caesars'. This denarius Caesareus, if wee respect some definitive quantity, and weight, was as various, and uncertain, as the denarius Consularis of the later Consuls was constant, and fixt: being under the first Emperours, sometimes more, sometimes lesse, as the reasons, and exigencies of the State did require, or the profusenesse, and prodigality of those times. Yet this uncertainty (as far as I have observed) was limited within some certain, and deter∣minate bounds: the denarius Caesareus never exceeding the seventh part of the Romane ounce, and never being lesse then the eighth part, but often in a middle proportion between both, and that with much inequality. And this madeb 1.143 Villalpandus, after many experiments at Rome, to conclude, that out of the denarii no∣thing concerning the Romane weights could be determined. Though Portius, Agricola, Ciaco∣nius, Snellius, and severall others, before, and af∣ter him, are of a contrary opinion. And it may be, if Villalpandus had distinguished between the difference of times, and in them of the different coins, and considered those of the Con∣suls, distinctly from those of the Caesars, and those of the former Caesars, from those of the later, he would have reformed his judgment▪ For it plainly appears, upon examination, tha•• the diminution of their weight was an invention introduced after Antonius the Triumvirs' time wherasbefore the denarius was fixt. Miscuit, saith c 1.144 Pliny, denario Triumvir Antonius ferrum, ali•• è pondere subtrahunt (his meaning is under th•• Emperours, to Vespasians', or his own time) cù••

sit justum octoginta quatuor è libris signari. Where he saies very well in speaking so generally, alii è pondere subtrahunt, without precisely limiting the proportion. For this, as we observed, was very various, and undeterminate: so that whereas the just number of the denarii, according to the practise of the later Consuls, should bee eighty four in the Romane pound, we finde by the weight of the best of them under the former Caesars, that they coined sometimes eighty sixe, eighty eight, &c. till at last there came to ••e ninety six denarii in the Romane pound, that is, eight in the ounce. And this, by a very necessary consequence, may be inferred out of another place of Pliny, if we take for granted, what some learned Moderns confesse, and the gold and silver coins found to this day, of the later Consuls, and first Emperours, strongly prove, that as the Atticks made their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or aureus, double in weight to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so did the Romanes make their aureus double in weight to the denarius. Which proportion they might borrow from the Athenians, and o∣ther Grecians, who,d 1.145 as Arias Montanus ima∣gines, first received it from the practise of the Hebrews: or rather, as I suppose, from the Phenicians, and these from the Hebrews. From whencesoever it came, it is not much materiall in our inquiry: that which we may safely con∣clude from thence is this, that the gold being, in respect of weight, double to the silver, the au∣reus Romanus falling in its weight, the denarius likewise of necessity must fall: else could they not have continued in duplâ ratione. Now in

what manner the aureus was first coined, and how afterwards it lost of its primitive weight, Pliny informs us.* 1.146 Aureus nummus, post annum LXII. percussus est, quam argenteus, ita ut scru∣pulum valeret sestertiis vicenis, quod efficit in libras ratione sestertiorum, qui tunc erant, se∣stertios DCCCC. Post haec placuit XL.M. signari ex auri libris: paulatimque principes imminuere pondus, imminuisse vero ad XL.VM. For this te∣stimony, and the former, we are to thank Pli∣ny, seeing there is neither Greek, nor Latine Au∣thor extant, from his time to Theodosius, that gives us any certainty, what to conclude con∣cerning the ancient coins. And therefore since this later is of great consequence, but some∣what corrupted, I compared it with the MSS. in the Vatican, and Florentine Libraries, and with a fair one in Baliol College, which renders the later part of it thus. Postea placuit X.XL. sig∣nari ex auri libris, paulatimque principes im∣minuere pondus, imminuisse verò ad XLVIII, vvhere for XLVIII.f 1.147 Villalpandus corrects, or rather corrupts, the text, in writing XLV. But Agricola, andg 1.148 Snellius read it by con∣jecture thus. Post haec placuit XLII. signari ex auri libris, paulatimque principes imminuere pon∣dus, minutissime verò ad XLVIII. Andh 1.149 Snellius gives a reason of it in his Eratosthenes Batavus. Nam ita argentei denarii, & aurei nummi ca∣dem manet analogia, pondere subduplo, ut quam∣diu octoginta quatuor argentei è libra, & è sin∣gulis unciis septem cudebantur, tam di•• quoque aurei duo & quadraginta libram implerent. Post∣quam vero argentei nummi pondus imminutum

est: ut sex & nonaginta in libram constituerentur, tum quoque duo de quinquaginta aurei, pondere tanto leviore, in singulis libris cudi coeperunt. Which conjecture seems not altogether impro∣bable, if we respect the later Consuls, and first Caesars, in whose times we finde the aurei to have been double to the denarii Caesarei; but surely long before Iustinian, the aurei, or as they were then also called the solidi, lost that proportion to the silver, and kept it onely to the s••misses aurei, to which they were double, as they were in a treble proportion to the tremisses.

Wherefore in stead of these conjectures (which have been the bane of many a good Authour) of Agricola, Villalpandus, and Snellius, I would read the later part of those words of Pliny, as the MSS. doe, till I can see some concluding reason, or good authority of ancient Authors to the contrary. For I doe not see why the Ro∣manes at the first might not coin forty aurei out of the libra, as well as forty silver teruncii out of the denarius: whichi 1.150 Varro assures us they did. And who knows whither at the first making of their gold coins, which was sixty two years, according to Pliny, after the first coi∣••ing of silver, they endevoured to keep them in ••uplâ ratione, in respect of weight: which gracefull manner they might afterwards intro∣••uce by commerce with the Grecians.

And here, ere I proceed any farther in my ••nquiry after the Denarius Caesareus, I cannot ••ut complain, either of the negligence of for∣••er times, or unhappinesse of ours: in that not

one Authour extant mentions the true weight of the denarii, under the Caesars.k 1.151 Xiphilinus re∣lates in his epitome of Dio, how Antoninus Cara∣calla corrupted, & abased the coins; but makes no mention of the weight. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To Antoni∣nus, as other things, so also his mony was adultera∣ted. For the silver & gold, which he gave us, the one was prepared of lead silvered over, and the other of brasse guilt.l 1.152 Suidas also speaking of the mone∣tarii writes thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Monetari•• are Ar••izans employed in the ma∣••ing of mony. These in Aurelians time corrup∣ted the mony, and, having slain their Gover∣nour Felicissimus▪ raised a civill warre: whom Aurclianus with much difficulty conquering, pu•• to death with exquisite torments. And many good laws were made, by severall Emperours against adulterating, and corrupting of coins 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••nd those executed with much severity, even in the time of Christianity. For we finde under the Emperour Constantine, that such as offended in this kinde, were not onely put to death, but to a cruell, and bitter death by fire. L. OM••NES SOLIDI. C. THEOD. SIQVIS SOLI••DI CIRCVLVM EXTERIOREM INCI••DERIT, VEL ADVLTER ATVM IN VEN••DENDO SVBJECERIT. Omnes solidi, in qui••bus

nostri vultus, ac veneratio una est, uno pre∣tio aestimandi sunt, atque vendendi, quanquam diversa formae mensura sit: quod siquis ali••er fe∣cerit, aut capite puniri debet, aut flammis tradi, vel aliâ poena mortifer â. Quod ille et••••m patietur, qui mensuram circuli exterioris adraserit, ut ponderis minuat quantitatem, vel figuratum soli∣dum, adulterâ imitatione, in vendendo subjecerit. In Constantius' time the same punishment was inflicted. L. PRAEMIO. C. THEOD. DE FALSA MONETA. Pr••mio accusatoribus proposito, quicunque solidorum adulter potuerit reperiri, vel à quoquam fuerit publicatus, illicò omni dilatione submot•• flammarum exustionibus mancipetur. And afterwards under V••lentinianus, Theodosius, and Arcadius, they were accounted, and suffered as rei laesae Majestatis. L. FAL∣SAE MONETAE. COD. EODEM. Falsae monetae rei, quos vulgò paracharactas vocant, Ma∣jestatis crimine tenentur obnoxii. But no where is it mentioned concerning the denarii, and quinarii, which vvere the nlver coins, in com∣mon use, how much should be their weight. Wherefore in such a silence of ancient Authors, we have no more solid, and sure foundation of our inquiry: then either by our selves to examine the weight of the fairest coins under the Empe∣rours: or else to relate, what others long before our time have observed, Antonius Augusti∣nus in generall informs us, when coins were at their highest perfection, and how they began to decline with the Romane Empire: as com∣monly when mony comes to be abased, and that the mint, like the pulse, beats too slowly, and

