THat the foot was the most recei­ved, and usuall measure amongst the Romans, as the cubit amongst the Jews, is a thing not contro­verted by any. ForPolyb. li. 6. Polybius de­scribing their Scutū, makes it in breadth over the [...]bend two [Romane] feet and an half, and in length four feet: or, if it be of a greater sort, a palme more is to be added to this measure. And not long after expressing the manner of their castra­metation, or encamping, hePolyb. ibid. [...], &c. writes; that as of­ [...]en as a place is designed for the camp, the Praetori­ [...]um (or Generals lodging) takes up that part, which is fittest for prospect, and direction. Set­ [...]ing therefore up the Standard where they intend to [...]ix the Praetoriū, they so measure out a square about the Standard, that each side may be distant from it [...]n hundred feet, and the whole area contain foure [...]ugera. In like manner Caes: Comm. lib. 4. Caesar, in the descripti­on of his bridge over the Rhine, makes the bin­ders, or transversary beames, to be bipedales. Cicero l. 2. Academ. quaest. Tully also judges the quantity of the apparent diameter of the Sun to be pedalis. And not to produce more Authorities,Suetonius in Augusto. Suetonius relates, that Augustus presented before the people of Rome [...] [Page 4] so the sestertius pes was two feet and an halfe. Vol. Maet: de assis distrib. Volusius Maetianus, ‘Sestertius duos asses & semissem, quasi semis tertius; Graeca figura [...]. Nam sex talenta & se­mitalentum eo verbo significantur. Lex eti­am XII. Tabularum argumento est, in qua duo pedes & semissis sestertius pes vocatur.’ But to return to Frontinus, who farther discour­sing of the Romane foot, gives a distinction of three sorts of feet: and those were first, pes porrectus, next, pes constratus, or asAgricola de mensuris qui­bus intervalla metimur. A­gricola reades it, contractus, and lastly, pes quadratus. The first was the measure of longi­tudes, the other two of superficies. There were, writesFrontinus de limitibus agro­rum. Frontinus, In pede porrecto semi­pedes duo, in pede constrato semipedes quatuor, in pede quadrato semipedes octo. Which words of his are to be thus explicated; the pes por­rectus, was the Romane foot extended in length, and therefore there were in it semi­pedes duo: The pes constratus, was the square of the semipes, and therefore the perimeter of it contained semipedes quatuor, or, which is all one, two intire Romane feet: The pes quadra­tus, was the square of the Romane foot; where­fore of necessity there must bee foure feet in the perimeter, or in Frontinus' expression, eight semipedes. The sameFrontinus de aquaeductibus. Author likewise in his book de aquaeductibus, describing the digit, & uncia of this, (Est autem digitus, (saies he) ut convenit, sexta decima pars pedis, uncia duo­decima) useth a distinction of digits, as hee did of feet before, not mentioned by any other Au­thor: Quemadmodum autem inter unciam, & di­gitum [Page 5] diversitas, ita & ipsius digiti simplex ob­servatio non est. nam alius vocatur quadratus, ali­us rotundus. Quadratus tribus quartis decimis suis rotundo major: rotundus tribus undecimis suis quadrato minor est. The proportions here assigned by him to the digitus quadratus, and rotundus, are the same, whichArchim. de circ: dimens. prop. 2. Archimedes long before used: and those are, that a circle hath the same proportion to the square of the dia­meter, that XI. hath to XIV. Hero also, dis­coursing of severall sorts of measures, in­formes us thus concerning the foot: [...], the digit is the least measure, the palm consists of IV. digits, and is called dactylodochme, and palaiste, and doron. The lichas is tenne digits, the orthodoron eleven: The span XII. The foot hath IV. palmes, or XVI. digits the pygme XVIII. digits. The pygon XX. The cubit XXIV. or VI. palms the orgyia IV. cubits, or VI. feet. Most of which mea­sures the Romanes borrowed from the Greeks; as on the contrary the Greeks borrowed the [...], and [...], from the Romane jugerum, and milliare. The same Hero describes another sort of foot used in Italy. [...]. The Italian foot contains thirteen digits, and one third. Whence Salmas [...]i Ex­ [...]rcit: Plinianae. p. [...]. 4. Salmasius concludes, that the Romanes used [Page 6] one sort of foot in Rome, consisting of XVI. digits, and in some parts of Italy another being but XIII. digits, and one third. Which might be granted, did notHyginus de li­mit: constit: Hyginus, who is much an­cienter, in his tract de limitibus constituendis, contradict it. His words are these: Item di­citur in Germaniâ in Tungris pes Drusianus, qui habet monetalem, & sescunciam, ita ut ubi­cunque extra fines, legésque Romanorum, id est, ut solicitiùs proferam, ubicunque extra Ita­liam aliquid agitatur inquirendum; & de hâc ipsâ conditione diligenter praemoneo, ne quid sit, quod praeteriisse videamur. Where speaking immediately before of the pes Romanus, or as he also cals it, the pes monetalis, by which hee measures and defines the limites, he gives us this caution, that out of Italy (for in Italy he sup­poses one measure to be generally received) we are to observe the quantity of the foot, or mea­sure of the Country. And for this reason, to a­void ambiguity, he assigns the proportions of the pes Drusianus, at Tongeren in Germany, to be a sescuncia more then the pes monetalis used at Rome, and in Italy. And so in another part a­bout Cyrene, which Ptolemy gave to the Ro­manes. Hyginus ibid. Pes corum qui Ptolemaicus appellatur habet monetalem pedem, & semunciam. But to omit the pes Ptolemaicus (For our inquiry is onely of the Romane foot.) I cannot but won­der at the mistake ofIos: Scaliger de re nummariâ Joseph Scaliger, concern­ing the pes Drusianus, and Romanus, who thus writes. Pes igitur ille Drusianus major est Roma­no sescunciâ. fuit enim XXII. digitorum, quan­torum XVI. est pes Romanus. If it were but a [Page 7] sescuncia, greater then the Romane foot, as Hyginus, and he also make it, how can it pos­sibly be XXII. digitorum? or how can he excuse his words, which immediately follow? Ex quo colligimus pedem Drusianum omnino esse eum, qui hodie in Galliâ, & Belgio in usu est, qui profectò major est VI. digitis, quantorum XVI. est pes, qui Romae in hortis Angeli Colotii sculptus in saxo visitur. Eum enim nos cum pede Gallicano com­parantes, id verissimum esse deprehendimus. Nei­ther is the errour of some others much lesse, in making the pes monetalis, or Romanus, and pes Regius Philetaerius, to be equall, Because the Romane foot consisted of XVI. digits, as Fron­tinus writes, and the pes Philetaerius of as many, asHeroin Isa­goge. Hero shews: [...]. there­fore both these are equall. The errour is in sup­posing all digits to be alike; and therefore the same number of digits being in both, that both are equall. By the same argument we may con­clude the Romane foot, and Arabian foot, and the derah, or cubit of these, to be equall to the cubit, or sesquipes of the Romanes: seeingAbulsedae Geo­gr. Arab. MS. A­bulfeda, an Arabian Geographer, defines the de­rah to consist of XXIV. digits, and so many also did the Romane sesquipes contain. But the ob­servation ofRhemnii Fan­nii fragmentū. Rhemnius Fannius in this particular is much better; which he applies to weights, and we may by analogy assign to measures.

But to return to the Romane foot. Lastly, we may alleageIsid. Hispal. l. 15. c. 15. Isidorus Hispalensis. Palmus autem, quatuor habet digitos, pes XVI. digitos, Passus pedes quinque, Pertica p [...]ssus duos, id est decem pedes. And this is that which I finde delivered by such of the Ancients, as are extant. Out of which bare, and naked descriptions, it is as im­possible to recover the Romane foot, as it is for Mathematicians, to take either the distance, or altitude of places, by the proportions of trian­gles alone, or by Tables of Sines, and Tangents, without having some certain and positive mea­sure given, which must be the foundation of their inquiry. All that can be collected by these descriptions, is this, that wee may know into how many parts the Romanes usually divided their feet; and all these divisions I have seen in some ancient ones. But suppose there were no Romane foot extant; how by XVI. digits, or by IV. palms, or by XII. unciae, (which is the most uncertain of all; seeing whatsoever hath quan­tity, how great or small soever it is, may be di­vided in XII. uncias) could it be precisely resto­red? For if that ofProtagoras a­pud [...]. l. 1 [...]. cap. 5. Mc­taphys. [...]. Protagoras be true, as well in measures, as in intellectuall notions, that man is [...]: WhenceNec minus m [...]surarum ratio­nes, quae in omnibus viden­tur necessariae esse, ex corpo [...] is membris colle­gerunt: uti di­gitum, palmum, pedem, cubitum. Vitruv. l 3 c. 1. Vitruvius ob­serves, that the Latines denominated most of their measures, as their digit, palm, foot, and cu­bit, from the parts and members of a man: who shall bee that perfect and square man, from whom we may take a pattern of these measures? [Page 9] or if there be any such, how shall we know him? or how shall we be certain the Ancients ever made choice of any such? Unlesse, as some fancy, that the cubit of the Sanctuary, was taken from the cubit of Adam, he being created in an excellent state of perfection: So we shall ima­gine these digits, and palms, to have been taken from some particular man of completer linea­ments then others. On the other side, if this foot may be restored by the digits, and palms of any man at pleasure, since there is such a diffe­rence in the proportions of men, that it is as difficult to finde two of the same dimensions, as two that have the same likenesse of faces, how will it be possible, out of such a diversity, to pro­duce a certain and positive measure, consisting in an indivisibility, not as a point doth in re­spect of parts, but in an indivisibility of appli­cation, as all originals, and standards should doe? The Arabians, to avoid this difficulty, shew us a more certain way, as they suppose, how to make this commensurall digit, and consequent­ly the foot: and that is by the breadth of sixe barly corns laid one contiguous to another. For thus [...] MS. Muhammed Ibn Mesoud in his book, intituled in Persian gehandanish, relates; that in the time of Almamon (the learned Calife of Babylon) by the elevation of the pole of the aequa­tor, they measured the quantity of a degree upon the globe of the earth, and found it to be fifty six miles, and two thirds of a mile: every mile con­taining four thousand cubits, and each cubit twen­ty four digits, and every digit six barly corns. The same proportions are assigned in the Geogra­phia [Page 10] Nubiensis, printed in Arabick at Rome: [...] The cubit is twenty four digits, and every digit is six barly corns. But this is as uncertain as the former, and is built upon a supposition, that all such are of the same dimen­sion. Whereas those of one Country differ much from those of another; and those of the same Country (as I have made triall in Aegypt, more out of curiosity, then as hoping this way to give my self satisfaction) are not all of the same big­nesse: and not onely so, but in the self same ear, there is a sensible difference, as experience doth shew. And yet Snellius, a man much to be commended for his abilities in the Mathema­ticks, and to be blamed for his supine negli­gence, both in his measure of the magnitude of the earth, and in his dimensions of the Ro­mane foot, upon these sleight & weak principles, deduces the Arabian foot,S [...]ellius in E­ratosth. Batav. lib. 2. cap. 2. this containing ninety sixe grains, such as his Roman foot (for none be­sides himself will own it) contains ninety. Where­fore some other Arabians to mend the matter, limit the breadth of one of them,Aly Kush­gy, who assisted Vlug Beg in compiling his Astronomicall Tables in Per­sian (Tables the most exact of any in the East) limits their breadth by VI. hairs of an horse. [...] Every digit is sixe barly corns laid [...]venly together, and the breadth of every barly corn is sixe haires of an horses taile. Instit: Astron: Aly Cushgy. MS. by six hairs of a camel, evenly joyned one by another: by which invention their derah being almost an­swerable [Page 11] to the Romane sesquipes, or cubit, shall consist of twenty four digits, and every digit of sixe barly corns, and every barly corn of six hairs of a camell. So that in conclusion the hair of a camell, shall be the minimum in respect of mea­sures. But this invention however at the first it may seem somewhat subtile (for we are come now almost as low as atomes) is least of all to be approved. For though the supposition were true that all hairs are of a like bignesse in all ca­mels, whereas they are different in one and the same; yet this objection is unanswerable, that seeing hairs are not perfectly round, though the the sense judges them so, but angular, and that with some inequality, as magnifying glasses plainly demonstrate, it will be very difficult so to size them together, that they shall always take up the same breadth: and if they do not, little errors committed in such small bodies, though at the first insensible, will infinitely in­crease, and multiply, in the measuring of great distances, to which these are supposed the foun­dation. And therefore I cannot but approve the counsell ofVillalpandus de apparatu Vrbis ac Templi par. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Atque in uni­versum illud unum monitos velim eos om­nes, qui mensu­rarum ac pon­derum cognos­cendorum desi­derio tenētur, ne à minimis inci­piant examina­re majora: nom vel minimus quisque error saepius multi­plicatus in magnum [...]ddu­cit errorum cumulum. Villalpandus, who adviseth such as will examine measures and weights, to begin with the greater, and not with the lesser. And that there is reason for his assertion, may be made evident, especially in weights, to such as shall make an experiment. For admit there were a Standard of ten thousand grains, and a­nother of one grain, it will be easie, by a conti­nued subdivision of the former, with a good ba­lance, to produce a weight equall to the stan­dard of one grain: yea, though at the begin­ning, [Page 12] some little errour had been committed, which after many divisions will vanish, and be­come imperceptible. Whereas on the contrary, the most curious man alive, with the exactest scale that the industry of the most skilfull arti­zan can invent, shall never be able out of the standard of one grain, to produce a weight e­quall to the weight of ten thousand grains, but that there shall be a sensible, and apparent diffe­rence; yea, though he had that excellent scale mentioned byCapellus de pond. & num­mis lib. 1. Capellus at Sedan, which would sensibly be turned with the IV. hundreth part of a grain. The like difference as we find in weights, we may conceive by analogy to be in measures, when they shall be made out of such litle parts, as hairs, barly corns, digits, and the like. And therefore I cannot but disapprove the ordinary course of most Geographers, whither Greeks, Latines, or Arabians, that from such nice begin­nings, measure out a degree upon earth, and con­sequently the magnitude of this globe. On the contrary the enterprise ofSnell: in Era­tosth: Bat. lib. 2. Snellius in his Erato­sthenes Batavus, and of our CountrymanWright, of the errours of Na­vigation. M. Wright, hath been more commendable: who by the space of a degree on earth, (or which were better of many degrees) have endeavou­red to fixe measures, with more exactnesse, and certainty for posterity. But of this argument I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. And therefore to return to the businesse in hand.

Since the Romane foot cannot be recovered by hairs, grains, digits, palms, and such like phy­sicall bodies, which being of a various, and in­determinate magnitude, cannot give, unlesse by [Page 13] accident, the commensuration of that which ought to be precisely limited, and determined: some relinquishing the former way as errone­ous, have endeavoured, with much ingenious­ness, by weights, to find out the Roman foot. For there is the same analogy between measures and weights, as between continued, and discrete quantiti [...]s: And as Mathematicians by numbers demonstrate, or rather illustrate the affections of lines, superficies, and Geometricall bodies: so by weights, measuring some physicall bodies, especially such as are liquid, in cubicall vessels, (which are easiest commensurable) we may ren­der the exact quantity of the Romane foot, and by consequence of all their other measures. And thereforeLuc. Paetus li. 3. de mensur. & pond: Rom. Lucas Paetus, andVillalpandus de appar. Vrbis ac Templi. par: 2. l. 3. cap. 25. Villalpandus, have attempted with probable reasons to discover the Romane foot, the one by the Sextarius, the other by the Romane Congius. For the Sexta­ [...]ius being the sixth part of the Congius, and the Congius containing X. librae, or pounds, as it is manifest by that exquisite standard in Rome, with this inscription.

[Page 14] Again the Congius being the eighth part of the amphorae, or quadrantal, filled with water or wine, as by the testimonies ofFragmenta Dioscoridis. Dioscori­des, Sext. Pomp: Festus de Verb: signif. Sex: Pompeius, and of an ancient Ano­nymus Greek Authour translated by Alciat, it doth appear: if therefore a Vessell be made of a cubicall figure, which may receive VIII. con­gii, or XLVIII. sextarii, or LXXX [...] pounds of water or of wine, out of the sides of this cube, byRhemn: Fann: fragment. Rhemnius Fannius his description, or rather by Sextus Pompeius, who is ancienter, will the Romane foot be deduced. For both these write (neither is it as yet contradicted by any man) that the longitude of one of the sides of the am­phora (being a cube) is answerable to the Romane foot. And here our inquiry would be at an end (supposing the Authorities of Festus, and Fan­nius to be unquestionable) were there not far­ther some objections, which cannot easily bee removed. And those are first, a supposition that we have the true Roman libra (for by this we are to finde the Congius, admitting there were none extant, as by the Congius, the amphora, or qua­drantal:) a thing of as great difficulty as the foot it self. And besides, if this were obtained, yet we cannot have an absolute certainty, that water, or wine, shall in all places alike ponde­rate; by reason of the different gravity, which is observed in naturall bodies, though they be homogeneous, and of a like substance. Wherefore laying aside all such speculations, as being farre from that accuratenesse, which is required, there is no other possible means left for this discovery, but to have recourse to such monuments of An­tiquity, [Page 15] as have escaped the injury, and calami­ty of time, which is our next, and second inqui­ry.

And here it will not be amisse to see what learned men, who not long preceded our age, have observed out of ancient monuments, con­cerning the Romane foot: and then to relate what course I took to give my self private sa­tisfaction, which, I hope, will be also satisfacto­ry to others. Philander in his Commentaries upon Vitruvius, being one of the first that had seen, and diligently perused many ancient measures in Rome (whereas Portius, Agricola, Glareanus, and some others, received them upon trust) gives us so much the more certain informa­tion. His words are these: Philander in li. 3. cap. 3. Vi­truvii. Veruntamen quoni­am non statim ex cujuscunque pollicibus, aut digi­tis, quis fuerit apud antiquos Romanus pes sciri po­test, facturum me studiosis rem gratam putavi, si ad marginem libri semipedem apponerem, dimen­sum ex antiquo pede, in marmore, quod est in hor­tis Angeli Colotii Romae sculpto, cujus etiam, nisi me fallit memoria, meminit Leonardus Porcius lib. de Sestertio. Eum enim pedem, nos caeteris qui circumferuntur, praetulimus, quòd conveniret cum eo, quem sculptum invenimus in alio marmo­reo epitaphio T. Statilii Vol. Apri mensoris aedifi­ciorum, quod operâ Jacobi Meleghini summī Pont. Architecti ex Janiculo non ita pridem refossum, in Vaticanum hortum translatum est. Quamvis jacentem in Basilicâ Apostolorum columnam ex porphyrite, cum his Graecis in calce literis [...] ☉ id est pedum novem, nos cum dimensi essemus, deprehenderimus non respondere nostro eum, quo [Page 16] usus fuerat ejus columnae artifex, sed nostro esse majorem duobus scrupulis & besse, id est unciae parte nonâ. Vt argumentum aliquod esse possit pedis Graeci fuisse modulo scapum columnae factum; quod facilius conjicere potuissem, si integra esset a­lia ex eodem lapide columna, quam in viâ latâ est conspicere jacentem, his in calce literis [...] insignitam. Verùm quando stadium Herodoto l. 2. Heroni, Suidae, caeteris Graecis sit sexcentorum pedum; Plinio, Columellae, caeteris Latinis sex­centorum viginti quinque nostrorum, necesse est Romanum à Graeco semunciâ superari. Thus far Philander. Not long after him Lucas Paetus, ha­ving examined the foot on T. Statilius tombe, and that other of Cossutius, together with seve­rall ancient ones in brasse, found amongst the rudera at Rome, concludes: that the Luc. Paetus l. 1. de antiq. Rō. & Graec. in­tervall. mensu­ris. true Ro­mane foot dictis duobus marmoreis comparatus, septimâ unciae parte, sive unciae scripulis tribus, & duabus scripuli sextulis, & sextulae semisse bre­vior est. Much about the same time I finde in Ciaconius out of Latinus Latinius, another ex­periment to have been made, by many eminent men together at Rome. Superioribus autem an­nis (saith Ciaconius è Lat. Latinii observationibus de pede Rom. he) Ant: Augustinus, qui postmodum fuit Archiepiscopus Tarraconensis, Io: Baptista Sighicellus Episcopus Faventinus, P. Octavius Pacatus, Achilles Maffaeus, Achilles Statius, Bene­dictus Aegius, Fulvius Vrsinus, Latinus Lati­nius, cùm veram pedis Rom. quantitatem statu­ [...]re vellent, plures ejusd. pedis mensuras simul contulerunt, & earum octo cum antiquissimâ di­cti pedis formâ, quae in basi quâdam in hortis Vati­canis extat, adamussim convenire videntes, ex [Page 17] hoc pede quadrato vas confecerunt, quod etiam nunc octoginta aquae, vel vini libras, quibus publicè signatis civitas utitur, omnino capere invene­runt, & cum octo congiis antiquis ita congrue­re, ut reque minus quidquam, neque amplius in­ter utraque esset. Quo experimento evidentissimè cognoverunt; & libras nostri temporis cum anti­quis Romanis esse easdem, cùm congii antiqui vas sub Vespasiano Imp: signatum decem libras conti­neret, quot etiam nostri temporis libras capit; & hunc esse justum pedem Romanum, cùm ex ejus modulo perfectum Quadrantal octoginta libras contineat, quae cum congii antiqui libris ad mo­mentum respondent. Notwithstanding these ob­servations, Villalpandus, knowing how necessary it was to have the true dimensions of the Ro­mane foot, to find out the proportions of the Hebrew cubit, made new experiments: and after examination of the measures, and weights at Rome, he thus concludes. Villalpandi apparatus Vr­bis [...]c. Templi. par. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Sed iis omnibus tam variis, aliisque multis sententiis praetermis­sis, in hâc unâ conquiescimus, ut arbitremur u­num Farnesianum Congium posse omnes antiquas Romanorum, atque aliarum gentium mensuras, omniáque pondera pristinae integritati restituere. And in another place. Quapropter aliis omnibus conjecturis, argumentationibus, aereis pedibus, mar­moreis dimensionibus, aut sculpturis, quasi maris fluctibus praetermissis, in hâc unâ pedis longitudi­ne, quasi in portu conquiescere jam tendem decre­vimus. Yet Snellius in his Eratosthenes Batavus, could not rest satisfied with this foot of Villal­pandus, how exquisite soever he imagines it. For he had a minde to discover it neerer home: [Page 18] making the Rhinland foot equal to the Romane. The proof of his assertion is taken from an anci­cient Romane armamentarium, or Fort, neer the sea, not far from Leiden, which by the Natives is called het huys te Briten: And is supposed by Ortelius to have been built by Claudius Caesar, in his intended voiage for Britanne, of which Suetonius in Claudio Dio hist. Rom. lib. [...]0. Sue­tonius, and Dio, make mention: sive in commo­diorem legionum, cohortiumque transvectionem, sive quo milites hibernarent (saith Ortelius). Arcis ipsius fundamenta, (according to Snell. in Era­tosth. Bat. l. 2. cap. 2. Snellius) qua­dratâ sunt formâ, & quaquaversum ducentis qua­draginta Rhinlandicis pedibus patent. Vt vel hinc Romanae mensurae vestigia quàm planissimè agno­scas. Nam ipsius podismus duorum Romanorum ju­gerum magnitudinem complectitur. Jugeri enim mensuram ducentos & quadraginta longitudinis pedes esse, non est ferè quisquam qui ignoret, inquit Quintilianus l. 1. cap. 10. Varro de re rustica li­bro 1. cap. 10. Iugerum quod quadratos duos a­ctus habet. Actus quadratus, qui & latus est pedes 120. & longus totidem. Is modius, ac mina Latina appellatur▪ ut mihi planè dubium non vi­deatur, eos hic Romanae mensurae modum secutos, hujus structurae podismum ita comprehendisse se­cundum jugeri mensuram, ut duo jugera, vel actui quatuor contineret. Frontinus de limitibus. Hi duo fundi juncti jugerum definiunt, deinde haec duo jugera juncta in unum quadratum agrum efficiunt, quòd sint omnes actus bini: ut singula ideò latera ducentos & quadraginta pedes in lon­gum patêre necesse sit. Atqui totidem pedibus Rhinlandicis singula latera exporrigi Geodaetarum experientia confirmat. Vnde efficitur Romanum [Page 19] antiquum pedē nostro Rhinlandico planè aequari.

