Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

MENRA. MENSURA. MENSURA.
sy stemsx which of the three kinds of measure' and curiously similar in Asia, in Egypt, and in
formed the foundation, from which the other two Greece. But he has not, I think, made out the
were deduced, length, capacity, or weight? like with regard to the Grecian mleasures, eithli
On the first of these questions our space allows of length or capacity, and his proof of the ratio
us to do little more than refer the reader to Bickh's of 3: 2 between tle Babylonian and the Grecican
elaborate exposition of the opinion, in which few foot will befound altogether defective. Nor has he
competent readers of his work will fail to coin- produced adequate evidence to demonstrate, either
cide, that the basis of the Greek and Roman?ne- the ratio of 10: 9 between the Grecian or Aegitr-ical systems was that w7hich had prevailed from netan pound and the Roman pound, or that of: 2
very early times among the Chaldaeans at Babylon, between the Aeginetan pound and the Aeginetan
from which or from some common original the mina; the ratio between the Grecian cubic foot and
Egyptians derived. their metrical system; and the Roman cubic foot, too, as also that between the
which was carried by the commerce of the Phoe- Greciac cubic foot and any given Grecian weight,
nicians into Greece, whence it passed over into is, as he proposes it, inadm7issible. In fact, there
Italy. On the second question, his researches, as is no such thing (properly speaking), as an Aegi-well as the arguments of other writers, may safely netan pound weight: nor is there any fixed normal
be said to have established the position that relation between Grecian woeight and Grecian meaweights were determined before measures, and that sures, either of length or of capacity, though there is
mseasures were derived fromn we'ights. a fixed normal relation between, Babylonian sceight
It will be convenient here to give Bi6ckh's own and Babylonian sneasures, as also between Romant
compendium of the main results which he under- wceight and Romean measures." (Ibid. pp. 4, 5: we
takes to establish, with Mr. Grote's statement of have introduced the italics to call the reader's atthe points in which he differs from Biickh. We tention to the chief points in which Mr. Grote
adopt Mr. Grote's translation of the passage, only agrees with, and differs fiom, M. Bickh).
substitutingAeginetan for 4egiznean. "If" (Bickh These extracts furnish a pretty good idea of the
says, iii. 4. p. 26) "we regard this relation of the present position of ancient metrical science. It is
weights and measures*, based upon a given weight impossible here to discuss the points at issue beof water, which is the key-stone of the Roman tween these two great scholars; but we must resystem - and if we carry the application of this mark that, if Bickh has sometimes failed to observe
water-weight backwards to the chief measures of his own distinction between exact and approximate
the ancient world - we shall find a. connection ratios (see Grote, p. 2), and if he has erred through
really and truly organic between the systems of attempting to establish some ratios which are either
the different people of antiquity, and we shall fanciful or mere results of an over-strained calculaarrive at last at the fundamental unity (unit) of tion, or which are too strange to be true, - Mr.
weight and measure in the Babylonian system; Grote has also pressed the other side of the argluso that this supposition is found to be verified in ment in a manner which, if sound, would prevent
all its consequences and details. To give some the establishment of any exact ratio between any
preliminary intimation of this - I shall show that two systems, and, in stating that there is no fixed
the Grecian (or, more accurately, the Aeginetan) normal relation between Grecian tweight and Grecian
and the Roman pound are in the ratio of 10: 9; measuers, lie has put forward a proposition, which
the Aeginetan pound is half the Aeginetan mina; he does not sufficiently sustain by proof, which is
but the cubical measures stood normally in the very improbable in itself, and which is hardly conratio of the weights; and therefore the Grecian sistent with the acknowledged derivation of the
cubic foot was to the Roman as 10: 9, and, as the Greek weiwghts from the Babylonian; for it is very
Roman cubic foot weighs 80 pounds of rain-water, unlikely that the Greeks should have taken their
so also the Grecian cubic foot weighs 80 Grecian wcei ghts and not their meastres from the labyloor Aeginetan pounds, equal to 40 Aeginetan miinae. nians, especially when it is remembered that the
The unity (unit) of weight (in Greece) however Roman systenl, which was probably derived from
is, not 40 minae, but 60 minae, or a talent. In the Greek, agreed with the Babylonian both in
the original institutions of the people of antiquity cteiqhts acid nteaslcsres, and not only so, but also
everything has its reason, and we find scarcely bore, in its measures of capacity, a definite ratio
anything purely arbitrary: nevertheless, this unity to the Greek; and, moreover, there appears to be
(unit) of weight, the talent, does not coincide with the samne inconsistency in the attempt to disconnect
the unity of measure-neither with the cubic foot, the Greek and Roman xweights, while admitting
nor with any other specific cubical denomination. the derivation of both from the Babylonian. Be
But the coincidence reveals itself at once, as soon this as it may, we have no hesitation in affirming
as we discover that the Babylonian cubic foot, that the researches of Buckh are so important, that
standing as it does in the ratio of 3: 2 to the they must be regarded tas the starting-point of all
Grecian+ cubic foot, weighs 60 Aeginetan minaeI future investigations into the subject. The fact
( 60 Babylonian minae - 1 Babylonian talent) also deserves notice, that several of Bhickh's conof -rain-water." (Class. Alns. vol. i. p. 4.) clusions, which Mr. Grote questions as exact and
Upon this Mr. Grote remarks: " I. Bockh here designed ratios, are admitted by him to lie very
promises more than his volume will be found to near the truth; and they may therefore, at all
realise. le does, indeed, satisfccstosriy show that events, be usefil. to us for the purpose of assisting
the Babylonian talcet was identicalt with, canid eas the memory. The rest of this part of the subject,'the original prototype o1; the A eyinetanc talent, and so far at least as our space permits us to notice it,
that the standard and scale of weight was strikingly will be found under PONDERA.
The question still remains, hlow to determinle the: Namely, that between the Roman pound and Greek acnd Romanc measmures in terms of our owxn,
th3 Roman acsphora or quadrantal. which can be done, without reference to the doublt.
~ By a curious misprint, Mr. Grote has Gesrccan. I ful points involv-ed in the foregoing discussion.