Reverting to the Hebrew measures, we should be dis- posed to identify the new measure implied in 2 Chron. iii, 3, with the full Egyptian cubit ; the " old" measure and Ezekiel's cubit with the lesser one, either of 26 or 24 digits; and the "cubit of a man" with the third one of which Thenius speaks. Bcickh, however, identities the Jlosaic measure with the full Eg}^ptian cubit, and accounts for the difference in the number of digits on the hypothesis that the Hebrews substituted a division into 24 for that into 28 digits, the size of the digits be- ing of course increased (p. 266, 267). With regard to the Babylonian measure, it seems highly improbable that either the ordinary or the royal cubit could be identified with Ezekiel's short cubit (as Rosenmliller thinks), seeing that its length on either of the compu- tations above offered exceeded that of the Egyptian cubit.
In the Mishna the ]M.osaic cubit is defined to be one of six palms (Celivi, 17, § 10). It is termed the moder- ate cubit (ni313'ian "n), and is distinguished from a lesser cubit of five palms on the one side {Celim, ib.), and on the other side from a larger one, consisting, ac- cording to Bartenora {in Cel. 17, § 9), of six palms and a digit. The palm consisted, according to Maimonides {ihid.), of four digits; and the digit, according to Arias
Montanus (.4 nt. p, 113), of four barleycorns. This gives 144 barleycorns as the length of the cubit, which ac- cords with the number assigned to the cubitus Justus et mediocris of the Arabians (Biickh, p. 246). The length of the Mosaic cubit, as computed by Thenius (after sev- eral trials with the specified number of barleycorns of middling size, placed side by side), is 214.512 Paris lines, or 19.0515 inches (<S/«f/.M. A'nV.p. 110). It seems hardly possible to arrive at any very exact conclusion by this mode of calculation. Eisenschmid estimated 144 bar- leycorns as equal to 238.35 Paris lines (Bockh, p. 269), perhaps from having used larger grains than the aver- age. The writer of the article on " Weights and ]\Ieas- ures" in the Penny Cyclopcedia (xviii, 198) gives, as the result of his own experience, that 38 average grains make up 5 inches, in which case 144 = 18.947 inches; while the length of the Arabian cubit referred to is computed at 213.058 Paris lines (Bockh, p. 247). The Talmudists state that the Mosaic cubit was used for the edifice of the Tabernacle and Temple, and the lesser cu- bit for the vessels thereof. This was probably a fiction ; for the authorities were not agreed among themselves as to the extent to which the lesser cubit was used, some of them restricting it to the golden altar, and parts of the brazen altar (Mishna, Cel. 17, § 10). But this distinction, fictitious as it may have been, shows that the cubits were not regarded in the light of sacred and profane, as stated in works on Hebrew archseology. Another distinction, adopted by the rabbinists in refer- ence to the palm, would tend to show that they did not rigiiU)' adhere to any definite length of cubit ; for they recognised two kinds of palms, one wherein the fingers lay loosely open, which they denominated a smiling palm ; the other wherein the fingers were closely com- pressed, and stjded the (/rievinr/ palm (Carp- zov, Appar. p. 674, 676).
(4.) Prof. T. 0. Paine, the acute and accu- rate author of Solomon's Temple, etc. (Bost. 1861), presents some original and ingenious views on the subject, which appear to us to solve most of the above difficulties. He maintains that there was but one cubit in use among the Hebrews, and that essentially the same with the Egyptian cubit. The "hand-breadth" he regards as an addition (rt h) to the rod itself (b c), for convenience of holding, as in the annexed figure. This,
Cubit-rule, according to Paiue. he thinks, likewise explains the peculiar phraseology in Ezekiel xliii, 13: tl^SX n:3X nsiJi. A cubit [i. e. the rule] is a cubit and a hand-breadth long (p. 72). So also by means of the following figure he shows tliat only six cubits were counted on the reed (6 c), while the hand-breadth (« b) was a handle to hold the reed by. Thus Ezek. xl, 5, "And in the man's hand a measuring-reed six cubits by the [regular] cubit, and a hand- breadth" [additional] ;" again, Ezek, xli, 8, "A full reed of six great cubits," n.3|5il nbi^X ni52i< b'd, hterally, as the Maso- retic accents require, the reed, six cubits to the joint, i. e., as Mr. Paine shrewdly inter- prets the joint of the 7-eed, one of its knots or sections, as in the subjoined cut (ibid.). All this suggests the surmise that the three larger
METROLOGY
196
METROLOGY
and separate digits over the cubits described above as I extant were actually no part of the measure itself, but only the linger-marks or handle by means of which it ^ was grasped in use. If these be deducted, tlie cubit will be reiluced to the usual or traditionary reckoning, which is about 18 inches.
We take the liberty of adding some interesting re- searches from a private communication by the same writer, in which he believes that he has discovered Ihe nibit lucked up in the sockets of the Tabernacle walls. Having determined that these were each \ cubit square and i cubit thick, he makes the following curitms cal- culation : The 90 silver sockets of the planks (Exod. xxvi, 15-25) would make 4 cubit cubes, i. e., if piled to- gether, a solid mass 2 cubits in each dimension ; or, in other terms, 24 sockets made a solid cubit. As each socket weighed a talent (Exod. xxxviii, 27), we have the formula,