and many of Afia, and varied according to provincial articu lations. This seems alfo to be the opinion of the great fathers of etymological knowledge quoted by Mr. Clarke, particularly Salmafius, Junius, and Meric Cafaubon. From what we have faid, our readers, perhaps, may not agree with this author in thinking, that Mr. Sheringham advanced a paradox when he said, that in matters of language and erudition the Greeks had borrowed very confiderably from the Goths. We must acknowledge, however, that the truth or falfhood of Sheringham's opinion must in a great measure depend upon a matter of fact; which is, whether many Greek words do not exist among people who never could have the least opportunity of enriching their language from that of Greece; the prefent Irish, for inftance, and the Scotch Highlanders?

Mr. Clarke believes, that the prefumptive evidence arifing from the nature of the Gothic language, is much strengthened and confirmed by the origin of their trade; and on this fubject we think his argumentation is ftrong and conclufive. The Goths were undoubtedly feated on the western side of the Euxine from the most early ages. The evidence of history fays, that the Greeks introduced commerce into their fettlements; and therefore it may be fairly prefumed, gave them weights and measures which are the standards of traffic. We muft refer the reader to the original work for the many curious and inftructive observations which our author has made upon the commercial intercourfe between the Goths and the Greeks. He is of opinion, that the Goths were defcended from the Thracians, and that the Greeks and the Thracians were only different clans of the fame people; and he establishes his opinion from the moft undeniable proofs that antiquity offers.

Mr. Clarke, from his account of the weight and origin of the Saxon pound, draws the following conclufions. • Firft of all; this is the true reason why the Saxon or English pound was called the pound fterling. Their ancestors brought it from the most eastern parts of Europe, the fhores of the Euxine. They called it Libra Efterlingorum, the pound Efterling or Sterling, to distinguish it from the Roman pound; which, to preferve the same distinction, was called Libra Occidua, or

** Sterling and Efterling are undoubtedly the fame word; but not, as has been conjectured, "ex E profthetica Gallorum vocibus litera S incipientibus non raro addita, uti in spiritus, efprit; fcutiger, efcuyer." This addition was very common in the Franco-gallic, but not in the Saxon. The Saxons usually dropt the initial E in words borrowed from other languages;

the Western pound. In the acts of pope Marcellinus it is faid, that he was depofed by the Libra Occidua*, or Western pound; because, at the time these acts were drawn up, the Roman emperors ftruck out of a pound of gold feventy-two + folidi.

as, flave, from efclave; scale, efcailles; flander, esclandre; bishop, epifcopus. What a variety of conjectures hath been offered, to account for the ufe and meaning of the word STERLING? İt has been fuppofed to come from Egypt, Arabia, Italy, ScotJand, and almost every region and country but the right. From the merchants; from the workmen in the mint; from the caftle of that name in Scotland; from the Saracenic Eftar, or Eftaron, a fort of coin; from a far, the usual mark upon Jewish indentures, or bonds; from the Saxon fleore, a rule or ftandard, and even from the bird ftarling: fee Spelman, Somner, Hooper, Lowndes, &c. Gronovius, after reciting most of these conjectures, declares in favour of another, not less improbable than any of the former. "Et tamen non Soli"dorum, fed Sterlingorum hæc libra vocitata, quia verifimile «est, tum illum nummum maxime frequentatum fuiffe.” De pec. vet. p. 158.

• * Hi omnes funt viri electi, I.IBRA OCCIDUA qui teftimo"nium perhibent quoniam in LXX11 folidorum libra oc"cidua in reparationem furgit anņus." Labbè Concil. tom. i. p. 942. Scaliger was very clear in this point : "Occiduam

quidem libram intelligo Romanam, quae diftingueretur ab ea, qua uterentur Conftantinopolitani, qui dicerentur Ori"entales." Scal. de re numm. p. 65. But Gronovius with fome diffidence: "Commodiffimum videtur Occiduam fimpli"citer intelligere Romanam five Italicam... libram.” pec. vet. p. 351.

De

"Siquis folidos appendere voluit auri cofti, vi folidos quaternorum fcriptulorum, noftris vultibus figuratos, ap"pendat pro fingulis unciis." Cod. Theod. 1. xii. tit. 70. p. 5. And thus the Juftinian code: "Quotiefcunque certa folidorum fumma pro tituli quantitate debetur, & auri massa transmittitur, in LXII folidos libra feratur." Cod. 1. x. tit. 70. p..5, I agree with the very learned cardinal Noris, that the Acta Marcellini are certainly not genuine. They allude (as he obferves) to a law of Honorius, in A. D. 395. And this

very paffage proves the fame thing: the number of folidi was not brought to 72 in the pound, till after Marcellinus's death." But to conclude from the number of folidi in the pound, that * the pound itself was altered, was concluding without premises. Here the cardinal took up with the current opinion, without giving himself the trouble to examine it.'

The meaning of the expreffion was, that the fcale turned against Marcellinus by the whole weight of the Wefteru pound; i. e. the evidence of feventy-two perfons, men of weight and credit, Aurei all. It was a fort of pun, playing upon the word Pound. But the evidence of this paffage is for that reafon more decifive; for fuch allufions are usually made to things well known, and turn upon familiar expreffions. Whether the acts of pope Marcellinus are genuine, or not, is a queftion, that I am no way concerned in. It is the fame thing, with regard to this point, whether they were written in the fourth or fifth century. That they are ancient is certain; because the confequence of this real, or fuppofed, determination was fo confiderable, that the number 72 was fixed by the old laws of England, as the legal number of witnesses for depofing bishops. The laws of Henry I. fay, That a bishop fhall not be depofed, but by 72 witneffes; and popes by no authority whatsoever. Popes were then become abfolute princes, arbiters of Europe, and much above the reach of fynodical decifions: the bishops themselves were in no great danger of being depofed, when it was neceffary to support the charge against them by such a cloud of witneffes.