After these experiments of so many able, and learned men, and those too taken from ancient Monuments, it may seem s [...]ange, that we should not be able as yet to define the true quantity of the Romane foot. For this I can assigne no other reasons then these. First, that those which have described it, have either not exactly, and with such diligence, as was requisite, performed it; or else, if they have been circumspect in this kind, they have omitted to compare it with the Standards for measures of other Nations. On the contrary, those which have compared it with the present Standards, never took it from the ancient Monuments, and Originals, which are at Rome, but onely from some draughts, or schemes, delineated in books. Now how uncer­tain a way this is, doth appear byVillalpand. de apparatu Vrbi [...] ac Templi par. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Villalpandus, who thus writes. Ego dum haec scriberem, hunc Colotianum pedem circino expendi, & in annota­tionibus Guil: Philandri solertissimi viri, & apud Georgium Agricolam, & apud Lucam Paetum, & Stanistaum Grsepsium, & nallum potui reperire [...]lteri aequalem, imo verò neque ejusdem pedis as­signatas similes partes. The same have I obser­ved in those Romane feet described by Portius, Agricola, Philander, Paetus, Ciaconius, and Vil­lalpandus himself, that they differ one from a­nother: and not onely so, but those of the [...]ame Authour, in the same impression, are like­wise different. Which last must arise, either by the diverse extention of the paper in the presse, when it is moist, or by the inequall con­traction of it, when it grows dry, or by some [Page 20] other accident, in the beating, and binding. So that though it were granted, that so many lear­ned men had found out, what we inquire after, the Romane foot; yet it is impossible out of those schemes, and draughts, delivered in their books, for the reasons before specified, to attain an ab­solute certainty. ButPars sexagesi­ma typorum & sormarum loa­gitudini excusis decedit, quem­admodū à dili­gentibus & pe­ritis typogra­phis sciscitando edoctus sum. Snell. in Era­tosth. Batavo. l. 2. cap. 1. Snellius shews us a remedy of this difficulty, which in my opinion is as vain as his Romane foot, (seeing by his supposi­tion all paper must shrink alike, be it thick or thinne) and that is, to allow one part in sixty for the shrinking of the paper. For so much, saith he, doe Typographers observe, that letters contract thē ­selves, when they are taken off wet from the types.

Wherefore having received small satisfacti­on from the writings of the Ancients, and not much better from the imperfect designations of the Romane foot by modern Authors, I pro­posed to my self in my travails abroad, these waies, which no reasonable man but must ap­prove of. And those were first, to examine as many ancient measures, and monuments, in Italy, and other parts, as it was possible. And se­condly, to compare these with as many Stan­dards, and Originals, as I could procure the sight of. And last of all, to transmit both these, and them, to posterity, I exactly measured some of the most lasting monuments of the An­cients. To this purpose, in the year 1639 I went into Italy, to view, as the other Antiquities o [...] the Romanes, so especially those of weights, and measures; and to take them with as much exact [...]nesse, as it was possible, I carried instrument [...] with me made by the best Artizans.

[Page 21] Where my first inquiry was after that monumē of T. Statilius Vol. Aper, in the Vatican gardens, from whencePhilander in l. 3. c. 3. Vitru­vii. Philander took the dimensions of the Romane foot, as others have since borrow­ed it from him. In the copying out of this up­on an English foot in brasse, divided into 2000 parts, I spent at the least two houres (which I mention to shew with what diligence I proceeded in this, and the rest) so often com­paring the severall divisions, and digits of it respectively one with another, that I think more circumspection could not have been used; by which I plainly discovered the rudenesse, and insufficiency of that foot. For besides that the length of it is somewhat too much, (whatsoever Ciaconius è Latino Latinio. Latinius out of an observation made by Ant. Au­gustinus, Sighicellus, Pacatus, Maffaeus, Statius, Ae­gius, and Fulvius Vrsinus, pretends to the con­trary) there is never a digit, that is precisely answerable to one another. Howsoever it con­tains 1944. such parts, as the English foot con­tains 2000.

My next search was for the foot on the monu­ment of Cossutius, in hortis Colotianis, frō whence [...]t hath since received its denomination (though [...]t be now removed) being termed by Wri­ [...]ers pes Colotianus. This foot I took with great care, as it did well deserve, being very [...]air, and perfect: afterwards collating it with [...]hat Romane foot, which Lucas Paetus caused [...]o be ingraven in the Capitol, in a white mar­ [...]le stone, I found them exactly to agree; and [...]herefore I did wonder, why he should con­ [...]emne this with his pen (for he makes some [Page 22] Luc Paetus l. 1 de antiq. Rom. & Graec. inter­vall mensuris. objections against it) which notwithstanding he hath erected with his hands (as appears by the inscription in the Capitol, CURANTE LU: PAETO). It may be upō second thoughts, he after­ward privately retracted his error, which he vvas not willing to publish to the vvorld. Now this of Cossutius is 1934. such parts, as the English foot contains 2000.

Next I sought after that Porphyry Columne mentioned byMarlianus de antiquit. Vrbis Marlianus, as also byPhilander in lib. 3. c. 3. Vi­truvii. Phi­lander, and others, with this iuscription [...] . For if the length of that Columne were as­signed according to the proportion of the Greek foot, then would the Romane foot be thence deduced: this (as I shall elsewhere shew) containing 24. such parts, as that contained 25: Or if it were made according to the Romane foot, as the Grecians after their subjection to the Romane Empire, often used the same mea­sures that the Romanes did, then had I my de­sire. But the Column being defaced, or lost, my labour was in vain: And it seemsLuc Paetus l. 1 de antiq Rom. & Graec. inter­vall. mensuris. Paetus about LXX. years before, made the same inquiry, with as litle satisfaction.

I should be too tedious in describing the se­verall feet, which I have perused in brasse, found amongst the rudera at Rome, and care­fully preserved by Antiquaries: of most of which Peircskius hath given a good character, in some letters of his, which I have seen in the hands of Bucharaus, a learned man, not yet printed.Ex Epistolis Peircskii MSS. Who thus writes: I cannot suffici­ently wonder at the inequality which I have found in the divisions by digits, and inches, of the an­cient [Page 23] Romane feet; which seem to me to have been made for fashion sake, & dicis causâ (as lamps that are found in tombes incapable of oile) more to expresse the mystery, and profession of those that were to use them, then for to regulate the mea­sure of any thing besides them.

Besides these, I examined the ancient stru­ctures of the Romanes, hoping by collating one with another, to deduce the dimension of their foot. For I presumed that those excellent Architects, before they began their work, must necessarily propose some models to themselves, according to the proportions of which, they meant to raise their fabricks: which propor­tions could not be assigned, but in the parts of some common, and received quantity; and this in probability was the Romane foot; being a measure generally used, and by publick autho­rity prescribed. Upon which grounds, I mea­sured the stones in the foundation of the Capitoll, Domitians', or rather Vespasians' amphitheater, the triumphall arcs of Titus, and Severus, to­gether with that of Constantine the great, and a­bove all that exquisite temple of the Pantheon, built by Agrippa, I know not whither with more cost, or art: concerning whichSebast: Ser [...]: delle Anti­chita. Sebasti­anus Serlius is of opinion, that if all rules of Architecture were lost, they might be revived out of this monument alone. And in truth, this place gave me more satisfaction then any o­ther. For most of the white marble stones on the pavement, contained exactly three of those Ro­mane feet on Cossutius monument, and the lesser stones in Prophyry contained one and an half.

But yet I thought this not sufficient, unlesse I [Page 24] went to Tarracina, which is the ancient Anxur, and LIII miles distant from Rome: having read in Andr: Schott: i [...]ine [...]ar. Andreas Schottus, out of Pighius' Hercules Pro­dicius, that neer the sea by the via Appia, in the heighth of a white rock, whence that ofHorat l. 1. Serm Sat. 5. Horace, ‘Impositum saxis latè candentibus Anxur,’ there are described the Romane decempedae. And indeed the place is very memorable, for the whitenesse, altitude, and hardnesse of the rock, which notwithstanding is cut away perpendicu­larly, on the side towards the Tyrrhene sea, a­bove an hundred and twenty feet in depth, to make passage for the Appian way; and at the space of every decempeda, these characters X XX XXX &c. (being almost cubitales) are fairly in­graven in a continued order descending to CXX. Measuring below the distance between CXX and CX, it amounted to IX. English feet, and 1314/2 [...]00 of a foot computing it from theSee at the end of this book the figure of these characters as they are cut in the rock at Anxur, with lines incom­passing them. line ingraven above CXX to the line next under CX. The rest I examined with my eyes, by of­ten comparing the distance between CXX and CX whither it were equall to that between CX and C, and this again (ascending upwards) to that between C and XC. which manner though it be uncertain, and conjecturall, and farre from that exactnesse, I used in all others, yet it was the best means I could then put in practise; and I am confident that whosoever shall mea­sure those spaces, shall find a manifest inequa­lity. To which opinion I am the rather indu­ced, because measuring there, in severall places, the breadth of the Appian way, cut out of the same rock, I found a difference sometimes of one, or two inches, or more. It being in one [Page 25] place XIII. English feet, and 1620/ [...] of a foot, in another, XIII. feet and 18 [...]0/ [...] in a third XIII. and 1975/ [...]. Whereby I concluded, that the Ancients in making that way, had not respect to a Ma­thematicall point (as it was not necessa­ry) but onely that if any difference were, it should not be sensible. And such differences have [...] observed in the white Corinthian pil­lars, in the Pantheon before mentioned, of a­bove an inch, or two, in the circuit of the sca­pus, neer the torus: vvhich inequality, seeing no eye could discover, the masters of that ex­quisite vvork did justly contemn. Whereas the Prophyry stones, and those of white marble, on the pavement, are sized so even, and so exactly to the proportions of the Romane foot, that nothing can be more accurate. And this the nature of the vvork required. For the temple being round (which hath occasioned the Italians vulgarly to call it the Rotundo) the circle within, could not so exquisitely have been fil­led up, if there had not been a speciall care ta­ken in observing the true dimensions, in every particular stone. But to return to the rock at Anxur; the spaces between those characters, to an eye, that shall be intentively fixt upon them, will be apparently different. So that I concur in opinion withSchot [...]i itiner. Schottus, that those figures were placed there, to give notice to posterity, how much of the rock had been removed, to make passage for the Appian way; and not for any me­moriall of the Romane measures.

Having measured those places in the Appian way at Tarracina, I made triall of at least XX. [Page 26] others between Tarracina, and Naples, with­out any great satisfaction; and therefore part­ly the incertainty that I found there, and part­ly the danger of theeves, discouraged me from measuring the Romane milliare; a work con­ceived to be of great use, for the discovery of the Romane foot. Seeing the milliare contai­ning mille passus, as the very name imports, and every passus consisting of five feet, asColumella de Re Rust. l. 5. Co­lumella, andIsiderus l. 15. c 15. Origin. Isidorus, expresly tell us, here there­fore would be 5000 feet to help us to one, could there be but found out a perfect Romane mile. And this I imagined might probably be discove­red amongst those many vestigia of Romane waies, which to this day are frequently seen in Italy. Wherefore conferring with Gasparo Ber­ti, a man curious, and judicious (as appears by his ichnography of Roma Subterranea in Bosius) as also with Lucas Holstenius, a learned compa­nion of Cluverius, in those honourable tra­vails of his, for the restauration of the anci­ent Geography: they both informed me, that there are still in the Appian way, where it passes over the Pomptinae paludes, severall co­lumnae, or lapides milliarii, standing; whereby the Romanes divided, and distinguished their miles; and which occasioned those phrases, ad primiū, ad quartum, ad centesimum lapidem, and the like. And these, it may be, at the first were ordi­nary stones, till C. Gracchus caused columnes to be erected in their places: [...]. He measured out, saithPlutarchus in Gracchis. Plutarch, by miles all the [Page 27] waies, the mile containing litle lesse then eight stadia, and placed columnes of stone to designe the measure. The thing vvas of that ornament, and use, as that it was afterwards taken up, and continued by the Romane Emperours; as ap­pears by these inscriptions, which are fairly in­grave [...]on the first columne, found amongst the ruines in the Appian way, and from thence lately removed into the Capitol, by order of theS. P. Q. R COLVMNAM. MILIARIAM PRIMI. AB. VRBE LAPIDIS. INDICEM AB. IMPP. VESPASIANO. ET. NERVA RESTITVTAM DF. RVINIS. SVBVR [...]ANIS. VIAE. APPIAE IN. CAPITOLIVM. TRANSTVLIT Se­nate, and people of Rome.

Below this, on the end of the Scapus.

[Page 28] Below this, on the Basis of the same pillar.

To these I shall also add the inscription of a­nother columna milliaria, not extant in Gruterus, or any other, that I know, which I have seen at Tarracina; the columne being exactly of the same magnitude with the former, but wanting by the injury of time, a basis below, & a globe, of nigh three feet diameter on the top, serving in stead of a capitel, both which the former hath.

The figure LIII below, signifies the distance of Tarracina from Rome: Which distance may be farther proved out of Appian, in his third book of the Civill wars, speaking of Augustus: The figure X signifies the distance of Tarracina from the next City, or Town, in the way to Rome: And that was, Ad medias: a place so called, either because it was, ad medias pa­ludes, or else because it was in the midway almost between Tarracina, and Appii forum. For it was X. miles from Tarracina, and IX. from Appii fo­rum; as appears by the Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum in Bertius. [...].Being about Tarracina, which is distant CCCC. stadia from Rome. These stadia reduced to miles, if wee allow VII. Greek stadia, and an half, to a Romane mile, as Suidas doth, will make up LIII. miles, and one third part of a mile; that is, two stadia, and an half over and above. Which fraction Appian neglects; and therefore uses the round number CCCC. stadia for LIII. miles.

The figure XVIIII signifies the Decennovium, or way passing over the fens, between Appii forum, and Tarracina: so denominated, because it con­tained nineteen miles in length: which may also bee proved out of Proco­pius, where he speaks of the [...]. This way was paved by Traian, as the inscription shews, and I think first of all by him. Long after it was repaired by Theodoricus, according to another inscription, that I have seen at Tarracina, of which Gruterus, and Cluverius, also make men­tion; where, omitting the titles of Theodoricus, in the marble we finde these words ingraven.

By this number XVIIII. signifying the decennovium, and by the Itinera­rium Hierosolymitanum, we may safely correct the Itinerarium Antonini, in which Tarracina is placed but XVIII. miles distant from Appii forum. And from hence likewise we may certainly know how farre the Christians went to meet Saint Paul, and that was XXXIV. miles. For so much was Appii forum distant from Rome, if we subduct XVIIII. out of LIII. whereas the Itineraries of Bertius Edition make it more.

If therefore two such columnes were found intire, (as I am informed there are four, or five, in the Decennovium, standing in a continued or­der) the distance between two such being ex­actly measured, vvould much conduce to the discovery of the Romane foot. Upon vvhich supposition, I had almost resolved to have gone thither, as I did to other places, vvith no other intention, but only to have been a spectator of those Columnes, and to have trusted to mine own hands, in taking their distances. But upon a more deliberate examination of the businesse, I perceived that this inquiry did depend upon a very nice supposition. For if the Decempedato­res, or Curatores viarum, proceeded not with extreme caution, and aimed almost at a Ma­thematicall point, in designing the just space of each particular mile (which in a work of that [Page 31] length is not probable; vvhere the inequality of many feet could not be discerned by the eye, and might be admitted without any blemish. For in Varrode L. L. lib. 5. Varro's judgement, Sensus nullus quod abest mille passus sentire potest) it could not be, but the same differences, or somewhat like, must have crept in with them, which have been observed amongst us, in our measured, and statute miles; out of vvhich it vvould be a vain attempt exactly to demonstrate the English foot. The neglect of which circumspection, amongst some other reasons, that may be assigned, I take to be one, of the diversity, which Astronomers found in that memorable observation, made in the planes of Singiar, or Sinar, by the command of Almamon, the renowned Calife of Babylon, a­bout eight hundred years since, in proportio­ning the magnitude of a degree upon earth. For having taken the altitude of the pole at two se­verall stations, differing a degree in the heavens, they measured the distance between these stati­ons on earth, going on in the same Meridian; where [...] some of them, saies Abulfeda, found it to be fifty sixe miles, and two thirds, others fifty six, without any fraction. If therefore the Romane decempedatores, or geodaetae, used not more cir­cumspection, then the Babylonian Astronomers (which is not likely), there can be no trust gi­ven to their miles, and lesse trust to the foot, [...]hat shall be deduced from thence.

Wherefore to come to a conclusion; having made inquiry more waies,Abulf Geogr: Arab: MS. then it may be any [...]an hath done, and I think vvith as much cau­ [...]ion, and exactnesse, as any, it will be necessary [Page 32] after all to shew amongst so many feet, as are taken to be Romane, vvhich I conceive to be the most genuine, and true. And though in such an incertainty, and scarcity of ancient monuments, and in such a diversity of opini­ons, amongst modern Writers, it may seem too great presumption, positively to define the magnitude of the Romane foot; yet having had the opportunity, to have perus'd in this kind, more antiquities, then any that have pre­ceded, I may with the more confidence conclude, that the Pes Colotianus, in my judgment, is the true Romane foot; and that for these reasons.

For first, it most exactly agrees with some ve­ry ancient, and perfect Romane feet in brasse, found long since amongst the rudera at Rome: especially with that excellent one (as I remem­ber) of F. Vrsinus, a learned Antiquary. Though I cannot deny but that I have seen two ancient feet in brasse, different from this; the one of Gualdus, a very fair one, wanting two parts and an half, of such as this con­tains a 1000. a small, and inconsiderable diffe­rence. The second of Gottifridus, a Gentleman of honourable quality, (to vvhom I stand ob­liged for the free donation of severall anti­quities) which exceeds it by eight parts; but this last hath been made by a very rude, and unskil­full hand.

Next, the proportions of almost all the white marble stones, as also of those lesser in por­phyry, in the pavement of that admirable temple of the Pantheon, are either completely three of these feet, or one and an half; which, [Page 33] it is not probable, in a structure of so much art, should have been the vvork of chance. Add to this the dimensions of severall stones, in the foundation of the Capitol, in Titus, and Seve­rus, triumphal arc's, corresponding either to the whole foot, or conjointly to the whole, and some unciae, or digits of it.

Thirdly, the inscription on the same monu­ment, vvhere this foot is found, of the circi­nus, the libella, the norma, and the like, plainly shew that these were intended to expresse Cos­sutius' profession, (whomLuc. Paetu [...] lib. 1 de antiq. Rom. & Graec. interval. men­suris. Paetus imagines to have been a sculptor) and this being intended, I see no reason why the Romane foot should have been cut in so fair a relevy, either too short, or too long; when the same hand, and the same pains, might have made it exact. It is true, that the foot upon Statilius' tombe, is 1944. such parts, as this is but 1934. whereof the English foot taken by me from the iron yard, or standard of three feet in Guildhall in London, contains 2000: but how rudely in respect of di­gits, that foot of Statilius is described, I have be­ [...]ore discovered. And therefore I wonder that Philander in li. 3. c. 3. Vitru­vii. Philander in his Commentaries upon Vitruvius, should in a matter of such high concernment in Architecture, proceed vvith so much inadver­ [...]ency, affirming that between this of Statili­us, & that of Cossutius, there is no difference. And [...]f he a Mathematician, hath thus erred, (though [...]ommonly men versed in those sciences take not [...]p things at too cheap a rate, without due exa­mination) what opinion may vve conceive of a­ [...]other observation, made at the same monu­ment, [Page 34] byCiaconius è Latini Latinii observ.de pede Rom. Ant. Augustinus, Jo: Baptista Sighi­cellus, P. Octavius Pacatus, Achilles Maffaeus, Achilles Statius, Benedictus Aegius, Fulvius Vrsi­nus, Latinus Latinius, with as many ancient feet, as there were men present? I shrewdly suspect they slubbered over their observation, as not regarding in nineteen hundred parts, and better, the small excesse, or defect, of ten parts: or not rightly apprehending what might be the consequences of such an errour, how litle soever, in measuring the vast magnitude of the terrestriall globe, or of the celestiall bodies.

