Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

MENSURA. MENSURA. MESURA.
4. Villalpando and Eisenschmidt have attempted by Domitian in a careless manner. Both the fact
to deduce the length of the Roman foot from the and the explanation, however, appear to be very
solid content of the congius of Vespasian. [CON- donbtful.
GIus.] Since the congius was the eighth of the II. The Greek foot. WVe have no ancient meaamphora, and the content of the amphora was a sures by which to determine the length of the
cubic foot [QUADRANTAL], the process is to mul- Greek foot; but we have the general testimony of
tiply the content of the congius by 8, and extract ancient writers that it was to the Roman in the ratio
the cube root of the product. But this process is of 25: 24. The Greek stadium, which contained
very uncertain. First, there is a doubt about the 600 Greek feet, is said by Roman writers to con..
content of the congius itself [PONDERA], then it is tain 625 Roman feet and also a Roman mile, or
hardly to be supposed that the content of the con- 5000 feet, was reckoned equal to 8 Greek stadia,
gins was actually adapted with perfect accuracy to or 4800 feet; both of these calculations give the
the length of the foot, and last'y, there is a filrther above ratio of 25: 24. (Plin. H. N. ii. 23. s. 21,
risk of error in reversing this process. 108. s. 112; Colum. v. 1; Polyb. iii. 39; Strab.
5. Some French geographers, and especially M. vii. p. 322.) If therefore the Roman foot was
Gosselin, have supposed that the ancient astrono-'9708 of the English, the Greek foot was equal to
mers were acquainted with the dimensions of a 1'01125 English feet, or 12'135 inches.
great circle of the earth, and that they founded This value is confirmed by the measurement of
their whole system of nmeasures on the subdivisions the Parthenon. "Stuart" (Antiq. Atli. ii. p. 8),
of such a circle. The results of M. Gosselin's cal- says Mr. Hussey, "measured the upper step of the
culations agree well with those derived from other basement of the Parthenon, which is the platform
sources. But we need better evidence than this on which the pillars stand, and is exactly that part
agreement to convince us that both the Greeks and of the building where we should expect that the
Romans, at a very early period, formed a system measure would have been taken, if the name Hecaof measures on such scientific principles; and it is tompedon was really given it on account of the
incredible that, if such a system had really existed, dimensions. He found the width of the front to
there should be no allusion to it in any of the an- be 101 feet 1"7 inches, the length of the side 227
cient geographers. feet 7'05 inches; and since these two quantities
The average values of the Roman foot, obtained are very nearly in the ratio of 100 to 225, he infrom these various sources, in terms of the English ferred that the two sides really contained these
foot, are the following:- two numbers of feet. From this he calculated the
1. From ancient measures.... -971 8 value of the foot, from the front 12-137 inches,
2. From itinerary measurements.. 90 12 from the side 12'138 inches: of which the greatest
3. From measurements of buildings. 96994 exceeds the value given above by only'003 of an
4. From the congius 91..32 inch." Other measurements of the Parthenon
5. From the length of a degree. and of other buildings at Athens tend to the same
result.
of which the first three are the most to be depended Strabo, however (1. c.) quotes from Polybils
on; and of those three the average is 9708, or a calculation which would make the Greek and
11i6496 inches or 11l 1496 inches; which we Roman foot equal, but it is perfectly clear that
may take as the probable value of the Roman foot. there is a mistake in this statement. Plutarch
Cagnazzi, whose researches are said by Niebuhr again (. Gsracclh. 7) says expressly that the mile
to have placed the true value of the Roman foot is a little less thzan 8 stadia, which would give a
beyond a doubt (Hist. of Rome, ii. p. 407), gives it rather smaller ratio than that of 24: 25 for the ratio
a greater length than the above, namely'29624 of of the Roman to the Greek foot. It is on the authoa metre ='9722 of a foot: but this calculation is rity of this passage that Bdckh gives the value above
objected to by Bockh, as beung derived, by a pro- mentioned for the Roman foot. If, according to
cess not perfectly true, from the value of the pound, the supposition already noticed, a slight diminuand as being confirmed only by one existing mea- tion took place in the Roman foot, this would
sure, and also as being at variance with the value account for the difference. But perhaps we ought
of the Greek foot, obtained from independent not to consider this solitary passage of aufficient
sources. (AIetrolto. Untersuch. p. 197.) 13ickh's weight to influence the calculation.
own calculation, which agrees with that of Wurm, As the general result, we may take the Greek
who follows Raper, gives a value very little less foot at 12-135 English inches, that is, rather more
than the above, namely 131-15 Paris lines = than 1-10th of an inch greater than the English'9704649 of the English foot= 11-6456 inches. foot. For the other measures see the Tables.
As the general result we may take the Roman 2. Aieasures of SSzerhce. - These are easily defoot at 11-65 inches, English, or, rather more than rived from the measures of length. See the Tables.
o of an inch less than ours. (The writer of an 3. Measures of Capacity. - The determination
excellent article Weiqhts and lMeasupres in the of the measures of capacity is so inseparably conPenny Cyclbpaoedia, gives 11-62 inches for the nected with the question of the settlement of the
valiue of the Roman foot. He also gives the fol. Greek and Roman weights, that it is better to
lowing rule as representing the ratio far within the speak of them under PONDERA, to which article
limits of probable error: - 61 English feet make also the reader is'referred for the literature of the
63 Roman feet.) For the other measures of length whole subject.
see the Tables. 4. Anzgular and Circu2lar Measures. - The chief,
Some have concluded from the measurements of and almhnost the only importance of this part of the
buildings that the foot was slightly reduced about subject is in its application to the measurement
the time of Domitian, which Wurm accounts for of circles and degrees on the earth's surface, and
by supposing that the pes monetalis, after being to the measures of time, The former class eif
destroyed in the fire under Titus, was restored measures will be treated of in the Dictiontarty
3c3