l.a. moritz - vitruvius' water-mill

8/12/2019 L.a. Moritz - Vitruvius' Water-Mill

1/5


2/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 193VITRUVIUS' WATER-MILL

IN de Architecturax. 5. 2 the Augustan engineer Vitruvius provides the onlydescriptionof a grain-millthat has come down to us fromantiquitywhen, afterdiscussingsome machines for raisingwater by means of water-wheels,he con-tinues thus (the text is that of Granger'sLoeb edition) :Eademrationeetiam versanturhydraleae,'in quibuseadem sunt omnia, praeterquamquodin unocapiteaxistympanumdentatumestinclusum. d autemad perpendiculumon-locatum n cultrumversatur umrotapariter.Secundumd tympanummaius temdentatumplanumest conlocatum,quo continetur. ta dentestympanieius,quodest in axe inclusum,inpellendodentes tympani plani cogunt fieri molarum circinationem.In qua machinainpendensnfundibulumubministratmolisfrumentum t eademversationeubigiturarina.Grangertranslates:Millwheelsare turnedon the sameprinciple,exceptthat at one end of theaxle [sc.of thewater-wheel] tootheddrum s fixed. This is placed verticallyon itsedgeand turnswith thewheel. Adjoiningthis largerwheel there is a secondtoothedwheel placedhorizontallybywhich it is gripped.Thus the teethof the drumwhichis on the axle, by driving he teeth ofthe horizontaldrum,cause thegrindstoneso revolve.In the machinea hopper s suspendedandsupplies hegrain,andby thesamerevolution he flour s produced.

This text and translationhave behind them the authorityof great Vitruvianscholarship, and there can be no doubt that both are in the main correct.There are, however, a few points which deserve re-examination since neitherGranger's nterpretationnor those in modern discussionsof the passageappearto deal with them satisfactorily.Such discussions-in connexion with relevantarchaeologicaldiscoveries-are those by Bltimner (TechnologiendTerminologieder Gewerbeund Kiinste bei Griechenund Rdmern,vol. i2 [Leipzig, I912], p. 48,notes 1-2), Jacobi (Saalburg Jahrbuch, iii [I912], 91 ff.), and, more recently,Parsons(Hesperia, [1936], 76 ff.). Jacobi deals with the passagein connexionwith certain millstones found on the Roman limes n Germany, and Parsonsdoes so in the course of a most valuable report on a water-mill of the fifthcentury A.D.which has come to light in the Athenian agora. (UnfortunatelyParsonsdoes not seem to have been aware ofJacobi's article.) The partsof thepassage to be re-examined here are (a) the third sentence (secundumd ...continetur)nd (b) the last four wordsof the Latin text.(a) Granger's translation of the third sentence, in taking secundumd tym-panummaius ogether, leaves the subjectof the sentence to be understood.Thisseems unbearablyharsh, and the natural translation of the text as it stands issurely, 'adjoining this; there is a (second and) largerdrum, also toothed andplaced horizontally .... 'Yet Granger'stranslationis based not only on common milling practice-since the gearing ratio is usually such as to make the millstones revolve fasterthan the water-wheel--but also on some archaeologicaldiscoveriesfrom theSaalburg in Germany,where, in a well belonging to the early third centuryA.D., two of the working partsof a Vitruvian mill were found in 1912. One ofthese is a spindle, 32 in. long and fitted at one end with iron dovetailswhich fit

This word is Schneider's emendation forhydraulae, onfirmed by a passage in Strabo(xii. 566) and by Edict. Diocl. xv. 54 (seeT. Frank, Econ. Survey,v. 367); cf. Hesych.s.v. zapd'tvAoo nd Bliimner, Technologieu.

Terminologie2. 46, notes 2-4.2 Cf. 'Die Steine .. wollengar noch chnellersein (than the water-wheel)' in a well-knownGerman song; OxfordBook of GermanVerse,p. 285.


