There is not the slightest reason for treating with incredulity the

statement that Anaxilas introduced the hare into Sicily. Pollux[411]

tells us that there were no hares in Ithaca, and from the same source

we learn that the islanders of Carpathus, wishing to add the animal to

the products of their isle, introduced a single pair, the descendants of

which became in a short time so numerous that they ruined the crops, a

story which finds a singular parallel in the history of the introduction

of the rabbit into Australia in our own days. The hare was to the old

Greek sportsman (as we know from the Tracts on Hunting of Xenophon and

Arrian) what the stag was to the mediaeval baron, and the fox to the

modern English squire. If William the Conqueror, as says the chronicler,

“loved the tall deer as though he were their father,” the tyrant

Anaxilas may well have prided himself upon the introduction of the hare

into Sicily in much the same manner as modern sportsmen have brought

the French partridge into England. When once the type was started, the

dislike of any change in coin types is so strong that we need not be

surprised at the hare appearing for a long period on the coins of Messana

and Rhegium. Besides, the hare was considered by the Greek gourmet as the

choicest of viands: all readers of Aristophanes are familiar with “jugged

hare” as a proverbial expression for “the best of cheer.”

_Variation of Silver Standards._

The connection between the types on early silver coins of Greece and the

earlier local units of value being probably such as I have indicated,

we next approach the question of changes in the weight of the silver

coins at various places and at various times. Besides the ordinary

Euboic and Aeginetic standards we find others such as the Rhodian, and

the Ptolemaic, the former so named because the island of Rhodes from the

beginning of the 4th century B.C. ceased to strike tetradrachms of the

full Attic weight of 270 grs. and coined instead pieces which range in

weight from 240 to 230 grs., the latter getting its name from the dynasty

of the Lagidae, who quickly dropped the full weight of the tetradrachm

(270 grs.) as struck by Alexander, and reverted to the Phoenician silver

of 220 grs., which they used not only for silver, but also for gold; it

is to this last fact that the name Ptolemaic as given to the standard

is really due, for as a standard for gold it was certainly new. But

not merely shall we find coins standing so far apart from the usual

standards that we are obliged to give them distinctive appellations,

but we likewise find various modifications of the Aeginetic in various

places, whilst in some parts of northern Greece and Thrace we shall find

the so-called Phoenician and Babylonian standards in occupation. It is

hardly possible that mere degradation of weight will account for all the

phenomena; accordingly the object of this section will be to show that

from first to last _the Greek communities were engaged in an endless

quest after bimetallism_: we shall find, as we have already indicated,

that whilst the gold unit never varies in any part of Hellas until a

late epoch, the silver coins exhibit differences not merely between one

district and another, but even between one period and another in the

self-same city or state. There is incontrovertible evidence to prove

that the same trouble was caused by the fluctuation in the relative

value of gold and silver as arises in modern times. Xenophon[412] in his

treatise _De Vectigalibus_ (speaking of the benefit likely to accrue

to the state if the silver mines of Laurium were better worked) makes

the most interesting remark that “if any one were to allege that gold

too is not less useful than silver, that I do not deny, yet this I know

that gold, whenever it turns up in quantity, becomes on the one hand

cheaper itself, and on the other makes silver dearer.” This passage

alone is sufficient to show how sensitive was the old Greek money market

in the beginning of the 4th century B.C., and this statement is amply

substantiated on Italian soil by a passage quoted by Strabo[413] from

Polybius, from which we learn that after the discovery of a rich gold

mine in the land of the Taurisci of Noricum, within the space of two

months “gold went down one third in value throughout all Italy.” Such

being the effect of a discovery of gold, it is evident that either the

silver currency must undergo certain modifications in order that a

definite round number of silver units may be equal to the gold unit, or

on the other hand the gold unit must undergo modification. But as we have

shown that the gold unit remained unaltered throughout all Hellas, Asia

and Egypt down to the time of the Ptolemies, it follows that whatever

changes were necessary must have taken place in the _silver_ standards.

Of this we have proof in the case of Rhodes itself. Down to 408 B.C.

the three ancient cities of Ialysus, Camirus and Lindus issued each a

separate series of coins, Camirus on the Aeginetic standard, the other

two on the Phoenician. In 408 B.C. all these united in founding the new

city of Rhodes, and henceforward there is a single coinage. At first

the Attic standard seems to have been employed for silver, as rare

tetradrachms of 260 grs. are found, but it must have very soon given

place to the so-called Rhodian, the tetradrachm of which ranges from 240

to 230 grs. About the same time (400 B.C.) the Rhodians began to issue

gold staters of the so-called Euboic standard, and for a century this

double issue of gold and silver continued unbroken. It is plain, from the

case of this famous island, that it is only the silver standards which

changed. There can be no doubt that the unit by which gold in bullion

was reckoned before that metal was coined was the so-called Euboic

or ox-unit, but during the archaic period we find both the so-called

Phoenician (220 grs.) and Aeginetic (drachms of 92 grs.) being employed

for silver in the island, whilst after 408 B.C. gold is issued on the

ox-unit, but silver, although at first on this standard, immediately

changes to the Rhodian of 240 grs. Evidently then the fixed element is

the gold, the fluctuating the silver. The coinage of Rhodes likewise

exemplifies the doctrine already indicated, that the employment of

religious and mythological symbols seems to mark not the earlier but

rather the later stages of Greek coining. Thus Camirus employed the

fig-leaf, Ialysus half a winged boar, and Lindus the lions head with

open jaws, but after 408 Helios the Sun-god, from whom all Rhodians

alike claimed descent, and to whom the island was sacred[414], becomes

the regular type, with the _type parlant_ of the Rose (_Rhodon_) on the

reverse.

Next let us take the money of Macedonia, where there was an abundant

coinage of both gold and silver. The Pelasgian tribe of Bisaltae, and

the Thracian Edonians and Odomanti, had during the half century which

preceded the Persian wars all struck silver on the so-called Phoenician

standard. It is commonly supposed that they obtained this standard from

the important town of Abdera, which at the same period employed a like

standard, and it is suggested that Abdera had borrowed it from her mother

Teos, who had borrowed it from Miletus and the other great towns of the

Ionian seaboard, among which it was especially employed for electrum.

But unfortunately, whilst the types of Teos and Abdera are the same

(a seated Griffin), the staters of Teos weigh only 186 grs., which is

the Aeginetic, not the Phoenician (220 grs.) standard. Shortly after

the overthrow of the Persian host Alexander I. of Macedon acquired the

land of the Bisaltae along with the rich silver mines, which were said

to produce for him a talent daily, and he adopted both the types and

standard of the Bisaltian silver coinage, only substituting his own

name for that of the Bisaltae. During the century which elapsed between

Alexander I. and the accession of the famous Philip II. the coinage of

Macedon and that of Abdera followed the same course in each case; the

Phoenician standard of 230 grs. gave way to the so-called Babylonian

or Persian of about 170 grs. Again, it has been suggested that Abdera

influenced the neighbouring communities in this change. But when Philip

came to the throne he returned to the Phoenician standard for silver,

and when for the first time in Macedon he issued a bountiful coinage of

gold staters, they were struck on the ancient gold unit, the so-called

Euboic standard of 130 grs. But hardly had Philip slept with his fathers,

and Alexander reigned in his stead, when a need was felt for a change in

the silver standard. Accordingly the latter in the early years of his

reign began, and continued to his death, to strike his silver on the

same standard as his gold. Let us now study the lessons to be learned

from this history of currency. There can be no reasonable doubt that

the ox-unit or _stater_ was the unit by which gold was estimated from

first to last in that region. Unless it already existed Philip would

not have employed it for his gold coinage at a time when he was making

changes in his silver, but would have assimilated his gold to his silver

standard. But, as before remarked, just because gold was not coined

anywhere in Greece until the closing years of the 5th century, and in

all transactions it passed as bullion, so much the stronger was the

reason for keeping its weight-unit unchanged. But was the standard of

220 grs. really an imported Phoenician, or was it not rather one arrived

at in that region by the natives themselves owing to the relations then

existing between silver and gold? It is evident from the account given

of the Bisaltian silver mines that in the time preceding and immediately

posterior to the Persian invasion silver was exceedingly abundant in

all that region. It is then by no means unlikely that it required ten

silver pieces of 220 grs. each to make the equivalent of one gold unit

of 130 grs. With the exhaustion of the silver mines, and perhaps a

greater output of gold, silver became dearer, and consequently 10 silver

pieces of 170 grs. each were now equal to a gold stater. Abdera on the

coast would come perfectly within the sphere of such changed conditions,

and her standard would consequently likewise undergo modification.

With Philip’s accession, fresh conquests and a general development of

resources may have temporarily thrown more silver on the market, thus

inducing him to revert to the 220 grs. standard, but the exploiting of

the famous mines of Crenides increased the supply of gold to such an

extent that by the time Alexander mounted his fathers throne gold stood

to silver in the relation of 10:1, and it was found extremely convenient

to coin this on the same footing as gold, 10 silver pieces of 135 grs.

being exactly equal to the gold stater of like weight. A like explanation

applies to the coinage of Thrace. Amongst the Thracian tribes who dwelt

near Mount Pangaeum and worked the gold and silver mines of that region

the art of coining had been known from the 6th century B.C. and they

issued silver coins of about 160 grs. This is regarded by some as debased

Babylonian or Persic standard. But it is far more rational to suppose

that in that region gold was more plentiful in proportion to silver than

it was at that time further west in Macedonia, and accordingly a certain

number of silver didrachms of 160 grs. were found to represent the gold

stater or ox-unit. It seems most unlikely that a people long acquainted

with both gold and silver could not devise for themselves a simple

method of making some convenient number of silver pieces be equivalent

to one gold, and that, on the contrary, having once obtained a certain

standard fixed for silver in Asia Minor, at a time when gold was to

silver as 13:1, they would blindly cleave to this standard, no matter

how great a change took place in the relation of the metals. In face

of the statements of Xenophon and Polybius already quoted and the fact

that Solon deliberately constructed a new silver standard, it is simply

impossible to believe such a doctrine.

On the opposite shore from Thrace lay the flourishing city of Cyzicus.

This wealthy community commenced to issue electrum staters and _hectae_

in the 5th century B.C., if not earlier, the former being about 252

grs., the latter 41 grs. These electrum staters have been shown by

Professor Gardner to have contained gold and silver in about equal

proportions[415]. This most important fact, taken in connection with

the literary evidence derived from Xenophon and Demosthenes, makes it

probable that the Cyzicene stater of 252 grs. was counted equal to a

Daric of 130 grs. of pure gold[416]. “These coins of Cyzicus,” says Mr

Head, “together with the Persian Darics formed the staple of the gold

currency of the whole ancient world, until such time as they were both

superseded by the gold staters of Philip and Alexander the Great[417].”

Not only did they circulate side by side with the Darics, but it is

worthy of notice that when the Cyzicenes struck coins of pure gold

(_circa_ 413 B.C.) they were of Daric type and standard. The earliest

silver coins (430-412 B.C.) were small pieces of 32 and 18 grs., whilst

the larger coins which come later are on the Phoenician silver standard

of 212 grs. (412 B.C.), whilst from 400 B.C. to 330 B.C. the Rhodian

standard of 235 grs. prevailed. From the story of her coinage we learn

clearly that at Cyzicus the inferior metals bowed to the sway of gold.

The electrum stater of 252 grs. is made equal to the pure gold unit,

and whilst the silver standard changes from 212 grs. to 235 grs. the

gold and pale gold pieces in currency remain inviolate. Once more, it

is almost certain that some displacement in the relative values of the

metals had caused the raising of the standard from 212 grs. to 235 grs.

One thing certainly is beyond doubt, and that is the utter improbability

of the introduction of the 235 grs. standard being in any way due to the

influence of Rhodes. This remark likewise applies to Chios, where from a

very early period (600-490 B.C.) side by side with electrum staters of

217 grs. we find didrachms of silver of 123-120 grs., “a weight peculiar

to Chios,” says Mr Head, “which was probably the Phoenician somewhat

raised.” But why was it raised? The real solution is that the relations

between gold, electrum and silver at Chios necessitated the striking of

silver on a standard a few grains lighter than the gold unit in use

(the Persian Daric), and the electrum stater of 217 grs. Space forbids

our going through all the cities of the Ionian coast in detail, but the

principle which we have laid down and illustrated from the currency

systems of several leading states is sufficient to indicate the method by

which we would explain the fluctuations in the silver standards employed

at different times in various states. The Daric is the universal gold

unit of all this region; by its side is the electrum stater usually of

217 grs. and most probably the equivalent in value of the pure gold coin

of 130 grs.: along with them we find singular fluctuations in the silver

currency; towns that are close neighbours employing different systems

contemporaneously.

There is, however, one state which cannot be passed over without more

particular reference. At an earlier page I spoke of the gold mines

of Thasos, which had attracted the attention of the Phoenicians at a

very early time. But, in addition to the mineral wealth of their own

island, the Thasians drew a huge annual revenue from their mines on the

mainland. Although the first influence in the island was Phoenician,

and the Thasians themselves were Ionians from Paros, instead of finding

the Phoenician standard employed for its silver coins, we see them

striking their archaic coins on the so-called Babylonian system. Under

the supremacy of Athens this standard fell so much that it eventually

coincided with the Attic (138 grs.) or even was lower. The Thasians,

after revolting from Athens in 411 B.C., struck gold coins for the

first time; these were on the Euboic or ox-unit standard (consisting of

half-staters and thirds). But about the same period they began to coin

silver on the so-called Phoenician of 220 grs. It is indeed strange that

in the early age, when the Phoenician tradition was still strong, they

did not employ the 220 grs. standard, but only resorted to it after

employing for a long period the Babylonian and Attic standards. It is

evident that in Thasos, as elsewhere, there had existed the same gold

unit for untold generations, else at the very time when they revolted

from Athens and adopted a new standard for their silver, they would

not have struck gold on what is commonly called the Attic or Euboic

standard. It is evident that the changes in the silver standards were due

to changes in the relation of silver to gold, the fall in standard from

168 grs. to 135 grs. indicating perhaps that silver, which at first was

to gold as 1:13, had gradually grown dearer.

_Commercial Weight System._

We must now turn to the commercial weight system. As elsewhere, one of

the chief commodities to come under such a system was copper, and the

history of the weighing of this metal, as far as it can be learned, will

be of great importance to us. Now we should naturally expect that at

Athens, which had in later days but one standard for gold and silver,

copper likewise would have been estimated on this unit. But, as a matter

of fact, there were two distinct standards in use at Athens, as is proved

by two weights preserved in the British Museum, the inscription on one of

which is _Mina of the Market_ (ΜΝΑ ΑΓΟΡ), that on the other is _Mina of

the State_ (ΜΝΑ ΔΗΜΟ). This mina of the market is the same as that called

the _Commercial Mina_ on an Attic inscription[418], where its weight is

given as that of 138 silver drachms, that is, the weight of an Aeginetic

mina of silver. Athens had not coined any money of her own up to Solon’s

time, but seems to have employed the coins of Aegina. But this standard,

although no longer employed for silver, did not fall into desuetude.