irregularly, it is an evident symptome of some distempers in the bowels of a Stateo 1.153 The medailes of all times (saith he) [are worthy to be observed by Artizans] beginning from Alexan∣der the great, in whose time they principally flourished, till the Emperour Gallienus, when they chiefly fell together with the Empire. From thence to the end of Iustinian, there are found good medailes of all the Emperours, but with a notable diminution of their politenes, and ancient perfection. Those which we have after Iustinian, are unsufferably bad. The fault by all men is assigned to the Huns, and Vandals, and Alanes, and Goths, and Longobards, and to other barba∣rous, and savage Nations, who conquered the grea∣test part of Europe. Erizzo, who lived almost an hundred years since, a very diligent man in the Romane coins, but it is to be wished that he had used more judgment in the explication of them, more particularly informs us.p 1.154 Having compared the weight of those sorts of mony, which are equall in weight to the Romane denarius, with the medailes of silver, which have the heads of the Romane Emperours imprinted, I have found them not a litle different, so that as it were all those medailes weigh lesse then the denarius. And

having also weighed those medailes which have the effigies of the Caesars, I have continually found them different amongst themselves in weight. This uncertainty so troubled Villal∣pandus, after many experiments made at Rome, that he knew not what to determine. And it seemsq 1.155 Blondus long before conceived it im∣possible. Haec omnia qualia per singulas aetates fuerint, examussim ostendere, non magis difficil••, quàm impossibile fuerit, non solùm quia obscuris, & nostrâ aetate ignotis verbis sunt à majoribus tradita, sed quia omnis ferè aetas suam habuit cu∣dendi varietatem, & formam. Wherefore, for farther satisfaction of the Reader, I shall re∣late some observations of mine own: especi∣ally those of the twelve first Caesars, which I took, with many others, by an accurate ba∣lance, from some choice cabinets in Italy. And first, I shall begin with the gold coins. For see∣ing the aurei under the former Caesars' were in duplâ ratione to the denarii, therefore the weight of those being known, we cannot be ignorant of the weight of the denarii Caesarei. Besides; they are not subject to be consumed by time, and rust, but onely ex intertrimento, and therefore wee may the safelier give credit to them. And lastly, because the difference, though but of a grain, is of some consideration in gold, the Ma∣sters of the Mint use to be the more circumspect about them: whereas in silver coins; since it is hardly worth the pains to stand precisely upon the excesse, or defect of every grain, there∣fore there are few of these so exact, but ei∣ther exceed, or want, in the very mint, one

or two graines, and sometimes more.

The weight of some aurei under the first twelve Caesars.

• * C. CAES. COS. III. Eng: grains. CXXIII7/12
  • * A second, on the reverse. A. HIR∣TIVS. PR CXXII¼
  • * A third CXXIV¼
• AVGVSTVS. CAESAR. III. VIR CXIX½
  • A second, on the reverse, OB CI∣VES SERVATOS CXIX⅕
  • * A third, on the reverse, DIVOS. AVG. DIVI. F CXIX
• TIBERIVS CXVIII¼
  • * A second
    • On the forepart TI. CAESAR. DIVI. AVG. F. AVGV∣STVS CXVII½
    • On the reverse, a tēple
• CALIGVLA. CLAVDIVS, on the reverse, S. P. Q. R. OB. CIVES. SERVATOS CXVII
  • A second CXVII½
  • A third CXVIII½
• * NERO, on the reverse, SALVS CXVI
  • * A second, on the reverse, JVPPI∣TER. CVSTOS CXIII½
  • * A third, on the reverse, CON∣CORDIA. AVGVSTA CXIII
• GALBA, on the reverse, CONCOR∣DIA. PROVINCIARVM CXV
• ...

• OTHO, on the reverse, SECVRITAS S. P. Q. R. CVIII¼
• VITELLIVS, on the reverse, LIBER∣TAS. RESTITVTA CXII 1/••
• VESPASIANVS, on the reverse, PACI AVGVSTI CXI
  • * A second, on the reverse, COS. III TR. POT. CXIV¼
  • A third, on the reverse, PONT. MAX. TR. P. COS. VI CXI
  • * A fourth, on the reverse, PACI. AVGVSTI CVIII¾
  • A fifth, on the reverse, PACI. AVGVSTI CX
• * T. VESPASIANVS, on the reverse, ANNONA. AVG CIX¼
• * DOMITIANVS. COS. II. CXIII
  • * A second, DOMITIANVS. COS. VI. CAESAR. AUG. F. on the reverse, IVVENTVTIS. PRINCEPS CXII¼

These aurei were selected by me, out of seve∣rall others, as the fairest and intirest; and amongst these to such as I have prefixed an asterisc, they are such as seemed so perfect, that I could make no just objections against them. By these it appears thatr 1.156 Pliny, speaking of the gold coins, rightly informs us. Paulatím{que} Principes imminu∣ere pondus, imminuisse vero ad XLVIII. That by degrees the Emperors lessened the weight [of the aurei] to the forty eighth part of the Roman pound; that is, to the fourth part of the ounce. For this

is the lowest weight, that I find, till Heliogabalus time, who coined new sorts of aurei, different from what had been the constant practise of the Romane State: some of which vvere the fiftieth part of the libra Romana, and others a∣gain so massy, that they were centeni, or bilibres; which not long after were altered, and abolish∣ed, by Alexander Severus. The manner is ex∣pressed bys 1.157 Aelius Lampridius, in the life of A∣lex: Severus. Formas binarias, ternarias, & qua∣ternarias, & denarias etiam, atque amplius, usque ad bilibres quoque, & centenas, quas Heliogabalus invenerat, resolvi praecepit, nec in usu cujusquam versari: atque ex eo his materiae nomen inditum est, cùm diceret plus largiendi hanc esse Imperato∣ri causam, si cum multos solidos minores dare posset, dans decem vel amplius unâ formâ, triginta, & quinquaginta, & centum dare cogeretur. Un∣der the same Alex: Severus began the semisses aureorum, and tremisses to be coined, which had not formerly been in use. The semisses were an∣swerable in weight to the denarii Caesarei, when they were least, that is, ninety six in the Romane pound; though Agricola, Villalpandus, and o∣thers, upon a mistake, equall them then to the drachma Attica.t 1.158 Aelius Lampridius writing of Alex: Severus, plainly expresses that in his time they began. Túm{que} primum semisses aureorū formati sunt, tunc etiam, cum ad tertiam partē au∣rei vectigal decidisset, tremisses, dicente Alexandro etiam quartarios suturos, quòd minus non posset. Af∣terwards, Constantine, Constantius, Iulian, & other succeeding Emperours, lessened the weight of the aurei, whereby there came to be seventy two in

the Romane pound, so that each of them weigh∣ed the sextula, ot four scrupula. That the aurei of Constantines' time were sixty two in the Ro∣mane pound, is most evident out of the Codex Theodosianus, where they are also absolutely called Solidi, without the addition of aurei. u 1.159 L. SIQVIS. C. THEOD. DE PONDERA∣TORIBVS, ET AVRI INLATIONE. Siquis solidos appendere voluerit auri cocti, septem soli∣dos quaternorum scripulorum, nostris vultibus fi∣guratos, adpendat pro singulis unciis. XIV. verò pro duabus, juxta hanc formam omnem summam de∣biti inlaturus: eâdem ratione servandâ, etsi ma∣teriam quis inferat, ut solidos dedisse videatur. x 1.160 Pancirollus, in his thesaurus variarum lectio∣num utriusque juris, reads VI. solidos, instead of VII. and XII. instead of XIV. And that it must necessarily be so, besides that the solidi of Constantine now extant prove as much, may bee collected out of the proportion of weight, vvhich is here assigned by Constantine himself to the solidi, and that is four scruples, or the sextula. For the solidus containing four scru∣ples, and the ounce containing twenty four scruples, there will therefore be sixe solidi in the ounce; againe, the pound consisting of twelve ounces, and the ounce of sixe solidi, the whole pound therefore will consist of seventy two solidi. These aurei by Iustinian in like manner are termed solidi. L. QVOTIESCVNOV E. C. DE SVSCEPTORIBVS, PRAEPOSITIS, ET ARCARIIS. Where he also defines the same weight.* 1.161 Quotiescunque certa summa solidorum pro tituli qualitate debetur, & auri massa trans∣mittitur,