Lastly, besides the authorities of Portius Vi­centinus, Georgius Agricola, Glareanus, Ghetaldus, Donatus, and of many other learned, and judici­ous men, who approve of this Pes Colotianus, (though bare authority is the worst, because the weakest kinde of argument) that excellent Con­gius of Vespasian, now extant in Rome, so highly and so justly magnified byVillalpandus l. 2 disp. 2. c. 11 de apparatu Vr­bis ac Templi. Villalpandus, may likewise serve to confirm, if not totally my asser­tion, yet thus far, that I have not exceeded in assigning the true longitude. For by the cleer evidences ofFragmenta Dioscoridis. Dioscorides, and of an anonymus Authour before cited, eight Congii are the just measure of the Romane amphora, or quadrantal and again by as many testimonies ofSext. Pomp. Festus de Verb. signif. Sextu [...] Pompeius, andRhemn Fann. carm. fragm: Rhemnius Fannius, each of th [...] sides of the amphora is equall in longitude to th [...] Romane foot. Wherefore having procured by speciall favour the congius of Vespasian, I too [...] the measure of it withIt had been better to have made my expe­riment with water, and then to have weigh­ed it with an exact balance: but because no balances are found in Rome so exact as with us, I was fain to measure it with milium. milium (being next to water, very proper for such a work) carefull [...] prepared, and cleansed, which being done, with [Page 35] much diligence. I caused a cube to be made an­swerable to the true dimension of the Pes Colo­tianus; filling up the capacity of which, and often reiterating the same experiment, I found continually the excesse of about half a congius to remain, and that an amphorae made by the Pes Colotianus, would contain but VII. congii, and a­bout an half. And therefore▪ I cannot sufficient­ly wonder at the observationCiaconius è Latini Latinii observationibus de pede Rom. Cum veram pe­dis Rom. quan­titatem statuere vellent ejusd. pedis mensuras simul contule­runt, & earum octo cum anti­quissima dicti pedis forma, quae in basi qua­dam in hortis Vaticanis ex­stat, adamussim convenire vi­dentes, ex hoc pede quadrato vas confecerunt &c. Vide supra. of Ant. Augusti­nus, Pacatus, Maffaeus, Statius, Vrsinus, and others, with a cube of that foot, which is descri­bed on Statilius' monument: who affirme the quadrantal of this exactly to contain eight of these congii of Vespasian. Whereas upon due ex­amination I confidently affirm, that they have erred. And thereforeVillalp. de apparatu Vrbis ac Templi par. 2. lib. 3. c. 25. Villalpandus in this parti­cular, with more judgement, and ingenuity, hath published his observation, concerning the mea­sure, and precife weight, of Vespasians' congius, then any other whatsoever. Although I cannot be induced to assent to that deduction, which he infers of the Romane foot, (from the side of a quadrantal containing eight of these congii) relying upon the authorities of Festus, and Fannius, against so many evidences, produced to the contrary. Wherefore as he is singular in his opinion (for there is not one author of cre­dit, which follows his assertion) so is his foot as singular, there being not one, of at least ten ancient ones, in the hands of severall Antiqua­ries (besides those inscribed on two Monu­ments in Rome) vvhich arrive to the proporti­ons of his, by XXVII. parts in 2000. As for those other fancies of his (for they are no bet­ter) [Page 36] of describing also the Romane foot, by the altitude of Vespasians' congius, and assigning the Vides etiam latus cubicum modii, semicon­gii, sextarii, he­minae &c. Vil [...] lalp. ibidem. latus cubicum, of the modius, the semicongius, the sextarius, and hemina, from certain parallel cir­cles circumscribed about it, (vvhich certainly, as the scheme of the congius it Self, drawn by me to the full proportion, shews, were delineated without any farther intention then for orna­ment) I doe not think them worth the confu­tation.

And therefore it will be much better to give some solution to those authorities of Sextus Pompeius, and Rhemnius Fannius, alleaged by him. For the objection vvhich may be raised thence is very materiall: How the Pes Colotia­nus can be the true Romane foot, since it is confessed by me, that it doth not precisely an­swer to the sides of a quadrantal, or cube, con­taining eight of those congii of Vespasian, or XLVIII. sextarii? Whereas on the contrary, Fe­stus expresly writes, that the quadrantal was the square (he means the cube) of the Romane foot Sext. Pomp. Festus de Verb. signif. Quadrantal vocabant Antiqui, quam ex Graec [...] amphoram dicunt, quod vas pedis quadrati, octo & quadraginta capit sextarios. AndRhemn. Fan­nii carmina de pond. & men­suris. Fannius confirms the same.

We might elevate their authorities by saying, these are only the testimonies of two Gram­marians, [Page 37] better versed in disputes of vvords, then criticall in measures, which more properly are the speculation of Mathematicians: and there­fore if Vitruvius had affirmed it, much more credit might have been given. But we shall rather say, they wrote vvhat was vulgar­ly, and commonly, upon tradition beleeved, that the length of one of the sides of the ampho­ra was equall to the Romane foot: not that it was precisely, and exactly equall, but that of any known measure vvhatsoever then extant, this came the neerest to it, as indeed it doth; yea, so neer, that if at this day the amphora, and Romane foot, were in use amongst us, ma­ny a writer that had never been so curious, as diligently to compare them, would not be scru­pulous to affirm as much. Which may appear by the practise of Ant. Augustinus, Pacatus, Maffaeus, Statius, Vrsinus, and of severall other learned men, not long before our times: Who though they purposely made it their inquiry, to discover the true Romane vveights, and mea­sures, and therefore made speciall use of this Congius of Vespasian, yet have no lesse erred, as we shewed before, in the dimension of the am­phora, then both Festus, and Fannius have done. Neither will this answer seem improbable con­cerning measures, if we shall examine a place, or two, concerning coins, in which the anci­ents, and those too of the better sort of Au­thors, have in the very same manner erred. For Livy writing that Marcellus gave to L. Ban­ [...]ius (or Bandius) D. bigati, y Livius l. 23. that is denarii (so called because the biga was ordinarily stamped [Page 38] upon the reverse of the Denarius):Plutarchus in MarcellS. Plutarch de­scribing the same gift, renders it by so many drachmae, the Grecian manner of computation; not that the drachma in the exact, and intrinsecal valuation, was equall then to the Denarius, or the Denarius to the drachma (as we shall shew in the insuing discourse) but that in the vulgar, and popular estimation, the one passed for the other, being both not much different in their weight, as well as valuation.Dio lib. 45. in Caesare Octav. Likewise Dio in­forms us, that Octavius promised the Veterane souldiers D. drachmae a man: whereasCicero lib. 16. 5. ep. ad A [...]i­cum. Cicero expressing the same thing to Atticus terms them D. denarii. And Suetonius writes that Caesar by Testament gave to each of the common people sestertia trecenta, that is, LXXV. denarios, whichPlut. in Bru­to. Idem in An­tonio. Plutarch both in the life of Brutus, and of Antonius, renders [...] seventy five drachmes. In like manner we may say, that Festus, and Fannius, have described the amphora by the Romane foot; not as if this were the exact measure of it, but as being the most known, and neerest proportion, in which, without falling into fractions, it might eevenly, and roundly be expressed.

And thus have we finished our inquiry after the Romane foot: our next labour should b [...] [Page 39] to compare it with the present Standards, and Originals, for measures of divers Nations. For which I must refer the Reader to this insuing Table.

• [Page 40]SVch parts as the Romane foot, or that on the monument of Cossutius in Rome, contains 1000
• The foot on the monument of Statilius in Rome, contains 1005 17/100
• The foot of Villalpandus, deduced from the Congius of Vespasian, contains 1019 65/100
• The ancient Greek foot, being in proportion to the ancient Roman foot, as XXV to XXIV, contains 1041 67/100
• The English foot 1034 13/100
• The Paris foot 110 [...] 45/100
• The Venetian foot 1201 65/100
• The Rhinland foot, or that of Snellius 106 [...] 25/100
• The Derah, or cubit, at Cairo in Ae­gypt 1886 25/100
• The Persian arish 3306 1 [...]/100
• The greater Turkish pike at Con­stantinople 2275 [...]/100
• The lesser Turkish pike at Constan­tinople, is in proportion to the greater, as 3 [...] to 32
• The braccio at Florence 19 [...]8 25/100
• The braccio for wollen at Siena 12 [...]4 31/100
• The braccio for linnen at Siena 2041 37/100
• The braccio at Naples 2171 6 [...]/100
• The canna at Naples 7114 7 [...]/100
• The vara at Almaria and at Gibral­tar in Spain 2854 19/100
• Il palmo di Architetti at Rome, whereof X make the canna di Architetti [...]56 51/100
• Il palmo del braccio di Mercaniia, & di Te [...]ito di Tela at Rome; this and the former are both ingraven in a white marble stone in the Capitol with this inscription. Curante Lu. Paeto 719 21/100
• The Genoa palm 842 [...]/100
• The Anwerp ell 2360 [...]/100
• The Amsterdam ell [...]345 4 [...]/100
• The Leyden ell 2337 13/100

• [Page 41]SUch parts as the English foot contains 1000
• The Romane foot, or that on the monument of Cossutius in Rome, contains 967
• The foot on the monument of Statilius in Rome, contains 972
• The foot of Villalpandus, deduced from the Congius of Vespasian, contains 986
• The Greek foot 1007 29/100
• The Paris foot 1068
• The Venetian foot 1162
• The Rhinland foot, or that of Snellius 1033
• The Derah, or cubit, at Cairo in Aegypt 1824
• The Persian arish 3197
• The greater Turkish pike at Constantinople 2200
• The lesser Turkish pike at Constantinople is in pro­portion to the gre [...]ter, as 31 to 32
• The braccio at Florence 1913
• The braccio for wollen at Siena 1242
• The braccio for linnen at Siena 1974
• The braccio at Naples 2100
• The canna at Naples 6880
• The vara at Almaria & at Gibraltar in Spain 2760
• Il palmo di Architetti at Rome, whereof X make the canna di Architeti 732
• Il palmo del braccio di Mercantia, & di Tessito di Tela at Rome: this and the former are both in­graven in a white marble stone in the Capitol with this inscription Curante Lu. Paeto 6951/2
• The Genoa palm 815
• The Anwerp ell 2283
• The Amsterdam ell 2268
• The Leyden ell 2260

This Table I made by the Standards, the former by proportion.

AS I have made for measures the Ro­mane foot, the foundation of my inquiry, and therefore have hand­led it in the precedent Treatise: so for finding out of weights, I shal take the denarius as an undeniable principle, from whence those of the ancients by a necessa­ry consequence may be inferred. For as the u­nity is in respect of numbers, or the sestertius in discourses de re nummariâ: so is the denarius for weights, a fit rise, or beginning, from whence the rest may be deduced. Not but that it were better (as I gave the caution before) if we absolutely consider the exactest waies of discovering weights, to begin vvith the grea­ter, and by them to find out the lesse, then by the lesse, to produce the greater; but if we look upon the condition of times, and consi­der the means that are left after so many revo­lutions, and changes of the Romane Empire, it will be safer to alter our method. For to this day there are many thousand denarii left, and a­mongst these some so perfect, and intire, as if they had been but newly brought from the mint, whereas of the Romane librae, and ounces, there are but few extant, if compared vvith these. Lip­sius, and Gruterus in their inscriptions mention some, and Paetus some others, besides such as I have seen in the hands of Antiquaries, and many of mine own: most of which differ from one another, either as having been consumed [Page 43] by rust, and time, or it may be also by the men that then lived, for their advantage lessened: a thing too often practised amongst us. Where­fore I think it more convenient by the denarius to deduce the proof, and evidence of these, then by the diversity, and uncertainty of these to conclude the denarius: And yet if some of the best, and fairest of them, shall agree with this, I shall think my self so much the more assured.

Now seeing the denarius may be considered in a double respect, either as nummus, or as pondus: in the first acception, the valuation of it in civill affairs is remarkable, in the later, the gravity, and ponderousnesse: I shall speak no farther of the former, then as it may conduce in some sort to illustrate the later. The denarius was a silver coin in use amongst the Romanes, passing at the first institution for dena aera, or ten asses. And soVitruv. l. 3. c. 1. Vitruvius expresly writes, Nostri autem primò decem fecerunt antiquum numerum, & in denario denos aereos asses constitúerunt. The same thing is attested byVol. Metia­nus de assis distributione. Volusius Metianus. Dena­rius primò asses decem valebat, unde & nomen traxit. Plinius l. 33. c. 3. Pliny, besides a confirmation of the same valuation, assigns also the time, in which it was first stamped. Argentum signatum est an­no Vrbis Budaeus l. v de asse, corrects thése numbers by Livy (l.xxx) and reads them 478. quingentesimo octogesimo quinto, Q. Fabio consule, quinque annis ante primum bellū Punicum, & placuit denarius pro decem libris aeris: that is, for ten asses. For the asses both then, and under the first Consuls were librales. Dionysius Ha­licarnasseus. [...]. The assis was a brasse coine, weighing a pound. Where by the way it is worth the obser­vation, [Page 44] the strange, and in mine opinion, the un­advised proportion, betwixt the brasse, and sil­ver monies, of those times: that x. pounds of brasse should be but answerable to the 84^th part (for so much, or neer [...] it, was the denarius) of a pound of silver; or to speak more cleerly, that one pound in silver should be equall in valuati­on to 840 pounds in brasse. Neither can there be any excuse of that errour, unlesse this, that there then was an infinite plenty of the one, and as great a scarcity of the other. Howe­ver it were, the same proportion is testified by Varro, who farther addes; that the Romanes took the first use, and invention of the denarius, from the Sicilians. Varr [...] l. 4. [...]e Ling. Lat. In argento nummi, id à Si­culis, denarii quòd denos aeris valebant. And ac­cording to this valuation the denarius had an impresse upon it of the figure X, denoting the decussis, or number of the asses, as Valerius Pro­bus witnesses, and sometimes this character 𐆖; both vvhich I have seen, and can shew, in se­verall ancient ones. This later by the ig­norance of Scribes formerly in MSS. and of our Printers of late in the edition of Cel­sus, and of Scribonius Largus, is represented by an asterisc *; and by a worse errour in the same authors, the figure X expressing the dena­rius, as a pondus, is confounded with the figure X expressing a number. From this figure on the denarius, or decussis, Vitruv. l. 10. Vitruvius cals the inter­sections of lines, decusses, and decussationes. And Columella l. 5. Columella useth the phrase in stellam decussari, when lines meet diamond-wise, or lozenge-like, as these in the character X or 𐆖▪ Neither did the [Page 45] denarius long passe at the valuation of X. asses, nor the asses which before, and then were libra­les, continue at one stay, but with the exigencies of the Romane State, the rate of the denarius rose, and the weight of the asses fell; that is in effect, both the silver, and the brasse monies, came to be augmented in their estimation. For by a publick edict of Fabius Maximus the Dictator, the Common-wealth being hardly pres­sed upon by Hannibal, the denarius came to be priced at XVI. asses, and the asses which were then se [...]tantarii, or the sixth part of the Romane pound, (for in the first Punick war, by reason of the excessive expenses of the State, they first fell from being librales, to be sextantarii) came now in the second Punick war to be unciales. The whole progresse, and manner of this alteration, is by none so well, and fully exprest as byArgentum sig­natum est Ann [...] Vrbis Dlxxxv. Q. Fabio Cos­quinque annis ante primum bellum Punicū. Et placuit de­narius pro X libris aeris, qui­narius pro quin­que, sestertium pro dupondio, ac semisse. Li­brae autem pon­dus aeris immi­nutum bello Punico primo, cum impensis Resp. non suffi­ceret, constitu­tumque ut asses sextantario pondere feri­rentur. Plin. lib. 33. c. 3. Pliny, and therefore I shall a litle insist upon his words. Silver, saies he, came to be coined in the 585^th year of the City, Q. Fabius being Consul, five years before the first Punick war, and then the denarius passed for X. pounds of brasse, the Qui­narius for five, the sestertius for two pounds and an half. The weight of the assis in brasse was diminished in the first Punick war, the Common-wealth not being able to support the expenses, and then it was decreed that the asses should be coined sextantario pondere; that is, with the weight of the sixth part of a pound, or two ounces, whereas before they were librales. Though Alciatus here upon a very grosse mistake con­tends that they were then coined dextantario pondere, and not sextantario, but yet that they [Page 46] were called asses sextantarii, because the sextans or sixth part of an ounce was wanting: where­as Sext. Pompei­us Fest. de verb. signif. Festus expresly writes. Grave aes dictum à pondere, quia deni asses singuli pondo librae effi­ciebant denarium ab hoc ipso numero dictum: sed bello Punico populus Romanus pressus aere a­lieno, ex singulis assibus libralibus senos fecit, qui tantundem valerent. And these words of Pliny, which immediately follow those before recited, put it out of controversie.Plin. l. 33 c. 3. Ita quinque partes factae lu­cri dissolutum­que aes alienum. Whereby, saies he, five parts were gained, & the debts (of the Common-wealth) discharged. I would gladly see by what Arithmetick Alciatus can demonstrate, that the Common-wealth shall gain five parts, making the asses sextantarii in his sense; whereas on the contrary, taking them in this interpretation (as bothAgricola lib. 2 de pondere & temperat mone­tarum. Agricola, andVillalp. de appar. urbis ac templi par. 2. l. 2. disp. cap 9. Villalpandus doe) it is a thing most evident. For the whole pound, or assis, before consisting of XII. ounces, being now reduced to two ounces, and these two passing at as high a rate in the valuation of things vendible, as the vvhole libra did, it is plain that the Common-wealth by this dimi­nution of weight, keeping the same constant tenure of the estimation of the assis, gained ten parts in twelve, that is, five in sixe; and not one in six, as Alciatus would have it. But to omit this digression, and to return toPostea Hanni­bale urgente, Q. Fabio Maximo Dictatore, asses unciales facti: placuitque de­narium XVI. assibus permu­tari, quinarium octonis sester­tium quaternis: Ita Resp. dimi­diū lucrata est. In militari ta­men stipendi [...] semper denarius pro X assibus datus. Nota argenti fuere bigae atque qua­drigae, & inde bigati, quadri­gatique dicti. Mox lege Papi­ria semuncia­les asses facti. Livius Drusus in Tribunatu plebis octavam partem aeris ar­gento miscuit. Plin. l. 33. c. 3. Pliny. After­wards being oppressed by Hannibal, under Q. Fa­bius Maximus the Dictator, the asses were made unciales, and the denarius passed for XVI. asses, the quinarius for VIII. and the sestertius for IIII. And hereby the Common-wealth gained half, yet in the pay of the Militia the denarius was alwaies [Page 47] accounted for ten asses. The impresse of the silver [that is, of the denarius] were the bigae, and quadrigae; from whence they are called biga­ti, and quadrigati. Not long after by the lex Papiria the asses came to be semunciales. Livius Drusus Tribune of the people mixed an eighth part of brasse with the silver: thus far Pliny. Out of which vvords it is most evident (omitting many passages of his, worth our consideration) that as the denarius at the first institution pas­sed fo [...] ten asses, so afterwards it vvas valued at XVI. And Vitruvius gives a reason why next to ten, they made choice of XVI. rather then of XII. or any other proportion.Vitruv. l. 3. c. 1 Quoniam ani­madverterunt utrosque numeros esse perfectos, & sex, & decem, utrosque in unum conjecerunt, & fecerunt perfectissimum decussissexi, whereBudaeus l. 5. de asse. Bu­daeus reads decussissexis: butVillalp. de apparatu Vrbis ac Templi. Villalpandus decus­si sex, that it may the better, as he imagines, an­swer to the Greek [...].Vitruv. l. 3. c. 1 Hujus autem rei, saith Vitruvius, autorem invenerunt pedem. E cu­bito enim cùm dempti sint palmi duo, relinquitur pes quatuor palmorum, palmus autem habet quatuor digitos, ita efficitur uti pes habeat sex­decim digitos, & totidem asses aereos denarius. Vol. Metianus de assis distrib: Metianus also purposely treating of this argu­ment, after that he had related that the dena­rius, at the first institution, was valued at ten asses, adds now it is worth sixteen. And not to cite more authorities, the impresse or stamp of XVI, as well as of X found upon several denarii, and seen both byAnton. August. dialogo. 1. Antonius Augustinus (a man very accurate in coins, as appears by his dia­logues) and by Villalpandus, besides one with the [Page 48] inscription of C. Titinius, with the same chara­cter, mentioned by Fulvius Vrsinus, andDalechampius in Plin. l. 33. c. 3 Dale­champius, puts it out of controversie. And this valuation of the denarius, as it is more then probable, continued from the first institution of it in the second Punick war, without any inter­ruption, to Justinians' time, and it is likely lon­ger; since there is no proof out of any ancient Author, nor any character on any ancient dena­rius, found to the contrary. As for those autho­rities, which are alleaged, and pressed by Budae­us, and Alciatus, of Varro, Apuleius, Arruntius; and Pompeius, affirming, that after the second Punick war, the denarius contained ten asses, the Quinarius, or Victoriatus five, the sestertius two and an half: we may give a true, and easie soluti­on, that these Writers expressed the valuation of them, as they were in their first originall, and beginning, with reflection to their primitive denomination: in which respect the Treviri mo­netales, or officers of the mint, usually imprin­ted on the denarius the character X, rather then XVI. the former being the impresse of its first institution, and the latter of its after valua­tion. And so in like manner may those citations be answered of Plutarch, Dionysius, and others, produced by some learned men to strengthen their assertion, that the denarius after the second Punick warre returned to its first estimation. Which thing could not have been effected, with­out extreme losse, and prejudice to particular men, in their private fortunes, and estates; which the justice, and wisdome of the Romane Se­nate, under the Consuls, was not likely to have [Page 49] introduced, or the people to have admitted.

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

That the denarius should have passed at any other rate between XVI, and X. asses, as there is no coin extant to prove it, so there is no ex­presse authority to conclude it. Though some [Page 50] infer out ofPolyb. l. 2. Polybius, that it was valued al­so at XII. asses: because he defines the [...], or semissis, to be [...], the fourth part of the Attick obolus; and six obol [...] being in the [...], to which drachma they sup­pose the denarius equall, therefore there must be XXIV. semisses, or XII. asses in the denarius▪ But with much better reason we may hence in­fer, that the drachma was somewhat bigger, then the denarius, as we shall prove in this in­suing discourse; and therefore Polybius allow [...] XII. asses to it: whereas, if it had been precise­ly equall to the denarius, he would have valued it at X, or else XVI. of the lesser sort of asses. So that Sir H. Savile, a man of exquisite judgment, and learning, in his discourse at the end of Taci­tus, justly blames Hottoman for altering the text of Polybius, and is himself to be censured, as alsoLipsius Ele­ctor. 1. c. 2. Lipsius, in inferring thence that the denari­us contained XII. asses.