As already pointed out, all peoples have felt the need of a heavier

standard for cheap articles than that which serves for gold. Probably

the Aeginetic mina had been used at Athens for copper: accordingly,

when Solon made his new silver standard for the weighing of silver, the

Aeginetic standard was found convenient for less costly and more bulky

wares, and was therefore retained in use as the mercantile or market

standard, the name STATE being given to the silver standard.

We have learned already that in the early stages of society copper and

iron are not sold or appraised by weight, but rather by measurement.

We have also seen that there is every reason to believe that the Greek

obol originally was a spike or rod of copper of a definite length and

thickness. If we can believe the statement of Ephorus given by Strabo

that Phidon of Argos established a weight as well as a measure system for

the Peloponnesians (although Herodotus is silent as regards weights),

it is not at all improbable that, taking this story in conjunction with

the dedication of the old bar money by Phidon in the temple of Hera, we

have here a genuine tradition of the superseding of the bars of metal,

the value of which simply depended on their dimensions, by a system based

essentially on weight. It is plain that, as copper was weighed both at

Aegina and Athens by the Aeginetic silver standard, copper most probably

was never estimated by weight until after the forming of the separate

silver standard in the way already described.

We have previously noticed the fact that the two principal terms applied

to silver coins, _drachm_ and _obol_, give clear indications that they

have been borrowed from an ancient system of copper (just as we shall

presently find that the _denarius_, the special term employed for their

silver currency by the Romans, owes its origin to the ancient copper

_as_). If further proof were required, it is afforded by the name

employed for the subdivisions of the obol. The latter at Athens was

divided into 8 _chalci_ or _coppers_ (χαλκοῖ). The smallest silver coin

at Athens was the half-obol, but in some places names, _Trichalcum_,

_Tetrachalcum_, etc. were given to copper coins. Now, as the Aeginetan

obol weighed about 16½ grs. and the Attic 11¼, the former is one-third

greater than the latter. But we shall see shortly that as the Attic

obol has 8 _chalci_, the Aeginetan must have had 12, from which it

follows that the ancient copper obol or bar used in Aegina, throughout

Peloponnesus, and at Athens, and probably throughout Boeotia, was

everywhere the same.

_The Sicilian System._

In dealing with the Sicilian and Italian systems we must reverse the

order of treatment of the metals, and as it is in the copper that we

shall find the closest link between the Greek and those other systems, we

shall therefore commence with that metal.

On the Italian Peninsula and in Sicily we find a series of weight and

monetary terms totally distinct from any found in Greece Proper. From

this alone we may infer that, even before the settlement of any Greek

Colonies in Magna Graecia and Sicily, there existed a well defined

system, if not of weight, at least for the exchange of copper by fixed

standards of measurement. In various Sicilian cities we find small

silver coins called _litrae_; these beyond all question are simply the

representatives in silver of an ancient copper unit employed by the

Sicels, and which they had brought with them into the island. These

Sicels were a tribe of the great Italian stock (itself a branch of the

Aryan family) closely related to the Umbrians, Latins, and Oscans, had

probably formed the van of the Aryan advance into the Peninsula, and had

finally crossed the straits and overcome the Sicanians, an Iberic race,

who were the earliest inhabitants of the island of whom any historical

record exists. The word _litra_ is merely a dialectic form of the same

original _lidhra_[419], from which the Latin _libra_ itself is sprung.

But whilst we shall have little difficulty in finding out the weight at

which the Latin _libra_ was fixed, we have just as great difficulty in

discovering that of the Sicilian _litra_, as we have lately found in the

case of the ancient Greek copper obol. As copper was only coined at a

late period, and the copper coins are merely tokens, or money of account,

we are unable to arrive at any conclusion as to the original full weight

of the litra from any data afforded by the copper coins of the various

Sicilian states, although, from the circumstance that many of these coins

bear marks of value, at first sight it might seem far otherwise. Thus

at Agrigentum in the period preceding 415 B.C. the copper litra weighed

about 750 grs., between 415 B.C. and 406 B.C. 613 grs., and from 340 B.C.

to 287 B.C. it was about 536 grs. only. At Himera between 472 B.C. and

415 B.C. it was about 990 grs., but within the same period it fell to

200 grs., whilst at Camarina between 415 B.C. and 405 B.C. it was about

221 grs. Not only therefore is it futile to attempt any statement of the

reduction of the litra in Sicily in general, but also to arrive at any

sound approximation to its full original weight, as far as the weight of

the copper coins is concerned. On the other hand, any calculation based

on the relative values of copper and silver has been up to the present

unsatisfactory, owing to the great uncertainty which still prevails,

Mommsen making the relation in the earlier period stand as 288:1, whilst

Mr Soutzo thinks it never can have been higher than 120:1.

The latter view I have already proved to be untenable when we apply the

test of the value of cattle, and it was made probable that in the 5th

century B.C. silver was to copper as 300:1. From this it will be possible

to show that the full weight of the copper litra was originally about

4900 grs.

Any effort to determine the original weight of the copper litra by a

new method calls for a merciful consideration, even though it too may

fail. Whilst the original weight of the litra is still a matter of

doubt, we are fortunately completely acquainted with the method of its

subdivisions. The litra was divided into 12 parts called Ungiae, Unciae

or Onciae, a name which is no other than the Latin _Uncia_. This at once

brings us face to face with the Roman copper system, where the _as_ was

the higher unit, and was divided into 12 unciae (ounces). But there are

other striking coincidences of nomenclature. Thus ⅙ of the _as_ was

called _sextans_; one-sixth of the litra is called _Hexâs_ (ἑξᾶς), and

the _Triens_ and _Quadrans_ are paralleled by the _trias_ (τριᾶς) and

_tetras_ (τετρᾶς) although there is a difference in the application

of these terms. Then the five-twelfths of the _as_ is _Quincunx_; the

same fraction of the litra is _Pentonkion_ (πετόγκιον). We have plainly

therefore a common Italo-Sicilian copper system, the terms of which were

adopted and Graecised by the settlers in Italy and Sicily.

Now we have already adverted to the fact that the earliest Sicilian

towns which coined money, Naxos, Zancle and Himera, although Chalcidian

colonies, yet employed the Aeginetic standard, whereas we might naturally

expect them to follow the Euboic. This would give the maximum of 16½

grs. for the silver obol. Now according to Pollux, Aristotle in his lost

treatise on the constitution of Agrigentum says that the litra is worth

an Aeginetan obol, and Pollux goes on to say that “one would find in him

(Aristotle) in his Constitution of the Himeraeans likewise other names of

Sicilian coins, such as _ungia_, which is equivalent to one _chalcus_,

and _hexas_, which is equivalent to two _chalci_, and _trias_, which

is equivalent to three _chalci_, and _hemilitron_ (half litra), which

is equivalent to six, and litra which is equivalent to an obol[420].”

It is plain from this that Aristotle knew that the Aeginetic obol was

divided into _twelve chalci_. Thus the proposition laid down above, that

the ancient Greek copper obol was a rod or spike divided into 12 parts,

is thoroughly proved. The reason why the Attic obol had only 8 _chalci_

is now plain; it was, as we saw, only two-thirds of the Aeginetan and

consequently only contained two-thirds of the whole number of pieces

of copper into which the ancient copper unit was divided. Now, as we

find the Chalcidian settlers of Himera and other places not using their

native Euboic standard for coining, but employing the Aeginetic, and as

the Aeginetic obol was equal to the Sicilian litra, we are justified in

the conclusion, that when the Greek settlers reached Italy and Sicily

they found their Italic kinsfolk using a copper unit exactly the same as

that employed in Greece; and that finally, when they began to coin, they

found it more convenient to strike silver on a standard which was both

convenient in reference to exchange with gold, as I have shown above,

and had the further advantage of corresponding accurately in value to

the ancient copper unit in use among the Sicels. If, as I indicated,

silver was to copper as 300:1, the Aeginetic silver obol of 16⅔ grs.

would be worth 5000 grs. of copper (practically the same as the early

Roman _libra_). It follows then that if we could only discover the weight

of the Sicilian litra we should know that of the old Greek _copper_

obol. Is this possible? We have no reason to doubt that the obol was a

rod of copper of a certain size, which in the course of time after the

introduction of coined money shrank up until the original rod was only

represented by what had been its equivalent in silver, or a small copper

coin, whose name still survives in the _ob_ used in old account books

as the symbol for _half-penny_[421]. The Greek coinage has preserved

for us but faint traces of the various steps in the degradation of the

copper obol, but, as we have already seen, we find the Sicilian copper

litra in various stages of its decadence from 990 grs. down to 200 grs.

Again, whilst no trace has as yet been found of obols at all in the

archaic shape of rods, or anything approaching it, we find in Sicily at

Agrigentum _litrae_ which are in form distinct survivals of an earlier

stage when the litra, like the obol, was a rod or bar of copper. These

are very strange looking lumps of bronze made in the shape of a tooth

with a flat base, having on one side an eagle or eagle’s head and on the

other a crab, while on the base are marks of value ⸬, ⸪, : (_tetras_,

_trias_, _hexas_). The _uncia_ is almond-shaped with an eagle’s head on

one side, and a crab’s claw on the other[422]. As we found the Chinese

knife shrinking up into a shorter and thicker mass until at last it only

survives in the round _cash_, so in all probability we here find the

Sicilian litra in its mid course from its original full size and shape

to that of the ordinary round copper coin of a later age. That the shape

of the original copper unit of the Italians was that of a rod or bar we

shall now proceed to demonstrate in the case of the Roman _as_.

_The Italian System. Bronze._

As the cow formed the highest unit in the monetary system of ancient

Italy, so the lowest unit employed was a certain amount of copper called

an _as_. We have already found the cow serving the same purpose in Sicily

(as late as the time of Dionysius forming the rateable unit at Syracuse).

The systems of Further Asia, where the buffalo stands at the head of

the scale and the hoe or a piece of raw metal of a certain size stands

at the bottom, form a perfect analogy in modern times. As far as its

value and divisional system go, we have identified the Sicilian litra

with the ancient Hellenic obol or rod, and we have in turn discovered

a very close resemblance between the divisions of the litra and that

of the _as_. I now propose to examine into the original nature of this

denomination, and the form of the object to which it was applied. This

will have been effectually accomplished, if I can succeed in establishing

the proposition _that the as was primarily a rod or bar of copper,

one foot in length, divided into 12 parts, called inches (unciae),

thus coinciding with the Greek obol in form, as also in its duodecimal

division_.

We must, as a preliminary, note carefully several most essential facts

connected with the _as_: (1) The term _as_ (as used in respect of metals)

is never employed for either gold or silver, but is appropriated to

_bronze_ exclusively; (2) it is not the Roman unit of weight, for that is

expressed by the general term _libra_, a word exactly corresponding to

the Greek _Talanton_, since it means both the _weight_ and the _scales_;

(3) the _as_ is not confined to weight, but is also employed as the unit

of linear measure equal to the foot, and also as the unit of land measure

equal to the _jugerum_ or acre.

The following table exhibits the subdivisions of the _as_:

As (Pes, Jugerum)

Deunx = ¹¹⁄₁₂

Dextans ¹⁰⁄₁₂

Dodrans ¾

Bes ⅔

Septunx ⁷⁄₁₂

Semis ½

Quincunx ⁵⁄₁₂

Triens ⅓

Quadrans ¼

Sextans ⅙

Uncia ⅟₁₂

Semuncia ⅟₂₄

Sicilicus ⅟₄₈

Sextula ⅟₇₂

Scriptulum ⅟₂₈₈

Now it has been hitherto assumed by all writers that the system of

division employed in the _as_ as a unit of _weight_ has been transferred

to _measure_. This however is contrary to all experience, for, as we have

had occasion constantly before to notice, weight units are derived from

measures, e.g. the bushel from the measure of that name, and so on. In

the next place as the _as_ is not the unit of Roman weight, if even the

measure unit was borrowed from the weight, we ought to expect the foot

to be called a _libra_ rather than an _as_. It is far more likely that

a unit originally employed for measure would in time give its name to a

weight-unit corresponding in mass to the original measure-unit. There

are besides certain pieces of evidence afforded by the nomenclature of

the submultiples which point directly to the original as being a measure

rather than a weight-unit. The 24th part of the uncia is called the

_scriptulum_, _little scratch_, or _line_ (_scribo_), which is exactly

translated by the Greeks as _gramme_ (γραμμή, scratch or line)[423]. Now

whilst 24 strokes make an excellent method of dividing the uncia in its

capacity of _inch_, they of course have no significance as submultiples

of uncia, meaning _ounce_. Moreover, the forms of several of the best

known divisions of the _as_, such as triens, quadrans, sextans, which are

not easy to explain on the hypothesis that the terminology was primarily

applied to weight, on the other hand admit of a ready solution when we

take the _as_ as originally a unit of measure. For sextans means not a

sixth, but that which makes a sixth, triens not a third, but that which

divides in three parts, and quadrans not a fourth, but that which makes

fourfold, i.e. divides into four, for _quadra_ means not a fourth part,

but that which has four parts (hence usually a square). If we regard

these words as referring to certain lines drawn across a bar of metal,

their meaning is obvious. Whilst _sextans uncia_, the ounce which makes a

sixth, is nonsense, _sextans linea_, the line which makes a sixth, gives

excellent sense, so likewise _triens linea_ fits in admirably with the

required meaning, whilst _quadrans linea_ seems to mean _the line which

divides the whole into four parts_.

The etymology of the word _as_ has long been a puzzle. Scholars starting

with the assumption that _as_ was the Roman abstract term for unity have

accordingly searched for an appropriate derivation. Some have identified

it with the Greek _heis_ one (εἶς through a Tarentine ἇς), whilst the

most recent attempt connects it with the first syllable of _el_ementum.

The same principle has been carried out with regard to _uncia_, which

has been treated simply as meaning _unit_ and connected with _unus_ and

_unicus_.

Now it is notorious that the Roman mind was essentially concrete, and

found great difficulty in arriving at abstract ideas, and consequently at

abstract terms. This alone would make us hesitate to believe that _as_

had originally begun as an abstract term meaning unit, and rather incline

us to believe that it started in life as a name for some common concrete

object. But we have seen above that the numerals in all languages seem

originally to have meant certain actual physical objects which served

as counters, such as the fingers and toes (_decem_ δέκα, _digitus_

δάκτυλος), seeds or pebbles. If such has been the origin of the various

names for _unit_, we can hardly believe that any term for _unity_ can

have originated independently of some concrete object. To add to the

mists which hang round the origin of the _as_, its division into 12 parts

is taken to indicate a Babylonian source. Now the Roman foot was divided,

not merely into 16 fingers like the Greek, but also into 12 unciae or

inches like our own. The latter is most probably the true Italian system,

as it is that found among their cousins and neighbours the Kelts, as well

as amongst the Teutonic peoples. With ourselves still the rustic measures

inches by his thumb, just as he measures feet by means of his own natural

foot. The ancient Irish foot was divided into 12 thumbs or inches

(_ordlach_, Lat. _pollex_, the initial _p_ being lost in Irish)[424].