3/5

194 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWaccurately enough into dovetail-shapedrecessesin the lower (grinding) sur-faces of the upper millstonesfound in considerablenumbersin the same fort.Near its other end this spindle is of a squaresection which fits into the centralhole of the other discovery.This consists of two strong oak disks,8 in. in dia-meter and 1-6in. thick, which are bound by iron ringsand kept apart by sixforgediron bars, I1 in. in diameter and 6- in. long. Jacobi thought, probablyrightly, that these working parts were thrown into the well to make the milluselessto an enemy.It is hard not to see in the 'drum' (i.e. the oak disks with the iron barsbetween them) one of the Vitruvian tympana,nd if so, its evidentconnexion,via the spindle, with the upper millstone shows that it must have been thesecond tympanumhich was 'placed horizontally'. It is evident from the sizeand shape of this 'drum'that the verticaltympanumust in that case have beena toothed wheel which was considerablylarger,with the result that the millmust have revolvedfasterthan the wheel by which it was driven.In order to reconcilethis normalpracticewith the naturalgroupingof wordsin the text of Vitruviusmany editors' have either substitutedminus or maius,or--perhaps better-added minus after maiusto read secundumd tympanummaiusminus item dentatumplanum est conlocatum,adjoining this larger drum there is asmaller drum, also toothed and placed horizontally'.Yet, in the case of the mill found in the Athenian agorathe horizontalgear-wheel (53'5 in. in diameter)waslarger hanthevertical(43'7 in.), with the resultthat the stonesmust have revolved more slowly han the water-wheel.Thoughunusual, this arrangement would be suitable enough for a stream or mill-race in which (as was probably the case at Athens) a small volume of waterflowsfairly rapidly. It suggeststhat the gearingratioprobably dependedon thecurrentof the stream (i.e. speed and volume of water) in which the mill was tobe placed, and shows that the ratio prescribed in the manuscript text ofVitruviuswasat any ratenot unknown. In view of this, the manuscriptreadingmust surelybe retained as representingwhat Vitruviusprobablywrote; nor isGranger'sattempt to reverse the gearingratio by an artificialgroupingof theLatin words necessary.There is, however, a furtherdifficultyin the same sentence. No satisfactoryparallel appears to exist for the generally accepted interpretationof the wordcontineturt the end of this sentence ('is gripped', Granger; 'meshes',Parsons;etc.); nor does this seem a very natural meaning of the word. Accordinglyother editors have found this interpretationunsatisfactoryand have assumedthat the text as it stands is incomplete. Thus Krohn (Teubner, 1912) marks alacunaand Morgan (Harvard University Press, 1914) translates, 'and this isattached to the millstone'-presumably supplying mola.2Fra Giocondo, therenaissanceeditor of Vitruvius (Florence,Junta, 1522), fills the 'lacuna'ome-what more elaborately,thus:secundum id tympanum maius item dentatum planum est conlocatum, quo continetur AXISHABENS IN SUMMO CAPITE SUBSCUDEM FERREAM, QUA MOLA CONTINETUR. Ita dentes ....I e.g. Rose (Leipzig, 1867 and 1899),Morgan, Reber, and Prestel; cf. Jacobi, loc.cit., pp. 92-93.

2 This conjecture may be connected witha mistakenidea, expressedin Overbeck-Mau,Pompeii4,p. 388, that Vitruvius' water-millmade use of stones like those belonging to

the 'hour-glass' mills familiar from Pompeii.In fact, however, archaeological discoverieshave shown that the stones of Roman water-mills were of quite a different shape andmuch more like modern millstones thanthose of the Pompeian animal-mills.


4/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 195Fra Giocondo's 'somewhat cavalierscholarship" s well known, as is also hispreoccupationwith the practicalapplicationof the rules of Vitruvius.The factthat the words supplied by him do not appear anywhere in the fairly large

manuscript tradition of Vitruvius also argues against the genuineness of hisreading,whichisunanimously rejected by moderneditors,thoughJacobi in hiscomment on the passage retains it.At the same time Giocondo is here describingwhat is with equal unanimityacceptedas the correctconstructionof the mill to which thepassage nVitruviusrefers,and extant stones leave no doubt that this is so. But although this saysmuch for Giocondo's engineering talents it does not by itself argue for theretention of his reading in the text.There is, however, more to be said for Giocondo'sreading than that. Theword subscus,irst of all, not only aptly describes an iron dovetail of the kindfound by Jacobi in Germany,2but it is itself a Vitruvian word.3 Secondly,modern editorshave apparentlyoverlookedthe fact that Giocondo's readingagreeswith the possibilitythat the second of two lines both ending in contineturhas dropped out of the text. This is hardly an indication of 'cavalierscholar-ship', and the reading here under discussion is in strong contrastwith manyother insertionswhich Giocondo would make in the text of Vitruvius. For thesereasons t is suggestedthat thisreadingdeservesmoreseriousconsideration hanit has received hitherto.

(b) Granger'stranslationof the last four words of the passage ('by the samerevolution the flouris produced'), in which he agreeswith practicallyall otherswho have dealt with the passage,4does not seem to give the senserequiredbyLatin usage.There are severalpassages n classicalLatin containing the phrasefarinamsubigerend similar phrases s in all these subigeremeans 'to knead' or'to mix until smooth'. In connexion with flour in particular the word alwaysappearsto denote the processofpreparingthe dough, in which the flourismadeto absorbwater.6Admittedlythe verb is used in agriculturalcontexts to denotethe 'breakingup' of the soil,7and this might seem to justify an interpretationwhich makes it mean 'to reduce the particle size' of grain by milling. In viewof the many other passages,however, this meaning can hardly apply to grainand flour, and it is to be noted, moreover, thatfarina-not frumentum-is thesubject of the verb in the presentpassage.8Vitruvius, therefore,seems here to be alluding to a kneading-machineat-tached to the same water-wheelby which the mill was worked. The kneading-machine is the constant companion of the well-known Pompeian animal-mill,both in the milling establishmentsat Pompeii and Ostia and on some pictorial