The severall parts of the denarius, excepting the quinarius, and sestertius, of both which I have spoken before, are all comprized in this de­scription ofVarro lib. 4. de Ling. Lat. Varro, with which I shall conclude▪ Nummi denarii decima libella, quòd libram po [...] do as valebat, & erat ex argento parva; sem­bella quòd sit libellae dimidium quòd semis assis▪ Teruncius à tribus unciis sembellae quod valet di [...]midium, & est quarta pars sicut quadrans assis▪ By which proportions it appears, that the libell [...] was the X^th part of the denarius, when it vva [...] currant at ten asses, the sembella the XX^th, the teruncius the XL^th. And thus much of the dena­rius as it is nummus.

[Page 51] The second, and our principall consideration of the denarius is as it is pondus. In which accep­tion it will be necessary to praemise a second di­stinction; that the denarius was eitherThe Consu­laris again may be considered either in the time of the for­mer, or of the later Consuls: that of the for­mer Consuls, at the first institu­tion of it by Q. Fabius five years before the first Pu­nick war, Pei­reskius not improbably imagines to have been the sixth part of the Romane ounce: and Agricola by comparing it with the ta­lentum Atti­cum, which Varro values at 15000. sestertii, and with the tetradrachme, which Livy (lib. [...]4.) estimates trium fere denariorum, as also upon the authority of the Scholiast of Nicander, who equals the denarius to a drachme and an [...]alf, as Priscian doth to a drachme and a third part, I say Agricola as­ [...]gnes to it almost the same proportion with Peireskius. But because I [...]ave seen no denarii Consulares of so great antiquity, and these authorities [...]ay perchance admit of other constructions, I shall leave this opinion as onely probable, and follow what is more certain, and demonstrative, of [...]e later Consuls. Consu­laris, or Caesareus. The Consularis was that which was made under the government of the City by the Consuls, the Caesareus un­der the Caesars: The Consularis, (I mean the Consularis after the second Punick war, and under the later Consuls) contained precise­ly the seventh part of the Romane ounce, as the other did the eighth part, or somewhat neer it.

First, that the denarius Consularis of the later Consuls, was the seventh part of the Romane ounce: this shall be our principall inquiry, be­cause it is more evident of the two, and will give us the best light to discover the true weight of the denarius, in the notion, and ac­ception of the ancients, both Greeks and La­tines. It is most apparent both by severall fair coins, which I have perused of the later Consuls, as also by Cornelius Celsus, who li­ved in the beginning of the Romane Emperors, [Page 52] before there happened a generall diminution o [...] the denarius, that it was then the seventh part of the ounce, who thus writes,Celsus lib. 5. c. [...]7. Sed & ante [...] sciri volo in unciâ pondus denariorum esse septem. The same proportion is also expressed byScrib. Largus in praefatione. Scri [...] ­bonius Largus, who lived not long after Celsus as some imagine, his words are these. Erit au [...]tem nota denarii unius pro Graecâ drachmâ; aequ [...] enim in librâ denarii octoginta quatuor apud nos quot drachmae apud Graecos incurrunt. Plinius l. 33. c. 9. Pliny also confirms the same. Miscuit denario triumv [...] Antonius ferrum, alii (he means under the Em [...]perours) è pondere subtrahunt, cùm sit justum oct [...]ginta quatuor è libris signari. Out of vvhi [...] vvords of his, and of Scribonius Largus, it wi [...] by a necessary consequence be inferred, that th [...] true weight of the denarius Consularis is the s [...]venth part of an ounce. For if we multipl [...] twelve the number of the ounces in the Roman libra (as by all it is confest) by seven the numb [...] of the denarii, of which the ounce then consiste [...] the sum will be LXXXIIII. denarii; and so man [...] say Scribonius, and Pliny, ought justly to be [...] the Romane pound. And these are the one cleer, and positive authorities that are to [...] found in Classicall Authours; most of the w [...]tings of the Ancients de ponderibus & mensur [...] having long since been lost; or else those [...] fragments that are left, of Cleopatra, Dioscorid [...] and of others, are so corrupted, that litle tr [...] with any certainty can be collected. Fro [...] whence it will by way of corollary follow, th [...] if either the denarius Consularis be given, the R [...]mane [Page 53] ounce, and libra, in the same proportion will necessarily be thence deduced; or if the Romane ounce, and libra be given, the denarius will as necessarily be concluded.

But before we farther treat of this argument, we shall indevour also to demonstrate the de­ [...]arius, by the drachma Attica. For Scribonius [...]eems, and so doe other ancients, to make them equall. And therefore Pliny writes:Plinius li. 21. ca. 34. Drachma Attica denarii argentei habet pondus: whereas the drachma Aeginaea vvas much larger, this con­taining X. such oboli as the Attick contained VI. [...]nd therefore the Athenians in hatred of the Ae­ [...]inaeans called it [...], asIul Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Pollux testifies. And here as we considered the denari­us, as nummus, and as [...]ondus; so likewise must vve take the drachma Attica, as nummus, and as pondus: in the prosecution of both vvhich rela­tively to the denarius, I shall insist so much the [...]onger, because it is an argument that hath scarce [...]t all, or very perfunctorily been handled. The drachma as nummus, vvas a silver coin in use a­mongst the Athenians, (for I intend only to speak of the drachma Attica, for the same reason that [...] Pliny doth. Ferè enim Atticâ observatione utun­ [...]ur medici) and so it vvas the measure of things [...]endible, as all coins are: and as pondus, Plinius l. 21. ca. 34. so was it [...]he measure of their gravity, & weight. Now the drachma, as nummus, passed in the estimation of [...]he best Authors, both Greek and Latine, at the [...]me rate, and valuation as the denarius did. And [...]herefore, as often as the Latines are to expresse [...]he Greek drachma, they render it by the denari­ [...]s, and on the contrary, the Greeks the denari­us [Page 54] by the drachma. Thus vvhatCicer. 16. l. 5. ep. [...]d Attic. Tully renders by the denarius, Dio in his 45^th book expresseth by the drachma. Their words, both speaking of Augustus, are these, Veteranos quique Casilini, & Calatiae sunt (as Tully relates) perduxit ad suam sententiam, nec mirum, quingenos denarios dat. [...], saithDio lib. 45. Dio, [...]. In like mannerPlinius lib. 8. cap. 57. Pliny writes, venisse murem ducentis nummis, (that is, denariis; for nummus absolutely put is often, though not alwaies, taken for the denarius, as on the con­trary the denarius is taken for nummus in Hesy­chius, Hesychius in voce [...].) [...]. Casi­linum obsidente Annibale, eúmque qui vendidera [...] fame interisse, emptorem vixisse annales tradunt. The same thingValer: Max: lib. 6. cap. 6. Valerius Maximus reports in his 7^th book, and 6^th ch. andStrabo li. 5. Geogr: Strabo in his 5^th book; the former writing that it was sold for 200 denarii, and the later that it vvas bought for 200 drachmae. To these Authorities I shall adjoinFra [...]menta Cleopatrae Cleopatra. [...]. The Italian denarius containeth one drachma: andA. Gellius l [...]. c. 8. Noct. Att. A. Gellius, Lais [...] poposcit, hoc facit nummi nostratis, dena­riûm decem millia.

These two thus passing the one for the other, being also at the first institution much of the same finenesse in respect of silver, it must necessarily be admitted, either that they were exactly the same for weight, vvhich is our next inquiry, or else that they vvere not much different. For in comparing of forain coins, the [...], or nummularii, in ancient times, must have taken the same course, which our most knowing ban­kers [Page 55] doe practise now. First, to respect the pure­nesse, and finenesse of the coins, whither they be alike for the intrinseck; and next, whither they have the same weight; and if they differ in either, or both of these, according to those differences to proportion their exchanges. Those other accidentall causes of the rising, and falling, of exchanges of monies, since they are meerly contingent, depending upon the necessities, ei­ther of times, or places, or persons, I purposely pretermit, as not so proper, and essentiall to our inquiry. As for the extrinseck of coins, by which I mean the outward form, or character, and inscription of the Prince, or State, though this may raise the valuation of them in those Countries, which are subject to the Prince, or State, and lessen them in those which are out of their dominions; yet this can produce no remarkable difference, more then what is usu­ally▪ assigned by the Masters of the Mint, for the wast in coining, and for the labour of the vvork.

With these cautions if we shall examine the Attick drachma, and by such writings of the An­cients, or by such coins as are extant, inquire their true weight, we shall come to such a pre­cisenesse, as may be hoped for in a work of this nature.Suidas in vo­ce [...]. Suidas tels us in the generall, [...]. The drachma is the weight of the silver money. AndHesychius in voce [...]. Hesychius more particularly informs us. [...], The drachma is the eighth part of the ounce: andRhemn. Fann. Fannius yet more distinctly writes,

To which vve may addeFragmenta Cleopatrae. Cleopatra, [...]. The drachme hath three scruples, sixe oboli, nine lupini, eighteen siliquae, forty eight aere­ola. TheScholiastes Nicandri. Scholiast of Nicander also makes the [...] to be [...], the fourth part of the [Attick] ounce. In the same propor­tion are we to take those other silver Athenian coins mentioned byIul. Poll. l. 9. [...]. 6. Julius Pollux, namely, the [...], which consisted of three drach­mes, the [...], or [...], which by a Syncope, is the same with the [...], containing foure drachmes, or the half ounce. [...], saithHesychius in voce [...]. He­sychius; thoughAmmonius [...]. Ammonius puts a distinction between them, [...]. This the Greeks also called [...], asFragmenta Cleopatrae. Cleopatra, and Epiphanius [...]. Epiphanius witnesse. [...], in Cleopatra, [...]: the stater weighs four drachmes, this they call the tetra­drachme. And this also may most cleerly be collected out ofMatth. ca. 17. v. 24. S. Matthew, where seeing the originall expresseth it more fully then our tran­slation, I shall recite the vvords as they are in the Greek. [...]; which the Vulgar renders thus, Et cum venissent Caper­naum, accesserunt, qui didrachma accipiebant, ad Petrum, & dixerunt ei, Magister vester non sol­vit didrachma? and our Translation thus; And [Page 57] when they were come to Capernaum, they that re­ceived tribute money, came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? In the 27^th verse of the same chapter, our Saviour answers. [...]. Nothwithstan­ding, lest we should offend them, goe thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first com­meth up: and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a peece of money: that take, and give unto them for me, and thee. This, which our Translation cals tribute mony, in the 24^th ver. is called in the originall [...], or two drachmes, & so much was paid by the pole, according toIosephus li. 7. bell. Iud. ca. 27 Iosephus, for each particular person. Our Saviour there­fore paying for himself and S. Peter, in the 27^th verse, bids him to give a stater, that is, a [...], or four drachmes, namely, the double to the [...], which our Translatiō renders too ge­nerally by a peece of mony: But theEvangelia Pers. MSS. E­ruditissimi Viri D. Pocockii. Persian Tran­slation interprets it distinctly by four drachmes. [...] Thou shalt finde four drachmes in it, that take, and give for thee, and me.

With this Attick tetradrachme, or silver sta­ter, the Hebrew, and Samaritane [...] shekell, that is, sicle, did also agree. For if we give credit to Iosephus, who inScal. [...]. in libr. de Emend. Temp. Scaligers esteem is, Diligen­tissimus [...] omnium scriptorū, we shal finde them to be the same.Iosephus l. 3. antiq. Iudaic. [...] [Page 58] [...] The sicle is a sort of mony amongst the Hebrews, that contains four Attick drachmes. The same pro­portion is evidently collected out ofPhilo de deca­logo. ^h Philo, where for L. shekels mentioned in the Law he renders CC. drachmes, and for XXX. an hundred and twenty.Hesychius in voce [...]. Hesychius likewise testi­fies as much, [...], the sicle is [in valuation] the Attick tetradrachme: and Hieronym. in Ezek. 3. S. Hierome, the ablest of the Fathers in the Jewish Antiquities,Such sicles, I conceive, were those [...], the XXX peeces of silver, which were given to Iudas, as the reward of his treason. Eusebius relating the story expresly, terms them silver staters, which an Hebrew would have termed either silver shekels, or absolutely [...] cesef: this in the Scripture phrase being frequently put for the shekel, and therefore the Syriack Translation of the New Testament reads it [...]; Whence Tremellius hath this annotation. Observant▪ He­braei, ubicunque in Scripturis argentcorum fit mentio, non expressâ numisma­tis argentei specie, intelligi siclum sanctuarii aequivalentem quatuor dena­riis. Some modern Writers imagine them to have been but XXX. denarii; But Baronius contends that they were, vel librarum argenti XXX, vel au­reorum coronatorum trecentorum: And Arias Montanus, that they were either XXX. librae, or XXX. talenta. The most probable opinion is, that this sum was neither so great as Baronius, and Montanus make it, nor yet so litle as some Moderns would have it, but between both, and that is XXX. shekels. M. Casaubone in his Exercitations upon Baronius hath a probable con­jecture to strengthen this assertion. Non enim temere factum videtur, quòd filius Dei qui sese exinanivit, assumptâ servi formâ, Phil. 2. 7. triginta ar­genteis venderetur, sicut lege Dei mancipia totidem siclis aestimantur. Exod. 21. 32. & apud Iosephum lib. IV. c. VIII. Facit hoc quoque non parum ad Domini abjectionem declarandum, quando caput ejus tam parvi aestimatum est. A small price I confesse, XXX. shekels being lesse then XV. of our ordi­nary crowns: But Hierome upon Saint Matthew thought it to bee as litle, who thus writes, as M. Casaubone renders him, Inselicem Iudam non co­gitasse quanti pretii rem venderet. sed Christum mundi Salv [...]rem, Dei filium, ceu vile aliqu.d mancipium minimo pretio addixisse. Now the price of a servant we finde in Exodus to have been XXX. shekels. Siclus, id est stater, habet quatuor drachmas Atticas.

[Page 59] These testimonies are so positive, and from so good Authors (to which also I might adjoin Epiphaniue [...]. Epiphanius in his book [...], did I not con­ceive him to be full of errours in that discourse), that I cannot sufficiently wonder at that strange opinion ofGrsepsius de multiplici sicl [...], & talento. Grsepsius, and some others, intro­duced out of affectation of novelty, of a double shekel, the one sacred, equall to the tetradrach­me, the other prophane, weighing the didrach­me: that used in the Sanctuary, this in civill commerce, without any solid foundation in the writ, or without any probability of reason, that in any wise State, the Prince and people should have one sort of coin, and the Priests should have another: and that this of the San­ctuary should be in a double proportion to the other, and yet that both should concur in the same name. It is true there is often men­tion in theAnd all thy estimation shall bee ac­cording to the shekel of the Sanctuary. Levit. 27. 25. Vet. vulg. sicl [...] Sanctuarii pon­derabitur. Scriptures of the weights of the San­ctuary, not as if these were different from what were used vulgarly in the City; but because the Standards, and originals, the rules of com­mutative justice, and therefore of an high and sacred use, were kept (as it is more then pro­bable) in the Sanctuary; For God himself makes this one of the Priests offices,1 Paral. 23. 29 ut sint super om­ne pondus at (que) mensurā. And it is no wonder that God, who so much hated aProv. 11. 1. i­tem cap. 20. ver. 10. 23. false balance, and a false measure, should commit the charge of these to the Priests, as things most holy; since the Heathens themselves out of a reverent e­stimation of them, placed them in their tem­ples, as appears by that inscription of the con­gius of Vespasian before alleaged, and now ex­tant [Page 60] in Rome; and by these verses ofRhemn: Fann. carmina de p [...]nd. & men­suris. Fan­nius, treating of the Romane measures,

And afterwards in the times of Christianity they were kept in Churches, as it is to be seen in theAuthentic. collat. 9. de col­latoribus tit. 11. novel. 128. c. 15 Authenticks of Iustinian; where he commands, that the weights and measures should be kept, in sacratissimâ cujusvis civitatis ecclesiâ, As for those allegations taken out of the intepretation of the LXX. whereby Grsepsi­us, and others goe about to prove a double she­kell, they are all well, and solidly, in my judge­ment, answered byVillalp. de ap­par. urbis ac templi par. 2. lib. [...]. disp. 4. c. 28. Item par. 2. li. 2. disp. 4. Villalpandus, and others, to whom I shall refer the judicious Reader. For I intend not here to speak of the Hebrew shekel, or Attick drachme, more then what may serve to illustrate the denarius.

Seeing therefore, as we have proved, that the Attick drachma was equall in the notion, and acception of the Ancients, to the denarius: if therefore an intire, either Attick [...], or [...], or [...] were found, wee might thence conclude the denarius. Again, since the Hebrew shekel hath likewise been demon­strated to be equall to the Attick [...], and this Attick [...] to four denarii, by the common, and receivedQuae eidem aequalia, sunt aequalia inter s [...]. Eucl. ax. 1. l. 1. axiome of Geome­tricians, we may conclude, that the Hebrew she­kell was also equall to 4 denarii, that is, that 4 Romane denarii, the Attick [...], and the Hebrew [...] were all respectively equall to one another. If therefore an Hebrew shekel, fair, & intire, were found, we might as necessarily [Page 61] thence infer the denarius, as by the [...].

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

And that no man may doubt whither these were true Athenian tetradrachmes, we are to ob­serve, that the Ancients used severall impresses on their coins, by which they might be known, and distinguished. And therefore argentum sig­natum, in the description of Quintius his tri­umph over Philip, is byLivius l. 34 [...] Livy opposed to argen­tum infectum, whichIul Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Pollux terms [...], as Cicer. 6. Verr. Tully cals the former sort factum, atque sig­natum, and theIul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Greeks [...]. Thus [Page 62] the denarius had the impresse of the biga, or quadriga, as Pliny informs us: and thereforeLiv. l. 34. Li­vy uses the word bigati for denarii, &Plinius l. 33. ca. 3. Pliny both bigati and quadrigati. The brasse coins of the Ro­manes were thus marked.Plin. ib. Nota aeris fuit ex alte­râ parte Ianus geminus, ex alterâ rostrum navis, in triente vero & quadrante rates. The Persi­ans stamped on the reverse anPlutarchus in Artaxerxe. [...]. archer: vvhich occasioned that conceit of Agesilaus, mentioned byPlut. Agesil. Plutarch, that the King of Persia had beaten him back with ten thousand archers, when with so much mony he had corrupted the Grecians. The Carthaginians on the one side signed the face of a woman, (I suppose in memory of Queen Dido) on the reverse the head of an horse, or in Virgils' expressionVirg. 1. Ae­neid. ca­put acris equi, both vvhich I have seen. The Peloponnesians had the impresse of a tortoise on their mony, whence that witty Greek proverb took its originall.Iul. Poll. l. 9. [...]. 6. [...]. The mony at Tenedos had on the one side a double hatchet, and on the other­side two heads, one of a man, and another of a woman, a rising from the same stemme, or neck, in memory of a Law made by the King of that Island (whomHeraclides [...]. Heraclides names [...], placing him ancienter then the Trojan war), that a man, and a woman, taken in adultery should have their heads struck off vvith an hatchet. In which kind I met with two very rare, and an­cient coins in silver, at Constantinople, both made vvith a very fair relevy, and both agreeing in the same image, and inscription: the one weighed lesse then the Attick tetradrachme, the other wanted somewhat of the drachme. And [Page 63] because the coin hath not, I think, been seen by any Antiquary, and the history is remarkable, I shal here express the figure of the fairest of these.

And the history I shall relate out of Heraclide [...] [...]. Hera­clide. [...]. They say King Tennes made a law, that if one took another in adultery, he should kill him with an hatchet. His sonne being found so, and he that took him, asking the King what he should do, he answered execute the Law: and for this reason of one side of his money there was an hatchet imprin­ted, on the other the face of a man, and of a woman, arising out of one neck. From hence is it said of severe actions, to be cut with a Tenedian hatchet. For vvhich exemplary justice those of Tenedos▪ as it is probable, deified King Tenes. Cicer. libr: 3. de natur [...] de [...] ­rum. Tully writes, Tenedi Tenem [Deum appellant]: and again,f Tenem apud Tenedios putant esse san­ctissimū [Page 64] Deum, ac eorū Vrbem condidisse. Where his name is truer writ thē in Heraclides. For the coin hath onely a single N. and so hath Eustathii [...]. * Eustathius.