The Romans too (as did likewise the Teutonic peoples, _e.g._ Icelandic

_tomme_, an inch) used the thumb (_pollex_) as the ordinary measure in

practical life[425]. The division then into 12 unciae is simply the

result of the fact that a certain natural relation exists between the

breadth of the thumb and the length of the foot, and as the relation held

true just as much for the Kelt as the Chaldaean, there was no need for

the ancient Italians to borrow their duodecimal system from the East. Now

what are we to say as to the origin of the word _uncia_? Does it mean

anything more or less than the breadth of the (thumb) _nail_? The use

of _unguis_, a nail, as a measure was common in Latin, as we know from

the phrases _transversum unguem_ (the thickness of a nail) and _latum

unguem_ (a nail’s breadth) side by side with _transversum digitum_ (a

fingers thickness) in Plautus. _Uncia_ may be simply a derivative from

_unguis_; there is no phonetic impossibility, and even if there were any

linguistic irregularity, false analogy with _unicus_ would amply account

for it. The use of a word meaning _nail_ to express the divisions of the

foot is completely paralleled by the ancient Hindu system, where the

_finger-breadth_ is termed _angala_, _i.e._ nail (cognate of _unguis_ and

ὄνυξ).

Next we come to the word _as_ itself, which appears in old Latin as

_assis_. It is masculine in gender, which of itself is sufficient to

throw doubts on its being a really abstract word. Can it be that we have

a close relative of it in _asser_ a rod, bar, pole, which is likewise

masculine in gender? Whilst one form of the name was specially confined

to a small rod or bar of copper, the other was employed in a wide and

general way. These two forms _assis_ and _asser_,-_is_ are completely

analogous to _vomis_ and _vomer_,-_is_, a ploughshare. The meaning _rod_

is in complete harmony with what we have said about the Greek obol. All

that is now wanting to make our proof complete is some evidence that the

primitive Italian _as_ was really in the form of a rod or bar. The most

archaic specimens of ancient Italian bronze money as yet described are

those found at the Ponte di Badia near Vulci in 1828. These consisted (1)

of quadrilaterals broken in pieces, weighing from 2 to 3 pounds each,

stamped with an ox and trident, (2) cube-shaped pieces of copper without

any mark, weighing from an ounce to a pound, and (3) some ellipse-shaped

pieces for the most part weighing two ounces[426]. But in the British

Museum are preserved a number of pieces of bronze which are roughly

quadrilateral. A cursory examination showed me that, whilst two parallel

sides exhibit the marks of a mould, the two remaining sides displayed

unmistakable signs of fracture. Several of them are end pieces, showing

the voluting of the mould on two sides and at one end, whilst the other

end shows marks of having been broken (Fig. 48). Several of them bear

stamps, or letters. There can be no doubt that these are pieces of short

bars of bronze, which were afterwards cut up, as occasion demanded.

The imprints on them prove them to be of comparatively recent date. If

therefore the _asses_ still retained their bar shape after the art of

stamping metal to serve as currency had come into use, _à fortiori_ the

primitive _as_ of Italy must certainly have been nothing more than a

plain rod or bar of copper, which passed from hand to hand as the obols

in Greece, and the bars of iron and copper pass at the present among

savages of Africa and Asia[427]. This was what was called by the ancient

writers _the raw copper_ (_aes rude_), as distinguished from _the stamped

copper_ (_aes signatum_) of a later date. The fact that early specimens

of _aes signatum_, such as the _decussis_, bearing a cow on both obverse

and reverse (Fig. 49), were still made in the shape of a bar, is a

further proof that such was the original form.

[Illustration: FIG. 48. Aes Rude.]

[Illustration: FIG. 49. Bronze Decussis.]

It will be observed that I can give no positive evidence for the length

or breadth of the _as_. The pieces in the Museum are all fragments,

and, even if there were any of them whole, they would not by any means

decide the original _length_, although they would of course represent the

_weight_. For as they are late, they would probably have been made at a

time when the original rod was shrinking up into a more compact form,

just as the Chinese bronze knives get shorter and thicker. But the fact

remains that the _as_ was identified completely with the Roman _foot_

measure, the divisions being the same in each. We therefore may with

great probability infer that the _as_ was originally a piece of copper a

foot in length, and of a known thickness. We have seen that copper and

iron are not weighed in the early stages of society, but are appraised

by measurement. Why should not the same hold true for Rome? It may be

asked, how came it that the _as_ was taken as the typical unit for weight

and superficial measure, and to express even an inheritance? The answer

is not far to seek. To express fractional parts has ever been a great

difficulty with primitive people. As the Malays cannot conceive abstract

numerals, but must append the concrete _padi_ to each of their numbers,

so the old Italian found it necessary to employ some concrete object,

the subdivisions of which were familiar, to express the fractional parts

whether it be of an estate or anything else. The most common unit in

use was the rod of copper divided into 12 thumbs. Accordingly, if a

Roman wished to say that Balbus was heir to one-twelfth of an estate he

expressed this by the homely formula that Balbus had come in for _one

inch_, the denominator 12 being mentally supplied, as everyone knew that

there were 12 inches in the copper bar. The same principle of taking some

familiar object, the ordinary method of dividing which was known to all

men, is seen in the method of expressing one-tenth. The Roman _denarius_

was divided into 10 _libellae_; accordingly, when Cicero wishes to say

that a certain person had come in for a tenth part of an estate he says

that he has come in for a _libella_ (_heres ex libella_). From this the

reader will at once see that we might just as well declare that the word

_denarius_ is an abstract word meaning _unity_ as make the same assertion

about the _as_. Again, when the Roman land surveyors elaborated their

system of mensuration, they found that the simplest method of expressing

the fractional parts of the _jugerum_ was to employ the old duodecimal

method of the _as_. Nor is this without a parallel elsewhere. As the yard

was the common English unit of linear measure, it was applied to the

most common unit of land, the quarter of the hide, which was accordingly

termed a yard of land, or a virgate (_virga terrae_). The English analogy

is even still more complete, for as the _as_ or foot-rod became the unit

of weight, so in Cambridge the yard of butter is identical with the pound

of butter[428].

Our next step will be to trace the process by which the _as_ or rod

became the general weight-unit, the pound (_libra_). The term _libra_ is

not the oldest Latin name for _weight_, for _pondus_ or its cognate verb

_pendeo_, which literally means to _hang_, is the true claimant for that

position. _Libra_ seems properly to mean the _balance_, as is seen from

the legal formula (employed in Mancipatio) _per aes et libram_, by means

of copper and the balance. From the fact that its chief use was to weigh

_asses_ of copper, the mass of an _as_ came to be termed the _weight

par excellence_, just as the most usual amount weighed in the Greek

_talanta_ (scales) became the _talanton par excellence_. This process

can be illustrated by modern examples. Thus in the south of Ireland

potatoes are sold by the unit of 21 lbs., which consequently is termed a

_weight_, and instead of speaking of so many stones or hundredweights,

everyone speaks of a weight of potatoes. But, as already remarked, it was

only at a comparatively late epoch that the bars of copper were weighed.

It would be only with the growth of greater exactitude in commercial

dealings that the art of weighing, which was employed for all dealings

in gold and silver, would be applied to copper. Just as the Malays and

Tibetans have been gradually taught by the careful Chinese to employ

weights commercially, so the Italian tribes may have been led to do so

under the influence of the astute Greek traders from Magna Graecia and

Sicily. The system in vogue for gold was that of our old friend the

ox-unit. This is proved from the fact that not only is the oldest gold

coinage of the Etruscans, the close neighbours of Latium, based upon this

standard, but that also in Sicily and Southern Italy there was the small

gold talent, the three-fold of the ox-unit. This three-fold of the stater

was also used at Neapolis. Although the earliest Greek colonies in Sicily

employed at first the Aeginetic standard for silver, we soon find them

reverting to the gold or Euboic standard for that metal, whilst the early

silver coinage of the Etruscans (before 350 B.C.) is also of the Euboic

standard. We may with high probability assume that when the Sicilians

and Italians first essayed to weigh their copper rods, they naturally

employed the standard already in use for gold and silver. The highest

unit of this was the small talent of 3 staters which weighed about 405

grs. The bar was divided into 12 inches, and it was found that an inch of

copper rod closely approximated in weight to the small gold talent. The

weight of the bar, which was the ancient unit for copper before weight

had been employed, now became the standard weight-unit for that metal. It

is to be observed that this ounce of 405 grs., though some 27 grs. less

than the full Roman _uncia_ of later times, is only 15 grs. lighter than

the Roman ounce prior to 268 B.C., for it is an ascertained fact that the

old Roman _uncia_ did not exceed 420 grs.[429] It must be remembered that

the weight of the ounce would depend on the standard foot by which the

bar was measured. Now, whilst the Roman foot measures 296 millim., there

was likewise in use in Campania, and probably in many parts of Southern

Italy, a foot of 276 millim. The relation of bars of these lengths and of

a given thickness to the Roman libra is not without interest. If we take

an ordinary engineer’s table of materials we shall find that a copper

rod a Roman foot long, and half a Roman inch in diameter, weighs 5040

grs. Now, as the Roman pound weighs 5184 grs. this approximation seems

almost too close to be a mere coincidence. If on the other hand we take

a rod of a foot of 276 millim. and with a diameter of the corresponding

half-inch, we shall get a pound of 4680 grs. and an ounce of 390 grs,

which is certainly not far from the weight of the small gold talent.

It follows from this that we may expect pounds of different weights in

Italy, according as the foot-unit varies in different districts.

In later times, besides the pound of 12 unciae, there were several

commercial pounds on Italian soil, the pound of 16 ounces (from which our

own avoirdupois is probably descended), that of 18 unciae, and that of

24. The last two are easy of explanation, since one is simply the double,

the other one and a half times the Roman pound. But perhaps a different

explanation must be sought for the 16 ounce pound. The foot was divided

by Greeks and also by Italians into 16 fingers as well as into 12 thumbs.

Was therefore the pound of 16 ounces simply derived from the division

of the foot bar into 16 fingers, the weight of the finger being however

equated to that of the Roman thumb or inch of copper?

The _as_, having been once subjected to weight, its hundredfold,

the _centumpondium_ or “hundred weight,” became the highest Roman

weight-unit. Thus the _as_ and the _centumpondium_ of the Italians

correspond to the mina and talent of the Greeks. But it will be observed

that the Italians obtained their higher unit by the old decimal system,

whereas the Greeks had borrowed the mina and its sixtyfold from Asia. The

_centumpondium_ must be regarded as a true-born Italian unit, not one

borrowed from Greece or Asia, and of this there is further proof. We saw

by the ancient Roman law that the cow was estimated at 100 _asses_, the

sheep at 10 _asses_. No doubt from time out of mind 100 of the bars of

copper, which formed the chief lower unit of barter, made one cow, just

as in Annam 280 little hoes make one buffalo (p. 167). When copper came

to be weighed, the amount of copper which formed the equivalent of the

highest unit of barter, the cow, was taken as the highest weight-unit.

From what I have said above it is not improbable that the Roman libra

and the Sicilian litra of copper were almost equal in weight. The fact

that the Greek writers always employed the Sicilian word litra (λίτρα),

to translate the Latin _libra_, likewise indicates that in the Greek

mind there was a tradition of their identity. And if the doctrine here

put forward of the original nature of the _as_ be right, nothing can

be more likely than that the Italians who had crossed into Sicily and

their kinsfolk who had remained behind employed rods of similar size,

and that when they began to weigh the latter, the “weight” (libra or

litra), derived from the standard copper rod, should be the same in

each region, until certain modifications occasioned by new monetary

conditions according to the needs of different communities had caused

some divergency in _coin_ weights, although as a _commercial_ weight the

litra remained unchanged. As Aristotle identified the Aeginetic obol

and _chalcus_ with the Sicilian litra and _onkia_, we may with some

plausibility suggest that the ancient Greek copper obol or spike and the

Italian _as_ or rod were identical in dimensions and in origin.

In Greece the copper obol rapidly fell in weight, for, when once silver

currency had been introduced, copper was thrust aside, and it was not

till the fourth century B.C. that copper coins came into use. When the

copper obol appears as a coin it is but a small piece, being in fact a

mere token.

[Illustration: FIG. 50. As (_Aes grave_). (Before 2nd Punic War.)]

The history of the degradation of copper was seen better in Sicily, where

we found the litra still weighing 990 grs., but it rapidly sank to only

200 grs., evidently in this case also being mere money of account. For as

the silver litra was about 13½ grs., unless the 200 grain copper litra

was a mere token, silver would have been to copper as 17:1, which is

obviously absurd. In the case of the Italian _as_ the process is still

clearer, for we have every stage of the _as_, from the bars which I have

described through the _libral as_ (_aes grave_), the _sextantal as_, the

uncial and half-uncial, down to the small coin of the empire commonly

called “a third brass.”

[Illustration: FIG. 51. As (half uncial standard).]

[Illustration: FIG. 52. As, 3rd Cent. A.D. (“Third Brass”).]

[Illustration: FIG. 53. Didrachm of Corinth.]

_Gold and Silver._

Whilst in the infancy of coining the Sicilian silver litra was probably

the same as the Aeginetic obol, that is about 16⅔ grs., the Aeginetic

didrachm being probably treated as a _decalitron_ (ten-litra piece),

nevertheless after no long time the common Euboic standard of 135 grs.

was employed at Syracuse and elsewhere, and we have the authority of

Aristotle for the statement that the _Corinthian stater_ was called a

_decalitron_. Corinth, as we saw above, used the 135 grain unit for her

famous Pegasi, commonly known as “Colts” (πῶλοι), and therefore the litra

was by this time 13½ grs. Now, in Etruria we find about 400-350 B.C. a

silver currency struck on this same 135 grs. standard. These coins bear

marks of value, 𐌢 on coins of 131 grs., 𐌡 on those of 65 grs., 𐌠𐌠' on

those of 32 grs., and 𐌠 on those of 14 and 13 grs. It is plain therefore

that the stater of 135 grs. was considered to consist of 10 units of 13½

grs. each. In other words, whatever the Etruscans may have called their

stater, it was exactly the same in weight and method of subdivision as

the _decalitron_ of Syracuse. At a later period (350-268 B.C.) we find

on coins of like weight the symbols 𐌢𐌢 instead of 𐌢, 𐌢 instead of 𐌡, 𐌡

instead of 𐌠𐌠'. The unit now is exactly half of what it was at an earlier

stage, 6¾ grs. instead of 13½ grs.

Not till 268 B.C., just on the eve of the First Punic War, did Rome

first coin silver. This coin, called _denarius_, as its name implies,

represented 10 _asses_. It was divided into four parts, each of which

was called a _sestertius_ or 2½, and was marked with the symbol 𐆘

representing that number.

[Illustration: FIG. 54. Sesterce of first Roman silver coinage.]