* 1.162 in LXXII. solidos libra feratur accep∣ta. The same thing is implicitly confirmed by Isidorus (l. 16. Orig. c. 24.) Solidus alio nomine sextula dicitur, quod iis sex uncia compleatur. Hunc ut diximus, vulgus aureum solidum vocat, cujus tertiam partem ideo dixerunt tremissem, quod solidum faciat termissus. Wherez 1.163 Agricola, I i∣magine, truly findes fault with him for calling the solidus, sextula; though the proportion he assigns is right, that is, that the solidus was the sixth part of the Romane ounce, and contained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the weight of the sextula; as it is atte∣sted by* 1.164 Zonaras: or, which is all one, that se∣venty two solidi were made out of a Romane pound, as Iustinian before expresly assigned: and as infinite store of the solidi, or aurei, from Con∣stantine to Focas, which I have weighed, mani∣festly prove.

In the same place ofa 1.165 Isidorus we may col∣lect the reason, why the aureus was called so∣lidus. After that, the semisses, and tremisses aurei were coined, the aureus was called soli∣dus, because nothing was wanting to it. So∣lidum enim Antiqui integrum dicebant, & totum: In which sense the solidus was also taken for the libra, or assis; that is, as the assis is taken for the whole, according to that usuall phrase of Civi∣lians

ex asse haeres, when one is heir to the whole inheritance: so the solidus was taken for the whole assis.b 1.166 Volusius Metianus. Prima divi∣sio solidi, id est librae quod as vocatur, in duas partes dimidias deducitur. From hence (saith c 1.167 Salmasius) the Romanes called that the solidus au∣reus, when it had the same weight in gold, which the solidus, that is, the assis had in respect of brasse, that is, two drachmes. Though I rather suppose that the aureus was called solidus, first of all in Se∣verus' time, not for containing two denarii in weight, (which Salmasius cals drachmes) for so it alwaies did under the later Consuls, and first Emperours, but because the aureus was then first d••vided into two parts, that is, into the semisses, and tremisses, and so relatively to these the whole aureus was rightly called solidus. Of the same opinion isd 1.168 Agricola. Quos aureos, cùm re∣spectum ad semisses & tremisses haberent, tunc primò dixerunt solidos, quòd semisses ex dimidiâ eorum parte, tremisses ex tertia constarent.

The semisses, and tremisses, of the other Em∣perours, at some distance after Severus, came to be lesse in the same proportion, as the aurei were lessened. For the aurei of Severus were double to the denarii Caesarei, and therefore but forty eight in the pound, and not fifty as Helio∣gabalus made, whose errour Severus corrected. But when the later Emperours made seventy two aurei out of the Romane pound, the semisses came also to be diminished, and were half of these new aurei, and not of the former, and the tremisses the third part. And here the aurei lost that proportion, which they kept before of be∣ing

double to the denarii. Of these tremisses is Justinian to be understood, L. FORTISS. MI∣LITIBVS. COD. DE MILIT ARI VESTE Fortissimis militibus nostris per Illyricum non bi∣nos tremisses pro singulis clamydibus, sed singulos solidos dari praecipimus. And this may be farther proved by a fair* 1.169 tremissis in gold of mine own of Iustinian, with the inscription D.N. JU∣STINIANUS, weighing twenty one grains Eng∣lish, and therefore wanting onely three grains ⅓, which it may have lost by time: otherwise it would be exactly the 216^th part of the Ro∣mane pound, that is, the third part of the aure∣us, or solidus of those times: whereas if it had been coined to the proportion of the aureus, when there were forty eight in the pound, it should have weighed 36 grains ½, so that it must have lost 15 ½, a difference so great, in a peece of gold so fair, and withall of so small a quanti∣ty, altogether improbable. And therefore this coin alone, if no more were extant, would confute their opinion, who maintain, that the tremissis of Justinian differed not from the tre∣missis of Severus, and consequently the aurei of them both, better then the reasons produced by b 1.170 Covarruvias to the contrary have done.

The weight of some of the fairest Aurei of the Romane Emperours, from Nerva to Heraclius.

On the fore part of the Aurei are these characters.	On the reverse these.
	Eng: grains.
IMP. NERVA. CAES. AVG. P. M. TR. P. II. COS. IIII. P. P.	FIDES. EXERCITVS	111½
IMP. TRAIANVS. AVG. GER. DAC. P. M. TR P. COS. VI. P. P.	DIVVS. PATER. TRAI∣ANI	110½
IMP. CAESAR. TRAIAN. HA∣DRIANVS. AVG.	COS. II. P. M. TR. P. P. AVG	121⅝
ANTONINVS. AVG. PIVS. P. P. TR. P. XII.	COS. IIII	119⅝
ANTONINVS. AVG. ARME∣NIACVS	P. M. TR. P. XVIII. IMP. II. COS. III. in Scuto Victoriae. VIC. AVG	118⅞
IMP. CAES. L. AVREL. VERVS. AVG	CONCORDIAE. AV∣GVSTOR TR. P. II. COS. II	117¾
L. VERVS. AVG. ARM. PARTHI. MAX	TR. P. V. IMP. III. COS. II	113⅛
M. COMM. ANT. P. FEL. AVG∣P. P	IOVI. VLTORI	114
SEVER. P. AVG P. M. TR. P. X. COS. III	FELICITAS. SAECVLI	114⅛
IMP. M. ANT. GORDIANVS. AFR. AVG	CAESAR. M. ANT. GORDIANVS. AFR. AUG	114
* Trebonianus Gallus	P. M. TR. P. IIII. COS II. P. P	75¾
* Gallienus	P. M. TR. P. III. COS. P. P.	74½
••MP. PROBVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIOSO. SEM∣PER	106
••MP C. CARINVS. P. F. AVG	SPES. AVGG	72½
... DIOCLETIANVS. P. F. AVG	IOVI. CONSERVAT. AVGG	77½

... MAXIMIANVS.	VIRTVS. MILITVM. T	74¼
CONSTANTINVS. MAX. AVG	SECVRITAS. REIPVBLI∣CAE infra TR	70 ••/••
CONSTANTINVS. P. F. AVG.	VIRTVS. AVGVSTI. N	68
CONSTANTIVS	GLORIA. REIPUBLICAE VOT XXX MVLTIS. XXXX. infra SNNS	70
IM. CAE. MAGNENTIVS. AVG	VICTORIA. AVG. LIB. ROMANOR infra TR	70¾
FL. CL. IVLIANVS. P. F. AVG	VOT. X. MVLT. XX. infra ANT	68¼
D. N. IOVIANVS. P. F. PERP. AVG.	SECVRITAS. REIPVB∣LICAE VOT. V. MVLT. X. in∣fra COS. P	68
D. N. VALENS. P. F. AVG	RESTITVTOR. REIP. infra ANTO	68¾
D. N. VALENTINIANVS. P. F. AVG	RESTITVTOR. REI∣PVBLICAE	69¾
A second—		69••
D. N. GRATI••NVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGG. in∣fra TROES	69
A second—		68¾
D. N. THEODOSIVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGG. in∣fra CON	68
A second—		69¼
D. N. ARCADIVS. P. F. AVG	NOVA. SPES. REIPVB∣LICAE intra corollam XX. XXX infra CONOB	67½
A second—		68
D. N. HONORIVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGGG statua, cui inscript. R. V infra CONOB	69 ••/••
A second—		69
A third D. N. HONORIVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGGG. N.D. infra CONOB	68••
D. N. THEODOSIVS. P. F. AVG	IMP. XXXXII. COS. XVII P. F. infra CONOB	69½
D. N. PLA. VALENTINIANVS.	VICTORIA. AVGGG.

infra CONOB	68
D. N. VALENTINIANVS. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGGG infra CONOB	69¼
D. N. VALENTINIANVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGG. infra TROES	68
D. N. IV••. NEPOS. P. F. AVG.	VICTORIA. AVGGG. A. infra CONOB	69••
D. N. ANASTASIVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGGG. infra CONOB	68½
D. N. IVSTINIANVS. P. F. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGGG. A infra CONOB	69
D. N. FOCAS. PERP. AVG	VICTORIA. AVGG. infra CONOB	68
D. N. FOCAS. PERP. AVG	VICTORIA. AVG. in∣fra CONOB	69¾
.... HERACLIVS		69••
a second		69••

And thus much of the aurei under the former, and sater Emperours, as they serve to illustrate, and prove the weight of the denarii Caesarei, which is our next, and principall inquiry.

