ed in Professor Smyth's _Life and Work at the
Great Pyramid_, vol. ii. p. 362.) Again, at p. 363, Sir Isaac speaks of
"the cubit which we have concluded to have been in the time of Moses
25-60/100 inches" of the Roman foot; and at p. 365, in closing his
Dissertation, he remarks--"The Roman cubit therefore consists of 18
unciae, and the Sacred Cubit of 25-3/5 unciae, of the Roman foot." In
other words, according to Sir Isaac Newton, the Sacred Cubit of 25.60
inches of the Roman foot is equal to 24.75 British inches; for, as he
calculated, the Roman foot "was equal to 967/1000 the English foot."
(See p. 342.) This is the measurement of the Roman foot laid down by Sir
Isaac Newton in his Dissertation, and the only standard of it mentioned
in Professor Smyth's _Life and Work at the Great Pyramid_; yet in that
work Professor Smyth calculates Sir Isaac's Sacred Cubit to be 24.82
instead of 24.75 British inches. In doing so, he has calculated the
English foot as equal to .970 of the Roman foot; but was he entitled to
do so when using Sir Isaac's own data, and when employing Sir Isaac's
own calculated conclusion as to the length of the Sacred Cubit? In the
published _Proceedings_ of the Royal Society, in consequence of
following the calculation by Professor Smyth of Sir Isaac Newton's
conclusion from Sir Isaac's own data as to the length of the Sacred
Cubit, it was erroneously spoken of as 24.82, instead of 24.75 British
inches.]

[Footnote 262: This word "extraordinarily," was, by a clerical or
printer's error, spelled "extraordinary" in the _Proceedings_ of the
Royal Society; and a friend who looked over the printed proof, and
suggested two or three corrections, placed the word (sic) on the margin
after it, from whence it slipped into the text:--accidents to be much
regretted, as, from Professor Smyth's remarks to the Society on the 20th
April, they had evidently given him much, but most unintentional
offence.]

[Footnote 263: At the close of a subsequent meeting of the Royal
Society, on the 20th April 1868, Professor Smyth gave away a printed
Appendix to his three-volume work, in which he has acknowledged the
erroneous character--as pointed out in this communication--of his
all-important table, p. 22, on the length of the Sacred Cubit, by
withdrawing it, and offering one of a new construction and character,
but without being able to make the length of the cubit come nearer to
his theory. See further, APPENDIX, No. VI]

[