It is very remarkable that the Etruscan coin of the second series, marked

2½, is only very slightly heavier than the Roman sesterce (_sestertius_)

which bears a similar mark. Hence it has been very reasonably inferred

that when the Romans set about the coinage of silver, they simply adopted

with slight modification the silver system employed by their neighbours

across the Tiber. This is all the more probable, as it is almost certain

that, though Rome did not strike silver she like Athens before the time

of Solon, and like Syracuse, used freely the coins of other communities

for a long time previously. The Etruscan coins would therefore serve as

silver currency at Rome. We may then assume that the monetary system must

have been much the same on both sides of the river. Accordingly, since

in 268 B.C. we find the Romans striking a coin in silver representing

10 copper _asses_, which is almost the same in weight as the Etruscan

coin marked 𐌢, we may reasonably infer that, if the Romans had commenced

coining silver a century earlier, their _denarius_ or 10-_as_ piece would

have been the same weight as the Etruscan.

[Illustration: FIG. 55. Didrachm of Tarentum.]

Now besides the _litra_, which we found to be both a copper-unit and

a silver coin in Sicily, there is another term of great interest,

especially as it plays an important part in the history of Roman money.

The general Latin name for a coin is _numus_, which in the later days of

the Republic usually meant a _denarius_ when used in the more restricted

sense, but in the earlier period it was the term specially applied to the

silver sesterce (_sestertius_). This is almost certainly a loan-word,

for Pollux is most explicit in warning us that, although the word seems

Roman, it is in reality Greek and belongs to the Dorians of Sicily and

Italy[430]. It is always a name of a coin of silver in Sicily, being so

used by Epicharmus. The coin meant by this poet cannot have been one of

great value, for he says: “Buy me a fine heifer calf for ten _nomi_.”

It was in all probability the Aeginetan obol, for Apollodorus in his

comments on Sophron set it down at three half (Attic) obols, that is,

almost 17 grs. This is confirmed by the fact that an Homeric scholiast

makes the small talent weigh 24 _nomi_, which gives nearly 17 grs. as

the weight of that unit. Crossing into Italy, we find that according

to Aristotle[431] there was a coin called a _noummos_ at Tarentum, on

which was the device of Taras riding on a dolphin. This is the familiar

type of the Tarentine didrachms which, from their first issue down to

the invasion of Pyrrhus (450-280 B.C.), weigh normally 123-120 grs.,

although one specimen weighs 128 grs. This coin Mommsen recognized as

the _noummos_ of Aristotle. Professor Gardner afterwards suggested

that the diobol, on which occasionally the same type is found, was

rather the coin meant. Recently Mr A. J. Evans has almost proved this

hypothesis impossible by showing that all the diobols yet known are

probably later than the time of Aristotle[432]. As, however, this rests

on negative evidence, and is liable to be overthrown at any moment by

the discovery of an archaic diobol, it is advisable to cast about for

some more positive criterion. Heraclea of Lucania, the daughter-city and

close neighbor of Tarentum, as we know from the famous Heraclean Tables

(which scholars are agreed in regarding as written about the end of the

4th cent. B.C.), employed as a unit of account a silver _nomos_. It is

so probable that the _nomos_ employed at Heraclea (_circ._ 325 B.C.)

would be the same in value as that employed at Tarentum in the time of

Aristotle (_ob._ 322 B.C.), that if we can prove the _nomos_ of Heraclea

to be a _didrachm_ and not a _diobol_, we may henceforth hold with

certainty that the _nomos_ of Tarentum was the larger coin.

On the Heraclean Tables it is enacted that those who held certain public

land should pay certain fines in case they had failed to plant their

holdings properly; four olive trees were to be planted on each _schoenus_

of land, and for each olive tree not so planted a penalty of 10 _nomi_

of silver was to be exacted, and for each _schoenus_ of land not planted

with vines the penalty was two _minae_ of silver[433]. The _schoenus_ is

identical with the Roman _actus_ (half a _jugerum_), being the square of

120 feet. Four olive trees were the allowance for each _schoenus_. Now if

we can determine the number of vines which were planted on a _schoenus_,

we shall be able to get a test of the value of a _nomos_. Two minae of

silver contained in round numbers 110 Tarentine didrachms of 123 grs.

each, or 675 diobols of about 20 grs. each. Olives were many times more

valuable than the vine, so that any result which will make the vine about

the same value as the obol will be absurd.

Now Mr A. J. Evans, when in Southern Italy, at my request kindly

ascertained that vines, when trained on poles on vineyard slopes, are

usually about 3 yards apart, whilst when trained on pollard poplars (as

is much more usual in Campagna), they stand about 6 yards apart. In the

case of the former about 150 vines would go to a _schoenus_ (1600 sq.

yards), whilst in the latter case barely 50. We cannot doubt that the

distance between the vines must have been much the same in ancient as in

modern times.

If now we take the _nomos_ to be a _diobol_, each vine is worth 4⅔

_nomi_, or 14 _nomi_, according as there are 50 or 150 vines to the

_schoenus_. Now, as the valuable and slow growing olive is only worth 10

_nomi_, and it is impossible to believe that the relative values of olive

and vine could have ever been such as those arrived at on the assumption

that the _nomos_ is a diobol, we must turn to the alternative course and

take the _nomos_ as a didrachm. The penalty for a _schoenus_ of vines is

two minae or 110 didrachms. If 150 vines go to a _schoenus_, each will

be worth about ⅔ didrachm, 15 vines being equal to one olive, or taking

50 vines to the _schoenus_, each vine will be worth about two didrachms,

5 vines being worth one olive. This result is so rational that we need

hesitate no longer to regard the well-known Tarentine didrachm as the

_nomos_ (_noummos_) of Aristotle.

There is such a difference between the _nomos_ of Sicily, identical with

the Aeginetan obol, and that of Tarentum that we are forced to conclude

that the term _nomos_ is not specially applied to any particular coin

unit. In Sicily we found the native unit, the litra, identified in

certain cases, at least in earlier times, with the Aeginetan obol as well

as with the _nomos_. Why two names _nomos_ and _litra_ for the same unit?

Is one Sicilian and the other Greek? This at least gives a reasonable

explanation. The Dorians then in Sicily gave the name to their earliest

coins, _nomos_, with them indicating the unit of currency established by

law just as did _nomisma_ among other Greeks. As in Sicily the Aeginetic

obol was the _legal coin_ (_nomos_) _par excellence_, so at Tarentum,

where didrachms were the first coins to be struck, the term (_nomos_) was

applied to that unit. We may therefore expect to find the term _nomos_

applied to various kinds of coins among the Italiotes and Italians,

according to the particular coin chosen by each state as its own unit of

account.

Accordingly we find the term _nomos_ applied to certain bronze coins

struck on the sextantal (two ounce) and uncial standards, at Arpi

and other towns, which are inscribed N II (the double _nummus_), N I

(_nummus_), ..... (_quincunx_), .... (_triens_), ... (_quadrans_), ..

(_sextans_), . S (_sescuncia_), . (_uncia_), and Σ (_semuncia_). The

divisions being those of the _as_, it is clear that the _nomos_, or

current coin in those places, was the reduced _as_. Finally, when the

Romans first use the term _nummus_, it means the silver _sestertius_ (2½

asses), the one-fourth of the _denarius_ or ten-_as_ piece, which weighed

a scruple (_i.e._ 18½ grs.) at the time of the first Roman coinage of

silver. Here we have all our positive evidence for the _nomos_. As

diobols of 18 to 17 grs. are found in the coinages of various towns in

Magna Graecia, such as Arpi, Caelia, Canusium, Rubi, and Teate, it has

been plausibly held that such a diobol was the _nomos par excellence_

of these states, and that it was from contact with them that the Romans

learned both the use and the name of such a monetary unit. But Rome may

have been influenced by her Etruscan neighbours, for, as we have seen,

the smallest denomination in the second silver series of Etruscan coins

(of which the coins weigh 129 grs., 32 grs. and 17 grs. respectively) is

just the weight of the Roman sestertius, and bears the symbol 𐌡𐌠𐌠 (2½),

just as the latter bears 𐆘 (2½). Taking into consideration these facts,

it looks as if the Romans and Etruscans grafted on to a native system

the diobol, or current silver coin of Southern Italy, the Romans (and

for all we can tell the Etruscans likewise) adopting at the same time

the name _nummus_. Finally, we observe that this _nummus_ is identical

with the Sicilian _nomos_, which in turn was found to be none other than

the Aeginetic obol. The Roman _sestertius_ being a _scriptulum_ (17⁷⁄₁₂

grs.) in weight, we thus find a direct connection between the latter

and the Aeginetic obol (16⅔ grs.). This need not surprise us, for it is

most natural that in the welding of a weight system (partly foreign, and

on the native side only employed for gold and silver) and of a system

of measurement employed for bronze, certain features derived from the

special silver units in use would be introduced into the new system,

which afterwards became universal for weighing all commodities. The term

_Sicilicus_[434] employed for the quarter-ounce is good evidence for

this hypothesis. Its name seems to mean simply _Sicilian_. In weight it

was about 108 grs. Now, didrachms struck on such a foot are found in the

Greek cities of south-western Italy, at Velia, Neapolis and at Tarentum,

after the time of Pyrrhus. Did the Romans, who must have carried on

by weight all dealings in silver up to 268 B.C., treat such coins as

quarter-ounces, and ultimately take the name of the coin (wrongly

connecting it with Sicily) to designate the quarter-ounce? In like

fashion it was probably discovered that the Aeginetic obol of the Greek

colonists was about equal in weight to the line (_scriptulum_) which is

one-twenty-fourth of the inch (_uncia_) of copper. Thus as there are 24

_nomi_ in the Sicilian talent, so there are 24 _scriptula_ in the Roman

_uncia_. These considerations help to explain the relations which existed

between the _nomos_ (Aeginetic obol), _sestertius_, and _scruple_.

Mr Soutzo[435] gives a very different account of the _nomos_. Starting

with the Egyptian hypothesis he makes all the Italian weight systems

of foreign origin. He thus makes the Roman libra the ⅟₁₀₀ of a Roman

_talent_, which he seems to identify with a light Asiatic talent[436].

Starting with the talent he supposes that on Italian soil it was divided

into 100 _librae_ instead of 60 heavy or 120 light minae, as in the

East. Each of these _librae_ or _pounds_ was divided into 12 _ounces_,

and each _ounce_ into 24 fractions. He holds likewise that the Italians

adopted from the East the use of bronze “comme matière première de

leurs échanges,” at the same time as they obtained the first germs of

civilization and their first weight standards. The _centumpondium_

or 100 weight therefore he takes as his prime unit. But besides the

talent and the mina and the _centumpondium_ and _libra_ or _as_,

according to Mr Soutzo, “all the Italian peoples availed themselves of

an intermediate weight unit: this was the _nomos_ or _decussis_[437].

This unit was the _libral nomos_, the twelfth of the heavy talent,

being worth ten _minae_ or _librae_, and the _libral decussis_, the

_tenth_ of the _centumpondium_, weighing 10 _librae_.” The monetary

_nomos_ and _decussis_, he thinks, played an important part in the

history of Italian coinage. He admits however that no specimen of either

_nomos_ or _decussis_ of libral standard is known, the heaviest being

a _decussis_ of the Roman triental (one-third) standard, whilst the

pieces from Venusia and Teanum Apulum marked N I and N II (_nomos_ and

double _nomos_), representing 10 and 20 minas respectively, belong to

a still much more reduced standard. The simple multiples of the _as_

(libra) and litra, such as the _tripondius_ and _dupondius_, were just

as rarely cast in the libral epoch. The _mina_ or the _as_ with their

fractions, on the contrary, were the kinds most employed: originally

the series was ordinarily composed of the _as_ (marked I or sometimes

............), the _semis_ (S), the _triens_ (....), the _quadrans_

(...), the _sextans_ (..), the _uncia_ (.) and _semuncia_ (Σ). In some

series the _as_ is rare and the _semis_ is wanting, but in addition to

the other denominations here given the _quincunx_ (:·:) and the _dextans_

(S...., 1 _semis_ + 4 _unciae_) are found. The presence or absence

of these pieces characterizes certain Italian and Sicilian monetary

systems[438]. All the evidence virtually which can be produced by Soutzo

for this hypothetical _nomos_ is that at Syracuse the Corinthian stater

of 135 grs. was called a _decalitron_, that the Tarentine didrachm of

128 grs. (max.) was similarly divided into 10 _litras_, that the Romans

employed the tenfold of the _as_ (_decussis_) and when they coined silver

called their silver unit a _denarius_ as representing 10 copper _asses_,

and the fact that certain copper coins such as those of Arpi, called

_nomi_, were evidently regarded as containing 10 units, the half being

the _quincunx_. But, as we have already seen, the real explanation of

these coins seems to be that they represent reduced _asses_. We must

remember that the heaviest Roman _as_ yet known is only 11 ounces, whilst

the great proportion of the earliest specimens are only 10 _unciae_

or (_dextantals_). When the idea of a real copper currency for local

purposes gained ground, and it was found that it was not necessary to

have the _as_ of account of full weight, and at the same time to enable

the state to make a profit of this copper currency which was solely for

home use (just as our Mint makes a large profit of our silver coins),

the first stage in reduction was to take off an ounce, or much more

frequently two full ounces. I have already pointed out the vitality and

universality of the _uncia_ as an unit, and have given the reasons for

this. Hence arose _asses_ or _bars_ of 10 ounces. The number 10 had of

course great advantages, and presently, when further reductions in the

copper currency took place, certain communities clave fast to the decimal

system and, instead of taking off some more whole ounces, simply reduced

the ounce itself, and retained the denomination, continuing to place

the marks of value as before. In those Hellenized states of Apulia just

referred to this reduced copper _as_ or _litra_ was the _legal_ unit, and

therefore denominated a _nomos_, especially as it probably corresponded

in value (at least as money of account) to the silver unit or _nomos_ in

circulation in each district. But whilst Mr Soutzo seems wrong in his

view of the _nomos_, there can be no doubt that there was a consensus

among the Sicilians and Italians in favour of making an intermediate

unit between 1 and 100, the tenfold of the _litra_ and _as_, into a

higher unit. The Syracusan _decalitron_ and the Roman _decussis_ and

_denarius_ are incontrovertible facts. For the latter at least a most

interesting connection with a unit of barter can be proved. We saw that

by the Lex Tarpeia (451 B.C.) a cow was counted at one hundred _asses_

(_centussis_, _centumpondium_) whilst a sheep was estimated at 10 _asses_

(_decussis_). The reader will observe that, even if the theory were

true that the Roman _centumpondium_ is the starting-point of the Roman

weight system, and that it was borrowed from the East, the cow all the

same plays a most important part in the founding of the system. It would

be another instance to prove the impossibility of framing a weight

standard independent of the unit of barter, just as we have already seen

that the Irish, when borrowing a ready-made weight system from Rome,

found it absolutely necessary to equate the cow to the ounce of silver,

and as Charlemagne had to adjust the _solidus_ by the value of the same

animal. If again the _centumpondium_ and _as_ grew up independently as

_weight_ units on Italian soil, and copper was weighed there before

gold, the cow is evidently the basis of the system; whilst again, on

my hypothesis that _copper_ went by bulk in bars of given dimensions,

and was not weighed until long after the scales had been employed for

gold, the cow is directly connected with that unit of weight (the gold

ox-unit of 135 grs.) which ultimately forms the basis of the uncia (as

_weight_) and libra. On every hypothesis alike the cow must be retained

as the chief factor in the origin of the Roman weight system. It will be

observed that Mr Soutzo offers no explanation why the Romans, instead of

retaining the sexagesimal division of the talent which they are supposed

to have imported, subdivided it according to the decimal scale. It cannot

be alleged that they had any deep-rooted antipathy to the duodecimal

system, seeing that the _as_ was divided into 12 _unciae_, and the ounce

into 24 scruples. The fact that the Romans resisted in this respect the

Greek influences, which were so potent a factor in their civilization,

is strong evidence that the employment of the tenfold and hundredfold of

the _as_ was of immemorial native origin, and most intimately connected

with the animal units, which must certainly be held to be autochthonous.