The denarii under the Caesars were almost as various, and unconstant, as the aurei, sometimes more, sometimes lesse; and if they had not been so, they could not have kept that proportion to the aurei of the former Emperours, which we assigned. From Augustus time to Vespa∣sian, as I finde by examining many of them, they continually almost decreased, till from being the seventh part of the Roman ounce, they came now to be the eighth part: and therefore ninety sixe were coined out of the Romane libra, whereas before under the Consuls eighty four. From Ve∣spasian to Alex: Severus, as far as I have obser∣ved,

the silver continued at a kinde of stay in re∣spect of weight, excepting onely such coins, as upon some extraordinary occasion, both then, and in the first Emperours time, were stamped, either in honour of the Prince, or of the Em∣presse, and Augusta familia, or else in memory of some eminent action. These last, most usu∣ally were equall to the denarii Consulares, and many of them had these characters EX. S. C or else S. P. Q. R Under Severus, and Gordianus, the denarii began to recover their primitive weight, and came to be equall to the denarii Consulares, the half of which also were exactly the Quina∣rii: and so continued during the succeeding Em∣perours till Iustinian, with litle diminution, but most commonly with a notable abasement, and mixture of allay. After Justinian, there happe∣ned such a deluge of barbarous Nations, which overflowed the greatest part of Europe, that not only the coins, but even the liberall arts, and sciences, began with the majesty of the Empire to decline from their first lustre, and perfection.

Wherefore I shall not speak of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sort of silver coin in use, be∣fore, and after Iustinian, which some collect out of Cedrenus to have been the eighth part of the ounce,* 1.171 and therefore equall to the denarius, in the lowest valuation; though* 1.172 Suidas renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Scho∣liastes Basilic. Eclog. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to con∣tain twenty four 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But I shall not posi∣tively determine, either the weight of this, or of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or siliqua in silver, both coi∣ned when the Emperiall seat was translated

to Byzantium, unlesse I had examined some of the fairest of them. And for the same reason I shalll not define the Hebrew denarius, mentio∣ned by Elias in Thisbite, in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & by * 1.173 Moses Gerundensis upon Exodus, and by the Chaldy Paraphrase, 2 Reg. 5. 5. which I imagine to have been no other then the Romane denari∣us, used by the Jews: neither shall I determine the Arabian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dinar, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 derham: the former of which the Rabbins call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used by Rhasis, Avicen, Mesue, and by severall other Arabians, both Physicians, and Historians. All that can certainly be concluded is this, that by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dinar, when wee speak of a coin, is meant sometime the denari∣us, and sometime the aureus: but when we speak of a weight, alwaies the aureus is understood: ••s by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 derham, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or silver ••ram. But surely the quality of the thing is different from the name: the silver drachme of the Arabians, as it is generally now used in the Mahometane dominions in the East, consisting ••f XLVII. 41/52. grains English, (as I have found by ••eighing many of them) which is much lesse then ••ther the Drachma Attica, or the denarius Consu∣••ris: & somewhat lesse then the Denarius Caesare∣••••. And yet it is not improbable, but that this ••ay have continued with thē, without any dimi∣••tion, for sixe, or seven hundred years to our ••mes: as well as the Romane pound, and ounce, ••ave continued intire sixteen hundred years, and

better. But to omit any farther prosecutiō of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Arabians, which may here∣after more fully be discussed, when we shall han∣dle their measures, and weights, and to goe on with our discourse of the Romane denarius. After the breaking in of so many barbarous Nati∣ons, as of a torrent, into the Romane Empire, the denarius began generally to be disused, every one almost of these, as an argument of their So∣veraignty, and conquests, making new coins of their own: or else such as continued the former, either by allaies so abased the finenesse, and va∣luation of the coins, or by severall diminution•• so impaired the weight, that the denarius totally fell, and at last almost vanished into nothing▪ Neither will this seem strange, if we shall consi∣der that the like alteration, in respect of weight hath happened, by the revolution of a lesse time, in our own coins. I shall instance in our denari∣us, or penny, which in Ethelreds time, that is, a litle more then DC. years since, was the twenti∣eth part of the Troy, or silver ounce: asb 1.174 M•• Lambard in his Saxon Glossary observes, and a•• by experience I have found (and the same pro∣portion was anciently observed by thec 1.175 French in their denier). This proportion continued suc∣cessively to Ed••: the first, in whose time we find the weight of the denarius by* 1.176 Statute to be thu•• defined. Per ordinationes totius regni Angliae de∣narius Angliae, qui vocatur Sterlingus, rotundus sine tonsur à, ponder abit 32 grana frumenti in me∣dio spicae, & 20 denarii faciunt unciā, & 12 unci•• faciunt libram. Underd 1.177 Edward the third it cam••

first to be diminished to the twenty sixth part of the Troy ounce: and undere 1.178 Henry the sixth it fell to be the two and thirtieth. Inf 1.179 Edward the fourths time it came to be the fortieth. Un∣derg 1.180 Henry the eighth at first it was the forti∣eth, then the forty fifth. Afterward sixty pence were coined out of the ounce in the second year ofh 1.181 Queen Elizabeth; and during her reign sixty two: which proportion is observed in these times. So that it is evident that Ethelreds' penny was bigger then three of ours. And after times may see this of ours, as well as the Romane Denarius, to be quite diminished, and brought to nothing. For if either our own exigencies, or the exigencies of forain States, with whom we have commerce, cause us, or them (as occasions will never be wanting) to alter the proportions of the gold, and silver coins, either in respect of weight, or in respect of purity, or lastly, in respect of the valuation, the gold bears to sil∣ver; by all, or some of these causes, there will inevitably happen such a diminution of the pen∣ny (and proportionably of our other coins) that at length it will not be worth the coining. But I leave this speculation to such, whom it doth more neerly concern. And certainly it is a con∣sideration not of the least importance; mony being as the sinews, and strength of a State, so the life, and soul of commerce: and if those ad∣vantages, which one Country may make upon a∣nother, in the mystery of exchanges, and valua∣tion of coins, be not throughly discovered, and prevented, by such as ••it at the helm of the State, it may fare with them after much com∣merce,

as with some bodies after much food, that instead of growing full, and fat, they may pine away, & fall into an irrecoverable consumption. But I return to the Romane denarius, which vve have brought so low, that there is nothing now left of it, but only the name: and that also suffe∣red an* 1.182 alteration. For the later Greeks instead of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called it the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and both Greeks, and Latines, and sometimes the Arabi∣ans, took it not in the same sense, as it passed for in the first institution, that is, for a silver coin, worth in valuation ten, or sixteen asses, but for any sort of coin whatsoever. And therefore i 1.183 Meursius' observation, in his Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum, is worth our consideration. Postea 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dixerunt aevo corruptiore, & generaliter pro quâvis pecuniâ. Sicut Itali denaro. Galli Denier, Hispani Dinero. Anonymus de bello sacro.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Whence the learnedk 1.184 Jos. Scaliger rightly ob∣serves, that, ultimis temporibus denarii pro exigua stipe usurpati sunt, ut hodie in Gallia. Imperator Aurelianus: Philippeos minutulos quinquagenos, aeris denarios centum. Eos Vopiscus in Bonoso se∣stertios aeris vocat. Macrobius de nummo ratito lo∣que••s, qui erat sr••us: Ita fuisse signatum hodie∣que intelligitur in alcae lusu, cùm pueri denarios in sublime ••actantes, capita, aut navia lusu teste v••t••st••tis ••••••amant. In Evangelio secundum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hilarius 〈…〉〈…〉 inopis Deo acceptiores. Luc.