1

any

2. This diftinction of the Eastern and Western, or Greek and Roman, pounds continuing for fo many ages, and in the fame proportion, is an evidence that the pounds themselves were always of the fame weight, without any confiderable variation. Hence it follows, that bishop Hooper's, Dr. Arbuthnot's, Monfieur Eifenfchmid's account of a Mina Attica antiqua, media, &c. are opinions taken up without any proper authority.'

[ To be continued in our next. 1

II. The Ruins of Poeftum, or Pofidonia, a City of Magna Græcia, in the Kingdom of Naples; containing a Defcription and Views of the remaining Antiquities, with the antient and modern Hiftory, Inferiptions, &c. and fome Obfervations on the antient Dorick Order, Folio. Pr. 16s. White.

ON

N opening this magnificent book, the first thing which prefents itself to our view, is a plate, in the title-page, exhibiting the most extraordinary infcription we ever remember to have feen; which, if we mistake not, our most learned antiquarians will find very difficult of explanation. It was copied from a farcophagus of rough ftone, about eight foot in length, and two foot and a half wide, which was found near

* "Et non dampnetur praeful, nifi in 72 teftibus, neque "praeful fummus a quoquam judicetur." Leg. Sax. p. 237.

this antient city. The learned, it seems, are by no means a greed in their conjectures about it. They have not even determined whether the characters are the letters of any alphabet, or hieroglyphics. Some have pronounced them Egyptian; another hath fuppofed them to be marks used by the Gnoftics, or Bafilidians; a third fuppofes them to be Cuphic; and our learned author is of opinion they are Phoenician, or Pelafgian. Be this as it may, we hope that our learned Society of Antiquarians will favour the world with their opinion concerning an infcription which appears fo totally unintelligible to the literati of Italy.

We fhall transcribe from the preface the following account of the discovery of these ruins. In the year 1755, an apprentice to a painter at Naples, who was on a vifit to his friends at Capaccio, by accident took a walk to the mountains which furround the térritory of Poeftum. The only habitation he perceived, was the cottage of a farmer, who cultivated the best part of the ground, and referved the reft for pasture. The ruins of the antient city made a part of this view, and particularly ftruck the eyes of the young painter; who, approaching nearer, faw with astonishment, walls, towers, gates, and temples. Upon his return to Capaccio, he confulted the neighbouring people about the origin of these monuments of antiquity. He could only learn, that this part of the country had been uncultivated, and abandoned during their memory; that about ten years before, the farmer, whofe habitation he had noticed, established himself there; and that having dug in many places, and fearched ainongft the ruins which lay round him, he had found treasures fufficient to enable him to purchase the whole. At the painter's return to Naples, he informed his mafter of thofe particulars, whofe curiofity was fo greatly excited by the defcription, that he took a journey to the place, and made drawings of the principal views. Thefe were fhewn to the king of Naples, who ordered the ruins to be cleared, and Poftum arose from the obfcurity in which it had remained for upwards of seven hundred years, as little known to the neighbouring inhabitants, as to travellers.'

In the first chapter of this work, the author gives an hiftorical account of the city of Poftum, which was fituated at the bottom of a fmall bay, at about a mile ftom the fea, one league eaft from the mouth of the river Silarus, and twenty-two leagues fouth-eaft of Naples. The exact period of its foundation, as also the people by whom it was built, are matters of great uncertainty ; but there is reafon to believe it of the highest antiquity. It appears that when Rome was yet in its infancy, the Lucanians poffeffed themselves of this city; and that it

continued in their poffeffion, till it was taken by the Romans in the 480th year of Rome, and became a Roman colony. It was afterwards a municipal town. During the government of the Cæfars, no mention is made of Poftum by any author of credit. In the year of Chrift 930 it was pillaged and burnt by the Saracens, and in 1080 almoft totally destroyed by Guifcard.

Such are the principal events which the curious reader will find related more at large by this author, who carefully fupports his facts by quotations from the writings of the antients. He then enumerates the famous men who were natives of this city, and concludes the chapter with feveral paffages from the Latin poets, in which they have celebrated the roses of Pœf tum. The following chapter contains all the inscriptions that have been found fince the city was discovered. Such of our readers as are curious in these matters, we refer to the book itfelf. To this fucceeds the defcription of Poftum in its present state, whence we learn that it is of an oblong figure, about two miles and a half in circumference; that it has four gates oppofite to each other, and that on the walls are placed here and there towers of different height; but that those which are near the gates, and which are larger than the rest, are modern. With regard to the fituation of this antient city, our author obferves that it must have been unwholesome, on account of the Palus Lucania on one fide, and a number of bituminous fprings on the other, befides a ftream of fulphureous water on the east. Hence it was neceffary to convey water to the city by means of aqueducts, of which many veftiges remain.

The principal remains of antiquity are a theatre, an amphitheatre, and three temples. The two firft are much ruined; but the temples are wonderfully preferved. From the architecture of these temples, our author judiciously fuppofes them to be of very great antiquity. At the end of this volume are four capital prints, engraved by Miller, which do him great credit as an artist. The first exhibits a general view of Pæftum in its prefent ruined condition, in which the three temples abovementioned are peculiarly confpicuous, together with the walls of the city and other ruins, interfperfed with trees and other objects, fo as to form a very agreeable landscape, and convey to the beholder a perfect idea of the place and circumjacent country. The fecond plate prefents us with a fide-view of the three temples, taken together, fo as to make them form one grand object, yet so admirably contrived as to render them fufficiently diftinct from each other. This is, indeed, a fine print. Plate the third, exhibits an internal view

of