As we found in Further Asia and Africa hoes or bars of metal as the

lowest unit of currency, so many hoes being worth a kettle, so many

kettles a buffalo, so in ancient Italy 10 bars (_asses_) of copper made

a sheep, and 10 sheep made a cow. It is exceedingly probable that the

same system prevailed among the Sicels and Sicilian Greeks, 10 litras

going to the sheep, 10 sheep to the cow. For we saw on an earlier page

that at Syracuse down to the time of Dionysius the cow remained the unit

of assessment, just as at the present moment the buffalo is the unit of

assessment among the villages of Annam; and, just as with the latter

the buffalo is the unit of value, so we may well infer that with the

Sicilians the cow played the same rôle. It may therefore be assumed with

considerable probability that the employment of the _decalitron_ and

_decussis_ as monetary units was originally due to their connection with

the value of the sheep.

As Soutzo has observed, the degradation of the local copper series moved

on most unequal lines, and no doubt in some places the _decussis_ did

not represent perhaps one half the value of its archetype, the sheep,

whilst at the same moment the copper unit in another community stood

at almost its original weight and value. Where silver was coined the

degradation of copper went on all the quicker; there was a tendency more

and more to get rid of the old cumbrous copper coins, and to employ

those of a lighter and more portable size. Moreover the inter-relations

between copper and silver made the coinages in these metals act and react

upon each other. Thus the state after reducing the copper would reduce

likewise the silver, so as to make the two series correspond. This was

probably facilitated in some cases at least by the change in the relative

value of these metals. Italy was not a silver-producing region, whilst

it was rich in copper. Naturally with the increase of commerce and the

development of silver mines in neighbouring countries such as Spain,

silver became more abundant and the price of copper rose accordingly. We

have had occasion already to remark that the abundance or scarcity of

gold or silver is indicated by its being employed or not for coinage.

In the case of gold we know that it is only when the supply of that

metal is in excess of its demand for purposes of ornament that it is or

can be employed in the form of coined money. The history of the coinage

of Persia, Lydia, Macedonia, Rhodes and elsewhere in ancient times, as

well as the history of mediaeval gold coining, make this evident, whilst

modern Hindustan teaches us the same lesson. Of course in times of great

financial straits under the pressure of war a gold coinage was sometimes

issued, as perhaps at Athens[439] in 407 B.C. and as at Rome during the

second Punic war in 206 B.C. Backwardness in the coinage of silver among

certain peoples is probably to be accounted for in the same way. The

employment of iron money at Sparta (and Byzantium) was probably due to

the dearth of precious metals rather than to any ordinance of Lycurgus

against the employment of the latter. If accordingly we find that Rome

did not coin silver until 268 B.C. we are justified in concluding that it

was from want of silver she had been so long in following the example of

the Etruscans and the Greeks.

It is certainly most significant that within four years after the capture

of Tarentum (272 B.C.) and the subjugation of all Southern Italy we find

her issuing a well-matured silver currency. Doubtless by her conquests

she obtained a vast supply of the precious metal, for we know from the

records of Livy and Pliny that great masses of foreign coins and bullion

flowed into the treasury after every fresh conquest. We may therefore

reasonably assume that previous to 272 B.C. silver had been much dearer

in relation to copper.

But to return. We have seen that with the imprinting of some device on

the primitive bars of copper, the tendency to reduce their weight would

quickly evince itself. Accordingly it was possible that in certain places

when the coinage of silver began, and there was still a desire to make

the silver unit equal to the copper, the latter having been already

reduced, the silver would be proportioned thereto. Thus when silver

was first coined in some towns in Sicily, the silver Aeginetic obol of

16½ grs. was regarded as the equivalent of the copper litra, but when

Syracuse started a coinage of Corinthian staters, a piece of silver of

13½ grs. was accounted as the litra.

But in other parts of Italy the process was somewhat different. For

we find the silver unit when once fixed remaining the same in weight,

but simply having its denomination altered to meet the requirements of

certain changes in the bronze series. Thus the Etruscan silver staters

of the period prior to 350 B.C., which weigh 130 grs., are marked 𐌢,

whilst the coins of the same weight at a later epoch are marked 𐌢𐌢,

showing that the copper unit had undergone a change. This Soutzo thinks

was simply a reduction from the triental to the sextantal foot, and in no

wise due to any change in the relative value of silver and copper. That

however both influences may have aided in the change will be made clear

from the history of the reduction of the Roman _denarius_ and _as_ in the

second Punic war. Finally when the Romans coined their first _denarii_

in 268 B.C., the _libella_ or tenth of the _denarius_, which represented

in silver the copper _libra_, was only 7 grs., an indubitable proof that

the _as_ was but then a mere fraction of its former self. Yet all the

same it is clear that this silver _denarius_, which represented a reduced

_decussis_ of bronze, had its ultimate source in nothing else than the 10

libral _asses_ which represented the value of a sheep. Are we not then

justified in suggesting that the Etruscan stater of 135 grs. marked 𐌢

had a like origin, that the 10 litra piece or _noummos_ of Tarentum of

almost the same weight, and the Syracusan 10 litra piece of 135 grs., had

also a similar origin, whilst at an earlier period 10 Aeginetic obols

(the _nomi_ of the poems of Epicharmus and Sophron) were the equivalent

of the same animal? Ten _nomi_ were the price of a calf in the time of

Epicharmus, and as we have seen already the value of a sheep and a young

calf is always about the same, even down to the present day.

_Roman System._

Although it is not our concern to go into the history of Roman money,

it is nevertheless necessary to give the reader a short sketch of its

principal features in order to make the history of the Roman weight

standards intelligible.

First came oxen and sheep, which according to their age and sex bore

definite relations to each other, and by which all other values were

measured. From an early period (at least 1000 B.C.) copper was in use,

not yet however weighed, but estimated by the bulk, as I have already

described. Side by side with it ingots of gold and silver passed from

hand to hand. Such ingots are mentioned by Varro under the name of

_bricks_ (_lateres_)[440]. Though this mention refers to a later period,

we can yet infer from it with certainty that the practice of trafficking

in small ingots of gold and silver prevailed in Italy as elsewhere. With

gold came the art of weighing, which was also applied to silver. We have

given reasons for believing that the weight-unit employed was the same as

that which I have termed the ox-unit. We found the Etruscans, the close

neighbours of the Romans, and who had access to the gold fields of Upper

Italy, employing this unit as their standard from the commencement of

their coinage in the 5th century for both gold and silver. Any of the

towns of Southern Italy which struck gold, such as Metapontum, coined

on the same standard, which was likewise employed for silver, sometimes

a little reduced, by many communities, such as Tarentum. The standard

ingot of gold would bear a known relation to that of silver, to the bar

of bronze, the cow, and the sheep. We have given absolute proof of the

relation between cattle and bronze in the 5th cent. B.C., and we may well

infer similar constant relations between cattle and bronze, and the other

metals. With greater exactness in commercial dealings the bronze rod was

next weighed by the standard already in use for gold, and it was found

that each of the 12 parts or unciae into which it was divided weighed

just three times the ox-unit, that is, the weight of the small talent

which we have found likewise in Macedon, Sicily, and Lower Italy, and

which may have itself represented originally the conventional value of a

slave, which was three cows among the Celts, the close kinsfolk of the

Italians, and probably about the same among the early Greeks. As soon as

the rods or _asses_ were exchanged by weighing, they would quickly lose

their original form, which was only required so long as it was necessary

that they should be of certain fixed dimensions. Under the new system it

mattered not whether an _as_ was ·8 inches long, and three inches thick,

provided only it was of full weight when placed in the scale. These are

the pieces which are known as _aes rude_; as yet they are mere lumps of

metal, without any stamp or device. Gaius well describes this stage:

“For this reason bronze and the balance are employed (in _mancipatio_)

because formerly they only employed bronze coins, and there were bars

(_asses_), double bars (_dupondii_), half-bars (_semisses_) and quarters

(_quadrantes_), nor was there any gold or silver coin in use, as we can

learn from a law of the Twelve Tables, and the force and power of these

coins depended not on their number but on weight. For as there were bars

(_asses_) of a pound weight, there were also two pound bars (_dupondii_),

whence even still the term _dupondius_ is used, as if two in weight[441].

And the name is still retained in use.” The half-bars likewise and

quarters were no doubt proportionately adjusted to weight. It will be

observed that the omission of all mention of the _decussis_ as a standard

seems to throw additional doubt on Mr Soutzo’s hypothesis. The plain fact

is that a mass of bronze ten pounds in weight would have been extremely

cumbrous and unhandy for purposes of manufacture into the implements of

everyday life.

[Illustration: FIG. 56. Romano-Campanian Coin.]

[Illustration: FIG. 57. Victoriatus]

When and by whom a stamp was first placed on the bars, it is of course

impossible to say. Tradition however seems unanimous in assigning

it to the Regal period. Pliny’s account of the Roman coinage is as

follows[442]: “King Servius first stamped bronze. Timaeus hands down

the tradition that aforetime they employed it in a rough state at

Rome. It was stamped with the impressions of animals (_nota pecudum_),

whence it was termed _pecunia_. The highest rating in the reign of that

king (Servius) was 120,000 asses, and accordingly this was the first

class. Silver was struck A.U.C. 485 (B.C. 268) in the Consulship of Q.

Ogulnius and C. Fabius, five years before the first Punic war, and it

was enacted that the _denarius_ should pass for ten pounds of bronze,

the _quinarius_ for five, and the _sestertius_ for two and a half. Now

the libral weight was reduced in the First Punic war, as the state

could not stand the expenditure, and it was appointed that _asses_ of

the weight of a _sextans_ (2 _unciae_) should be struck. Thus there

was a gain of five-sixths, and the debt was cleared off. The type of

that bronze coin was on the one side a double Janus, on the other a

ship’s beak, whilst on the _triens_ and _quadrans_ there was a ship. The

_quadrans_ was previously termed a _teruncius_ from _tres unciae_ (three

ounces). Afterwards under the pressure of the Hannibalic wars in the

dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus, _asses_ the weight of an ounce were

coined, and it was enacted that the _denarius_ should be exchanged for

sixteen _asses_, the _quinarius_ for eight, the _sestertius_ for four;

thus the state gained one half. Nevertheless in the soldiers’ pay the

_denarius_ was always given for ten _asses_. The types of the silver

were _bigae_ and _quadrigae_ (two-horse and four-horse chariots), hence

they were termed _bigati_ and _quadrigati_[443]. By and by in accordance

with the Papirian law half-ounce _asses_ were struck. Livius Drusus when

tribune of the Plebs alloyed the silver with an eighth part of bronze.

The _Victoriatus_ was struck in accordance with a law of Clodius, for

previously this coin brought from Illyria was treated as merchandize. It

was stamped with a Victory and hence its name. The gold piece was struck

sixty-two years after the silver on such a standard that a scruple was

worth twenty sesterces, and this on the scale of the then value of the

sesterce made 900 go to the pound. Afterwards it was enacted that 1040

should be coined from gold pounds, and gradually the emperors reduced the

weight, most recently Nero reduced it to 45.”

This statement of Pliny is supported in various details by several

disjointed passages of Varro and Festus. Thus the former says that “the

most ancient bronze which was cast was marked with an animal (_pecore

notatum_)[444], and elsewhere he says that the ancient money has as its

device either an ox, or a sheep, or a swine[445],” a statement repeated

by Plutarch and other later writers. Festus (_s.v._ _grave aes_) says

“_aes grave_ was so called from its weight because ten _asses_, each a

pound in weight, made a _denarius_, which was so named from the very

number (i.e. _deni_). But in the Punic war, the Roman people being

burdened with debt, made out of every _as_ which weighed a pound (_ex

singulis assibus librariis_) six _asses_, which were to have the same

value as the former.” We have also a statement in the fragment of Festus

(4, p. 347, Müller) that afterwards the _asses_ in the _sestertius_ were

increased (_i.e._ to 4 from 2½), and that with the ancients the _denarii_

were of ten _asses_, and were worth a _decussis_, and that the amount

of bronze (in the _denarius_) was reckoned at XVI _asses_ by the Lex

Flaminia when the Roman people were put to straits by Hannibal[446].

Again, Festus says: “_Asses_ of the weight of a _sextans_ (two ounces)

began to be in use from that time, when on account of the Second Punic

war which was waged with Hannibal, the Senate decreed that out of the

_asses_ which were then libral (a pound in weight) should be made

those of a _sextans_ in weight, by means of which when payments began

to be made, both the Roman people would be freed from debt, and private

persons, to whom a debt had to be paid by the state, would not suffer

much loss[447].” Varro likewise is worth hearing: “In the case of silver

the term _nummi_ is used: that is borrowed from the Sicilians. _Denarii_

(were so named) because they were worth ten (coins) of bronze each,

_quinarii_ because they were worth five each, _sestertius_, because a

half was added to two (for the ancient _sestertius_ was a _dupondius_ and

a _semis_). The tenth part of a _denarius nummus_ is a _libella_, because

it was worth a _libra_ of bronze in weight, and being made of silver was

small. The _sembella_ is half the _libella_, just as the _semis_ is of

the _as_. _Teruncius_ is from _tres unciae_; as this is the fourth part

of the _libella_ so the _quadrans_ is the fourth part of the _as_.”

[Illustration: FIG. 58. Sextans (Aes Grave). (The two globules mark the

value.)]

