Punic variant of the } bath or saton of Phoenicia. One close datum,

if trustworthy, would be log of water = Assyrian mina . -. bath about 2200 cub. in. The rabbinical statement of cub. cubit of 21 -5 holding 320 logs puts the bath at about 2250 cub. in.; their log-measure, holding six hen's eggs, shows it to be over rather than under this amount; but their reckoning of bath = § cubit cubed is but approximate: by 21-5 it is 1240, by 25-1 it is 1990 cubic in. The earliest Hebrew system was — flog, 4=kab) 3—bin, 6 > (bath, or), < '>"TMfr —"rt.

• issar6a

10J epha) (otkot —dry. 3JXub. in. 128 J30 283 jjoo 23,000 "Issaron ( tenth-deal "} is also called gomer. The log and kab are not found till the later writings, but the ratio of hin to 'issaron is practically fixed in early times by the proportions in Num. xv . 4 -9 . tpiphanius stating great hin= 18 xeste3, and holy hin = 9, must refer to Syrian xestes, equal to 24 and 12 Roman; this makes holy hin as above, and great liin a double hin, i.e . seah or saton. His other statements of saton =56 or 50 sextaria remain unexplained, unless this be an error for bath =560r 50 Syr. sext. and .-. =2290 or 2560 cub. in. The wholesale theory of Revillout (35) that all Hebrew and Syrian measures were doubled by the Ptolemaic revision, while retaining the same names, rests entirely on the resemblance of the names apet and epha, and of log to the Coptic and late measure lok. But there are other reasons against accepting this, besides the improbability of such a change. The Phoenician and old Carthaginian system was (18) — log. 4=kab, 6«=satoo, 30=corus, 31 cub. in. 13S 740 33,200 valuing them by 31 Sicilian =41 Attic modii (Josephus, above). The old Syrian system was (18) — cotyle. 2 = Syr. xestes, iS=sabitha or salon, iJ=colbthon, 2 = bath-artaba; 31 cub. ID. 41 740 II 10 3220 also Syr. xestes, 4S=niaris, 2=»mclreresor arlaba. 41 1850 3700 The later or Seleucidan system was (18) — cotyle, 2 = Syr. xestes, 90—Syr. metretes, 23 44 4000 the Syrian being 1 1 Roman sextarii. The Babylonian system was very similar (18) — (J, , 4 =capitha, |;5l'°^ epha, 1980 2380 io<=honBer, 6 =achane. 33 cub. in. 132 1980 2380 33.S00 142,800 The approximate value from capitha=2 Attic choenices (Xenophon) warrants us in taking the achane as fixed in the following system, which places it closely in accord with the preceding. In Persia Huitsch states — capetis 48 =artaba, 40 maris

7 74'4 cub. in. 1983 3570 ° > =achanc. the absolute values being fixed by artaba = 5l Attic choenices (Herod, i. 192). The maris of the Pontic system is i of the above, and the Macedonian and Naxian maris r", of the Pontic (18). By the theory of maris = i of 20-6' it is 1755-; by maris = Assyrian talent, 1850, in place of 1850 or 1980 stated above; hence the more likely theory of weight, rather than cubit, connexion is nearer to the facts. Aeginetan System. — This is so called from according with the Aeginetan weight. The absolute data are all dependent on the Attic and Roman systems, as there are no monumental data. The series of names is the same as in the Attic system (18). The values are 1 5 Xthe Attic (Athenaeus, Theophrastus, &c.) (2, 18), or more closely 1 1 to 12 times of Attic. Hence, the Attic cotyle being 17-5 cub. in., the Aeginetan is about 25-7 . The Boeotian system (18) included the achane; if this = Persian, then cotyle = 24-7 . Or, separately through the Roman system, the mnasis of Cyprus (18) = 170 sextarii; then the cotyle = 24-8 . By the theory of the metretes being 15 talents Aeginetan, the cotyle would be 23-3 to 24-7 cub. in. by the actual weights, which have tended to decrease. Probably then 250 is the best approximation. By the theory (18) of 2 metretes = cube of the 18-67 cubit from the 12-45 foot, the cotyle would be about 25-4, within -4; but then such a cubit is unknown among measures, and not likely to be formed, as 12-4 is I of 20-6 . The Aeginetan system then was — cotyle, 4 = chocnix, | ^;^.°^.tVc, eus.