The mony of Chios, as Iulius Pollux wit­nesses, had the effigies, or resemblance, of Homer: no doubt in honour of his memory; thoughHerodot. in vita Homeri. Herodotus relates, that whilst he vvas living he found at first but cold entertainment in that Island. Theseus the tenth King of the Athenians signed his mony with the impresse of an oxe; hence that proverb [...]. This asIul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Iulius Pollux testifies was the [...]: vvho farther adds, [...]. This was an ancient coin amongst the Athenians, and was called [...], because it had the figure of an oxe instamped. They imagine that Homer knew this, when he said, nine hecatombes of oxen, and also in the laws of Draco, it is to pay the mulct of ten oxen. And they say, that at the solemn shew at Delos, the crier when any gift is to be given, cries so many oxen shall be given, and for every oxe so many Attick didrachmes are given. The same Iul. Poll. ibid. Author writes, that the Attick tetradrachme was stamped vvith the face of Minerva, and he might have added with the noctua on the re­verse. ThisIn Anchise. Eubûlus pleasantly cals [...] Minervae pullum. The [...] had the [Page 65] face of Iupiter, it may be it is an error in Pollux, for Pallas, and on the other side the noctua. The [...] had on the one side Jupiter, according toIul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Pollux, (I conceive it to be a mistake for Pal­las, or Minerva) on the other side two noctuae, be­cause it was the double to the [...]. From the diobolū, Plautus in Poenulo. Plautus uses the term diobolaris Servorū Sordidulorum, Scorta diobolaria, whichSextus Pom­peius Fe [...]us de Verb. signif. Festus in­terprets thus, meretrices diobolares appellatas, ex [...]o quòd duobus obolis ducerentur. To which I may adjoin, out of such ancient coins as I have seen, that [...]he triobolum (whence that phrase ofPlautus in Poenulo. Plau­tus, homo trioboli, and of the Greeks [...]) which byIul. Poll. l. 9. c. 6 Pollux is called the [...], had the face of Pallas on the one side, and the noctua on the other; and so likewise had the [...]bolus, and drachma, of such as I perused, and all of them on the reverse the inscription [...]. And I think I may safely add, that on such coins as we finde the noctua, with a deep relevy, we may conclude them to be Athenian coins.Plutarchus in Lysandro. Plutarch [...]s of the same opinion in the life of Lysander, where he discourses of Gylippus a Commander, [...]s famous for defeating the Athenians in Sici­ [...]y, as infamous for stealing the silver consigned [...]o him by Lysander, for the city Sparta. When [...] arrived, saith Plutarch, at Sparta, he hid the [...]lver that he had stoln under the tiles of his house, [...]nd delivered into the hands of the Ephori the bags, [...]ewing them the seals [intire]: Which being ope­ [...]ed, and the money told, they found the sums to [...]sagree from the labels: wherewith being troubled [...] servant of Gylippus in obscure tearms intima­ [...]ed to them, That under the tiles of his Masters [Page 66] house there were hid many noctuae, or owles; [...]. For the greatest part (as it seems) of the money then had the stamp of the noctua, by reason of the Athenians: who not long before, as Thucydides, and the best Hi­storians of those times shew, were the richest, and most flourishing State amongst the Gre­cians.

Having therefore had the opportunity to have bought, or else the favour to have weigh­ed many fair, and perfect Attick tetradrachmes, found at remote places, with the Pallas galea­ta on the one side, and the noctua, vvith the in­scription [...] on the reverse, where [...] being placed for [...] proves the antiquity of them. (For the Atticks at the first used not [...], but onely [...] for both [...] and [...]) I finde by the best of these (to reassume what I said before) that the At­tick tetradrachme is 268 grains, and the drach­me 67 of our Troy, or English standard. Which may farther be confirmed by an Attick drachme of mine own, found in the Black Sea, vvith this inscription, [...], and by aI have since perused a fair Athenian [...] of my very worthy, and learned friend, Iohn Marsham Es­quire, weighing completely 33 grains English. As also ano­ther of Sir Tho. Roes, together with an [...] of his, weigh­ing 11 grains. [...], or semidrachme bought by me a [...] Alexandria: that weighing neer 66 grains, and this 30 and better: the face of Minerva, ei­ther by use, or time being a litle diminished in both: but yet so litle, that they cannot have lost above two or three grains of their primi­tive vveight. And as this single Attick drachme of mine is much to be valued by Antiquarie [...] for the vveight, and therefore vvas desired by the learned Peireskius: so is the inscription [Page 67] [...] no lesse vvorth considerati­on, for the explication of a place inLivius l. 37. Livy: who describing the naval triumph of L. Aemilius, vvrites thus. Pecunia translata nequaquam tan­ta pro specie regii triumphi. Tetracina Attica CCXXXIII. millia, Cistophori CCCXXII. mil. WhereBud. lib. 2. de asse. Rhodigin: lect: antiq. l. 10. c. 2. Budaeus, and Rhodiginus in stead of tetracina, read tetradrachma. Tetracinum enim quid sit, nemo ut arbitror novit, saith Budaeus: I vvould rather read it, as the coin doth, Tinar­nica: this having almost the same letters vvith Tetracina, vvhich by the Scribes, I suppose, have been inverted. Neither is there any reason, why Livy might not as vvell mention in this triumph, Attica Tinarnica, as Tetradrachma; these being the fourth part of the tetradrachme; and therefore better agreeing with his descrip­tion: Pecunia translata nequaquam tanta pro specie regii triumphi: and also better agreeing vvith the Cistophori he here mentions: a sort of coin about half of these Attica Tinarnica, where­as the tetradrachma were eight times as great. ForSextus Pom­peius Festus de Verb: signif: Festus expressing the talentum Euboicum, renders it by 7500 cistophori, and by 4000 dena­rii, or Attick drachmes, that is, M. tetra­drachmes. Euboicum talentum nummo Graeco septem millium & quingentorum cistophorûm est▪ nostro quatuor millium denariorum.

And as these testimonies above alleaged are beyond all exceptions, so the gold coins of the Grecians, which I have examined, doe most evi­dently prove this proportion assigned to the Attick drachme. Which that vvee may the better understand, vve are to observe vvhat pro­portion [Page 68] the valuation of the gold of those times had to the silver; and next, vvhat proportion it had in respect of weight.

For the first,Iul Poll. l. 9. c. 3. Iulius Pollux in very perspicu­ous tearms, puts it down, [...]. That the gold was in a ten­fold proportion to the silver one may evidently learn out of Menanders' paracatathece. Scholiastes A­ristophanis. The Scholiast of Aristophanes implies as much. [...]. The Darics are golden stuters, each of them is worth as much as that which is named by the Atticks the [...]. They are called so not from Darius the Father of Xerxes, but from another King more ancient then hee. Some say that the Darick is valued at XX. drachmes of silver, so that V. Darics are worth a mina of silver. For the Attick [...], or mina, containing an hundred drachmes in weight, as it is very cleer out ofPlinius l. 21. c 34. Pliny, Iul. Poll l 9. c. 3. * Pol­lux, and others. Mna (saith Pliny) quam no­stri minam vocant, pendet drachmas Atticas cen­tum. And Pollux, [...]: The mina with the Athe­nians containeth an hundred Attick drachmes, and the [...], or [...] of Da­rius, consisting of two drachmes in weight, as vve shall presently prove, it vvill necessarily follow that the proportion of the [...], was [Page 69] to the [...], in decuplâ ratione: and therefore that five Daricks, or ten drachmes of gold, were equall in valuation to an hundred drachmes in silver, that is, to the [...]. The same proportion may be collected out ofPolybii [...] ▪ ca. 28 Ex biblioth. Fulvii Vrsini. Antv. 1582. Polybius, vvhen the Romanes upon a summe of mony to be received, concluded a peace with the Aeto­lians. [...] Which wordsLivius l. 38. [...]. Zonaras. Livy renders thus. Pro argen­to si aurum dare mallent, dare convenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus valeret. This being granted, as certainly of necessity it must, I would correct that place ofHesychius in voce [...]. Hesychius concerning the [...], and read it thus, [...]. & not [...]. as it is in the printed copies. And by this of Hesychius I would supply the defect of Suidas in vo­ce [...]. Suidas, who writes. [...]. and make it thus, [...]. For without the addition of [...], and [...], there is no sense: And I beleeve Suidas took these very words out of Hesychius.

Having thus found the proportion that the [...] had to the silver, our next inqui­ry is, how many of these drachmes in weight the [...], or [...], or aureus contained. Iul. Pollux libr. 4. c. 24. Iulius Pollux gives us in this particular the best, and most positive information of any, [...]. The golden sta­ter [or aureus] contains two Attick drachmes. The same is confirmed byHesychius in voce [...]. Hesychius: [...] [Page 70] [...]. Polemarchus saies that the aureus amongst the Athenians contains two drachmes; and that the drachme of gold is worth ten drachmes of silver. And to this of Pollux and Hesychius all the aurei of the ancient Grecians, which have passed through my hands, doe very well correspond. Now these aurei as they had severall impresses upon them, so had they severall names, by which they are distin­guished. For they were either [...], or [...], or [...], or [...], or the like, all which we may prove by Xenophon, [...] (as Ios. Scaliger rightly corrects the printed co­pies, which ren­der it [...] or [...]) [...]. Har­poer. [...] Xenophonti sunt [...]. Talen­tum autem 600 drachmae. Ergo [...] sunt 20. drachmae. Scal. de re num. Harpo­cratio, the Scholiast of Aristophanes, and others, to have been equall unto two Attick drachmes, and therefore respectively equall to one ano­ther. Neither is this much to be wondred at, that the Grecians, and Persians, though at enmi­ty amongst themselves, yet should agree in the aurei; seeing that in our times, the Venetian Chequeen, the Barbary Ducat, the Aegyptian, and Turkish Sherif, are almost all of the same purenesse in respect of the gold, and not diffe­ring above a grain in the weight. Which diffe­rence we may also allow to those of the An­cients, without any prejudice to our inquiry. Concerning these aurei, or golden staters, the observation ofIul Poll. l. 9. c. 6. Iulius Pollux is worth our con­sideration, [...]. Of the staters some were denominated from Darius, some from Philip, some frō Alexander & were al of gold. And when you say [Page 71] the aureus, the stater is understood, but if you say the stater, the aureus is not always meant. And this is most true; for the [...], or aureus (I speak not here of the aureus Romanus, this being somewhat lesse then these mentioned by Pollux) did alwaies imply the [...], but the [...] did not alwaies infer the aureus: the stater being more generall, signifying as well the argenteus, as the aureus, and that was double to this; the stater argenteus being four drachmes, as we proved before, and therefore the same with the tetra­drachme, & the aureus two drachmes, and there­fore equall in weight to the didrachme. Where­fore every aureus was rightly called a stater, but every stater could not rightly be called an aureus.

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

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

As for the [...], I finde the weight of [Page 72] one of the fairest for impression, and character, I think in the world, which I bought at Alexādria, with the image, and inscription [...], to be exactly of English grains 133 [...], and ano­ther at Constantinople 133, and in the same pro­portion severall others. With which comparing one of mine honoured and learned friend Iohn Marshā Esquire, I find his a grain defective: And weighing since some others out of that choice, & rare [...] of ancient coins collected by the noble Sir Simonds D' Ewes, Knight Baronet, I observed two of his to exceed 133 by ½ a grain.

Wherefore I may conclude (allowing onely half a grain for so much wanting by time, or by the mint) from the aureus being double to the Attick drachme, that it hath been rightly assigned by me to be LXVII. grains; And from this with those limitations above mentioned I may conclude the denarius Consularis, (which is our principall inquiry) seeingGalenus l. 8. de composit. me­dicam. Galen li. 8. c. 3. de compositione Medicam: according to the La­tine manner of division), speaking of an anti­dote prescribed by Asclepiades, whereof the do­sis was to be one drachme, or denarius, writes thus. [...]. I suppose, that he means the silver drachme, for so all the later Physicians are wont to call it, neither will the nature of the thing suffer us to understand any other. And it is manifest [...]hat in such things as we all now name the drachme, [Page 73] the Romanes name the Denarius.

The denarius also, as we proved before out of Philo, Iosephus, Saint Hierome, and Hesychius, may be inferred by the Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel: the shekel, by the joint testimony of all of them, being equall in valuation to the At­tick stater argenteus, or tetradrachme, and the Attick tetradrachme, as we have shewed, to 4 denarii Consulares: if therefore an Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel in silver, fair, and not impaired, were found, we might by this as well discover the denarius, as by the tetradrachme, or the aureus. And here I must confesse I have not seen so many perfect, and entire, with the Sa­maritane characters, vvhich certainly are the best, and truest, (For those with the later cha­racters, invented, as some suppose, by Esdras, are most of them counterfait) as to give my self satisfaction. For though I have perused that of Arias Montanus, now in the University of Oxford, which he describes in his tract de Siclo, and from whence he deduces the proportion of the Hebrew shekel, yet to speak the truth, there is no trust to be given to it: Not but that the coin is very ancient, and the inscription upon it in Samaritane characters well made; but the sides of it have been so filed away, that it hath very much lost of the true weight. For I finde it to be scarce the weight of twenty pence of our English Standard. Whereas Montanus, if he made his observation exactly, equals it to al­most four Spanish rials, or to four Romane Iu­lios': bo [...] which exceed two of our English shil­lings. So that till such time as I may procure out [Page 74] of the East, (whither I have often sent) some perfect shekels, I must be content to take up the relations of others. And here I shall begin with Moses Nehemani Gerundensis a Jew, a learned expositor of the Pentate [...]ch, who as Arias Mon­tanus tels us, flourished in Catalonia above 400 years since. His words, as Montanus hath deli­vered them in his tract de Siclo, are these.Arias Monta­nus de siclo. in libro qui inscri­bitu [...] Thubal [...], sinc de mensurit. In comment, Exod. 39. multis verbis disserens signi­ficabat se non facile ad Salomonis Iarrhaei, qui ante illum in Galliâ scripserat, sententiam de siclo accedere; cum Salomon affirmasset, Siclum esse dimidiam argenti unciam. Postea jam absolu­to in omnem Legem Commentariorum opere, i­dem Moses Gerundensis capite ad eam rem pro­priè addito, sicli aestimationem à Salomone illo indi­catam, re ipsâ doctus, ingenuè, & apertè, ut viros doctos, & veri inveniendi, atque docendi cupidos decet, comprobavit. Narrat autem se eo anno, quo illa scriberet, in Palaestinam ex Hispaniâ sacrorū locorum visendi causâ navi delatum Acconam, quam nunc Iachan vocant, devenisse; ibidémque sibi ab incolis ostensum fuisse nummum argent [...] ­um antiquissimum, expressis tamen signis & lite­ris conspicuum; in cujus altero latere forma esse [...] vasculi illius, quod mannâ plenum in sacra arca ad saeculorum monumentum, Dei jussu, & Mosis procuratione fuerat repositum: & in altero ra­mus ille admirabilis, quem in fasciculum virgu­larum plurimarum Aaronis nomine illatum (cùm illius sacerdotali dignitati ab aemulis quibusdam obtrectaretur) posterâ die populus omnis florentem, amygdaláque explicantem vidit; inscriptiones eti­am fuisse in eodem nummo Samaritanis ch [...]racteri­bus, [Page 75] quae olim communes totius Israelis literae fue­rant, ante discessionem decem tribuum à duabus, lingua planè Hebraica, quarum exemplum ex al­terâ parte erat SEKEL ISRAEL, quod Lati­nè sonat Siclus Israelis: ex alterâ verò IERV­SALEM KEDESSAH, hoc est Ierusalem sancta: qui nummus antiquitatem cùm primis magnam probabat, utpote cusus nomine Israelis, eo tempore quo omnes XII. tribus communi concor­dia Israelis nomen obtinebant; quóque Hieroso­lyma ipsis omnibus regia urbs, sanctaque erat; ea­demque communis omnibus & religionis, & publi­cae rei & monetae, atque literarum ratio, quae po­stea discessione factâ, alia atque alia utrique parti fuit. Namque Iudaei, ut omnes ferè scriptores asserunt, ne cum Schismaticis Israelitis ullo Sa­crorum usu communicarent, eam Literarum for­ [...]am, quae nunc etiam in usu est, hoc est qua­dratam, mutatis valde alterius prioris figuris, ad­ [...]invenêre. Affirmat praeterea idem Gerundensis, nummum illum, qui Siclus inscribebatur, sibi in staterâ pensum dimidiae argenti unciae pondus red­didisse, ostensam quoque alteram monetam dimi­diato pondere minorem, iisdem omnino vasis & rami figuris quae tamen non SEKEL, sed HHAS­ZI SEKEL, ho [...] est dimidius Siclus diceretur▪ probari itaque sibi vel maximè Salomonis Iar­rhaei, de sicli pondere, & valore, sententiam. Thus far Gerundensis: who if he had expressed with what half ounce he compared his shekel, or if Montanus had done it for him, they had given the judicious Reader better satisfaction. But this I suppose, by a a probable conjecture, may be supplyed, in saying that he living in Catalo­nia [Page 76] weighed it with the Catalonian, or Spanish half ounce; whichEaedem omni­no sunt unciae, quibus olim Romani, Hispa­nique utuntur. &c. Villalp. de ap­par. Vrb. ac Templi par. 2. l. 3. c. 20. Villalpandus, andCiaconius de ponderibus pag. 45. Ciaco­nius, both of them Spaniards, make equall to the half ounce now used at Rome, that is, to two shillings three pence farthing, q. of our mony. This conjecture of mine will exceeding well confirm those many observations of Vil­lalpandus, a man in this kinde very curious, which he made of severall ancient shekels in filver, who thus writes.Villalpand. de app. Vrb [...]s ac Templi par. 2. l. 2. disp. [...]. c. 28. Igitur ante aliquot an­nos appendimus Siclum unum apud F. Vrsinum, & postmodum eos omnes, quos praecedenti capite percensuimus, atque comperimus singulos argenti siclos ex aequo semunciae Romanae antiquae responde­re; ita ut ne minimum quidem hordei aut fru­menti granulum, huic, vel illi lanci addi potuerit, quin in eam examen propenderet. Nec mirum cuiquam videri debet, antiquissimos nummos suo pristino ponderi nunc respondere, neque ullam ar­genti partem vetustate consumptam tot saeculis fuisse. Nam singulari Dei beneficio nobis conti­git, tot integros appendere potuisse siclos. Id quod nummi ipsi integri vetustatem maximè prae se ferentes, literae expressae, extantésque, argenti color, atque alia id genus multa, facile probant. With these observations of Villalpandus I finde the weight of a very fair Samaritane shekel of the truly noble, and learned M. Selden to agree: to whom I stand obliged for this favour, as he doth for the coin to the honourable Antiquary Sir Robert Cotton. To these testimonies, though (it may be) sufficient of themselves, I shall add We may also insert the ob­servation of Anton. Au­gust. dialo­go 2. Ne ho uno [siclo] che è d' argento, & è di peso di quattro dramme conforme à quello che dice San Girolamo sopra Ezechiel­le: where by four drams he means half the Romane ounce. one more, for farther illustration of the weight of the Hebrew, or Samaritane shekel, and that [Page 77] is of an ancient, and fair one, in silver, amongst his Majesties coins, perused by the most reverend Primate of Ireland, a man of exquisite learning, and judgement, who hath often assured me that it weighs two shillings five pence of the En­glish standard; which proportion excepting some few grains, in which it doth exceed, does well correspond with those of Villalpandus. And this may farther be confirmed out of the Tal­mud Kiddushf. 11. [...] Argentum omne cujus in Lege fit mentio, intelligitur argentum Tyrium (ponderis & bonitatis ut in urbe Tyri: as Schindlerus in pentaglotto. Schlinder interprets it) sed Rabbinorum argentū intelligitur argentum commune provinciale. Ta­king therefore the silver mony of Judea, as the Talmud doth, to be equall to the Tyrian, and that of Carthage to be equall to that of Tyre: as it is very probable, that the Carthaginians, being a plantation of the Tyrians, might observe their proportions in coins, as vvell as their customes, in religion, we may by these discover the shekel to be much about the same weight that hath been assigned. ForAnt. August dia [...]og. 6. Ant. Augustinus, describing in his dialogues the weight of two fair Cartha­ginian coins in silver, writes, that they are each of them somewhat more then four drachmes, that is, as he elsewhere explains himself, a litle more then half the Romane ounce. If therefore we shall adhere to the observation of Gerunden­sis, made four hundred years since, or to these later of Villalpandus, and others; or to this conjecture of mine, the Hebrew shekel, and half the present [...] Romane ounce, are either both [Page 78] the same, or else very neer in proportion.

And this may easily be granted; but if it be, how vvill 4 denarii Consulares, 4 Attick drach­mes, and the Hebrew shekel, be reciprocally equall one to another, as they should be by those severall testimonies before alleaged? Whereas [...]y many hundred denarii Consulares, tried by a [...] exact balance, I finde the best of these to contain LXII. grains English, and the Attick drachme LXVII. And the fourth part of the shekel to be but LIV. grains ¾ if we admit of Gerundensis, and Villalpandus' observations. Which notwithstanding according to Philo, Io­sephus, Saint Hierome, Epiphanius, and Hesychi­us, should be equall to the Attick drachme, and the Attick drachme by the testimonies of the ancients should be likewise equall to the dena­rius. For the solution of this objection I an­swer. First, that the denarius, and Attick drach­me, being distinct coins of different States, and not much unequall in the true vveight, it is no wonder, especially in Italy, and in the Romane dominions, that they should passe one for ano­ther: no more then that the Spanish rials in our Sea Towns in England, should passe for testars, or the quarters of the dolar be exchanged for our shillings: whereas the riall in the intrinse­call valuation is better then our testar by four grains, and somewhat more, and the quarter of the dolar is better then our shilling by more then 8 grains, or a penny; but because they want the valuation, character, and impres­sion of our Princes, vvhich I call the extrinseck of coins, therefore doth the Spanish mony fall [Page 79] from its true value with us, and so would ours doe in Spain. By the same analogy must vve conceive the Attick drachmes, though in the in­trinseck they were somewhat better worth then the denarius, yet for want of the extrin­seck, to have lost in Italy, and thereby to have become equall in valuation to the denarius. And this seems to be implied byVol. Metia­nus de assis di­stributione. These words of Metianus I finde in a MS. of Temporarius thus corrected. Victoriatus e­nim nunc tan­tundem valet, quantum qui­narius Olim ut peregrinus nummus loco mercis, ut nunc tetradrachmū, & drachma ha­bebatur. Whi­ther it be by conjecture, or that he found it in some ancient MS. I know not, but the e­mendation I cannot but ap­prove. Volusius Me­tianus. Victoriatus enim nunc tantundem valet, quantum quinarius olim. At peregrinus nummus loco mercis, ut nunc tetradrachmum, & drachma, habebatur. Which words of his loco mercis, plainly shew they made some gain of the tetra­drachmum, and drachma: as our Merchants, and Goldsmiths doe of the Spanish rials, and quar­ters of a dolar: Which they could not doe, if they were precisely equall, but must rather be losers in the melting, or new coining of them. And therefore allBudaeus drach­mam putat ejusdem ponderis esse cum denario, Onuphrius verò inter utrum­que statuit rationem sesquitertiam, Agricola sesquiseptimam, ut Panvinio tres denari [...] quatuor drachmas, Agricolae verò septem denarii octo drachmas efficiant. Capel. de pond. & nummis l. 1. LXXXIV. denarii, quae est Libra Ro­mana, sunt aequales XCVI. drachmis, quae est libra Italica, & medica. Scal. de re nummariâ. modern Writers that have treated of this argument, some of them making the drachma lesse then the denarius, others e­quall, but none greater, have been deceived by a double paralogisme, in standing too nicely upon the bare words of the Ancients, without carefully examining the things themselves. First, in making the denarius, and Attick drachme pre­cisely equall, because all ancient Authors ge­nerally expresse the Attick drachme by the de­narius, or the denarius by the drachme; either [Page 80] because in ordinary commerce, and in vulgar e­stimation they passed one for another, in the Romane state; or else if any were so curious to observe their difference, as surely the [...] were, yet by reason of their neernesse, and to avoid fractions, and having no other names of coins that were precisely equall, whereby to render them, therefore all Greek, and Latine Authours, mutually used one for the other. And secondly, because some Writers, as Dioscorides and Cleopatra affirm, that the Romane ounce contained eight drachmes, therefore modern Authors infer, that the denarius being equall to the drachme, and eight drachmes being in the Romane ounce (as so many were in the Attick) that therefore there are eight denarii in the Romane, and consequently that the Romane, and Attick ounces are equall. Whereas Celsus, Scribonius Largus, and Pliny, as we shewed before, expresly write, that the Romane ounce contained in their time, which was after Dio­scorides, seven denarii. And being naturall Ro­manes, and purposely mentioning the propor­tion of the denarius to the ounce, thereby the better to regulate their doses in physick, it is not probable, but they must better have known it then the Grecians. Besides, vvho with any cer­tainty can collect out of these imperfect frag­ments of Dioscorides, and Cleopatra (for those tracts of theirs de ponderibus are no better) whither at the first they wrote in that man­ner, as they are now printed? Or if they did, why might not they indevour to introduce in­to the Romane ounce, in imitation of the At­tick, [Page 81] that manner of division, which is now ge­nerally received in our times, of making the ounce, of vvhat kinde soever it be, to contain eight drachmes. And surely this of eight being a compound number, as Arithmeticians use to speak, was much fitter then seven, used by the Romanes, which being a prime number, is there­fore incapable of any other division. And then for to conclude, that because the Attick ounce had eight drachmes, and the Romane as ma­ny, that therefore their ounces are equall: is all one as to conclude, that the Paris, and English ounces are equall, because the French as well as we (and so doe all Physicians of all Countries that I know) divide their ounce by eight drachmes. And thus, I suppose, I have suf­ficiently answered the first part of the objection, concerning the Denarius, and the Attick dra [...] ­me: that if we respect the vulgar and popular estimation, in which sense classicall Authours understood them (For they could not wel other­wise render them, then as they were currant) so were they equall; but if we respect the intrin­secall valuation, which depends upon the weight, especially when coins are of a like finenesse, so were they unequall: the Attick drachme being of our mony eight pence far­thing q, and the denarius Consularis seven pence half penny farthing: allowing for the standard These pro­portions, with chose before, & those which [...] follow, are [...] from the English stan­dard at five shillings the ounce (as it was formerly coined) to a­void fractions: that is, eight grains to the silver penny: whereas in these times it is five shillings [...] two pence. Not that the ounce is increased, for this is alwaies constant and fixt, but that for reasons of State, our silver coins are diminished, and conse­quently contain fewer grains. And this diminution must necessarily be, as often as other Nations, with whom we have commerce, rebate in the pro­portions of their coins; or else we must be content to be losers. VIII. English grains to the silver penny.