As so much difficulty and controversy surround the various questions

connected with the beginnings of Roman currency, I have thought it

best to give at full length the scanty data afforded by the ancient

authorities. Let us now state the principal facts revealed by those

extracts. (1) The Romans in the Regal epoch employed _aes rude_, but

according to the testimony of Timaeus (an Italian Greek historian who

wrote about B.C. 300), they had already before the days of the Republic

stamped bronze with figures of cattle. (2) Silver was first coined five

years before the beginning of the First Punic war: (3) Some time during

that war the _as_ was reduced from a pound to two ounces; (4) In the

Second Punic war under like circumstances the _as_ was reduced from two

ounces to one ounce; (5) The _denarius_ when first struck represented

ten libral _asses_, or a _decussis_; (6) In the Second Punic war when

the _as_ was reduced, the _denarius_ was ordered to pass for 16 instead

of 10 _asses_; (7) In spite of this reduction, the _denarius_ continued

to be regarded as containing only 10 _asses_ when employed in paying the

soldiers.

Considerable numbers of _asses_ and the parts of _asses_ have come

down to us, many of them bearing marks of value as before described.

There is undoubted evidence of a constant reduction of the _as_. The

question arises, did the reduction take place _per saltum_ or by a

gradual process? Mommsen thinks that the _as_ continued to be of libral

weight until shortly before 264 B.C. and that it was then without any

intermediate steps reduced to the triens (4 ounces). Mr Soutzo on

the other hand maintains with vigour that from 338 B.C., the date at

which he fixes the first coinage of _asses_ at Rome, to 264 B.C., the

degradation was a gradual process, and he arraigns Mommsen on a charge

of disregarding the ancient authorities, who state, as we have seen,

that the change was from libral to sextantal _asses_. Mr Soutzo is thus

compelled to state that all the _asses_ within that period (338-264

B.C.) although they have a range from almost full libral weight to only

3 ounces were treated as libral _asses_. Now this of course is a very

reasonable hypothesis on the principle which I have adopted that bronze

money was in fact merely token currency, used only for local circulation

and not for extraneous trade. But Mr Soutzo is precluded from adopting

such a position unless he gives up the basis of his whole work. He has

laid down that the bronze money was not a mere conventional currency,

but always was actual value for the amount which it represented. On this

assumption he obtains his relation of 1:120 between copper and silver.

Assuming that the sextantal reduction was contemporaneous with the issue

of the first _denarius_ (which is in direct defiance of the historians),

he found that the _denarius_ of 70 grs. = 2 ounces (840 grs.) of bronze;

therefore silver was to bronze as 120:1. Again, when the financial crisis

took place during the Second Punic war and the _denarius_ was reduced

(as we learn from the actual coin weights) to 62 grs., and it was made

to pass for 16 _asses_ instead of 10 _asses_, he finds that since 62

grs. of silver = 16 _asses_ of 432 grs. (_unciae_) silver was to bronze

as 112:1. But in the latter case he omits to explain why it was that

the _denarius_ in paying the troops only counted for _ten asses_. It is

evident that if the relation between copper and silver was really as

1:112, there could have been no need for making this difference. But as

the soldiers were serving outside Rome, and Roman local token currency

would not be taken in payment, it was necessary to pay them according

to the market value of bronze. At Rome the _denarius_ was made to pass

for 16 _asses_, or three-fifths more than its actual value. It appears

therefore that the data given us by Pliny are not sufficient to allow

us to come to any definite conclusion as regards the relative value of

silver and bronze at that time. Moreover there is no evidence to show

that the _denarius_ was reduced from 70 grs. to 62 grs. by the Lex

Flaminia. It is on the whole more likely that this reduction took place

when the first gold coinage was issued (62 years after the first silver)

in 206 B.C., since there was every inducement to make such a change in

the silver as would admit of a convenient relation between the gold

_scruple_ and 20 _sestertii_. This again raises just doubts as regards

the accuracy of Mr Soutzo’s calculation. With reference to the reduction

of the _as_ to the sextantal standard we have seen that the truth of his

deductions rests entirely on the assumption that the degradation took

place _before_ the First Punic war at the same time as the issue of the

first silver coinage. This of course is directly contradicted by the

historians. But even granting that it was correct, it is difficult to see

why we should assume that the Roman _as_, which according to Soutzo’s

own principles had been nothing more than a token, should suddenly

have been treated as though it really was of the actual value which it

represented. There was no reason why, even though the unit of account

was the sextantal _as_, the _as_ should have been anything else than a

token in its relation to the silver currency: certainly it is strange

that, if the Romans after treating the _as_ as a token down to 268 B.C.

then suddenly gave it its full monetary value, they did not continue to

carry out their new principle. For as a matter of fact there are very

great differences in the weight of the sextantal _asses_, and after the

reduction to the uncial standard, the same process of degradation went on

without ceasing, as Soutzo himself has shown[448]. All these facts point

to the conclusion that the bronze coinage at Rome was only a local token

currency, such as is our own silver and bronze series at the present day.

Let us now see if we can give a consistent explanation of the statements

of the ancient writers which I have quoted above. _Aes rude_ or bronze

in an unstamped or unmanufactured state was originally in use at Rome,

according to Timaeus. This period corresponds to that time when, as I

have endeavoured to show, _asses_ or _bars_ of given dimensions intended

to be made into articles for use or ornament passed from hand to hand,

as do the brass rods mentioned above at the present moment in the Congo

region of Africa. Then came the stamping of the _asses_ towards the close

of the regal period (according to Timaeus), when figures of animals

were placed thereon. We have seen above (p. 354) that such figures are

actually found on certain rough quadrilateral pieces of bronze found in

some parts of central Italy. With the use of weight instead of measure

for appraising their value, the shape of the _asses_ would become

modified, getting shorter and thicker. Finally, they assume the round

shape of ordinary coins, and bear certain well-defined symbols on both

sides, such as the Janus head and Rostrum on the _as_, that of Mercury

on the _sextans_. But as few of these round _asses_ are found to weigh

more than 10 _unciae_, it would seem that the process of degradation had

already set in before their issue. Gold and silver at the same epoch

passed by weight either after the ancient fashion in ingots, or as the

coined money of the Greek cities of the South or of the Etruscans. The

unit of account continues to be the _as_ of _full weight_. Thus all

penalties due to the state would be paid not in reduced _asses_ of only

5 or 4 ounces, but in full libral _asses_ as weighed in the balance. On

the other hand although reduced _asses_ were used by the state in paying

debts to private individuals, they were only received as tokens, and no

doubt the state was bound if called upon to pay a full pound of bronze

for every stamped reduced _as_ presented to it, but in ordinary times

this made no practical difference, for the bronze currency was purely

local all over Italy and Sicily, as we have seen above. It was far too

cumbrous to be used as a medium of international trade.

When the Romans after defeating Pyrrhus and taking Tarentum had reduced

all Southern Italy and hence obtained great quantities of silver,

they proceeded five years before the beginning of the First Punic war

to issue silver _denarii_ or ten _as_ pieces. Are these pieces real

representatives of the as of account, or do they rather simply represent

the value of the then normal _as_ of currency, which was probably not

more than a _triens_ or four ounces or perhaps not more than a _quadrans_

or three ounces? The latter is the more likely hypothesis. They had been

long accustomed to a bronze token currency, and it was most likely that

the new silver currency would be adapted to it. It is then likely that

the _denarius_ equalled ten _asses_ of at least 3 ounces each, in which

case silver was to bronze as 180:1. In transactions inside the state the

balance would be commonly, and in dealing with strangers invariably,

employed in all monetary transactions, ancient states being very jealous

of alien mintages. This is exemplified by Pliny’s statement that the

Victoriates brought from Illyria were treated simply as merchandize. Then

came the First Punic war, which lasted for two-and-twenty weary years,

during which the resources of the Republic were almost drained dry. The

state became virtually a bankrupt and simply paid in modern phraseology

3_s._ 4_d._ in the pound. It was effected thus: up to the present the

_as_ of full weight was the unit of account, although the coined _asses_

had by this time come to be simply tokens of about 2 ounces each. The

state accordingly enacted that the _as_ of currency should become the

unit of account, and paid the state debt by these coins, and at the same

time made it legal for private individuals, who were bound under the old

order of things to pay their debts in libral _asses_ to discharge their

obligations by sextantal _asses_. Thus Pliny is perfectly right in saying

that the state made a profit of five-sixths. The influx of silver after

the conquest of Southern Italy and the requirements of large quantities

of bronze for the building of fleet after fleet, and for military

equipment, may have very well tended to appreciate the value of bronze at

this period. As the reduction in the size of the _as_ continued, though

the unit of account was two ounces, under the pressure of the Second

Punic war they repeated the same process. The _as_ was now not more than

an ounce, so they decreed that the _as_ of currency should again be the

_as_ of account, and the state thus gained a half, this time paying ten

shillings in the pound.

The _ounce_ and _libra_ had been long well defined at Rome before the

silver coinage first appeared, and whilst we saw that the _sextula_ or

one-sixth of the _uncia_ was the lowest weight employed for bronze, the

fourth part of this weight, the _scriptulum_, had been regularly employed

in weighing silver and gold; as we have seen it owed its origin to the

fact that the Aeginetan silver obol was found to be about the weight

of the 24th part of an _uncia_ or inch of bronze. The first _denarii_

were the weight of a _sextula_ or 4 _scriptula_ (70 grs.) of the older

weight. The _scriptulum_ and _sestertius_ were thus identical, and hence

in later days the unit of account was the _sestertius_ and not the _as_.

Accordingly when the gold coinage of 206 B.C. was issued, it was based on

the _scruple_, and consisted of pieces of 1, 2, and 3 scruples.

[Illustration: FIG. 59. Gold Solidus of Julian II. (the Apostate).]

We have now traced the origin of Roman currency sufficiently for the

purposes of this work. After various fluctuations in the weight of the

gold pieces under Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar and others, Constantine

the Great finally fixed the weight of the _aureus_ or _solidus_ at 4

scruples in 312 A.D., and so it remained until the final downfall of the

Empire of the East in 1453. From this famous coin the various mintages

of mediaeval and consequently of modern Europe may be said to trace

their pedigrees. The _solidus_ was divided into _thirds_ or _tremisses_,

for the scrupular system had been abandoned, the _solidus_ being regarded

simply as a _sextula_ or one-sixth of the _uncia_, and not as a multiple

of the _scruple_. The _tremissis_ therefore weighed 24 grs. Troy, or

32 wheat grains. When the barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire

began to coin silver they took as their model the gold _tremissis_. In

the earliest stage of the Anglo-Saxon mintage we find so-called gold

pennies of 24 grs. occasionally appearing. These are nothing else than

_tremisses_. But silver henceforward was to form for centuries the staple

currency of Western Europe, and the silver penny of 24 grs. (whence comes

our own penny-weight) became virtually the unit of account. As its weight

shows, the penny was based on the gold _tremissis_.

[Illustration: FIG. 60. Gold Tremissis of Leo I.]

The first regular coinage of gold in Western Europe began with the famous

gold pieces of Florence in the beginning of the 14th century. These

weighed 48 grs. or 2 _tremisses_. From their place of mintage the name

_florin_ (fiorino) became a generic term for gold coins. Accordingly

when Edward III. issued his first gold coins of 108 grs. each, although

differing so completely in weight from their prototype, they too were

called _florins_. In reality however Edward’s coin was 1½ solidus (72 +

36). The first attempt did not prove satisfactory, and with the issue of

the famous noble, first of 136½ grs., and afterwards of 129 grs., the

series of English gold coins may be said to begin, of which the latest

stage is the sovereign of 120¼ grs. Troy.

I have already explained at an earlier stage the origin of the Troy

grain; before we end let me add a word on the origin of the Troy ounce.

The Troy pound like the Roman has 12 ounces, but whereas the Roman ounce

had 432 grs. Troy or 576 grs. wheat, the Troy ounce has 480 grs. Troy or

640 grs. wheat. How came this augmentation of the ounce?

It is in Apothecaries’ weight that we find the key. This standard runs

thus

20 grs. = 1 scruple,

3 scruples = 1 drachm,

8 drachms = 1 ounce,

12 ounces = 1 pound.

Now note that there are 24 scruples in the ounce, and 288 scruples in the

pound, exactly as in the Roman system. But there is an element foreign

to the old Roman system as seen in the drachm of 60 grs. Now Galen and

the medical writers of the Empire used the post-Neronian _denarius_ of

60 grs. as a medicine weight. What more convenient weight unit could be

employed than the most common coin in circulation? The _drachma_ and

_denarius_ had long since been used synonymously in common parlance. But

as there were 18 grs. (Troy, 24 wheat grs.) in the old scruple, and there

were 60 grs. in the drachm or _denarius_, they were not commensurable,

and accordingly to obviate this difficulty the physicians for practical

purposes raised the scruple to 20 grs., in order that it might be

one-third of the drachm. The number of scruples in the ounce remaining 24

as before, the ounce became augmented by 48 grs. (24 × 2) and accordingly

rose to 480 grs. We saw above that the Troy grain is the barley-corn. Why

is the latter so closely connected with ‘Troy weight’? When the scruple

was raised from 18 grs. Troy, 24 grs. of wheat, to 20 grs. Troy, it no

longer contained an even number of wheat grains, for the new _scruple_

contained 26⅔ grs. wheat. As this was inconvenient, and on the other hand

the new scruple weighed exactly 20 barley-corns, the latter henceforth

became the lowest unit of this system.

_Conclusion._

It now simply remains to sum up the results of our enquiry. Starting

with the Homeric Poems we found that although certain pieces of gold

called _talents_ were in circulation among the early Greeks, yet all

values were still expressed in terms of cows. We then found that the

gold _talent_ was nothing else than the equivalent of the cow, the older

unit of barter, and we found that the _talent_ was the same unit as that

known in historical times under the names of Euboic stater or Attic

stater, and commonly described by metrologists as the light Babylonian

shekel. Our next stage was to enquire into the systems of currency used

by primitive peoples in both ancient and modern times, and everywhere

alike we found systems closely analogous to that depicted in the Homeric

Poems, and we found that in the regions of Asia, Europe and Africa, where

the system of weight standards which has given birth to all the systems

of modern Europe had its origin, the cow was universally the chief unit

of barter. Furthermore gold was distributed with great impartiality over

the same area, and known and employed for purposes of decoration from an

early period by the various races which inhabited it. We then found that

practically all over that area there was but one unit for gold, and that

unit was the same weight as the Homeric Talanton. Next we proved that

gold was the first object for which mankind employed the art of weighing,

and we then found that over the area in question there was strong

evidence to show that everywhere from India to the shores of the Atlantic

the cow originally had the same value as the universally distributed gold

unit.

From this we drew the conclusion that the gold unit, which was certainly

later in date than the employment of the cow as a unit of value, was

based on the latter; and finally we showed that man everywhere made his

earliest essays in weighing by means of the seeds of plants, which nature

had placed ready to his hand as counters and as weights. Then we surveyed

the theories which derive all weight standards from the scientific

investigations of the Chaldeans or Egyptians, and having found that they

were directly in contradiction to the facts of both ancient history and

modern researches into the systems of primitive peoples, we concluded

that the theories of Boeckh and his school must be abandoned.