10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ambrosius, duo aer••▪ Ve∣tustissimus est igitur denarii usus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vel stipe. Thus far Scaliger.

Such an uncertainty being then, as we have mentioned, both of the aurei, and denarii, un∣der the first Caesars, in whose times the purest coins, and the best wits most flourished, and such an abasement, and impurenesse of the silver under the later Emperours, no reasonable man can imagine, that either the anci••nt Grammari∣ans, Poets, Oratours, Historians, or especially Physicians, whom it did most concern to bee precise, and most of which lived under the for∣mer Emperours, did ever allude to the weight of the denarius Caesareus, but rather to the Con∣sularis. And to this onely, and to no other, did the Attick drachme mentioned by Dioscorides, Cleopatra, Galen, Julius Pollux, Oribasius, and the rest of the Greek Authors correspond. And thus have we finished our discourse concerning the denarius, in the notion, and acception of the Ancients, both Greeks, and Latines.

Our next labour should be to compare it with the standards for weights of divers Nations, used in these times. For which I had recourse to the publick Zygostatae, and Ponderatores, in my tra∣vails abroad: and for my observations I must refer the Reader to this ensuing Table.

A Table of the gold, and silver* 1.185 weights of severall Nations, taken from their Standards, and compared with the Denarius.

• Eng: grains.
• SUch parts, or grains, of the Eng∣lish Standard for gold, and sil∣ver (or of the Troy weight) as the denarius Consularis contain∣eth 62, according to the weight of the best coins, or according to the weight of the Congius of Vespasian 62••
• The ancient, and modern Romane ounce containeth 438
• The ancient, and modern Romane pound, consisting of twelve ounces, containeth 5256
• The Troy pound, or English Stan∣dard of gold & silver; consisting of twelve ounces, containeth 5760
• The Troy, or English ounce, (to which five shillings two pence of our mony in these times are equall) containeth 480
• The Paris pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of XVI ounces 7560
• The Paris ounce 4721/••
• The Spanish pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of sixteen ounces, taken by me at Gibraltar 7090
• Another weighed by me at Gibral∣tar 7085
• ...

• The Spanish pound in Villalpandus, is (I know not by what errour) but 7035
• The Spanish ounce at Gibraltar (the pound consisting of 7090. grai. English) 4431/••
• The Venetian pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of XII. oun. 5528
• The Venetian ounce 460▪••
• The Neapolitane pound, or Stan∣dard for gold & silver, of twelve ounces 4950
• The Neapolitane ounce 4121/••
• The pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of twelve ounces, at Florence, Pisa, and Ligorn 5286
• The ounce at Florence, Pisa, and Ligorn 440½
• The pound, or standard, at Siena, for gold & silver of twelve oun. 5178
• The ounce at Siena 431½
• The ounce at Genoa, for gold and silver 405••
• The Turkish Okeh, or Oke, at Con∣stantinople, consisting of four hundred silver drams ••9128
• The silver dram generally used in the great Turks' dominions: as also in Persia, and in the Moguls' Countries, if I be not misinformed 47••
• The Turkish sultani, or Aegyptian sherif, being a gold coin, with w^ch the Barbary & Venetian chequeen, and Norimberg ducat, within a grain more, or lesse, agree. 53½
• ...

• The Ratel, or Rotulo, for gold and silver of 144. drams, at Cairo 6886••
• The Ratel, or Rotulo, for silk of 720 drams, at Damascus (with which I suppose they there formerly weighed their gold and silver; because most Countries use the same weights for silks, gold, and silver) 34430⅖

In this Table I judged it much fitter to compare the de∣narius, with the Standards for gold, and silver of severall Nations, then with their gold and silver coins, now cur∣rant. Because the pounds, and ounces of the Standard, continue alway the same; whereas the gold, and silver coins, being cut in severall proportions, according to the exigencies of the State, admit of severall alterations, and diminutions.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Vitruv. l. 3. c. 1.
• b 1.2

  Vol. Metia∣nus de assis distributione.
• c 1.3

  Plinius l. 33. c. 3.
• * 1.4

  Budaeus l. v de asse, corrects thése numbers by Livy (l.xxx) and reads them 478.
• d 1.5

  Varr•• l. 4. ••e Ling. Lat.
• e 1.6

  Vitruv. l. 10.
• f 1.7

  Columella l. 5.
• g 1.8

  Argentum sig∣natum est Ann•• Vrbis Dlxxxv. Q. Fabio Cos∣quinque annis ante primum bellum Punicū. Et placuit de∣narius pro X libris aeris, qui∣narius pro quin∣que, sestertium pro dupondio, ac semisse. Li∣brae autem pon∣dus aeris immi∣nutum bello Punico primo, cum impensis Resp. non suffi∣ceret, constitu∣tumque ut asses sextantario pondere feri∣rentur. Plin. lib. 33. c. 3.
• h 1.9

  Sext. Pompei∣us Fest. de verb. signif.
• i 1.10

  Plin. l. 33 c. 3. Ita quinque partes factae lu∣cri dissolutum∣que aes alienum.
• k 1.11

  Agricola lib. 2 de pondere & temperat mone∣tarum.
• l 1.12

  Villalp. de appar. urbis ac templi par. 2. l. 2. disp. cap 9.
• m 1.13

  Postea Hanni∣bale urgente, Q. Fabio Maximo Dictatore, asses unciales facti: placuitque de∣narium XVI. assibus permu∣tari, quinarium octonis sester∣tium quaternis: Ita Resp. dimi∣diū lucrata est. In militari ta∣men stipendi•• semper denarius pro X assibus datus. Nota argenti fuere bigae atque qua∣drigae, & inde bigati, quadri∣gatique dicti. Mox lege Papi∣ria semuncia∣les asses facti. Livius Drusus in Tribunatu plebis octavam partem aeris ar∣gento miscuit. Plin. l. 33. c. 3.
• n 1.14

  Vitruv. l. 3. c. 1
• o 1.15

  Budaeus l. 5. de asse.
• p 1.16

  Villalp. de apparatu Vrbis ac Templi.
• q 1.17

  Vitruv. l. 3. c. 1
• r 1.18

  Vol. Metianus de assis distrib:
• s 1.19

  Anton. August. dialogo. 1.
• t 1.20

  Dalechampius in Plin. l. 33. c. 3
• x 1.21

  Budaeus li. ••. de asse.
• * 1.22

  Cod. M.S. Tem∣porarii.
• y 1.23

  Polyb. l. 2.
• a 1.24

  Lipsius Ele∣ctor. 1. c. 2.
• b 1.25

  Varro lib. 4. de Ling. Lat.
• * 1.26

  The Consu∣laris again may be considered either in the time of the for∣mer, or of the later Consuls: that of the for∣mer Consuls, at the first institu∣tion of it by Q. Fabius five years before the first Pu∣nick war, Pei∣reskius not improbably imagines to have been the sixth part of the Romane ounce: and Agricola by comparing it with the ta∣lentum Atti∣cum, which Varro values at 15000. sestertii, and with the tetradrachme, which Livy (lib. ••4.) estimates trium fere denariorum, as also upon the authority of the Scholiast of Nicander, who equals the denarius to a drachme and an ••alf, as Priscian doth to a drachme and a third part, I say Agricola as∣••••gnes to it almost the same proportion with Peireskius. But because I ••ave seen no denarii Consulares of so great antiquity, and these authorities ••ay perchance admit of other constructions, I shall leave this opinion as onely probable, and follow what is more certain, and demonstrative, of ••e later Consuls.
• c 1.27