[Page 82] Neither do I know any authority, that either expresly, or by a true, & logical consequence, can be produced out of Classical Authors to infringe this assertion of mine, unlesse it be one in Fan­nius, which being a fragment is the lesse to be valued: and another in Livy, who thus writes, lib. 34. in his description of the triumph of Quinctius. Signati argenti octoginta quatuor millia fuere Atticorum, tetradrachmum vocant; trium ferè denariorum in singulis argenti est pon­dus. Which words of his occasionedG Agricolae responsio ad Al­ciatum de pond. & mensuris. Argentei Ro­manorum de­narii triplices sunt: graves, qui pendunt arachmam At­ticam cum di­midia: medio­cres, qui drach­mam & scpti­mam ejus par­tem: leves, qui plerunque drachmam. Georgius Agricola, not knowing how to answer them, to bring in a distinction of three sorts of denarii: the Gravis, weighing an Attick drachme, and an half, the Mediocris, one & a seventh part, the L [...] ­vis, most cōmonly one; without any cleer proof, or evidence in any ancient Author, and directly contrary to all ancient coins of the Atticks, and Romanes, which I have seen: of which errour he would not have been guilty (For there is no man that hath writ either de ponderibus, & men­suris, or de re metallicâ, more solidly, and judi­ciously then he) if he had been so happy as to have perused many intire Grecian aurei, & tetra­drachmes, or else to have examined a greater, and more select quantity of Romane coins. To satisfie my self concerning that place of Livy, I had recourse to our MSS. here (and I could wish I had done the like in Italy) and these I finde to agree with the printed copies; though the coins, which are much ancienter then any MSS. constantly disagree. Wherefore if it be not a mistake in Livy himself, which I am not apt to beleeve in so grave an Authour, I would [Page 83] correct the copies by the coins, and instead of III. ferè denariorum, make it thus, IV. ferè dena­riorum. Where the figure V, being resolved in­to two lines, and left a litle open at the bot­tome, might easily be taken by the scribe for the figure II. And this I doe certainlyIf this answer be not satisfa­ctory, we may say, as some have done, that Livy, Fannius, and the Scholi­ast of Nicander, speak of the de­narii of the former Consuls immediately succeeding Q. Fabius, For there be­ing but six of those in the ounce, (as they suppose) the de­narius will bee greater then the drachma, as it will be lesse when seven were coined, under the later Consuls, which is our assertion. beleeve is the true ground of that errour, wherewith so many of late have been perplext. However it were, it is as ancient as Priscian, or Pseudo-Priscian (as Capellus styles him) who, in his tract de ponderibus, reads those words of Li­vy in the same manner, trium ferè denariorum.

As for the denarius aureus, a name I think not known to the Ancients, which Salmasius and others collect out ofLivius l 38. Livy, de foedere Ae­tolico. Pro argento si aurum dare mallent, dare convenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus valeret. I see no solid foundation for that opi­nion; all that can be collected thence is, that the gold then was in decuplâ ratione to the silver, which I have proved before. And where­as Plautus in Rudente. Plautus hath his denaria Philippea.

this is a metaphorical, or comical expression of him, and no certain sort of coin: which he pleasantly cals denarii, because half the [...] were equall in weight to the drach­ma, and so also was the Romane denarius sup­posed to be.

Nor are we to take the [...], which is thrice mentioned by Saint Matthew, and once by Saint Mark, for the denarius, as some have done: no, nor for any other sort of coin. For it is pre­cisely [Page 84] the Latine word census, that is, [...], tributū, and so is it rendred by Saint Luke, [...]; vvhere Saint Matthew, and Saint Mark have it. [...]; Though Hesychius, and Moscopulus, both upon an errour, interpret it a sort of coin. Hesychius, [...], or [...], as M. Casaubone corrects it: and Moscopulus, [...], the census is a coin equall in weight to the drachme, that is, in the notion of the Greeks equall to the denarius. The errour of these two Greek Grammarians, is a misunderstanding the propriety of the Latine word census: and that occasioned them to take [...], and [...], for the same. But the Evangelist Mat­thew puts a manifest difference between [...] tributum, and [...], the mony that was paid for tribute. [...], writes Saint Matthew, shew me the mony of the tribute: or as our new Translation renders it, Shew me the tribute mony. And the three E­vangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, immedi­ately after expresly tearm this mony the [...], And they brought unto him a penny. Which being a Roman coin, and currant amongst the Jews, being then in subjection to the Romanes, it is more then probable that they paid their tribute to Caesar, in the same species of mony that was used by Caesar: and not with any new, or peculiar sort of coin, according to Baronius (which M. Casau­bone hath justly confuted) but with the ordinary currant mony of Rome, and that was the denari­us.

[Page 85] Our next solution should be of the shekel, how it could be equall to the tetradrachme, and con­sequently to 4 denarii, when by the constant weight of the best Hebrew, or Samaritane shekels, extant, wee finde them to bee much lesse. And here I am a little unsatisfied, how to reconcile the coins to Philo, Iosephus, Epi­phanius, Saint Hierome, and Hesychius: or else, if we admit of the coins (as I know no just ex­ceptions against them) how to excuse these Aut [...]ours of too supine negligence in compa­ring them, if so be they ever vvere so curious as to collate them vvith the Attick tetradrach­mes. For if vve shall say that the silver stater, or Attick tetradrachme, vvas a forain coin, in re­spect of the Rep. of the Jews, and therefore that in Judaea it might somewhat fall from its true valuation, vve shall say no more then what reason, and experience confirm. But then that the tetradrachme should sink so low, as to loose four pence half penny, if vve take the reverend Primates' observation before mentioned, or vvhich is more six pence q. if vve follow that of Gerundensis, and Villalpandus, or those of mine, upon two shillings nine pence half pen­ny, for so much vvas the tetradrachme of our mony, it may seem too great a diminution: espe­cially the Attick mony being as pure, and fine▪ as that of the shekel: and therefore no Gold­smith amongst the Jews, but vvould have gi­ven a greater rate onely to melt it, and turn it into bullion. Yet on the other side, vvhen I consider the practise of the mony-changers a­mongst the Iews at this day, vvhich it may be [...]

[Page 88] The sextarius, saith Fannius, contains one pound and eight ounces, whither vve weigh cleer water, or vvine: where by wine, according toAgricola l 3. de ponder. rerū. Agricola, is to be understood, vinum fulvū, such as the Greeks call [...]; rather I imagine that wine, which Galen cals [...]. The sextarius then being one pound eight ounces of cleer water, or pure wine, and sixe sextarii being in the Congius, it is most evi­dent that the Congius contains ten pounds of vvater, or of wine. This also appears by a Plebiscitum of the two Silii, Publius, and Marius, which is to be seen in the best copies ofSextus Pomp. de verb signif. Sextus Pompeius.

The same is confirmed byFragmenta Dioscoridis. Dioscorides: who, for farther certainty, mentions with what sort of vvater vve should measure it: and that is with rainThe propor­tion [...] rain water hath to fountain water, is as 10 0000 to 1007 [...]22, & the proportion that it hath to water distilled, is as 1000000 to 997 65, as it hath been ob­served by Snel­lius in Eratosth. Bat l 2 c. Est in aequali mo [...]e ratio aquae pluviae ad di­stillatam, quē ­admodum 100 [...]000 ad 997065. plu­viae autem ad putealem ut 1000000 ad 1007522. water, which he makes to be the most infallible of all. [...], &c. [...]. The Chus, (that is, the Congius) contains ten pounds, the se­micongius five, the sextarius one pound, and eight ounces, &c. The weight of water, and of Vine­gar is the same. They say that if it be filled up with rain water, the weight will be most certain. [Page 89] This authori­ty of Dioscori­des, with that other citation following out of an Anony­mus Greek Au­thor, strongly proves my as­sertion, that the drachma Attica was more ponde­rous, then the denarius Consu­laris. For there being eighty four of these denarii in the Romane pound, as we have elsewhere proved, and ten Romane pounds in the Congius, it is most evident there are DCCCXL. dena­rii in the whole Congius. Again, DCCXX. drachmes, by the testimonies of Dioscorides, and this Anonymus writer, being equall to the Congius, and the Congius being equall to DCCCXL. denarii, therefore DCCXX. drachmes are equall to DCCCXL. denarii, and therefore of necessi­ty every particular drachme of these, must be greater then each particular denarius. And though, according to my assertion, the Congius contain­eth some few drachmes more then are by them assigned; yet that diffe­rence, seeing it might many waies happen, as I afterwards shew in the like experiments of Villalpandus, and Gassendus, it cannot any way overthrow my conclusion. For the drachmes are still fewer then the denarii consulares, and therefore greater: which was the thing intended to be proved. And this my farther be confirmed, in that both Cleopatra, and this Anonymus Authour, make also the [...], or sextarius (being the sixth part of the Congius) to containe an hundred twenty drachmes of fountain water. Whereby it appears there is no errour committed in the former numbers. [...]. The sextarius, saith Cleopatra, contains in measure two cotyls, but in weight an hundred and twenty drachmes. And the Anonymus writer, [...]. The sextarius contains in weight an hundred and twenty drachmes. The Congius weighs seven hundred and twen­ty drachmes. An Anonymus Greek Author, falsly reputed to be Galen in the edition at Venice, confirms the same,Anonymus Graec. [...]: Amongst the Romanes is found the Congius, con­taining in measure six sextarii (that is) XII Cotylae: but in weight, of rain water, which is most infalli­ble, DCCXX. drachmes. And whereasFragmenta Dioscoridis. Dioscorides elsewhere writes. [...]. The Congius hath nine pounds, the semicongius four and an half, the sextarius one and an half; there is no repugnan­cy [Page 90] between this, and his former assertion. For here he speaks of the Congius filled with oil, and before of the same Congius filled with water, or wine: and that this should be but nine pounds, whereas the former is ten, is no more repug­nant to reason, then it is to nature, that oil should be lighter then water, or wine: which Ghetaldus in Archim: pro­moto. Ghetaldus, in his Archimedes promotus, hath de­monstrated the most accurately of any man, to be in the proportion that 1 is to 1 1/11 in re­spect of water, and as 1 is to 1 4/55 in respect of wine: which is almost the same with Dio­scorides. The not observing this difference of weight, arising from the different gravity of severall liquors, in vessels of one and the same capacity, is that which hath occasioned much incertainty, and confusion, in modern writers. And therefore we shall for farther perspicuity insert that distinction, which is often inculcated byGaleNus l 1. & 6. de comp. medicam. se­cundum genera. Galen, that the Romanes used two sorts of ounces, and pounds: and those were either [...], or [...], ponderall, or mensurall: the one had respect solely to the gravity, the other to the moles, and gravity conjointly: the for­mer were alwaies certain and fixt, consisting of solid matter: the later were Vasa (frequent­ly [...]) being receptacles, and measures of liquid substances: and therefore the librae, and unciae mensurales, in these vvere greater or lesse, according as the liquor to be measured vvas heavier, or lighter. WhenceLi. 6. de com­pos. medicam: sec: genera. Galen blames Physitians for not expressing this difference. [...]. [Page 91] And he gives the reason of it.Lib 1. de com­posit. medicam: secundum gene­ra. [...]. For the ponde­rall examine the weight of bodies, but the mensural the moles. But to return to the Congius, and by it to our discovery of the denarius. The water then must be naturall, either of some fountain, or of rain. For if it be artificiall, such as are made by distillations, whither by a strong reverberation, or by a gentle, in an alembeck, these having some­what of the property of fire vvill be lighter then the naturall, asPerinde verò ut vinum hoc factitium omni nativo est levi­us, sic aquae ferè omnes, quae ig­nis calore rebus quibuscunque excoctis destil­larint, quas ob id distillatas appeilant, caete­ris aquis levio­res sunt. Agri­cola l. 3. de pondere rerum. Agricola, and others observe. I shall produce two observations of the Congius vvit [...] fountain vvater, made by two very emi­nent, and able men, Villalpandus, and Gassendus, the one at Rome, with the Romane weights, from theThis Congius I had weighed, if I could have procured a ba­lance of such exactnesse, as was fit­ting for such a work. The want of which occasioned Villalpandus to suspect the observa­tion of Paetus: though Paetus writes thus of himself. Plenum, cùm justissimâ trutinâ, quâ hodie Romae utimur cùm appendissem [congium], inveni aquam, quâ eum compleveram, libras nostri temporis novem, uncias sex semis efficere, quibus uncias quinque, drachmas quatuor, scripulum unum, & grana XIV. (quae amplius sunt in his nostris, quam in antiquis libris computando eum congium libras decem) & ultra scripulum unum, & grana XIV. (de quibus nullam rationem habendam esse judicavi) ex antiquis libris praedictis pendere inveni. But Villalpandus trying it long after Paetus, with more care, and with a balance made of purpose, found it to be exactly ten such pounds, as are now used in Rome. All that I could doe was to fill the capacity of it with milium well cleansed, and to compare it with the English measures taken from the Standards. It contained of our measures for wine three quarts, one pint▪ and one eighth part of a pint. Of our corn, or dry measures, three quarts and about one sixth part of a pint. At my being in Italy, there was found amongst the ruines at Rome a Semicongius in brasse, of the same figure with this of Vespasians, the sides much consumed by rust. This I also measured, and found it to be the half of Vespasians' Congius. From this measure of the Congius we may rightly apprehend how vast that draught was of No­vellus Torquatus, who drank three of these Congii at once: from whence he was called Novellas Tricongius. The story is recited by Pliny [l. 14. c. 22.] Apud nos cognomen etiam Novellus Torquatus Mediolanensis ad Proconsulatum usque è praetur [...] honoribus gestis, tribus congiis (unde & [...]omen illi fuit) epotis uno impetu, spectante miraculi gratiâ Tiberio prin­cipe in senecta jam severo, atque etiam aliàs saevo, sed ipsâ juventâ ad merum pronior fuerat. In the same chapter Pliny likewise discourses thus of Cicero, sonne to that famous Oratour. Tergilla Ciceronem Marci filium binos congios simul haurire solitum ipsi objicit, Marcoque Agrippae à temulento scyphum impactum. originall Congius it self, the other at Aix, with the Paris weights, from a model, or copy of that at Rome, procured by Peireskius. And here to compare the denarius Consularis vvith their observations, it is necessary to have ex­actly both the Romane, and Paris weights. The former, with as much accuratenesse, as it was [Page 92] possible, were taken in Rome. The other vvere sent me by Monsieur Hardy, a learned man of honourable quality in Paris, who compared them vvith the Standard. To begin vvith that of Villalpandus, who gives us a large descripti­on, with how much caution, and circumspecti­on, and vvith how exquisite a balance he twice made his experiment, whereby he discovered the vveight of it in vvater to be exactly an­swerable to ten such pounds, as are now used in Rome: Whence he concludes,Villalpandus l 2. disp. 2. c. 11. de apparatu Vrbis ac Tem­pli Constanter asserimus antiquam Romanorum libram, unciam, ac pondera, tot aetatum successione, ac Romani imperii perturbationibus minimè immutata fuisse, sed eadem per manus tradita usque ad nostra tem­pora perdurasse. This Romane pound of his reduced to the English Standard for silver, or [Page 93] Troy vveight, vvith vvhich I have faithfully col­lated it, is 5256 grains English, such as the Troy pound is 5760: the whole Congius there­fore consisting of ten pounds, will be 52560 Eng­lish grains. The other observation is related byGassendus in vitâ Peireskii. Gassendus, in his elegant discourse de vitâ Peireskii. Vt paucis ergo res dicatur, cautiones adhibuimus easdem, quas Lucas Paetus, & Villal­pandus, dum vas ipsum, ad summum collum pute­ali aquâ opplevimus, expendimus, vasis pondus subduximus. Deprehendimus autem aquam, quae Romano pondere esse debuit decem librarum, seu unciarum centum viginti, esse pondere Parisiensi (quale nempe Parisiis exploratum, missumque est) librarum septem, minus unciae quadrante: seu unciarum centum undecim, & quadrantum unciae trium. Deinde ex hac proportione collegimus unci­am Romanam continere grana quingenta, & tri­ginta sex, qualium quingenta septuaginta sex in Parisiensi continentur: unde & illis in drachmas collectis, obvenere cuilibet drachmae grana sexa­ginta septem: idque proinde censuimus pondus denarii Caesarei, quem dictum est fuisse The infe­rence of Gas­sendus I easily grant, that the denarius under some of the Caesars' was drachmalis, that is, the eighth part of the Romane ounce. But neither was it alwaies so under the Caesars, nor if it had been so, will it therefore follow that it was drachmalis, or the eighth part in respect of the Attick ounce. Seeing the Athenian ounce was grea­ter then the Romane, as we have before proved; and therefore the Denari­us Consularis, which was the seventh part of the Romane ounce, was scarce the eighth part of the Attick. Where fore he must see how he can make it good, where he brings Peireskius in the second book of his life thus dis­coursing—Denarium, cùm tempore Regum pependisset trientem unciae, sub an­tiquâ tamen Rep: pependisse solum sextantem, sub recentiore partem septimam, sub primis Caesaribus octavam, seu drachmam (Atticae nempe drachmae ae­qualem.) drachma­lem. Now the Paris ounce sent come by Mon| [...] [Page 96] unto him Caesars'. This denarius Caesareus, if wee respect some definitive quantity, and weight, was as various, and uncertain, as the denarius Consularis of the later Consuls was constant, and fixt: being under the first Emperours, sometimes more, sometimes lesse, as the reasons, and exigencies of the State did require, or the profusenesse, and prodigality of those times. Yet this uncertainty (as far as I have observed) was limited within some certain, and deter­minate bounds: the denarius Caesareus never exceeding the seventh part of the Romane ounce, and never being lesse then the eighth part, but often in a middle proportion between both, and that with much inequality. And this madeVillalpandus de apparatu Vrbis ac Tem. pli par. 2. l. 2. disp. 2. c. 13. Villalpandus, after many experiments at Rome, to conclude, that out of the denarii no­thing concerning the Romane weights could be determined. Though Portius, Agricola, Ciaco­nius, Snellius, and severall others, before, and af­ter him, are of a contrary opinion. And it may be, if Villalpandus had distinguished between the difference of times, and in them of the different coins, and considered those of the Con­suls, distinctly from those of the Caesars, and those of the former Caesars, from those of the later, he would have reformed his judgment▪ For it plainly appears, upon examination, tha [...] the diminution of their weight was an invention introduced after Antonius the Triumvirs' time wherasbefore the denarius was fixt. Miscuit, saith Plin. l. 33. c. 9. Pliny, denario Triumvir Antonius ferrum, ali [...] è pondere subtrahunt (his meaning is under th [...] Emperours, to Vespasians', or his own time) cù [...] [Page 97] sit justum octoginta quatuor è libris signari. Where he saies very well in speaking so generally, alii è pondere subtrahunt, without precisely limiting the proportion. For this, as we observed, was very various, and undeterminate: so that whereas the just number of the denarii, according to the practise of the later Consuls, should bee eighty four in the Romane pound, we finde by the weight of the best of them under the former Caesars, that they coined sometimes eighty sixe, eighty eight, &c. till at last there came to [...]e ninety six denarii in the Romane pound, that is, eight in the ounce. And this, by a very necessary consequence, may be inferred out of another place of Pliny, if we take for granted, what some learned Moderns confesse, and the gold and silver coins found to this day, of the later Consuls, and first Emperours, strongly prove, that as the Atticks made their [...], or aureus, double in weight to the [...]: so did the Romanes make their aureus double in weight to the denarius. Which proportion they might borrow from the Athenians, and o­ther Grecians, who,Arias Monta­nus in T [...]ubal [...] Cain, sive de mensuris. as Arias Montanus ima­gines, first received it from the practise of the Hebrews: or rather, as I suppose, from the Phenicians, and these from the Hebrews. From whencesoever it came, it is not much materiall in our inquiry: that which we may safely con­clude from thence is this, that the gold being, in respect of weight, double to the silver, the au­reus Romanus falling in its weight, the denarius likewise of necessity must fall: else could they not have continued in duplâ ratione. Now in [Page 98] what manner the aureus was first coined, and how afterwards it lost of its primitive weight, Pliny informs us.Plin. l. 3. c. 33 Aureus nummus, post annum LXII. percussus est, quam argenteus, ita ut scru­pulum valeret sestertiis vicenis, quod efficit in libras ratione sestertiorum, qui tunc erant, se­stertios DCCCC. Post haec placuit XL.M. signari ex auri libris: paulatimque principes imminuere pondus, imminuisse vero ad XL.VM. For this te­stimony, and the former, we are to thank Pli­ny, seeing there is neither Greek, nor Latine Au­thor extant, from his time to Theodosius, that gives us any certainty, what to conclude con­cerning the ancient coins. And therefore since this later is of great consequence, but some­what corrupted, I compared it with the MSS. in the Vatican, and Florentine Libraries, and with a fair one in Baliol College, which renders the later part of it thus. Postea placuit X.XL. sig­nari ex auri libris, paulatimque principes im­minuere pondus, imminuisse verò ad XLVIII, vvhere for XLVIII. Villalped [...] ap­paer. Vrbis ac Templ [...]. par. 2. l 2. disp. 2. c. 12 Villalpandus corrects, or rather corrupts, the text, in writing XLV. But Agricola, andSnell. in Era­tosth. Batavo. l. 2. c. 5. Snellius read it by con­jecture thus. Post haec placuit XLII. signari ex auri libris, paulatimque principes imminuere pon­dus, minutissime verò ad XLVIII. AndIbidem. Snellius gives a reason of it in his Eratosthenes Batavus. Nam ita argentei denarii, & aurei nummi ca­dem manet analogia, pondere subduplo, ut quam­diu octoginta quatuor argentei è libra, & è sin­gulis unciis septem cudebantur, tam di [...] quoque aurei duo & quadraginta libram implerent. Post­quam vero argentei nummi pondus imminutum [Page 99] est: ut sex & nonaginta in libram constituerentur, tum quoque duo de quinquaginta aurei, pondere tanto leviore, in singulis libris cudi coeperunt. Which conjecture seems not altogether impro­bable, if we respect the later Consuls, and first Caesars, in whose times we finde the aurei to have been double to the denarii Caesarei; but surely long before Iustinian, the aurei, or as they were then also called the solidi, lost that proportion to the silver, and kept it onely to the s [...]misses aurei, to which they were double, as they were in a treble proportion to the tremisses.