Next we proceeded to explain the development of the various systems

of antiquity from our ox-unit, taking in turn the Egyptian,

Assyrio-Babylonian, Hebrew, Lydian, Greek and Italian. New explanations

of the origin of the Talent and Mina and also of the earlier types on

Greek coins and of the varieties of standard employed for silver by

the Greeks were offered, and finally in dealing with the systems of

Sicily and Italy arguments were advanced to show that the Roman _as_

was originally nothing more than a rod or bar of copper of definite

measurements, and was in weight and method of division the same as the

Sicilian Litra and the Greek Obol.

In how far the propositions here put forward have been proved, it must

remain for others to decide.

Laus Deo, Pax Vibis, Requies Mortuis.

APPENDIX A

THE HOMERIC TRIAL SCENE.

Κεῖτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα,

Τῷ δόμεν, ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι.

_Il._ XVIII. 507-8.

I would not return to so well-worn a theme, were it not that editors like

Dr Leaf (_ad loc._) still state that there is nothing in the _language_

of the last line to hinder us from taking it either of the litigant or of

the judge.

Scholars have fixed their attention so closely on the words δίκην εἴποι

that they have completely overlooked the qualifying ἰθύντατα. In modern

courts of law we do not expect to hear the _straightest_ statement of a

case from advocates, but rather from the judge. The ancient Greek would

never dream of expecting a litigant to give a _straight_ statement of

his case. The following passages will show that ἰθύς, ἰθύνειν, εὐθύνειν,

ὀρθός are always applied to a judge (the converse σκολιός being used

of unjust judges). The metaphor is from the carpenter’s rule (cf. ἐπὶ

στάθμην ἰθύνειν _Od._ V. 245).

Pind. _Pyth._ IV. 152 καὶ θρόνος, ᾦ ποτε ἐγκαθίζων Κρηθεΐδας ἱππόταις

_εὔθυνε_ λαοῖς δίκας.

Solon 3. 36 _εὐθύνων_ σκολιὰς δίκας.

_Il._ XVI. 387 οἳ βίῃ εἰν ἀγορῇ _σκολιὰς_ κρίνωσι θέμιστας.

Hesiod _Opp._ 221 σκολιῇς δε δίκῃς κρίνωσι θέμιστας.

Hes. _Opp._ 222

(Δίκη) κακὸν ἀνθρώποισι φέρουσα

οἵ τέ μιν ἐξελάσωσι καὶ οὐκ _ἰθεῖαν_ ἔνειμαν.

Arist. _Rhet._ I. 1 οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸν δικαστὴν διαστρέφειν εἰς ὀργὴν

προάγοντας ἢ φθόνον ἢ ἔλεον· ὅμοιον γάρ κἂν εἴ τις, ᾧ μέλλει χρῆσθαι

_κανόνι_, τοῦτον ποιήσειε _στρεβλόν_.

Pind. _Pyth._ XI. 15 ὀρθοδίκαν γᾶς ὀμφαλόν.

Aesch. _Persae_ 764 _εὐθυντήριον_ σκῆπτρον.

No one can then doubt that the words δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι can only refer

to the judge.

The following account of a trial on the Gold Coast so well illustrates

the principle of payment having to be made to the judges that I think it

worth quoting. (_Eighteen years on the Gold Coast of Africa_, by Brodie

Crookshank, Vol. I. p. 279, London, 1853.)

“When the day arrived for the hearing of Quansah’s charge, a large space

was cleanly swept in the market-place for the accommodation of the

assembly; for this a charge of ten shillings was made and paid. When the

Pynins (elders) had taken their seats, surrounded by their followers,

who squatted upon the ground, a consultation took place as to the amount

which they ought to charge for the occupation of their valuable time, and

after duly considering the plaintiff’s means, with the view of extracting

from him as much as they could, they valued their intended services at

£6. 15_s._, which he was in like manner called upon to pay. Another

charge of £2. 5_s._ was made in the name of tribute to the chief, and as

an acknowledgment of gratitude for his presence upon the occasion. £1.

10_s._ was then ordered to be paid to purchase rum for the judges, £1 for

the gratification of the followers, ten shillings to the men who took the

trouble to weigh out the different sums, and five shillings for the court

criers. Thus Quansah had to pay £12. 15_s._ to bring his case before this

august court, the members of which during the trial carried on a pleasant

course of rum and palm wine.”

APPENDIX B.

WHAT WAS THE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF SERVIUS TULLIUS?

Th. Mommsen in his Roman History (I. 95-96 English Trans.) has laid down

that land was the basis of assessment, on the analogy of the Teutonic

_hide_. He makes the members of the First Class those who held a whole

hide; and the remaining four classes were made up of those who held

proportionally smaller freeholds. When Mommsen has once spoken, it

is presumptuous to raise doubts. If however it can be shown that the

Italians rather based their assessments on cattle, and that furthermore

the statements of the later historians point to an original rating which

harmonizes well with such an original condition, it may have been worth

while to start enquiry once again in a case where the data are so scanty

and obscure.

Pliny _H. N._ XXXIII. 3. 13. Maximus census CXX. assium fuit illo rege,

ideo haec prima classis. This is confirmed by Festus (_s.v._ _infra

censum_, p. 113 Müller) infra classem significantur qui minore summa quam

centum et viginti millia aeris censi sunt.

Livy I. 42 says the rating of the _prima classis_ was Centum millia

aeris, of the _secunda classis_ was infra centum assium ad quinque

et septuaginta millia. _Tertia classis_ quinquaginta millia, _Quarta

classis_, quinque et viginti millia. _Quinta classis_, undecim millia.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (IV. 16-17) puts the rating of the 1st class

at 100 minae (of silver) or 10,000 drachms; of the 2nd at 75 minae, of

the 3rd at 50 minae, of the 4th at 25 minae, and that of the 5th at 12

minae.

All are agreed that it is absolutely incredible that the original rating

of the first class was 120,000 _libral_ asses of bronze. The cow was

worth 100 _libral_ asses at Rome in 451 B.C. Therefore the rating of

120,000 asses would have been equivalent to 1200 cows. It is impossible

to believe that there could have been a numerous body of men in early

Rome possessed of such vast capital. Boeckh’s explanation is that with

the reduction of the _as_ from its original weight of a _libra_ to two

ounces, and one ounce, there was a corresponding raising of the amount of

the rating of the several classes.

Mommsen on the other hand thinks that the rating was originally on

_land_, and that the change in the method of rating from land to bronze

took place at a time when land had greatly risen in value, and that

accordingly 120,000 _asses_ of the First Class are libral _asses_. Such

a change as Mommsen supposes must have taken place before 260-241 B.C.,

for the _as_ was reduced to two ounces during the first Punic War. Yet

we cannot easily suggest any period before that date when there was

likely to have been so great a rise in the value of land, as is necessary

to account for the large rating of 120,000 _asses_, which according to

Mommsen’s reckoning would be worth about 400 lbs. of silver (or according

to Soutzo 1000 lbs. of silver).

Boeckh’s hypothesis seems to fit better the conditions of the problem.

Much of the importance of the rating of the various classes passed away

when Marius (104 B.C.) changed the whole military system and chose the

troops from the _Capite censi_, as well as from the five property classes.

The _as_ had been reduced to a single _uncia_ in the 2nd Punic War (cf.

p. 377). Thus 12 _asses_ of the _uncial_ standard were required to make

up the weight of the old _libral as_. Accordingly 120,000 _asses_ of

the 2nd century B.C. would be equal to 10,000 _libral asses_ of the

earlier days. But as by the Lex Tarpeia 100 _asses_ is the value of a

cow, 10,000 _libral asses_ = 100 cows. This would be by no means an

unlikely number of cows, to form the minimum of the wealthiest class of

a pastoral community. There is another curious piece of evidence which

seems to confirm my hypothesis. One of the provisions of the Licinian

Rogations (367 B.C.) was that no one should hold more than 500 _jugera_

of the Public Land, or should be allowed to feed more than _one hundred_

large cattle or 500 small cattle on public pastures. μηδένα ἔχειν τῆσδε

τῆς γῆς πλέθρα πεντακοσίων πλείονα, μηδὲ προβατεύειν ἑκατὸν πλείω τὰ

μείζονα καὶ πεντακοσίων τὰ ἐλάσσονα. Appian, _Bell. Civ._ I. 8. If 100

large cattle were the number which qualified a Roman for the first class,

there was every reason why Licinius and Sextus should have taken 100 as

the _maximum_ number of cows which a citizen could keep on the public

pastures.

Next I shall show that the method of rating by cattle and not by land

was that actually practised in Sicily. That island stood in such close

relations to the Italian Peninsula both geographically and ethnologically

that we may reasonably infer that the method of rating in use there was

also in use in Italy.

Now we learn from Aristotle’s _Oeconomica_ (II. 21) that when the tyrant

Dionysius oppressed the Syracusans with excessive exactions, they ceased

to keep cattle:

Τὼν δὲ πολιτῶν διὰ τὰς εἰσφορὰς οὐ τρεφόντων βοσκήματα, εἶπεν ὅτι ἱκανὰ

ἦν αὐτῷ πρὸς τοσοῦτον· τοὺς οὖν νῦν κτησαμένους ἀτελεῖς ἔσεσθαι, πολλῶν

δὲ ταχὺ κτησαμένων πολλὰ βοσκήματα, ὡς ἀτελῆ ἑξόντων, ἐπεὶ ᾤετο καιρὸν

εἶναι, τιμήσασθαι κελεύσας ἐπέβαλε τέλος, κ.τ.λ.

If the citizens of Syracuse, a great Greek trading city, were still

rated in cattle in the time of Dionysius (405-367 B.C.), _à fortiori_ we

may expect the same primitive method of assessment to prevail among the

pastoral peoples of Central Italy in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.

Among the Kelts, the close kinsfolk of the Italians, the same system

probably prevailed. Thus in the ancient Irish laws, where the various

classes of freemen are described, there are a number of them called

_Bo-aires_[449], cow-freemen.

As modern research has shown that everywhere among the Aryans land was

originally held in common, and that separate property in land sprung up

only at a comparatively late period, we may with some confidence infer

that in Italy likewise in early days a man’s wealth was reckoned in his

cattle, and not in lands, such as I have shown to have been the practice

among the Greeks of the ‘Homeric times’ (‘The Homeric Land System,’

_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1885).

APPENDIX C.

KELTIC AND SCANDINAVIAN WEIGHT SYSTEMS.

It is always dangerous to deal with things Keltic. So much difficulty is

there in getting at any facts amidst masses of wild assertions and loose

conclusions, that a prudent man may well shrink back. However, as it is

worth while to give some _facts_ respecting the actual weights of gold

rings and other ornaments, I have thought it best to print the following

pages.

Attempts have long ago been made to find the standard of the so-called

ring money. Sir William Betham, followed by John Lindsay[450], after

weighing many examples, arrived at the conclusion that they are based

on the ounce Troy. Now as the ounce Troy is entirely unknown to the

Brehon Laws, and was only brought into Ireland by the English settlers,

it is needless to argue further against that doctrine. Dr Petrie’s[451]

discussions about Irish coins are similarly vitiated by his treating as

Troy grains the grains of wheat mentioned by the authorities.

1. _Irish._ Let us work back from the known to the unknown.

The system in the Brehon Laws is as follows:

1 Cumhal (ancilla) = 3 Cows.

1 Cow = 1 Unga (uncia of silver).

1 Unga = 24 Screapalls.

1 Screapall = 3 Pinginns.

1 Pinginn = 8 grs. of wheat.

Unga = 576 grs. of wheat.

The ounce seems to be the highest unit of weight, and just as in the

Brehon Laws an _unga_ of silver is equated to a cow, so in early times

an _unga_ of gold seems to have been the regular value of a slave, the

most valuable of living chattels. At least we may so infer from a curious

story of St Finnian of Clonard:

LIFE OF ST FINNIAN (OF CLONARD, CO. MEATH).

(BOOK OF LISMORE, fol. 24 b, c.)

Tainic iar sin Finnen cu Cilldara co Brighit, cu m-bui ic

tiachtuin leiginn ocus proicepta fri re. Ceilebrais iar sin do

Brigit ocus dobreth Brighit fainne oir dho. Nir ’bho santach som

imon saegul: ni roghabh in fainne. “Ce no optha,” ar Brigit,

“roricfea a leas.” Tainic Finnen iar sin cu Fotharta Airbrech.

Dorala uisce do. Roinnail a lamha asin usci[452]: tuc lais for a

bhais asan uisci in fáinne targaidh Brighit dó.

Táinic iar sin Caisin, mac Naemain, co faelti moir fri Finden.

Ocus coneadhbair fein dó ocus roacain fris ró Fotharta ic

cuinghidh oir fair ar a shaeire. “Cia mét,” ar Finnen,

“conaidheas?” “Noghebhudh uingi n-oir,” ar Caisin. Rothomthuis sé

iar sin in fainne [ocus frith uingi oir[453]] ann. Dorat Caisin

hi ar a shaeriri.

TRANSLATION.

“After that came Finnian to Kildare to Brigit and he was engaged

in teaching and preaching for a time. He takes leave afterwards

of Brigit and Brigit gave a ring of gold to him. He was not

covetous regarding the world: he accepted not the ring. “Though

thou refusest,” said Brigit, “thou wilt require it.” Finnian came

after that to Fotharta Airbrech[454]. [On his way] he met water.

He washed his hands with the water [and] brought on his palm from

out the water the ring that Brigit offered to him.

“After that came Caisin, son of Naeman, with great joy to [visit]

Finnian. And he offered himself to him and complained to him

that the king of Fotharta was demanding gold from him for his

liberation. “How much,” said Finnian, “asketh he?” “He would

accept an ounce of gold,” said Caisin. He [Finnian] weighed after

that the ring (and there was found an ounce of gold[455]) in it.

Caisin gave it for his liberation.”

I am indebted for this valuable reference, which also enables us to form

an idea of the relative value of gold and silver in early Ireland, to the

Rev. B. Mac Carthy, D.D., of Youghal.

But there is another weight called crosoch (crosóg or crosach), found

in the most ancient poems. For instance in Cuchulaind the brooch of

Queen Medbh, “My spear brooch of gold which weighs thirty ungas, and

thirty half ungas, and thirty crossachs and thirty quarter [crossachs].”

(O’Curry, _Manners and Customs_, Vol. III. p. 102.) The weight of

a crosoch we learn from a gloss quoted by O’Donovan (Supplement to

O’Reilly’s Dictionary) from _MS. R. I. A._, No. 35, 5. 49.

da pinginn agas cetrime pinginne isin lacht caerach i,

crosóg[456].

“Two pinginns and a fourth of a pinginn are a milk of a sheep, i.e. a

crosóg.” Since 1 pinginn = 8 grs. wheat therefore a crosóg = 18 grs.

wheat or 13·5 grs. Troy.

There are accordingly 32 crosochs in the unga of the Brehon Laws.

Inspection at once shows that the crosoch must have belonged to a

different system, on which either the system of ungas and screapalls was

grafted or _vice versa_. The expulsion of the crosoch from the later

Irish shows that the first alternative is the true one.