  Celsus lib. 5. c. ••7.
• d 1.28

  Scrib. Largus in praefatione.
• c 1.29

  Plinius l. 33. c. 9.
• f 1.30

  Plinius li. 21. ca. 34.
• g 1.31

  Iul Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• h 1.32

  Plinius l. 21. ca. 34.
• i 1.33

  Cicer. 16. l. 5. ep. ••d Attic.
• k 1.34

  Dio lib. 45.
• l 1.35

  Plinius lib. 8. cap. 57.
• * 1.36

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.)
• m 1.37

  Valer: Max: lib. 6. cap. 6.
• n 1.38

  Strabo li. 5. Geogr:
• o 1.39

  Fra••menta Cleopatrae
• * 1.40

  A. Gellius l••••. c. 8. Noct. Att.
• p 1.41

  Suidas in vo∣ce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 1.42

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.43

  Rhemn. Fann.
• s 1.44

  Fragmenta Cleopatrae.
• t 1.45

  Scholiastes Nicandri.
• u 1.46

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. ••. 6.
• y 1.47

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• z 1.48

  Ammonius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.49

  Fragmenta Cleopatrae.
• b 1.50

  Epiphanius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.51

  Matth. ca. 17. v. 24.
• d 1.52

  Iosephus li. 7. bell. Iud. ca. 27
• e 1.53

  Evangelia Pers. MSS. E∣ruditissimi Viri D. Pocockii.
• f 1.54

  Scal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in libr. de Emend. Temp.
• g 1.55

  Iosephus l. 3. antiq. Iudaic.
• * 1.56

  Philo de deca∣logo.
• i 1.57

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.58

  Hieronym. in Ezek. 3.
• * 1.59

  Such sicles, I conceive, were those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the XXX peeces of silver, which were given to Iudas, as the reward of his treason. Eusebius relating the story expresly, terms them silver staters, which an Hebrew would have termed either silver shekels, or absolutely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cesef: this in the Scripture phrase being frequently put for the shekel, and therefore the Syriack Translation of the New Testament reads it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Whence Tremellius hath this annotation. Observant▪ He∣braei, ubicunque in Scripturis argentcorum fit mentio, non expressâ numisma∣tis argentei specie, intelligi siclum sanctuarii aequivalentem quatuor dena∣riis. Some modern Writers imagine them to have been but XXX. denarii; But Baronius contends that they were, vel librarum argenti XXX, vel au∣reorum coronatorum trecentorum: And Arias Montanus, that they were either XXX. librae, or XXX. talenta. The most probable opinion is, that this sum was neither so great as Baronius, and Montanus make it, nor yet so litle as some Moderns would have it, but between both, and that is XXX. shekels. M. Casaubone in his Exercitations upon Baronius hath a probable con∣jecture to strengthen this assertion. Non enim temere factum videtur, quòd filius Dei qui sese exinanivit, assumptâ servi formâ, Phil. 2. 7. triginta ar∣genteis venderetur, sicut lege Dei mancipia totidem siclis aestimantur. Exod. 21. 32. & apud Iosephum lib. IV. c. VIII. Facit hoc quoque non parum ad Domini abjectionem declarandum, quando caput ejus tam parvi aestimatum est. A small price I confesse, XXX. shekels being lesse then XV. of our ordi∣nary crowns: But Hierome upon Saint Matthew thought it to bee as litle, who thus writes, as M. Casaubone renders him, Inselicem Iudam non co∣gitasse quanti pretii rem venderet. sed Christum mundi Salv••••••rem, Dei filium, ceu vile aliqu.d mancipium minimo pretio addixisse. Now the price of a servant we finde in Exodus to have been XXX. shekels.
• l 1.60

  Epiphaniue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• m 1.61

  Grsepsius de multiplici sicl••, & talento.
• n 1.62

  And all thy estimation shall bee ac∣cording to the shekel of the Sanctuary. Levit. 27. 25. Vet. vulg. sicl•• Sanctuarii pon∣derabitur.
• o 1.63

  1 Paral. 23. 29
• p 1.64

  Prov. 11. 1. i∣tem cap. 20. ver. 10. 23.
• q 1.65

  Rhemn: Fann. carmina de p••nd. & men∣suris.
• r 1.66

  Authentic. collat. 9. de col∣latoribus tit. 11. novel. 128. c. 15
• s 1.67

  Villalp. de ap∣par. urbis ac templi par. 2. lib. ••. disp. 4. c. 28. Item par. 2. li. 2. disp. 4.
• * 1.68

  Quae eidem aequalia, sunt aequalia inter s••. Eucl. ax. 1. l. 1.
• t 1.69

  Livius l. 34••
• u 1.70

  Iul Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• x 1.71

  Cicer. 6. Verr.
• y 1.72

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• z 1.73

  Liv. l. 34.
• a 1.74

  Plinius l. 33. ca. 3.
• * 1.75

  Plin. ib.
• b 1.76

  Plutarchus in Artaxerxe. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.77

  Plut. Agesil.
• * 1.78

  Virg. 1. Ae∣neid.
• c 1.79

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. ••. 6.
• * 1.80

  Heraclides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.81

  Heraclide•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.82

  Cicer. libr: 3. de natur•• de••∣rum.
• * 1.83

  Eustathii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.84

  Herodot. in vita Homeri.
• h 1.85

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• l 1.86

  Iul. Poll. ibid.
• * 1.87

  In Anchise.
• * 1.88

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• k 1.89

  Plautus in Poenulo.
• l 1.90

  Sextus Pom∣peius Fe ••us de Verb. signif.
• m 1.91

  Plautus in Poenulo.
• n 1.92

  Iul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6
• o 1.93

  Plutarchus in Lysandro.
• * 1.94

  I have since perused a fair Athenian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of my very worthy, and learned friend, Iohn Marsham Es∣quire, weighing completely 33 grains English. As also ano∣ther of Sir Tho. Roes, together with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his, weigh∣ing 11 grains.
• p 1.95

  Livius l. 37.
• q 1.96

  Bud. lib. 2. de asse. Rhodigin: lect: antiq. l. 10. c. 2.
• r 1.97

  Sextus Pom∣peius Festus de Verb: signif:
• s 1.98

  Iul Poll. l. 9. c. 3.
• t 1.99

  Scholiastes A∣ristophanis.
• u 1.100

  Plinius l. 21. c 34.
• * 1.101

  Iul. Poll l 9. c. 3.
• y 1.102

  Polybii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ ca. 28 Ex biblioth. Fulvii Vrsini. Antv. 1582.
• z 1.103

  Livius l. 38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zonaras.
• a 1.104

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.105

  Suidas in vo∣ce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.106

  Iul. Pollux libr. 4. c. 24.
• b 1.107

  Hesychius in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.108

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Ios. Scaliger rightly corrects the printed co∣pies, which ren∣der it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Har∣poer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Xenophonti sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Talen∣tum autem 600 drachmae. Ergo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sunt 20. drachmae. Scal. de re num.
• e 1.109

  Iul Poll. l. 9. c. 6.
• * 1.110

  Snellius de r•• nummariâ.
• * 1.111

  Galenus l. 8. de composit. me∣dicam.
• g 1.112

  Arias Monta∣nus de siclo. in libro qui inscri∣bitu•• Thubal 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sinc de mensurit.
• h 1.113

  Eaedem omni∣no sunt unciae, quibus olim Romani, Hispa∣nique utuntur. &c. Villalp. de ap∣par. Vrb. ac Templi par. 2. l. 3. c. 20.
• i 1.114

  Ciaconius de ponderibus pag. 45.
• k 1.115

  Villalpand. de app. Vrb••s ac Templi par. 2. l. 2. disp. ••. c. 28.
• * 1.116

  We may also insert the ob∣servation of Anton. Au∣gust. dialo∣go 2. Ne ho uno [siclo] che è d' argento, & è di peso di quattro dramme conforme à quello che dice San Girolamo sopra Ezechiel∣le: where by four drams he means half the Romane ounce.
• l 1.117

  Kiddushf. 11.
• m 1.118

  Schindlerus in pentaglotto.
• n 1.119

  Ant. August dia••og. 6.
• o 1.120

  Vol. Metia∣nus de assis di∣stributione. These words of Metianus I finde in a MS. of Temporarius thus corrected. Victoriatus e∣nim nunc tan∣tundem valet, quantum qui∣narius Olim ut peregrinus nummus loco mercis, ut nunc tetradrachmū, & drachma ha∣bebatur. Whi∣ther it be by conjecture, or that he found it in some ancient MS. I know not, but the e∣mendation I cannot but ap∣prove.
• p 1.121

