Klingan Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Yet another very wet topic to your delight. This is a quote from Frontinus text De Aquis (Yes the title is not certain as we don't know the original it's never really the same depending on where you find it) I.63. Now my problem is rather simple. What the heck is a this "With the water-men it had a diameter of 16 digits"? In modern measurements (European) the pipe is going from 22.8 cm to 29.6 cm in diameter, a rather large expansion. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Not sure how much help this will be: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...works/home.html If you play detective, it might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 Yet another very wet topic to your delight. This is a quote from Frontinus text De Aquis (Yes the title is not certain as we don't know the original it's never really the same depending on where you find it) I.63. Now my problem is rather simple. What the heck is a this "With the water-men it had a diameter of 16 digits"? In modern measurements (European) the pipe is going from 22.8 cm to 29.6 cm in diameter, a rather large expansion. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted November 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 Are you sure ASC? I've been trough several translations, all of them go with water-men, vandmestrene (watermaster) and such. I guess it could be an object but what object could expand a pipe like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) Are you sure ASC? I've been trough several translations, all of them go with water-men, vandmestrene (watermaster) and such. I guess it could be an object but what object could expand a pipe like that? Nope, I was mistaken. Your translations are accurate. These vandmestrene correspond to the Curator aquarum. In origin, a cura was not an office in itself, but a duty or responsibility of a particular officer. Augustus created standing boards of curatores, whose members were drawn from the ranks of ex-magistrates and whose functions were those of an imperial executive. (Note #2 on the Rodger's translation posted by the University of Vermont). After reading the whole text, I think Frontinus is comparing the real measures of four pipes with the mistakenly enlarged (or diminished) figures used by these Curator aquarum, as it is explained in the chapters XXXI-XXXIV: (Extract from Rodger's translation): "...Now in most instances members of the water staff have adhered to the unambiguous system, but in four of these pipes they have made deviations, namely the 12-, 20-, 100-, and 120-pipes. In the case of the 12-pipe, to be sure, the error is not great, nor is this size in common use. (2) To its diameter they added a fraction of a digit (1/16), to its capacity accordingly a small fraction of a quinaria. But in the other three pipes a greater discrepancy is detected. The 20-pipe they make smaller by half a digit in diameter, which reduces its capacity by 3 l/24 quinariae; and they make widespread use of this pipe for deliveries. On the other hand, they have enlarged, rather than diminished, the 100-pipe and the 120-pipe, sizes they use regularly for receiving water. To the diameter of the 100-pipe they add 17/24 of a digit, which increases the capacity by 10 17/24 quinariae. To the diameter of the 120-pipe they add 3 5/8 digits, which increases the capacity by 66 1/6 quinariae... To put the matter simply, there are 25 pipes, all of which--excepting only these four which the water-men have modified--follow the systematic pattern of sizes and are in agreement with the recorded capacities." (And from the Bennett's translation): "... But the water-men, while they conform to the obvious reckoning in most ajutages, have made deviation in the case of four of them, namely: the 12-, 20-, 100-, and 120‑pipe. In case of the 12‑pipe, the error is not great, nor is its use frequent. They have added 1/24 plus 1/48 to its diameter, and to its capacity 1/4 of a quinaria. A greater discrepancy is detected in case of the three remaining ajutages. These water-men diminish the 20‑pipe in its diameter by 1/2 plus 1/24 of a digit, its capacity by 3 quinariae plus 1/4 plus 1/24; and common use is made of this ajutage for delivery. But in case of the 100‑pipe and 120‑pipe, through which they regularly receive water, the pipes are not diminished but enlarged! For to the diameter of the 100‑pipe they add 2/3 plus 1/24 of a digit, and to the capacity, 10 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/24. To the diameter of the 120‑pipe they add 3 digits plus 7/12 plus 1/24 plus 1/48; to its capacity, 66 quinariae plus 1/6... In all there are 25 ajutages. They all conform to their computed and recorded capacities, barring these four which the water-men have altered... " The subsequent description of these four pipes (Cp. XLIV, XLVI, LXII and LXIII) corresponds perfectly with the four instances where the word "Aquarios" ("water-men") ocurred in the Latin original text, always preceded by the preposition "apud" (by); vg, in your example(Cp. LXIII), the 120-pipe had an actual diameter of 12 4/12 6/288 digits, while the measure used by the vandmestrene (apud aquarios) was of 16 digits. I'm really sorry for having made the issue even more confusing for you. Edited November 12, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) Ah the joys of trying to decipher the pretty technical description of the aqueduct supply written by Frontinus - personally I still like the Loeb translation despite it being several years old. However, the whole point of making the supply pipes larger and the delivery pipes smaller was the ongoing fraud that Frontinus discovered and eventually suppressed. It meant that the 'water men' who were responsible for maintenance of the aqueduct system could sell unregistered access rights to the water supply, while at the same time increasing the flow of water they were receiving. It was an attempt to hide what they were doing by maintaining the flow to the legal outlets - unfortunately their calculations were off and the discrepancies became increasingly obvious - especially after Frontinus made a comparison between the actual sizes of pipes and what they should have been as well as the actual number of private distribution pipes attached to the system. Melvadius Edited November 12, 2007 by Melvadius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted November 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 Ah no it's no way near confusing, thanks a lot gentlemen! Actually it's making perfect sense now! The quotations you posted ASC are most excellent. Don't we all love ancient technical descriptions Melvadius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 Ah no it's no way near confusing, thanks a lot gentlemen! Actually it's making perfect sense now! The quotations you posted ASC are most excellent. Don't we all love ancient technical descriptions Melvadius? Yep! Every now and again I pick up Brian Campbell's excellent reference 'The writings of the Roman Land Surveyors'....and then quietly put it down again in wonder at how much he has found was available on the subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.