4=meVrete, 'ij =» «iimnu3. 2S cub. in. 100 300 800 3200 4800 This was the system of Sparta, of Boeotia (where the aporryma =4 choenices, the cophinus = 6 choenices, and saites or saton or hectcus = 2 aporrymac, while 30 medimni=achane, evidently Asiatic connexions throughout), and of Cyprus (where 2 chocs = Cyprian niedimnus, of which 5 = medimnus of Salamis, of which 2 = mnasis (18) Attic or Usual Greek System. — ^The absolute value of this system is far from certain. The best data are three stone slabs, each with several standard volumes cut in them (11, 18), and two named vases. The value of the cotyle from the Naxian slab is 15-4 (best, others 14-6 -19-6); from a vase about 166; from the Panidum slab 17-1 (var. 16-2 -18-2); from a Capuan vase 17-8; from the Ganus slab 17-8 (var. 17—18). From these we may take 17-5 as a fair approximation. It is supposed that the Panathenaic vases were intended as metretes; this would show a cotyle of 14-4 -17-1 . The theories of connexion give, for the value of the cotyle, metretes = Aeginetan talent, . - . i5-4-l6-6; metres j of l2-i6 cubed, .• .l6-6; metretes = |J of 12-16 cubed, . • . l6-8; medimnus = 2 Attic talents, hecteus = 20 minae, choenix = 2j minae, . • . 16-75; mctretes = 3 cub. spithami (J cubit =9 -12), .-. 17-5; 6 metretes=2 ft. of 12-45 cubed, . • . 17-8 cub. in. for cotyle. But probably as good theories could be found for any other amount; and certainly the facts should not be set aside, as almost every author has done, m favour of some one of half a dozen theories. The system of multiples was for liquids — cvathus, il=oiybaphon, 4=cotyle, ij^chous, 12— metretes, 29cub.in. 44 175 aio 2520 with the tetarton (8-8), 2=cotyle, 2=xestes (35-), introduced from the Roman system. For dry measure — cyathus, 6=cotyIe, 4=choenix, 8 = hcctcus, 6Bmedinu]us, 29cub.in. 175 70 s6o 3360 with the xestes, and amphoreus (1680) = | medimnus, from the froman system. The various late provincial systems of division are beyond our present scope (18). System of Gythium.—A system differing widely both in units and names from the preceding is found on the standard slab of Gythium in the southern Peloponnesus (Rev. Arch., 1872). Writers have unified it with the Attic, but it is decidedly larger in its unit, givii^ 19-4 (var. I9-H9-8) for the supposed cotyle. Its system is — cotyle, 4=hem)hecton, 4==chous, 58 cub. in. jjj 933 3=f»). 2796 And with this agrees a pottery cylindrical vessel, with official stamp on it (AI1M0210.N, &c.), and having a fine black line traced round the inside, near the top, to show its limit; this seems to be probably very accurate, and contains 585 cub. in., closely agreeing with the cotyle of Gythium. It has been described {Rev. Arch., 1872) as an Attic choenix. Gythium being the southern port of Greece, it seems not too far to connect this 58 cub. in. with the double of the Egyptian hon =58-4, as it is different from every other Greek system. Roman System. — The celebrated Farnesian standard congius of bronze of Vespasian, " mensurae cxactaein Capitolio P. X ., " con- tains 206-7 cub. in. (2), and hence the amphora 1654, By the sextarius of Dresden (2) the amphora is 1695; by the congius of Ste Genevieve (2) 1700 cub. in.; and by the ponderarium measures at Pompeii (33) 1540 to 1840, or about 1620 for a mean. So the Farnesian congius, or about 1650, may best be adopted. The system for liquid was — quartarius,