  Budaeus drach∣mam putat ejusdem ponderis esse cum denario, Onuphrius verò inter utrum∣que statuit rationem sesquitertiam, Agricola sesquiseptimam, ut Panvinio tres denari•• quatuor drachmas, Agricolae verò septem denarii octo drachmas efficiant. Capel. de pond. & nummis l. 1. LXXXIV. denarii, quae est Libra Ro∣mana, sunt aequales XCVI. drachmis, quae est libra Italica, & medica. Scal. de re nummariâ.
• * 1.122

  These pro∣portions, with chose before, & those which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 follow, are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from the English stan∣dard at five shillings the ounce (as it was formerly coined) to a∣void fractions: that is, eight grains to the silver penny: whereas in these times it is five shillings •• two pence. Not that the ounce is increased, for this is alwaies constant and fixt, but that for reasons of State, our silver coins are diminished, and conse∣quently contain fewer grains. And this diminution must necessarily be, as often as other Nations, with whom we have commerce, rebate in the pro∣portions of their coins; or else we must be content to be losers.
• p 1.123

  G Agricolae responsio ad Al∣ciatum de pond. & mensuris. Argentei Ro∣manorum de∣narii triplices sunt: graves, qui pendunt arachmam At∣ticam cum di∣midia: medio∣cres, qui drach∣mam & scpti∣mam ejus par∣tem: leves, qui plerunque drachmam.
• * 1.124

  If this answer be not satisfa∣ctory, we may say, as some have done, that Livy, Fannius, and the Scholi∣ast of Nicander, speak of the de∣narii of the former Consuls immediately succeeding Q. Fabius, For there be∣ing but six of those in the ounce, (as they suppose) the de∣narius will bee greater then the drachma, as it will be lesse when seven were coined, under the later Consuls, which is our assertion.
• q 1.125

  Livius l 38.
• r 1.126

  Plautus in Rudente.
• d 1.127

  Agricola l 3. de ponder. rerū.
• e 1.128

  Sextus Pomp. de verb signif.
• f 1.129

  Fragmenta Dioscoridis.
• * 1.130

  The propor∣tion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rain water hath to fountain water, is as 10 0000 to 1007••22, & the proportion that it hath to water distilled, is as 1000000 to 997 65, as it hath been ob∣served by Snel∣lius in Eratosth. Bat l 2 c. Est in aequali mo••e ratio aquae pluviae ad di∣stillatam, quē∣admodum 100••000 ad 997065. plu∣viae autem ad putealem ut 1000000 ad 1007522.
• * 1.131

  This authori∣ty of Dioscori∣des, with that other citation following out of an Anony∣mus Greek Au∣thor, strongly proves my as∣sertion, that the drachma Attica was more ponde∣rous, then the denarius Consu∣laris. For there being eighty four of these denarii in the Romane pound, as we have elsewhere proved, and ten Romane pounds in the Congius, it is most evident there are DCCCXL. dena∣rii in the whole Congius. Again, DCCXX. drachmes, by the testimonies of Dioscorides, and this Anonymus writer, being equall to the Congius, and the Congius being equall to DCCCXL. denarii, therefore DCCXX. drachmes are equall to DCCCXL. denarii, and therefore of necessi∣ty every particular drachme of these, must be greater then each particular denarius. And though, according to my assertion, the Congius contain∣eth some few drachmes more then are by them assigned; yet that diffe∣rence, seeing it might many waies happen, as I afterwards shew in the like experiments of Villalpandus, and Gassendus, it cannot any way overthrow my conclusion. For the drachmes are still fewer then the denarii consulares, and therefore greater: which was the thing intended to be proved. And this my farther be confirmed, in that both Cleopatra, and this Anonymus Authour, make also the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or sextarius (being the sixth part of the Congius) to containe an hundred twenty drachmes of fountain water. Whereby it appears there is no errour committed in the former numbers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sextarius, saith Cleopatra, contains in measure two cotyls, but in weight an hundred and twenty drachmes. And the Anonymus writer,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sextarius contains in weight an hundred and twenty drachmes.
• f 1.132

  Anonymus Graec.
• g 1.133

  Fragmenta Dioscoridis.
• h 1.134

  Ghetaldus in Archim: pro∣moto.
• i 1.135

  GaleNus l 1. & 6. de comp. medicam. se∣cundum genera.
• k 1.136

  Li. 6. de com∣pos. medicam: sec: genera.
• l 1.137

  Lib 1. de com∣posit. medicam: secundum gene∣ra.
• m 1.138

  Perinde verò ut vinum hoc factitium omni nativo est levi∣us, sic aquae ferè omnes, quae ig∣nis calore rebus quibuscunque excoctis destil∣larint, quas ob id distillatas appeilant, caete∣ris aquis levio∣res sunt. Agri∣cola l. 3. de pondere rerum.
• * 1.139

  This Congius I had weighed, if I could have procured a ba∣lance of such exactnesse, as was fit∣ting for such a work. The want of which occasioned Villalpandus to suspect the observa∣tion of Paetus: though Paetus writes thus of himself. Plenum, cùm justissimâ trutinâ, quâ hodie Romae utimur cùm appendissem [congium], inveni aquam, quâ eum compleveram, libras nostri temporis novem, uncias sex semis efficere, quibus uncias quinque, drachmas quatuor, scripulum unum, & grana XIV. (quae amplius sunt in his nostris, quam in antiquis libris computando eum congium libras decem) & ultra scripulum unum, & grana XIV. (de quibus nullam rationem habendam esse judicavi) ex antiquis libris praedictis pendere inveni. But Villalpandus trying it long after Paetus, with more care, and with a balance made of purpose, found it to be exactly ten such pounds, as are now used in Rome. All that I could doe was to fill the capacity of it with milium well cleansed, and to compare it with the English measures taken from the Standards. It contained of our measures for wine three quarts, one pint▪ and one eighth part of a pint. Of our corn, or dry measures, three quarts and about one sixth part of a pint. At my being in Italy, there was found amongst the ruines at Rome a Semicongius in brasse, of the same figure with this of Vespasians, the sides much consumed by rust. This I also measured, and found it to be the half of Vespasians' Congius. From this measure of the Congius we may rightly apprehend how vast that draught was of No∣vellus Torquatus, who drank three of these Congii at once: from whence he was called Novellas Tricongius. The story is recited by Pliny [l. 14. c. 22.] Apud nos cognomen etiam Novellus Torquatus Mediolanensis ad Proconsulatum usque è praetur•• honoribus gestis, tribus congiis (unde & ••omen illi fuit) epotis uno impetu, spectante miraculi gratiâ Tiberio prin∣cipe in senecta jam severo, atque etiam aliàs saevo, sed ipsâ juventâ ad merum pronior fuerat. In the same chapter Pliny likewise discourses thus of Cicero, sonne to that famous Oratour. Tergilla Ciceronem Marci filium binos congios simul haurire solitum ipsi objicit, Marcoque Agrippae à temulento scyphum impactum.
• n 1.140

  Villalpandus l 2. disp. 2. c. 11. de apparatu Vrbis ac Tem∣pli
• o 1.141

  Gassendus in vitâ Peireskii.
• * 1.142

  The infe∣rence of Gas∣sendus I easily grant, that the denarius under some of the Caesars' was drachmalis, that is, the eighth part of the Romane ounce. But neither was it alwaies so under the Caesars, nor if it had been so, will it therefore follow that it was drachmalis, or the eighth part in respect of the Attick ounce. Seeing the Athenian ounce was grea∣ter then the Romane, as we have before proved; and therefore the Denari∣us Consularis, which was the seventh part of the Romane ounce, was scarce the eighth part of the Attick. Where fore he must see how he can make it good, where he brings Peireskius in the second book of his life thus dis∣coursing—Denarium, cùm tempore Regum pependisset trientem unciae, sub an∣tiquâ tamen Rep: pependisse solum sextantem, sub recentiore partem septimam, sub primis Caesaribus octavam, seu drachmam (Atticae nempe drachmae ae∣qualem.)
• b 1.143

  Villalpandus de apparatu Vrbis ac Tem. pli par. 2. l. 2. disp. 2. c. 13.
• c 1.144

