APPENDIX C

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

As stated in the preface, the nomenclature to be adopted for weights and measureshas presented great difficulty. Agricola uses, throughout, the Roman and the RomanizedGreek scales, but in many cases he uses these terms merely as lingual equivalents for theGerman quantities of his day. Moreover the classic language sometimes failed him, where-upon he coined new Latin terms adapted from the Roman scale, and thus added furtherconfusion. We can, perhaps, make the matter clearer by an illustration of a case in weights.The Roman centumpondium, composed of ioo librae, the old German centner of ioo pfundt,and the English hundredweight of 112 pounds can be called lingual equivalents. The firstweighs about 494,600 Troy grains, the second 721,900, and the third 784,000. While thedivisions of the centumpondium and the centner are the same, the libra is divided into 12 unciaeand the pfundt into 16 untzen, and in most places a summation of the units given proves thatthe author had in mind the Roman ratios. However, on p. 509 he makes the direct statementthat the centumpondium weighs 146 librae, which would be about the correct weight if thecentumpondium referred to was a centner. If we take an example such as “ each centum-pondium of lead contains one uncia of silver”, and reduce it according to purely lingual equiva-lents, we should find that it runs 24.3 Troy ounces per short ton, on the basis of Romanvalues, and 18‘25 ounces per short ton, on the basis of old German. If we were to trans-late these into English lingual equivalents of one ounce per hundredweight, then the valuewould be 17.9 ounces per short ton.

Several possibilities were open in translation : first, to calculate the values accur-ately in the English units ; second, to adopt the nearest English lingual equivalent; third,to introduce the German scale of the period; or, fourth, to leave the original Latin in thetext. The first would lead to an indefinite number of decimals and to constant doubt as towhether the values, upon which calculations were to be based, were Roman or German. Thesecond, that is the substitution of lingual equivalents, is objectionable, not only becauseit would indicate values not meant by the author, but also because we should have, likeAgricola, to coin new terms to accommodate the lapses in the scales, or again to use decimals.In the third case, that is in the use of the old German scale, while it would be easier to adaptthan the English, it would be more unfamiliar to most readers than the Latin, and not soexpressive in print, and further, in some cases would present the same difficulties of cal-culation as in using the English scale. Nor does the contemporary German translation of DeRe Metallica prove of help, for its translator adopted only lingual equivalents, and in conse-quence the summation of his weights often gives incorrect results. From all these possibilitieswe have chosen the fourth, that is simply to reproduce the Latin terms for both weights andmeasures. We have introduced into the footnotes such reductions to the English scale as weconsidered would interest readers. We have, however, digressed from the rule in two cases,in the adoption of “ foot ” for the Latin pes, and “ fathom ” for passus. Apart from the factthat these were not cases where accuracy is involved, Agricola himself explains (p. 77)that he means the German values for these particular terms, which, fortunately, fairly closelyapproximate to the English. Further, we have adopted the Anglicized words “digit”,"palm”, and “cubit”, instead of their Latin forms.

For purposes of reference, we reproduce the principal Roman and old German scales,in so far as they are used by Agricola in this work, with their values in English. AH studentsof weights and measures will realize that these values are but approximate, and that this isnot an occasion to enter upon a discussion of the variations in different periods or by differentauthorities. Agricola himself is the author of one of the standard works on Ancient Weightsand Measures (see Appendix A), and further gives fairly complete information on contem-porary scales of weight and fineness for precious metals in Book vn. p. 262 etc., to whichwe refer readers.

ROMAN SCALES OF WEIGHTS.

Troy Grains.

Siliqua

&

« «

2.87

Siliquae

cs

I

Scripulum

17.2

Scripula

=

I

Sextula

68.7

Sextulae

8=S

I

Uncia

412.2

Unciae

=

I

Libra

4946.4

Librae

=

I

Centumpondium ..Also

494640.0

Scripidum

. ,

17.2

Scripula

=

I

Drachma

5 i -5

Drachmae

sc

I

Sicilicus

103.0

Sicilici

cs

I

Uncia

412.2

Unciae

-

I

Bes ..

3297.6