- Granger, vol. i, p. xxiv.2 Indeed axis habensin summocapitesub-scudemerream exactly describes one of thetwo parts found by Jacobi.3 Cf. Vitr. iv. 7. 4, and Fest. p. 307 MUill.* With the notable exception of BlUimner,pp. 48 and 64 n. 4.s e.g. Cato, Agr.74, farinam in mortariumindito, aquae paulatim addito subigitoquepulchre. ubi bene subegeris, defingito ...;(Virg.] Moret.47 f., iamque subactum levatopus; cf. Cato, Agr. I8. 7; 76. I; Plin. N.H.xviii. o05;Cato ap. Plin. N.H. xvii. I I.i

6 Cf. perdomaren Sen. Epist. 90. 23; alsoBlUmner, p. 61 n. 2.7 e.g. Cic. Leg. ii. 18. 45; Virg. Georg. .125; Ov. Met. xi. 31.8 An apparent exception occurs in Plin.N.H. xxii. 127 (farina in pollinem subacta).Here subigere eems to mean 'to (re-)grind';but the whole section is omitted in some

manuscripts, and redactaappears in others.Even if genuine, the passage restson Dioscor.M.M. ii. 85 (Wellmann), and the words inquestion may well be a mistranslation onPliny's part.


5/5

196 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWmonuments.' It is thereforenot unlikely that the pistorwho substituted waterforanimalpowerfor the grindingof the grainwould wish to knead hisdough bythe same means. The words eadem otatione, hich make little sense on the ac-cepted view, will then have a very definite meaning.The brevity of the reference to the kneading-machineand the lack of eventhe slightestdetail may seem to argue against this view, but an illustrationinVitruvius' original text may have made the meaning clearer. In any case itmust be rememberedthat Vitruvius was not primarilyconcernedwith millingand breadmakingtechnique, but merelywith the principleof transmittingthepowerof a vertical water-wheelto the drivingof horizontalengines.The inter-pretation here suggested, moreover, is made all but certain by a referencetokneading-machines n very similarwords in the writingsof the jurist Paulus.zThe mill describedby Vitruviusis one which was not substantially mprovedupon for approximatelyeighteen centuries. For this reason alone an attemptto discoverpreciselywhat it is that he describesmust surelybe worth while.Universityollege,Cardiff L. A. MORITZ

I e.g. the cenotaph of the pistor redemptorEurysaces outside the Porta Praenestina atRome, Bluimner fig. 14b (cf. generallypp. 64-65).2 Sent. iii. 6. 64: machinae quibus farinaesubiguntur.

QUID DO UT (NE): A BARGAININGCONSTRUCTION IN JUVENAL AND THESENECASMODERNcommentators on Juv. 7. 165-6 (quid do ut totiens illumpater audiat?)and on Sen. Contr. ix. 3. II (quid do ne indicaverim?)and 12 (quid do ne liberosmeosrecipiam?quiddo ne agnoverim?)are agreed on the character of the expres-sion. 'A standing phrase' says Owen (J. Phil. xxxiii. 242). 'Apparently acolloquial idiom' says Duff. 'Gehbrt der Umgangssprache an' says Fried-lander. 'Den Eindruck einer volksttimlichenmacht' says O. Rebling (Versucheiner Characteristik er rdmischenUmgangssprache,Kiel, 1883, p. 48).But if they are agreedon the characterof the expression hey differstrangelyover its interpretation.Duff renders it, 'I'd give anything for'. Owen in histranslationhas 'What would I pay ... 'This, however,isnot readily intelligibleto English readers even with the substitution of an exclamation-mark or thequestion-mark n his Latin text; so the Loeb editor, G. G. Ramsay, who trans-lates in similarfashion, 'What would I give that ... ', adds a footnote: 'TheEnglish idiom would be "What would I notgive." ' Bornecque'stranslationofSeneca, goes boldly for it with a thrice-repeated'Que ne donnerais-je pas?'Rebling falls back on the vagueness of the imperfectsubjunctivewith 'Wasgabe ich darum?'The Thesaurus reats of the construction under do (col. 1663, 11.41-46), andgeneralizes t as: 'do aliquid pecuniamim.)ut (ne)'. That is, this is a bargainingconstructionin which the noun or pronoun in the main clause expressestheprice to be paid for the desired end expressedin the final clause. From theexamplesgiven we should take away two (Sen. Ben. iv. I1. I and Gaius, Inst.iii. 90) which are both examplesof a quite differentconstruction,and we shouldadd one from Terence (Phorm. 33) which is earlier than any of those quoted.We then find that we have a pleasingly typical case-historyof a colloquial

l.a. moritz - vitruvius' water-mill

Documents