  Plin. l. 33. c. 9.
• d 1.145

  Arias Monta∣nus in T••ubal•• Cain, sive de mensuris.
• * 1.146

  Plin. l. 3. c. 33
• f 1.147

  Villalped•• ap∣paer. Vrbis ac Templ••. par. 2. l 2. disp. 2. c. 12
• g 1.148

  Snell. in Era∣tosth. Batavo. l. 2. c. 5.
• h 1.149

  Ibidem.
• i 1.150

  Varro l. 4. de L. Latin.
• k 1.151

  Xiphilinus in Anton. Cara∣calla.
• l 1.152

  Suidas in vote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉siv 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.153

  Le medaglie di tutti i tem∣pi [sono degne da esser osserva∣te degli Arti∣feci] comminci∣ando de Ales∣sandro magno, well' et à del quale princi∣palmente fiori∣rono, per fin al tempo dell' Imperador Gallieno, nel quale caddero affatto in sieme con l' imperio. Da indi poi in finà Giustini∣ano si trovano bon medaglic di tutti gli Impe∣rado••i ma con notabil perdita della pulitezza, & perfettione antica. Quelpoi che habbiamo duppo Giusti∣niano, è tanto cattivo che non si può sosserire. Et se ne dà quasi da ognano la colpa à gli Vnni, à i Vandali, à gli Alani, à i Goti, à i Longobardi, & ad altre barbare, & fiere nationi, che signoreggiarono gran parte d' Europa. Ant. August. dialog 1.
• p 1.154

  Havendo io tali monete le quali sono del peso di un de∣nario Rom pareggiate di peso alle medaglie di argento, che hanno scolpile le teste de i Principt Romani, le ho ritrovate differenti non poco del peso, si che quelle medaglie p••sano quasi tutt•• meno del Denario; & havendo ancora pe∣sate quelle medaglie che hanno scolpita la effigie de i Caesari, le ho sempre ritrovate differenti fra loro nel peso, Erizzo.
• q 1.155

  Blondus l. 5. de Roma tri∣umph.
• r 1.156

  Plin. l. 33. c. 3.
• s 1.157

  Lampridius in Alex: Severo.
• t 1.158

  Lampridius in Alex: Severo.
• u 1.159

  Codex Theo∣dos. l. 1. de ponderatoribus.
• x 1.160

  Gui: Panci∣rolli thesaur. var. lect. utr. juris.
• * 1.161

  Cod. lib. 10. tit. 70. in rescripto Valentiniani & Valentis Impp.
• * 1.162

  This excel∣lent place very hardly escaped Haloanders' e∣mendation, who had a great minde to have played the Critick, and to have altered it. For he thus writes. In ve∣tusto codice in rasam membra∣nam haec ita re∣posita sunt, ut certum sit alte∣ram, & furtasse genuinam le∣ctionem subla∣tam, & legen∣dum, duode∣quinquaginta, aut certe quin∣quaginta. A goodly conse∣quence, because the parchment was scraped, & the first writing altered, there∣fore the true reading must be expunged and a fal••e one put in: whereas he might with more candor, and ingenuity, have concluded the contrary, that the false one was expunged by the scribe, and the true one inserted. For who uses in copying of MSS. to scrape any thing out of the apographum, but onely when by collating it he findes it to be different from the Originall?
• z 1.163

  Agricola l. 2. de pond. & temperat. mo∣netarum.
• * 1.164

  Zonar. l. 3.
• a 1.165

  Isidorus l. 16. Orig. c. 24.
• b 1.166

  Vol. Metia∣nus de assis di∣strib.
• c 1.167

  Hinc & soli∣dum aureum dixere Romani, ubi idem pondus habere coepit in auro, quod so∣lidus, id est, as haberet in aere, duarum nempe drachmarum. Salmas. de modo Vsur.
• d 1.168

  Agricola l. 2. de pond. & temp. monetarū.
• * 1.169

  I have since perused ano∣ther tremissis in gold, a very fair one, with this inscription D.N. JUSTI∣NUS. PF. AUG. weigh∣ing twenty two grains and bet∣ter; which for∣merly belon∣ged to the lear∣ned Geogra∣pher Ortelius. Besides a third, of Majorianus with CONOB superscribed (which signi∣fies Constanti∣nopolitanum ob∣rizum or Con∣stantinopoli ob∣signatū) weigh∣ing likewise twenty two grains. And a fourth, of Iusti∣nian, weighing twenty three.
• b 1.170

  Covarruvias tom. 1. c. 3. paragr. 1. & 2. de vet. aureis, & argenteis numis.
• * 1.171

  Cedrenus in hi∣stor. compend.
• * 1.172

  Suidas in vo∣ce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.173

  p. 72. Col. 4.
• b 1.174

  Lambar••i Gl••ss••rium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1644
• c 1.175

  In appendice libri de limit. agrorum: luxta Gallos vigesi∣ma pars unciae denarius est, & 12 denarii soli∣dum reddunt.
• * 1.176

  Stat. 31. E∣dov. 1.
• d 1.177

  Stat. 9. Ed. 3.
• e 1.178

  Stat. 2. Hen. 6.
• f 1.179

  Stat. 5. Ed. 4.
• g 1.180

  Stat. 36. H. 8.
• h 1.181

  Stat. 2. El:
• * 1.182

  In the same manner the solidus, or au∣reus, as it lost its valuation, so suffered an alteration in the Greek name. For in∣stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we finde the Glosses to render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Glossae. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉soli∣du••: and in the same Glosses we read 〈◊〉〈◊〉 interpreted Biniones, and 〈…〉〈…〉.
• i 1.183

  Meursii Glos∣sarium Graeco-Barbar: in voce 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• k 1.184

  Scalig de re numm.
• * 1.185

  These weights (ex∣cepting the rotulo of Damascus) were dili∣gently compared with the Originals, and Standards: in like manner as I examined the measures above described. In both which if any shall finde some ••ide difference, from some Originals, AS five, or six grains in the English pound, & it may be one, or two parts of a thousand in the English foot, dif∣ferent from the Stan∣dards in the Exche∣quer, or the Tower, or at Winchester, or some o∣ther place, it is not much to be wondred. For I have found as great differences in ••ollating the English Standards themselves: and have heard Gaspa∣ro B••••ti (one of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 men in this kind that I have known) to complain of the same diversity at Rome. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 though it bee a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that in any 〈…〉〈…〉 Kingdome, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Common-wealth, 〈…〉〈…〉 Standard, which 〈…〉〈…〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉 justice, should be unequall, & there∣fore unjust; yet unlesse more art, and circum∣spection be used, then hitherto hath been put in practise, it is im∣possible but such ine∣qualities will creep in. But this observati∣on of mine by some may be thought too nice, and curious. That which follows, I am certain, is as necessary▪ as the preservation of the life of many a man. And that is, that some Physitians erro∣neously imagine the granum auri to be a∣like in all Nations. And therefore Ferne∣lius, a very able man (who, I think, was the first Authour of that opinion) writes thus. (Fern l. 4. c. 6. Method. Medendi) Granum, cui tanquam basi reliqua innituntur pondera, ratum constansque esse decet; neque id granum esse hordei, neque triti∣ci, neque ciceris, neque frugis ullius, aut legu∣mi••s, quod aullius par s••t ubique gentiū pondus. At vero num∣marium minutū, quod aurifabri granum ap∣pellant, & Latinè mo∣mentum dici potest, omnibus mundi natio∣nibus unum idemque est, & stabile, quod auri sacra fames, & opum furiosa libido, invio∣latè & incorrupte ser∣vat, idque signis & exemplaribus undique identidem collatis. In∣deed it was an usefull fancy of his to think of some common mea∣sure, in which all Nations might concur: though it is more to be wished for, thē ever to be expected: But that ••sseveratiō of his, inviolatè, & incorruptè servat, id{que} signis & exēplaribus undi{que} identid•• collatis, from a man of such rare abi∣lities, I cannot but extremely wonder at. For if we shall goe no farther to confute his assertion, then to compare our grana auri with those of Paris, which Fernelius used, we shall find ours much bigger: XXIX. English grains almost equalling XXXVI. of Paris. Or if we shall compare the Spanish grana auri, with his, we shall finde those much lesse: XXXVI. Spanish grains weighing but XXVIII.½. of his at Paris. The like could I demonstrate in those of o∣ther Countries. By which dangerous, and notable errour, for want either of due care, or an exact balance, we may conceive that whatsoever also is deli∣vered by the Ancients, in the like nature, is not presently without due exami∣nation to be credited.