Wherefore in stead of these conjectures (which have been the bane of many a good Authour) of Agricola, Villalpandus, and Snellius, I would read the later part of those words of Pliny, as the MSS. doe, till I can see some concluding reason, or good authority of ancient Authors to the contrary. For I doe not see why the Ro­manes at the first might not coin forty aurei out of the libra, as well as forty silver teruncii out of the denarius: whichVarro l. 4. de L. Latin. Varro assures us they did. And who knows whither at the first making of their gold coins, which was sixty two years, according to Pliny, after the first coi­ [...]ing of silver, they endevoured to keep them in [...]uplâ ratione, in respect of weight: which gracefull manner they might afterwards intro­ [...]uce by commerce with the Grecians.

And here, ere I proceed any farther in my [...]nquiry after the Denarius Caesareus, I cannot [...]ut complain, either of the negligence of for­ [...]er times, or unhappinesse of ours: in that not [Page 100] one Authour extant mentions the true weight of the denarii, under the Caesars. Xiphilinus in Anton. Cara­calla. Xiphilinus re­lates in his epitome of Dio, how Antoninus Cara­calla corrupted, & abased the coins; but makes no mention of the weight. [...]. To Antoni­nus, as other things, so also his mony was adultera­ted. For the silver & gold, which he gave us, the one was prepared of lead silvered over, and the other of brasse guilt. Suidas in vote [...]siv [...]. Suidas also speaking of the mone­tarii writes thus. [...]. The Monetari [...] are Ar [...]izans employed in the ma­ [...]ing of mony. These in Aurelians time corrup­ted the mony, and, having slain their Gover­nour Felicissimus▪ raised a civill warre: whom Aurclianus with much difficulty conquering, pu [...] to death with exquisite torments. And many good laws were made, by severall Emperours against adulterating, and corrupting of coins [...] [...]nd those executed with much severity, even in the time of Christianity. For we finde under the Emperour Constantine, that such as offended in this kinde, were not onely put to death, but to a cruell, and bitter death by fire. L. OM [...]NES SOLIDI. C. THEOD. SIQVIS SOLI [...]DI CIRCVLVM EXTERIOREM INCI [...]DERIT, VEL ADVLTER ATVM IN VEN [...]DENDO SVBJECERIT. Omnes solidi, in qui [...]bus [Page 101] nostri vultus, ac veneratio una est, uno pre­tio aestimandi sunt, atque vendendi, quanquam diversa formae mensura sit: quod siquis ali [...]er fe­cerit, aut capite puniri debet, aut flammis tradi, vel aliâ poena mortifer â. Quod ille et [...]m patietur, qui mensuram circuli exterioris adraserit, ut ponderis minuat quantitatem, vel figuratum soli­dum, adulterâ imitatione, in vendendo subjecerit. In Constantius' time the same punishment was inflicted. L. PRAEMIO. C. THEOD. DE FALSA MONETA. Pr [...]mio accusatoribus proposito, quicunque solidorum adulter potuerit reperiri, vel à quoquam fuerit publicatus, illicò omni dilatione submot [...] flammarum exustionibus mancipetur. And afterwards under V [...]lentinianus, Theodosius, and Arcadius, they were accounted, and suffered as rei laesae Majestatis. L. FAL­SAE MONETAE. COD. EODEM. Falsae monetae rei, quos vulgò paracharactas vocant, Ma­jestatis crimine tenentur obnoxii. But no where is it mentioned concerning the denarii, and quinarii, which vvere the nlver coins, in com­mon use, how much should be their weight. Wherefore in such a silence of ancient Authors, we have no more solid, and sure foundation of our inquiry: then either by our selves to examine the weight of the fairest coins under the Empe­rours: or else to relate, what others long before our time have observed, Antonius Augusti­nus in generall informs us, when coins were at their highest perfection, and how they began to decline with the Romane Empire: as com­monly when mony comes to be abased, and that the mint, like the pulse, beats too slowly, and [Page 102] irregularly, it is an evident symptome of some distempers in the bowels of a StateLe medaglie di tutti i tem­pi [sono degne da esser osserva­te degli Arti­feci] comminci­ando de Ales­sandro magno, well' et à del quale princi­palmente fiori­rono, per fin al tempo dell' Imperador Gallieno, nel quale caddero affatto in sieme con l' imperio. Da indi poi in finà Giustini­ano si trovano bon medaglic di tutti gli Impe­rado [...]i ma con notabil perdita della pulitezza, & perfettione antica. Quelpoi che habbiamo duppo Giusti­niano, è tanto cattivo che non si può sosserire. Et se ne dà quasi da ognano la colpa à gli Vnni, à i Vandali, à gli Alani, à i Goti, à i Longobardi, & ad altre barbare, & fiere nationi, che signoreggiarono gran parte d' Europa. Ant. August. dialog 1. The medailes of all times (saith he) [are worthy to be observed by Artizans] beginning from Alexan­der the great, in whose time they principally flourished, till the Emperour Gallienus, when they chiefly fell together with the Empire. From thence to the end of Iustinian, there are found good medailes of all the Emperours, but with a notable diminution of their politenes, and ancient perfection. Those which we have after Iustinian, are unsufferably bad. The fault by all men is assigned to the Huns, and Vandals, and Alanes, and Goths, and Longobards, and to other barba­rous, and savage Nations, who conquered the grea­test part of Europe. Erizzo, who lived almost an hundred years since, a very diligent man in the Romane coins, but it is to be wished that he had used more judgment in the explication of them, more particularly informs us.Havendo io tali monete le quali sono del peso di un de­nario Rom pareggiate di peso alle medaglie di argento, che hanno scolpile le teste de i Principt Romani, le ho ritrovate differenti non poco del peso, si che quelle medaglie p [...]sano quasi tutt [...] meno del Denario; & havendo ancora pe­sate quelle medaglie che hanno scolpita la effigie de i Caesari, le ho sempre ritrovate differenti fra loro nel peso, Erizzo. Having compared the weight of those sorts of mony, which are equall in weight to the Romane denarius, with the medailes of silver, which have the heads of the Romane Emperours imprinted, I have found them not a litle different, so that as it were all those medailes weigh lesse then the denarius. And [Page 103] having also weighed those medailes which have the effigies of the Caesars, I have continually found them different amongst themselves in weight. This uncertainty so troubled Villal­pandus, after many experiments made at Rome, that he knew not what to determine. And it seemsBlondus l. 5. de Roma tri­umph. Blondus long before conceived it im­possible. Haec omnia qualia per singulas aetates fuerint, examussim ostendere, non magis difficil [...], quàm impossibile fuerit, non solùm quia obscuris, & nostrâ aetate ignotis verbis sunt à majoribus tradita, sed quia omnis ferè aetas suam habuit cu­dendi varietatem, & formam. Wherefore, for farther satisfaction of the Reader, I shall re­late some observations of mine own: especi­ally those of the twelve first Caesars, which I took, with many others, by an accurate ba­lance, from some choice cabinets in Italy. And first, I shall begin with the gold coins. For see­ing the aurei under the former Caesars' were in duplâ ratione to the denarii, therefore the weight of those being known, we cannot be ignorant of the weight of the denarii Caesarei. Besides; they are not subject to be consumed by time, and rust, but onely ex intertrimento, and therefore wee may the safelier give credit to them. And lastly, because the difference, though but of a grain, is of some consideration in gold, the Ma­sters of the Mint use to be the more circumspect about them: whereas in silver coins; since it is hardly worth the pains to stand precisely upon the excesse, or defect of every grain, there­fore there are few of these so exact, but ei­ther exceed, or want, in the very mint, one [Page 104] or two graines, and sometimes more.

• * C. CAES. COS. III. Eng: grains. CXXIII7/12
  • * A second, on the reverse. A. HIR­TIVS. PR CXXII¼
  • * A third CXXIV¼
• AVGVSTVS. CAESAR. III. VIR CXIX½
  • A second, on the reverse, OB CI­VES SERVATOS CXIX⅕
  • * A third, on the reverse, DIVOS. AVG. DIVI. F CXIX
• TIBERIVS CXVIII¼
  • * A second
    • On the forepart TI. CAESAR. DIVI. AVG. F. AVGV­STVS CXVII½
    • On the reverse, a tēple
• CALIGVLA. CLAVDIVS, on the reverse, S. P. Q. R. OB. CIVES. SERVATOS CXVII
  • A second CXVII½
  • A third CXVIII½
• * NERO, on the reverse, SALVS CXVI
  • * A second, on the reverse, JVPPI­TER. CVSTOS CXIII½
  • * A third, on the reverse, CON­CORDIA. AVGVSTA CXIII
• GALBA, on the reverse, CONCOR­DIA. PROVINCIARVM CXV
• [Page 105] OTHO, on the reverse, SECVRITAS S. P. Q. R. CVIII¼
• VITELLIVS, on the reverse, LIBER­TAS. RESTITVTA CXII 1/ [...]
• VESPASIANVS, on the reverse, PACI AVGVSTI CXI
  • * A second, on the reverse, COS. III TR. POT. CXIV¼
  • A third, on the reverse, PONT. MAX. TR. P. COS. VI CXI
  • * A fourth, on the reverse, PACI. AVGVSTI CVIII¾
  • A fifth, on the reverse, PACI. AVGVSTI CX
• * T. VESPASIANVS, on the reverse, ANNONA. AVG CIX¼
• * DOMITIANVS. COS. II. CXIII
  • * A second, DOMITIANVS. COS. VI. CAESAR. AUG. F. on the reverse, IVVENTVTIS. PRINCEPS CXII¼

These aurei were selected by me, out of seve­rall others, as the fairest and intirest; and amongst these to such as I have prefixed an asterisc, they are such as seemed so perfect, that I could make no just objections against them. By these it appears thatPlin. l. 33. c. 3. Pliny, speaking of the gold coins, rightly informs us. Paulatím (que) Principes imminu­ere pondus, imminuisse vero ad XLVIII. That by degrees the Emperors lessened the weight [of the aurei] to the forty eighth part of the Roman pound; that is, to the fourth part of the ounce. For this [Page 106] is the lowest weight, that I find, till Heliogabalus time, who coined new sorts of aurei, different from what had been the constant practise of the Romane State: some of which vvere the fiftieth part of the libra Romana, and others a­gain so massy, that they were centeni, or bilibres; which not long after were altered, and abolish­ed, by Alexander Severus. The manner is ex­pressed byLampridius in Alex: Severo. Aelius Lampridius, in the life of A­lex: Severus. Formas binarias, ternarias, & qua­ternarias, & denarias etiam, atque amplius, usque ad bilibres quoque, & centenas, quas Heliogabalus invenerat, resolvi praecepit, nec in usu cujusquam versari: atque ex eo his materiae nomen inditum est, cùm diceret plus largiendi hanc esse Imperato­ri causam, si cum multos solidos minores dare posset, dans decem vel amplius unâ formâ, triginta, & quinquaginta, & centum dare cogeretur. Un­der the same Alex: Severus began the semisses aureorum, and tremisses to be coined, which had not formerly been in use. The semisses were an­swerable in weight to the denarii Caesarei, when they were least, that is, ninety six in the Romane pound; though Agricola, Villalpandus, and o­thers, upon a mistake, equall them then to the drachma Attica. Lampridius in Alex: Severo. Aelius Lampridius writing of Alex: Severus, plainly expresses that in his time they began. Túm (que) primum semisses aureorū formati sunt, tunc etiam, cum ad tertiam partē au­rei vectigal decidisset, tremisses, dicente Alexandro etiam quartarios suturos, quòd minus non posset. Af­terwards, Constantine, Constantius, Iulian, & other succeeding Emperours, lessened the weight of the aurei, whereby there came to be seventy two in [Page 107] the Romane pound, so that each of them weigh­ed the sextula, ot four scrupula. That the aurei of Constantines' time were sixty two in the Ro­mane pound, is most evident out of the Codex Theodosianus, where they are also absolutely called Solidi, without the addition of aurei. Codex Theo­dos. l. 1. de ponderatoribus. L. SIQVIS. C. THEOD. DE PONDERA­TORIBVS, ET AVRI INLATIONE. Siquis solidos appendere voluerit auri cocti, septem soli­dos quaternorum scripulorum, nostris vultibus fi­guratos, adpendat pro singulis unciis. XIV. verò pro duabus, juxta hanc formam omnem summam de­biti inlaturus: eâdem ratione servandâ, etsi ma­teriam quis inferat, ut solidos dedisse videatur. Gui: Panci­rolli thesaur. var. lect. utr. juris. Pancirollus, in his thesaurus variarum lectio­num utriusque juris, reads VI. solidos, instead of VII. and XII. instead of XIV. And that it must necessarily be so, besides that the solidi of Constantine now extant prove as much, may bee collected out of the proportion of weight, vvhich is here assigned by Constantine himself to the solidi, and that is four scruples, or the sextula. For the solidus containing four scru­ples, and the ounce containing twenty four scruples, there will therefore be sixe solidi in the ounce; againe, the pound consisting of twelve ounces, and the ounce of sixe solidi, the whole pound therefore will consist of seventy two solidi. These aurei by Iustinian in like manner are termed solidi. L. QVOTIESCVNOV E. C. DE SVSCEPTORIBVS, PRAEPOSITIS, ET ARCARIIS. Where he also defines the same weight.Cod. lib. 10. tit. 70. in rescripto Valentiniani & Valentis Impp. Quotiescunque certa summa solidorum pro tituli qualitate debetur, & auri massa trans­mittitur, [Page 108] This excel­lent place very hardly escaped Haloanders' e­mendation, who had a great minde to have played the Critick, and to have altered it. For he thus writes. In ve­tusto codice in rasam membra­nam haec ita re­posita sunt, ut certum sit alte­ram, & furtasse genuinam le­ctionem subla­tam, & legen­dum, duode­quinquaginta, aut certe quin­quaginta. A goodly conse­quence, because the parchment was scraped, & the first writing altered, there­fore the true reading must be expunged and a fal [...]e one put in: whereas he might with more candor, and ingenuity, have concluded the contrary, that the false one was expunged by the scribe, and the true one inserted. For who uses in copying of MSS. to scrape any thing out of the apographum, but onely when by collating it he findes it to be different from the Originall? in LXXII. solidos libra feratur accep­ta. The same thing is implicitly confirmed by Isidorus (l. 16. Orig. c. 24.) Solidus alio nomine sextula dicitur, quod iis sex uncia compleatur. Hunc ut diximus, vulgus aureum solidum vocat, cujus tertiam partem ideo dixerunt tremissem, quod solidum faciat termissus. WhereAgricola l. 2. de pond. & temperat. mo­netarum. Agricola, I i­magine, truly findes fault with him for calling the solidus, sextula; though the proportion he assigns is right, that is, that the solidus was the sixth part of the Romane ounce, and contained [...], the weight of the sextula; as it is atte­sted byZonar. l. 3. Zonaras: or, which is all one, that se­venty two solidi were made out of a Romane pound, as Iustinian before expresly assigned: and as infinite store of the solidi, or aurei, from Con­stantine to Focas, which I have weighed, mani­festly prove.

In the same place ofIsidorus l. 16. Orig. c. 24. Isidorus we may col­lect the reason, why the aureus was called so­lidus. After that, the semisses, and tremisses aurei were coined, the aureus was called soli­dus, because nothing was wanting to it. So­lidum enim Antiqui integrum dicebant, & totum: In which sense the solidus was also taken for the libra, or assis; that is, as the assis is taken for the whole, according to that usuall phrase of Civi­lians [Page 109] ex asse haeres, when one is heir to the whole inheritance: so the solidus was taken for the whole assis. Vol. Metia­nus de assis di­strib. Volusius Metianus. Prima divi­sio solidi, id est librae quod as vocatur, in duas partes dimidias deducitur. From hence (saith Hinc & soli­dum aureum dixere Romani, ubi idem pondus habere coepit in auro, quod so­lidus, id est, as haberet in aere, duarum nempe drachmarum. Salmas. de modo Vsur. Salmasius) the Romanes called that the solidus au­reus, when it had the same weight in gold, which the solidus, that is, the assis had in respect of brasse, that is, two drachmes. Though I rather suppose that the aureus was called solidus, first of all in Se­verus' time, not for containing two denarii in weight, (which Salmasius cals drachmes) for so it alwaies did under the later Consuls, and first Emperours, but because the aureus was then first d [...]vided into two parts, that is, into the semisses, and tremisses, and so relatively to these the whole aureus was rightly called solidus. Of the same opinion isAgricola l. 2. de pond. & temp. monetarū. Agricola. Quos aureos, cùm re­spectum ad semisses & tremisses haberent, tunc primò dixerunt solidos, quòd semisses ex dimidiâ eorum parte, tremisses ex tertia constarent.

The semisses, and tremisses, of the other Em­perours, at some distance after Severus, came to be lesse in the same proportion, as the aurei were lessened. For the aurei of Severus were double to the denarii Caesarei, and therefore but forty eight in the pound, and not fifty as Helio­gabalus made, whose errour Severus corrected. But when the later Emperours made seventy two aurei out of the Romane pound, the semisses came also to be diminished, and were half of these new aurei, and not of the former, and the tremisses the third part. And here the aurei lost that proportion, which they kept before of be­ing [Page 110] double to the denarii. Of these tremisses is Justinian to be understood, L. FORTISS. MI­LITIBVS. COD. DE MILIT ARI VESTE Fortissimis militibus nostris per Illyricum non bi­nos tremisses pro singulis clamydibus, sed singulos solidos dari praecipimus. And this may be farther proved by a fairI have since perused ano­ther tremissis in gold, a very fair one, with this inscription D.N. JUSTI­NUS. PF. AUG. weigh­ing twenty two grains and bet­ter; which for­merly belon­ged to the lear­ned Geogra­pher Ortelius. Besides a third, of Majorianus with CONOB superscribed (which signi­fies Constanti­nopolitanum ob­rizum or Con­stantinopoli ob­signatū) weigh­ing likewise twenty two grains. And a fourth, of Iusti­nian, weighing twenty three. tremissis in gold of mine own of Iustinian, with the inscription D.N. JU­STINIANUS, weighing twenty one grains Eng­lish, and therefore wanting onely three grains ⅓, which it may have lost by time: otherwise it would be exactly the 216^th part of the Ro­mane pound, that is, the third part of the aure­us, or solidus of those times: whereas if it had been coined to the proportion of the aureus, when there were forty eight in the pound, it should have weighed 36 grains ½, so that it must have lost 15 ½, a difference so great, in a peece of gold so fair, and withall of so small a quanti­ty, altogether improbable. And therefore this coin alone, if no more were extant, would confute their opinion, who maintain, that the tremissis of Justinian differed not from the tre­missis of Severus, and consequently the aurei of them both, better then the reasons produced by Covarruvias tom. 1. c. 3. paragr. 1. & 2. de vet. aureis, & argenteis numis. Covarruvias to the contrary have done.