Again, it is certain that the unga and screapall were borrowed from the

Roman system, probably before the time of Constantine, as after his time

the solidus became universal throughout the Empire, and has left its

impress everywhere.

The crosoch therefore must be non-Roman, _i.e._ belong to the native

population.

Above we saw that it was used along with ungas and half ungas in

describing Medbh’s Fibula. Here is historical evidence of its use in the

weighing of gold ornaments.

There were certainly 32 crosochs in the ounce of the Brehon Laws, but if

we can show in another system of north-western Europe a weight exactly

the same as the crosoch, with an ounce which is its thirty-fold, we may

hesitate to lay down that the full Roman ounce with its 432 grs. Troy

(576 grs. wheat) was the earliest form of Irish _unga_.

There is no mention of screapalls in the weight of Medbh’s brooch. It

is quite possible that under ecclesiastical influences the full Roman

ounce and its division into screapalls may have been introduced at a

comparatively late period. The contact between Kelts and Scandinavians in

early times has of late excited much interest.

2. Let us now turn to the old Norse system. It is as follows:

1 pening = 13·5 grs. Troy

10 penings = 1 örtug = 136·7 grs.

3 örtugs = 1 öre = 410 grs.

8 öres = 1 mark = 3280 grs.

Let us deal first with the mark. As its name signifies, it in all

probability was originally not a _weight_, but a _measure_. The use of

_mark_ as a land measure is well known in the Teutonic languages. It is

also used as a measure of length. Thus a mark of cloth consists of 448

_alen_ or _ells_. After what we have learned about the history of the

Roman _as_ (p. 354) we need not be surprised if a term originally used

as a measure of some article which was not as yet sold by weight, came

in similar fashion to be incorporated at a later period into the weight

system as a higher unit. If the mark was originally a given measure

of bronze or iron, we can readily see how it came later on to be used

as a weight, and ultimately to be the chief unit of account among our

Anglo-Saxon forefathers, until it was at last driven out by the _pound_.

That silver was cast into bars which weighed a mark is rendered highly

probable by the fact that three of the silver bars found at Cuerdale

weigh respectively 3960, 3954, and 3950 grs. Troy; that is, just the

weight of 160 pennies of the reign of Alfred. 160 pennies are two-thirds

of a pound of 240 pennies, or in other words a _mark_.

The practice of running silver into ingots of such a weight may well have

arisen from an earlier practice of employing bronze or iron bars of such

a weight. It is at all events certain that the mark is native Teutonic

and is not borrowed from Rome. That the Kelts at least used bars of iron

as money is made not unlikely by a famous passage of Caesar which I shall

quote later on. A various reading states that the Britons used iron

rods as money (_ferreis taleis_). Even without this we may reasonably

infer from what we have learned of the practice of primitive peoples in

dealing with iron or copper, that the Teutons and Kelts must have used

these by measure. It is well known that the Swedes used ingots of copper

as currency down to comparatively recent times. It is then most likely

that the _öre_ or ounce of 410 grs. was the highest original weight unit,

just as the _unga_ is in the ancient Irish system. The weight of this

_öre_ is of great interest. If we found the Roman pound of 12 ounces in

Scandinavia, we should at once say that the _öre_ of 410 grs. was the

reduced Roman ounce (432 grs.). But as the native mark evidently got

its position before the influence of Rome was felt in the North, we may

well consider the _öre_ to be pre-Roman. The reader will remember that

I identified the ancient Roman _uncia_ with the small talent of Sicily

and Macedonia. The latter weighed 3 ox-units or about 405 grs. I also

suggested that it originally represented the value of a _slave_, and

was thus the original highest unit used for gold or silver. I showed

on an earlier page (141) that the Norse _örtug_, the one-third of the

_öre_, was the price of a cow. If three cows were the price of a slave in

Scandinavia as they were in Ireland, and probably in Homeric Greece, an

_öre_ of gold was the price of a slave. The passage from the life of St

Finnian given at once shows that an ounce of gold was the regular price

of a slave in early Ireland, and probably a good Scandinavian scholar

could soon find similar evidence for the value of the old Norse slave.

The meaning and derivation of the term _örtug_ have been much discussed.

It occurs in the forms _örtog_, _örtug_, _ertog_, _œrtug_. Cleasby’s

Lexicon makes nothing out of the first part of the word, but takes the

second part (-tog -tug = tugr = 20), because _örtug_ had the value of 20

_penningar_, though _tugr_ means 10. But as a matter of fact there were,

as we saw above, 240 _penningar_ in the mark, and therefore there were 10

_penningar_ in the _örtug_. Holmboe[457] goes more deeply into the origin

of _örtug_. He says, “As _á_, pl. _œr_, signifies a _ewe_, and _tug-r_ as

a derivative of _ten_ both by itself and in compounds signifies _ten_,

_ertug_ seems originally to have signified 10 _ewes_, just as the weight

_ertug_ betokens the weight of 10 _peningar_, and _peningr_ itself also

means a _sheep_. It may be regarded as questionable to assume the plural

_œr_ to form the first part of the compound, yet _œr_ must at an early

period have been used in the formation of compounds, since both the

folkspeech of Norway has the form _œr-saud-ewe_, sheep, technically a

_ewe-with-lamb_, and the folkspeech of Denmark has _œr lam_ in the sense

of _ewe-lamb_[458].” Another suggestion is that _örtug_ comes from _arta_

= a pea-_formed knob_, so that örtug = örtu-vog, the weight of a pea.

The objection to this would be that the pea would weigh 13·5 grs. Troy,

which seems far too much.

In spite of the philological difficulty in making _örtug_ = 10 ewes,

it is very remarkable that this value corresponds so accurately with

the value of a cow, which I independently found for it. I have already

pointed out that 10 sheep were the usual value of a cow. So it was at

Rome in 451 B.C. and so it is with the Modern Ossetes. The ox fit for

the yoke was probably worth 20 lambs or 5 sheep in Lusitania[459], and

as we saw that in the Welsh Laws the ox when fit for the yoke was worth

half a full-grown cow, the Lusitanian cow was worth 10 sheep. So also

at Athens, when Plutarch[460] says an ox was worth 5 sheep, he probably

means an ox fit for the yoke, the cow being worth 10 sheep. In the

Brehon Laws 8 sheep go to the cow, but as I have already pointed out the

insulated position of Ireland would tend to cause a variation in prices

from those on the mainland of Europe. Thus we see from the story of St

Finnian that gold must have been worth only three times its weight in

silver in Ireland in the early centuries of our era. For the price of a

slave was an ounce of gold, whilst in the Brehon Laws it is 3 ounces of

silver. It might be said that we cannot prove that this was the value of

a slave in gold and silver at any one time, and that silver may have been

much cheaper at an earlier date. When we recollect that silver has never

existed in any quantity in Ireland, and that where it does exist it can

only be obtained by systematic mining, a thing impossible in the eternal

turmoil of Ireland, and also bear in mind that when Japan was opened to

Europeans in this century gold was exchanged for three times its weight

in silver, we need not think such a relation at all unlikely in ancient

Ireland. The paucity of silver ornaments in the Royal Irish Academy

Museum confirms this opinion. But the evidence from the Penitentials

shows that silver was scarce at a comparatively still early date in

Ireland[461]. Thus XII altilia vel XIII sicli praetium unius cuiusque

ancillae.

I have already shown the universality of making gold ornaments after

a fixed weight. The passages given above show that a similar practice

existed among the ancient Irish.

Let us turn to the numerous gold rings, commonly called Ring Money, of

which there are some 50 in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy of

various weights and sizes. I give these weights. Let us examine them,

and see if we can find any indications gained inductively of a weight

standard.

As by inspection we see that the smallest rings weigh 13 and 14 grs.

Troy, and the next three 29, 31, 32 respectively, which look like

the double of the smaller, I shall group the rings according as they

approximate to the multiples of 15.

---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+--------

Multiples| Actual Ring Weights | Multiples| Actual | Rings | Weights

of 15 | (Royal Irish Acad.) | of 15 | | |

---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+--------

15 | 13, 14 | 180 | 179 | 345 |

30 | 29, 31, 32, 36 | 195 | 199, 203| 360 |

45 | 40, 46 | 210 | 206, 209| 375 | 372

60 | 54, 56, 58, 59, | 225 | 220 | 370 |

| 61, 65, 65 | | | |

75 | 69, 73 | 240 | 247 | |

90 | 84, 84, 88, 96 | 255 | 259 | |

105 | 98, 104, 111 | 270 | | |

120 | 121, 124 | 285 | 283, 283| |

135 | | 300 | | |

150 | 144, 144, 147, | 315 | 322 | |

| 147, 150, 151 | | | |

165 | 171, 172 | 330 | 332 | |

A glance at the foregoing table shows that the most numerous group of

rings occurs at the fourfold (60), no less than seven specimens ranging

themselves at that point, next we find six specimens at the tenfold

(150), whilst next in order comes the sixfold with four examples. There

are three cases of the double (30). On the other hand it is worth

noticing the absence of the ninefold, whilst there are three instances

of the sevenfold, and the absence of the eighteenfold (2 × 9) likewise,

whilst we have the elevenfold, twelvefold, thirteenfold, fourteenfold.

However from the absence of the twentyfold (2 × 10) we cannot lay great

stress on this. The heaviest specimen (372) closely approximates to the

twenty-five fold (375).

I add the weights of the ancient Irish gold rings preserved in the

British Museum.

_Irish small plain ring money. Some are without localities but

may be assumed to be Irish. Marked thus *._

*103, 563, *389, *121, *29½, 218, 224, 323, 295 injured, 218,

122, 90, 28, 56, 215 copper plated with gold (injured), 299, 148,

98, 366, 89 piece cut from a larger bracelet?, 48½ hollow and

open? plating of bronze ring? (banded), 422, 410 (ounces), 288

(injured).

_Irish fluted ring money. * No precise locality, but presumably

Irish._

*106, *123 (worn), 30, 59, 90, 66, 59½.

With disks, 249, 806 (2 oz.), 595, 283, 169, 665, 139, 119.

Dots, no lines, 32.

The weights of these rings show many points of agreement with those in

the Irish Museum. Thus we get 28, 29½, 30, and 32 grs. corresponding to

29, 31, and 32 grs. of the second group in the Irish Table. Again, 56 and

59½ where we get 54, 56, 58, 59, 61 in the Irish, and 66 corresponding

to 65, 65; 98 to 96 and 98; and 89 corresponding to 88 and 90; 119,

121, 122 and 123 to 121 and 124; 139 to 144, and 144 and 148 to 147 and

147; then 169 to 171 and 172. Then comes a break, and we get 215, 218,

218, 224 corresponding to 220, and 249 to 247, and 283 to 283 and 283;

and 323 to 322, and 360 to 366. But the British Museum gives us in the

higher weights three very important specimens: for 410 grs. is the ounce

corresponding exactly to the old Norse _öre_ of 410 grs., and the ring

of 422 grs. looks like the later ounce rising towards the full weight of

432. The ring of 806 grs. is plainly 2 ounces of the standard of 410 (806

÷ 2 = 403).

The occurrence of several specimens so constantly all of the same

weight, as for instance those about 220 grs., points beyond doubt to the

conclusion that when the rings were being made a given quantity of gold

was weighed out for the purpose. The story of St Finnian proves that for

any transaction in which rings were employed as money, the scales were

employed.

There is a set of leaden weights in the Royal Irish Academy Collection,

found at Island Bridge, Dublin, in 1869, when Ancient Irish and

Scandinavian remains were found together. As they are more or less

corroded, it is not advisable to lay much stress on their present weights.

grs.

1. Semicircular weight 1852

2. Animal’s head 1550

3. Circular 1221

4. 958

5. 634

6. Oblong 539

7. 459

8. Quadrangular 414 (oz.)

9. 395 (oz.)

10. 220

There are certainly some interesting points of agreement between the

weights and the gold ornaments, _e.g._ the weights of 220, 390, 414, 630,

have corresponding weights in gold. The largest weight may be 4½ oz. of

410 grs.

* * * * *

Let us now return to the Irish monetary system, and see if we can

determine more accurately its relation to that of Rome.

8 grains of wheat = 1 pinginn.

24 ” ” = 3 pinginns = 1 screapall.

576 ” ” = 72 ” = 24 screapalls = 1 unga.

As regards _unga_ and _screapall_ we have spoken already. Of their origin

there is no doubt. The pinginn on the other hand is not so easy. The

name is certainly Teutonic, said to be ultimately a loan word formed

from _pecunia_. It seems to have been employed as a general term for the

smallest form of currency. Hence we find the Saxon form (_pendinga_)

applied to the 240th part of the lb., and of about 32 grs. wheat, and the

Norse _peningr_ used for the 240th part of the _mark_, whilst in Ireland

the cognate form is applied to the 72nd part of the ounce, and is of the

weight of 8 grains _wheat_.

The Irish employed the system of Uncia and Scripula. Shall we say then

that this system was in vogue in Britain likewise before the time of

Constantine and yielded slowly before the later one?

Since then it was common to the Kelts on both sides of the Irish Sea,

and we find that in Ireland it was grafted upon an earlier system, of

which the _crosoch_ is a survival, we may reasonably infer that the Kelts

of Britain had likewise a native system analogous to the _crosoch_. But

further, of this we have strong evidence of two kinds. Caesar _B. G._ v.

12, when describing the British Kelts and their manners, says; pecorum

magnus numerus. Utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut annulis ferreis ad

certum pondus examinatis pro nummo[462]. The passage has been mutilated

by Editors, but this is the reading of the best MSS. Caesar thus tells us

that they had a system of weights of their own. Secondly the evidence of

the actual British Coins (cf. Evans, _Coins of Ancient Britons_) which

are of a standard not Roman.

Now we have seen above that the Irish gold rings were weighed on a

standard of almost 13·5 grs. Troy. Let us now see if the larger gold

ornaments preserved in our Museums confirm or disprove the evidence of

the rings. I shall first give the weights of those in the Royal Irish

Academy[463]:

_Crescent shaped ornaments_: 1539, 434 (ounce of Brehon Laws?),

733, 1008, 255, 2013, 489, 552, 660, 1081, 98, 432 (ounce of

Brehon Laws), 339, 400 (early ounce = Norse _öre_?), 187, 390

(old ounce?), 797 (2 ounces, 2 × 398½).

The following are not in Wilde’s Catalogue: 472, 505, 542, 540,

630, 647, 667, 687, 720, 722, 737, 1092, 4331.

_Torques_: 476, 1013, 1527, 3126, 3168, 4722, 5941, 6007, 10268.

Not in Wilde: 154, 342, 1946, 2715, 4172, 5207, 5275, 6012, 6881.

_Armlets_: 144, 158, 182, 329, 401 (small pre-Roman ounce), 421

(ounce), 487, 510, 684, 757, 894, 989, 1037, 1369, 1630 (4 ounces

of 407 grs.?), 1716 (4 ounces of 426 grs.?), 2089 (5 oz. of 418

grs.?), 5635 (14 oz. of 402 grs.?), 6265 (15 oz. of 417 grs.).