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

932 PONDERA. PONDERA.
the Greeks, who are expressly stated to have de- weights, namely 7, but ill 72 (=6 x 12h as well
rived from Babylon their method of dividing the as in 60 (,5 x 12) we have the duodecimal computaday and measuring time, and other important tion which we know to have prevailed most extenusages, and whose most ancient talent (the Aegi- sively in the early metrical systems. The division
netan) was still, in the historical times, identical of the day into 12 hours, which Herodotus exwith the Babylonian. pressly ascribes to the Babylonians, is not only a
4. Tlie Babylonian Talent. —The Babylonian striking example of this, but a fact peculiarly imtalent itself was current in the Persian Empire portant in connection with the idea that the meaas the standard weight for silver. Under Dareius surement of time by water led to the invention
the son of Hystaspes, the silver tribute of the of the Babylonian system of weights. It is also
provinces was estimated by the Babylonian talent, important to observe that these two ancient systheir gold tribute by the Euboic; and coined tems, the Babylonian and the Euboic, differ from
silver was also paid from the royal treasury ac- one another in a proportion which is expressed by
cording to the Babylonian talent. (Herod, iii. 89, multiplying 12 by the numbers which form the
foll.; Aelian. V. If. i. 22.) Now the two stand- bases of the decimal and duodecimal systems re.
ards here mentioned are connected by Herodotus spectively, namely, 6 and 5. In connection with
by the statement that the Babylonians talent is this fact, it is interesting to observe that the
equal to 70 Eubdie sminae, which, since every ta- Hebrew talent, which was no doubt essentially the
lent contained 60 minae, gives 70: 60 for the ratio same as the Babylonian, is made, by different comof the Babylonian talent to the Euboic. There putations, to consist of 60 or 50 snaneh.
are, however, very sufficient reasons for con- Indeed, the whole of the Hebrew system throws
cluding that 70 is here a round number, not an important light on the Babylonian, and on its conexact one. (See Bbckh, c. v.) Pollux gives the nection with the Greek. The outline of this syssame ratio (70: 60) for that of the Babylonian to the tem is as follows:Attic talent; for he says that the Babylonian talent Gerah
contained 70 Attic minae and 7000 Attic drachmae
(ix. 86): and it is probable that this statement is 10
founded on the testimony of Herodotus, but that
Pollux substituted the familiar Attic standard for 20O
the less known Euboic, which two standards Ihe 2 Sthekel
knew to have some close connection with each 1000 100 0
other, and so he fell into the error of making them Ma neh
precisely equal. The same correction must be ap-
plied to the testimony of Aelian (1. c.), who makes 0 6000 60 | Kikkar
the Babylonian talent equal to 72 Attic minae; and where the principal unit is the Shekel, which can
in this statement, so corrected, we have probably the be identified with the principal unit of the old
true ratio of the Babylonian talent to the Euboic, Greek system (in its chief application to coined
namely 72: 60 or 6: 5. In such arguments as money), namely, the didrachnm orold stater. Hence
these, it is extremely important to remember that we have the
the evidence is not that of Pollux and Aelian, who Kikhar equivalent to the talest
could not possibly give any ilsdependent testimony Aaeh mieni
on such a subject, but that of the ancient an- tte
thorities whom they followed, and by whom the ekLh, ddac or ster
term Attic may have been used truly as equivalent,,
to Ezboic; for the Attic standard before the legis- To this part of the subject, which we have not
lation of Solon was the same as the Euboic, and space to pursue further, Bdckh devotes a long and
this standard was still retained in commerce after elaborate chapter (c. vi. Hlebrbiisches, Phinicisches,
Solon's alterations." In this sense there can be und Sysisches Geewicht und Geld).
little doubt that, in the statement of Aelian, we 5. Thbe Aeginetan Talent. - Returnin to the
have the testimony of some ancient writer, who connection between the Babylonian and Greek
gave a more exact value than the round number talent, we have seen that the Babylonian talent
which Herodotus deemed sufficient for his purpose contained 72 Eubdic minae. It will presently.as an historian; and the truth of his testimony is appear that the Euboic talent and mina were the
confirmed, not only by the greater exactness of samne as the great Attic talent and mina, which
the number, but by its very nature; for, not only were in use before the reduction effected. il
do we find in 70 (=7 x 10) a prime factor which them by Solon; and further that the nature of
is most unlikely to have entered into a system of that reduction was such that the Old Attic
(Euboic) talent was equivalent to 8333-u New
* It is necessary here to caution the student Attic (Solonian) drachmae, and thle Etbo: 7inisae
against an error, which he might mistake for an to I38- Solonian draclaCnCae. Now the Babyingenious discovery; into which Bbckli himself lonian talent contained 72 Euboic minae, that is
fell in his Public Econzozy of Athens; and which (1389 x 72 — ) 10,000 Solonian drachmae. But
Mr. Hussey has adopted; and to which therefore 10,000 Solonian drachmae were equivalent to anl
the English student is much exposed. This error Aeginetan talent. (Pollux, ix. 76, 86 comp.
consists in assuming thatboth Herodotus and Aelian Nutaivus, p. 810, a.) Therefore, the Aeyinetan
may be right; and thus that the Babylonian talent Tallest eoas equivalent to the Bajbylosnian. What is
was equal to 70 Etaboic or 72 Attic minae; and meant precisely by the Aeginetan talent, and how
therefore that the ratio of the Euboic talent to the this talent was established in Greece by the legis.
Attic was 72: 70. It will presently be shown that hation of Pheidon, has already been explained
this ratio was not 72: 70j but 100:72, i. e, under Ntrvamus. The only step remaining to
2: 51'84. complete the exposition of the outline of the sub