[Page 111]

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

The denarii under the Caesars were almost as various, and unconstant, as the aurei, sometimes more, sometimes lesse; and if they had not been so, they could not have kept that proportion to the aurei of the former Emperours, which we assigned. From Augustus time to Vespa­sian, as I finde by examining many of them, they continually almost decreased, till from being the seventh part of the Roman ounce, they came now to be the eighth part: and therefore ninety sixe were coined out of the Romane libra, whereas before under the Consuls eighty four. From Ve­spasian to Alex: Severus, as far as I have obser­ved, [Page 114] the silver continued at a kinde of stay in re­spect of weight, excepting onely such coins, as upon some extraordinary occasion, both then, and in the first Emperours time, were stamped, either in honour of the Prince, or of the Em­presse, and Augusta familia, or else in memory of some eminent action. These last, most usu­ally were equall to the denarii Consulares, and many of them had these characters EX. S. C or else S. P. Q. R Under Severus, and Gordianus, the denarii began to recover their primitive weight, and came to be equall to the denarii Consulares, the half of which also were exactly the Quina­rii: and so continued during the succeeding Em­perours till Iustinian, with litle diminution, but most commonly with a notable abasement, and mixture of allay. After Justinian, there happe­ned such a deluge of barbarous Nations, which overflowed the greatest part of Europe, that not only the coins, but even the liberall arts, and sciences, began with the majesty of the Empire to decline from their first lustre, and perfection.

Wherefore I shall not speak of the [...], or [...], a sort of silver coin in use, be­fore, and after Iustinian, which some collect out of Cedrenus to have been the eighth part of the ounce,Cedrenus in hi­stor. compend. and therefore equall to the denarius, in the lowest valuation; thoughSuidas in vo­ce [...]. Suidas renders [...], and the Scho­liastes Basilic. Eclog. 23. [...], and to con­tain twenty four [...]. But I shall not posi­tively determine, either the weight of this, or of the [...], or siliqua in silver, both coi­ned when the Emperiall seat was translated [Page 115] to Byzantium, unlesse I had examined some of the fairest of them. And for the same reason I shalll not define the Hebrew denarius, mentio­ned by Elias in Thisbite, in the word [...], & by p. 72. Col. 4. Moses Gerundensis upon Exodus, and by the Chaldy Paraphrase, 2 Reg. 5. 5. which I imagine to have been no other then the Romane denari­us, used by the Jews: neither shall I determine the Arabian [...] dinar, and [...] derham: the former of which the Rabbins call [...], used by Rhasis, Avicen, Mesue, and by severall other Arabians, both Physicians, and Historians. All that can certainly be concluded is this, that by the [...] dinar, when wee speak of a coin, is meant sometime the denari­us, and sometime the aureus: but when we speak of a weight, alwaies the aureus is understood: [...]s by the [...] derham, the [...], or silver [...]ram. But surely the quality of the thing is different from the name: the silver drachme of the Arabians, as it is generally now used in the Mahometane dominions in the East, consisting [...]f XLVII. 41/52. grains English, (as I have found by [...]eighing many of them) which is much lesse then [...]ther the Drachma Attica, or the denarius Consu­ [...]ris: & somewhat lesse then the Denarius Caesare­ [...]. And yet it is not improbable, but that this [...]ay have continued with thē, without any dimi­ [...]tion, for sixe, or seven hundred years to our [...]mes: as well as the Romane pound, and ounce, [...]ave continued intire sixteen hundred years, and [Page 116] better. But to omit any farther prosecutiō of the [...] of the Arabians, which may here­after more fully be discussed, when we shall han­dle their measures, and weights, and to goe on with our discourse of the Romane denarius. After the breaking in of so many barbarous Nati­ons, as of a torrent, into the Romane Empire, the denarius began generally to be disused, every one almost of these, as an argument of their So­veraignty, and conquests, making new coins of their own: or else such as continued the former, either by allaies so abased the finenesse, and va­luation of the coins, or by severall diminution [...] so impaired the weight, that the denarius totally fell, and at last almost vanished into nothing▪ Neither will this seem strange, if we shall consi­der that the like alteration, in respect of weight hath happened, by the revolution of a lesse time, in our own coins. I shall instance in our denari­us, or penny, which in Ethelreds time, that is, a litle more then DC. years since, was the twenti­eth part of the Troy, or silver ounce: asLambar [...]i Gl [...]ss [...]rium [...] 1644 M [...] Lambard in his Saxon Glossary observes, and a [...] by experience I have found (and the same pro­portion was anciently observed by theIn appendice libri de limit. agrorum: luxta Gallos vigesi­ma pars unciae denarius est, & 12 denarii soli­dum reddunt. French in their denier). This proportion continued suc­cessively to Ed [...]: the first, in whose time we find the weight of the denarius byStat. 31. E­dov. 1. Statute to be thu [...] defined. Per ordinationes totius regni Angliae de­narius Angliae, qui vocatur Sterlingus, rotundus sine tonsur à, ponder abit 32 grana frumenti in me­dio spicae, & 20 denarii faciunt unciā, & 12 unci [...] faciunt libram. UnderStat. 9. Ed. 3. Edward the third it cam [...] [Page 117] first to be diminished to the twenty sixth part of the Troy ounce: and underStat. 2. Hen. 6. Henry the sixth it fell to be the two and thirtieth. InStat. 5. Ed. 4. Edward the fourths time it came to be the fortieth. Un­derStat. 36. H. 8. Henry the eighth at first it was the forti­eth, then the forty fifth. Afterward sixty pence were coined out of the ounce in the second year ofStat. 2. El: Queen Elizabeth; and during her reign sixty two: which proportion is observed in these times. So that it is evident that Ethelreds' penny was bigger then three of ours. And after times may see this of ours, as well as the Romane Denarius, to be quite diminished, and brought to nothing. For if either our own exigencies, or the exigencies of forain States, with whom we have commerce, cause us, or them (as occasions will never be wanting) to alter the proportions of the gold, and silver coins, either in respect of weight, or in respect of purity, or lastly, in respect of the valuation, the gold bears to sil­ver; by all, or some of these causes, there will inevitably happen such a diminution of the pen­ny (and proportionably of our other coins) that at length it will not be worth the coining. But I leave this speculation to such, whom it doth more neerly concern. And certainly it is a con­sideration not of the least importance; mony being as the sinews, and strength of a State, so the life, and soul of commerce: and if those ad­vantages, which one Country may make upon a­nother, in the mystery of exchanges, and valua­tion of coins, be not throughly discovered, and prevented, by such as [...]it at the helm of the State, it may fare with them after much com­merce, [Page 118] as with some bodies after much food, that instead of growing full, and fat, they may pine away, & fall into an irrecoverable consumption. But I return to the Romane denarius, which vve have brought so low, that there is nothing now left of it, but only the name: and that also suffe­red anIn the same manner the solidus, or au­reus, as it lost its valuation, so suffered an alteration in the Greek name. For in­stead of [...] we finde the Glosses to render it [...]. Glossae. [...] soli­du [...]: and in the same Glosses we read [...] interpreted Biniones, and [...]. alteration. For the later Greeks instead of the [...] called it the [...]: and both Greeks, and Latines, and sometimes the Arabi­ans, took it not in the same sense, as it passed for in the first institution, that is, for a silver coin, worth in valuation ten, or sixteen asses, but for any sort of coin whatsoever. And therefore Meursii Glos­sarium Graeco-Barbar: in voce [...]. Meursius' observation, in his Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum, is worth our consideration. Postea [...] dixerunt aevo corruptiore, & generaliter pro quâvis pecuniâ. Sicut Itali denaro. Galli Denier, Hispani Dinero. Anonymus de bello sacro.

Whence the learned Scalig de re numm. Jos. Scaliger rightly ob­serves, that, ultimis temporibus denarii pro exigua stipe usurpati sunt, ut hodie in Gallia. Imperator Aurelianus: Philippeos minutulos quinquagenos, aeris denarios centum. Eos Vopiscus in Bonoso se­stertios aeris vocat. Macrobius de nummo ratito lo­que [...]s, qui erat sr [...]us: Ita fuisse signatum hodie­que intelligitur in alcae lusu, cùm pueri denarios in sublime [...]actantes, capita, aut navia lusu teste v [...]t [...]st [...]tis [...]amant. In Evangelio secundum [...] 12. [...]. Hilarius [...] inopis Deo acceptiores. Luc. [Page 119] 10. [...], Ambrosius, duo aer [...] ▪ Ve­tustissimus est igitur denarii usus [...], vel stipe. Thus far Scaliger.

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

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

• [Page 120]Eng: grains.
• SUch parts, or grains, of the Eng­lish Standard for gold, and sil­ver (or of the Troy weight) as the denarius Consularis contain­eth 62, according to the weight of the best coins, or according to the weight of the Congius of Vespasian 62 [...]
• The ancient, and modern Romane ounce containeth 438
• The ancient, and modern Romane pound, consisting of twelve ounces, containeth 5256
• The Troy pound, or English Stan­dard of gold & silver; consisting of twelve ounces, containeth 5760
• The Troy, or English ounce, (to which five shillings two pence of our mony in these times are equall) containeth 480
• The Paris pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of XVI ounces 7560
• The Paris ounce 4721/ [...]
• The Spanish pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of sixteen ounces, taken by me at Gibraltar 7090
• Another weighed by me at Gibral­tar 7085
• [Page 121] The Spanish pound in Villalpandus, is (I know not by what errour) but 7035
• The Spanish ounce at Gibraltar (the pound consisting of 7090. grai. English) 4431/ [...]
• The Venetian pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of XII. oun. 5528
• The Venetian ounce 460▪ [...]
• The Neapolitane pound, or Stan­dard for gold & silver, of twelve ounces 4950
• The Neapolitane ounce 4121/ [...]
• The pound, or Standard for gold and silver, of twelve ounces, at Florence, Pisa, and Ligorn 5286
• The ounce at Florence, Pisa, and Ligorn 440½
• The pound, or standard, at Siena, for gold & silver of twelve oun. 5178
• The ounce at Siena 431½
• The ounce at Genoa, for gold and silver 405 [...]
• The Turkish Okeh, or Oke, at Con­stantinople, consisting of four hundred silver drams [...]9128
• The silver dram generally used in the great Turks' dominions: as also in Persia, and in the Moguls' Countries, if I be not misinformed 47 [...]
• The Turkish sultani, or Aegyptian sherif, being a gold coin, with w^ch the Barbary & Venetian chequeen, and Norimberg ducat, within a grain more, or lesse, agree. 53½
• [Page 122] The Ratel, or Rotulo, for gold and silver of 144. drams, at Cairo 6886 [...]
• The Ratel, or Rotulo, for silk of 720 drams, at Damascus (with which I suppose they there formerly weighed their gold and silver; because most Countries use the same weights for silks, gold, and silver) 34430⅖

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

IT was my intention from the Pes Rom. and de­narius, together with the Congius of Vespasian, to have deduced the other weights, and measures, [...]sed by the Romanes; and from those of the Ro­manes, by such testimonies, as are upon record in the writings of the Ancients, to have inferred those of the Hebrews, Babylonians, Egyptians, Grecians, and of other Nations. A work I confesse intricate, and full of difficulties: wherein I could expect neither to give my self, nor others satis­faction, without first laying some sure, and solid principles for the basis, and foundation. Therefore that occasioned me to insist the more largely in the prosecution of the pes Rom. and denarius, and to examine all the waies, I could possibly ima­gine, for the evident proof, and confirmation of them. What in this kind I have done, and with how much truth, and diligence, I leave to the im­partiall test of after times, the rest at more lei­sure may be perfected. Yet these following ob­servations, as a coronis to the whole work, I thought would not be unacceptable, if by way of anticipation I communicated them to the world: and those are how the Originals, and Standards, of weights, and measures, notwith­standing the revolutions, and vicissitudes of Empires, may be perpetuated to posterity. A­mongst [Page 124] severall waies, which I have thought of, I know none more certain, and unquestiona­ble, then to compare them with some remar­kable, and lasting monuments, in remote Countries, that have stood unimpaired for many hundred years, and are like to conti­nue as many more. In which kinde I made choice of the first, and most easterly of the three great Pyramids in Egypt; of the basis of that ad­mirable Corinthian pillar, erected (as I suppose) by one of the Ptolemies, a quarter of a mile di­stant to the South from Alexandria, being one vast, and entire marble stone: Of the rock at Tarra­cina, or Anxur, where it adjoins to the via Ap­pia, and almost touches the Tyrrhene sea: Of the gate, or entrance into the Pantheon, or Temple of Agrippa, dedicated by him to all the gods, and by the Christians to all Saints. Of the Porta san­cta, in that new, and exquisite structure of Saint Peters Church in Rome. If the like had been at­tempted by some of the ancient Mathematici­ans, our times would have been freed from much uncertainty, in discovering the weights, and measures of the Greeks, and Latines.

The first, and most Easterly of the three great Pyramids in Aegypt, hath on the North side a square descent, when you are entred a litle past the mouth of it, there is a joint, or line, made by the meeting of two smooth, and po­lished stones over your head, which are paral­lel [Page 125] to those under your feet, the breadth at that joint, or line, is 3 feet and [...] of the English foot.

Within the Pyramid, and about the midst of it, there is a fair room, or chamber, the top of which is flat, and covered with 9 massy stones: in it, there stands a hollow tombe of one entire marble stone: the length of the South side of this room at the joint, or line, where the first, and second rowes of stone meet, is 34 feet [...]

The breadth of the west side of the same room at the joint, or line, where the first, and second row of stones meet, is 17 feet 190/ [...]

The hollow, or inner part, of the marble tomb neer the top, on the west side of it, is in length 6 feet 488/1 [...].

The hollow, or inner part, of the marble tomb, neer the top of it, on the north side, is in breadth a feet 218/ [...].

[Page 126] The basis of the vast Co­rinthian pillar, about a quar­ter of a mile from Alexan­dria to the South, on the West side of the pillar at a b, is in breadth 12 feet 539/1000. at [...]d it is 14 feet 417/1000.

The rock at Tarracina, or Anxur, neer the via Appia, close by the Tyrrhene sea, hath these figures, besides severall others in the same perpendicular, very deeply ingraven.

The uppermost line b c, over the figures CXX, in the innermost, and deepest part of the ingraving, is in length 4 English feet, and [...]

The lowermost line d a, in the innermost, and dee­pest part of the ingraving, is in length 4 feet 692/1000

[Page 127] The stately gate, or entrance, into the Panthe­on, or Temple built by Agrippa in Rome, the jambes, and top, and bottome of it, being all of one intire marble stone, is in breadth between the jambes, or sides, some three inches above the bottome, and some nine inches within, nineteen feet 6 [...]2/1000

The Porta sancta, on the right hand of the frontispice of Saint Peters Church in Rome, is in breadth on the pavement, or threshold, be­tween the jambes, or sides of the entrance, ele­ven feet 928/1000

The great gate, or entrance, which is the middlemost of the five in the frontispice of Saint Peters Church in Rome, the doors of which are covered with leaves of brasse, with very fair and exquisite figures, is in breadth on the pavement, or threshold, between the jambes, or sides of it, eleven feet 948/1000

The measures being fixed, we may likewise fixe the weights in this manner; by making a vessell of a cubicall figure, answerable to the pro­portion of any one of these feet, or palms, or braces, which are described in the Table at the end of the first Treatise. This cubicall vessell being filled with c [...]eer fountain water, we are to weigh it with an exact balance, and to ex­presse, the weight of it by some one of those weights, which we have placed in a Table at the end of the second Treatise. The side of this cube being known, and the weight of it in wa­ter defined, the rest of the weights in the second Table, by way of consequence by those propor­tions, which we have assigned, may be discove­red. [Page 128] Thus for example: the Romane foot de­scribed by Villalpandus is nine hundred eighty sixe parts, such as the English foot contains a thousand: this being cubed (saith he) weighs of fountain water eighty Romane pounds. If therefore there be given nine hundred eighty sixe parts of a thousand of the English foot, the cube of this will give us eighty Romane pounds in fountain water: and consequently the other weights will be discovered by those proporti­ons, we have assigned to them, in respect of the Romane pound. Again, eighty Romane pounds of water being given, if we reduce this into a cu­bicall body, the side of it will give the Romane foot described by Villalpandus: and consequent­ly the other measures may be deduced, by those proportions we have given them in a peculiar Table. Whereby it appears, that as by measures weights may be preserved, so on the contrary by weights measures may be restored.

IN comparing the valuations, either of an­cient coins with modern, or of modern one with another, we are to consider: first, the intrinseck of them, and then the extrinseck. The intrinseck is either the finenesse of the coin in re­spect of metall, or the gravity in respect of weight. The extrinseck I term first, the character imprinted on the coin: and secondly, the valua­tion injoined by the Prince, or State: by which character, and valuation, what originally, and materially, was but common metall, or plate, comes now legally, and formally, to be cur­rant mony. With these limitations, if we shall compare ancient coins with modern, and mo­dern one with another, it will be no difficult matter to proportion out their severall respe­ctive valuations; and withall to reconcile the seeming repugnancies, either of ancient coins, now found, differing from the traditions of an­cient Authors: or the traditions of ancient Au­thors differing amongst themselves.

I shall first give an instance of modern coins compared with modern, in our English mony compared with that of Spain, as being most fa­miliar [Page 130] to us: the application of which will by analogy serve for all other distinct States, and times, using distinct coins.

In comparing therefore English mony with Spanish mony in England, or Spanish mony with English in Spain, we are thus to proceed: First, we are to examine whither they be of a like fine­nesse, for the intrinseck; if they be, then an ounce of English mony, and an ounce of Spa­nish (supposing the weight of the ounce to be alike) will bee of like value in any other Country out of England, and Spain; where neither are currant, but onely considered as so much metall, or plate. Secondly, we are to consider the extrinseck, that is, the form, and stamp of the coin, with the valuation of it by the injunction of the Prince of either State; and here that which before was equall, comes now to be unequall. For an ounce of English mony in England comes to be more worth, then an ounce of Spanish mony in England: because this wants the character, stamp, and valua­tion of our Princes, whereby it is currant and for the same reason will an ounce of Eng­lish mony be lesse in valuation, then an ounce of Spanish mony in Spain, supposing (as I said) the ounce in both Countries to be exactly one and the same.

The same analogy will be, if we compare an­cient coins, as those of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romanes, with our modern coins. We are first, to consider the intrinseck of them, whither they be of a like weight, and finenesse for the metall, with ours: and this is the naturall, or [Page 131] physicall consideration. From whence we may conclude, that if, for example, so many Attick tetradrachmes doe equall in purenesse, and weight, so many of our English shillings, new­ly brought from the mint, or so many of our Troy, or silver ounces, taken from the Stan­dard, then are they to be balanced with these in the acception of them as plate; and a silver­smith, abstracting from the extrinseck, that were to melt them both, would give a like va­lue for them both. But if we secondly, look upon them with the image, and character of the State, and in the notion of mony, which is the politick consideration, then that which be­fore in the trutinâ, and scale, was equall, in the foro, and in commerce, comes to be une­quall: and an ounce of English mony shall passe for more, then an ounce in Attick tetra­drachmes, with reference to the expenses of the mint, and to the civill valuation, depending upon a mandate, or law, inacted by the Prince.

In like manner will it be, if we compare an­cient coins with ancient, made in different States, as it is in comparing ancient with mo­dern.

Upon these grounds of reason it will follow, that whereas the Romane Authours make the denarius Consularis to be equall to the drachma Attica, and the Greeks equall the drachma At­tica to the denarius Consularis, that both say true; and yet both of them, if we speak strictly, and exactly, may be deceived. For the denari­us Consularis examined by the balance, which is the best judge of the intrinseck. (I speak of the [Page 132] intrinseck in respect of weight, and not of the intrinseck in respect of finenesse, that being best discovered by the scale, and this by the test: which last for the more cleernesse of my dis­course, I suppose in all these coins to be alike). I say the Denarius Consularis is found by me, contrary to the opinion of all modern vvri­ters, to be lighter, then the drachma Attica: and therefore, to speak strictly, and precisely cannot be equall to it in the intrinseck. But a­gain, if we look upon the extrinseck of the drachma Attica, and denarius Consularis, that having the stamp of Athens, and this of Rome▪ here reason must be our balance, and not the trutina. For the Athenian coin being a fo [...]rainer, and not currant in Italy, in the way o [...] exchange, and commerce, will loose of its primi­tive valuation it had at Athens, and for wan [...] of the extrinseck of the Romane stamp, neces­sarily rebate in the intrinseck. And therefor [...] both Greeks, and Romanes, vvriting in Italy might truly say, that the denarius Consularis and drachma Attica, were equall, that is, speak [...]ing in civill commerce, and popular estimation: al [...]though they were unequall in the intrinseck, and naturall valuation.

But if we shall change the scene, and carry the denarius Consularis to Athens, the ca [...] will quite be altered. For the denarius being stranger, and the drachma Attica a denizon, tha [...] cannot have the same priviledges with this. An [...] therefore the extrinseck of the denarius bein [...] there of no use, and the intrinseck in respect o [...] weight falling short of the drachma, it must ne­cessarily [Page 133] be much lesse in valuation at Athens, then the drachma: and I think no advised A­thenian, writing in Attica, would make them equall, I am certain no nummularius would.

The same may be said of the Hebrew shekel, and Attick tetradrachme, and of all other coins, of distinct States, mentioned in classicall Au­thors. Thus Philo, and Josephus, in Judaea, both truly equall the shekel to the Attick tetradrach­me, that is, in way of commerce; though the shekel be unequall, and lesse then the tetradrachme (as I have found by examining many of them) in a just notion of weight. The reason is evident by vvhat hath been expressed before. For in Ju­daea the extrinseck makes amends, for what the shekel wants in the intrinseck; and on the contrary, what the tetradrachme exceeds in the intrinseck, is diminished for want of the ex­trinseck, till at length in a popular estimation they come to be equall. But the quite contra­ry would happen, in the transportation of she­kel from Jerusalem to Athens. Here the she­kel would necessarily fall from its primitive va­luation, and the tetradrachme, being conside­red now no longer as a forainer, would reco­ver what it lost in Judaea, and consequently rise above the Hebrew shekel: as having a dou­ble advantage in the extrinseck, from the State, and in the intrinseck from its weight.

But what need we to goe so far for examples, when as we instanced before, wee have them neerer home? The Spanish quarters of the do­lar, or double rials, passe ordinarily in our [Page 134] Sea towns but for shillings, (whereas they are worth in the intrinseck thirteen pence farthing) and our shillings passe in Spain scarce for a ri­all and an half. For theirs wanting in Eng­land our extrinseck, and ours in Spain wanting their extrinseck, must respectively rise, and fall in their valuation.