POUND IN BRITAIN, 35 



obvious objection to this reading, otherwise plausible, is that the 

 argentarium plumbum of Pliny was not lead but tin. 



The interpretation, which would probably next present itself, is 

 derived, extracted from silver ; and this is adopted as the true signifi- 

 cation by Mr. Yates, who, however, seems to prefer arffent[i?odimsl. 

 It may be stated in favour of this view, and also of the opinions that 

 we should read argent[if odinis'], argent {aria], or rt?-^m^[ariis], that as 

 silver was probably the principal object that the Romans sought for 

 in these operations, they may have called their works, ' silver-mines,' 

 instead of 'lead-mines.' Mr. Yates also suggests: "Even in th6 

 present day we find that where the galena contains a large proportion 

 of silver, as is frequently the case in the British Isles, the mines are 

 not called lead mines, but silver mines." 



The interpretation of EX-ARG' and EX-ARGENT ; as denoting 

 that the silver had been extracted from the lead, seems more conform- 

 able to present usage. A passage in Strabo, p. 198, ed. Falconer 

 Oxon. 1807, in which he notices a kind of lead found in Spain, which 

 contained so little silver, that it was not remunerative to extract it, is 

 sufiicient to prove that the ancients were acquainted with some process 

 for effecting this separation ; and the same inference may be drawn 

 from the obscure statement in Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxiv, 47, referred 

 to by Mr. Wright : Plumbi nigri origo duplex est : aut enim sua 

 provenit vena nee quidquam aliud parit ; aut cum argento nascitur 

 mixtisque venis conflatur. Ejus qui primus _/?MeY infornacibus liquor 

 stannum appellatiir ; qui secundus, argentum : quod remansit in for- 

 nacibus galena, quce est tertia portio additcB vence. Hcec rursus 

 conflata dat nigrum plumbum deductis partibus duabus. 



If these words be taken in their apparent sense, it is evident that 

 Pliny has made statements on the sqbject, which are wholly at vari- 

 ance with modern Mineralogy and Metallurgy. No ore is known to 

 exist in any part of the world, which at one smelting process would 

 yield successively stannmn, argentum, and galena. The only satis- 

 factory explanation of the passage seems to be that suggested by 

 Kopp, Geshichte der Chemie, iv. 127, that three diflFerent smel tings are 

 referred to, scil. melting out the argentiferous lead, removal of lead 

 by oxidation, and reduction of the so formed litharge or oxide of lead. 



But if this reading and interpretation of EX'ARGENT" be adopted, 

 what is the grammatical construction ? It is impossible that the 



