ANCIENT MEASURE

By I.P. WORDEN

This is something of a reply to Michael Behrend’s letter (J. Geomancy 1/2 p. 39) on my discussion of his ‘x’ and ‘y’ ley measurement units. I would point out that my aim initially was to attempt to present these units in a form which would make usage easier; having a training more in philosophy than mathematics I find 880 an easier value to handle than 295·3. As far as the metre goes my aim in looking for a substitute for this was more to try to go towards the original unit used by those who laid out the system, and in this context the megalithic yard is particularly relevant.

What seems to be Michael’s point in the latter context is that the metre is a precisely-defined unit whereas those of antiquity are not. However in this he is overlooking Thom’s megalithic yard, which is not only well-defined but seems quite possibly to have been used without variance in measure over the whole country for a period of half a millennium at least. If megalithic man could do this, then surely mediaeval man could keep a static value for the foot until standardization in 1305. It seems to me that to some extent he did do this – a consistent measure appears a very necessary requirement for the application of systems of gematria as can be seen in English Cathedrals and Abbeys, if they are to have any permanence of meaning. ’

In practice we are presented with many ‘feet’, though, and some way round the consequent problem is thus needed. I would suggest that a possible solution may be in the separation of ‘commercial’ and ‘architectural’ values. The former covers the units in common use, in the marketplace, at the corn mill, or whatever. The latter could perhaps better be called ‘sacred’, as it seems to have been used mostly by the Church – however I would not wish to claim this usage as exclusive without proper investigation of the secular monuments of the period.

The point is that the former could quite easily be variable. Even today, specialized units of measure survive for different goods – for example wine, beer, gold; and in the past there appears to have been a great deal more. Different values of the foot could have been used to fit local needs, as long as they did not clash in practice. Presumably a standardized system only came in when necessitated by the growth of trade. This introduces the question of what value would have been chosen for the new standard. Most people will agree that one in use by the largest group in the country would be a sensible choice, which thus indicates that used by the Church. This has the advantages of national and international application, at least in theory. Evidence from ecclesiastical buildings suggests that a standardized unit was in use by the Church, which allows not only that we can determine its value to a reasonable degree of accuracy, but that we can discard a multiplicity of commercial alternatives.

This need not apply just to the mediaeval period, of course. What I see as the major advantage of John Michell’s system is its universality. The values not only fit the monuments (and as such are valid outside those he uses in his books) but they also fit the system of {55} gematria which he uses to expound the philosophical basis of these latter – the ‘WHY?’ rather than the ‘WHAT?’. They also relate to each other in a rather satisfying manner. I certainly feel that this justifies their usage.

It also must be pointed out that there is no reason for the names of those units in use in the mediaeval period, for example, to be the ones which Michell gives them. Thus the Royal Cubit has been shown to have been used in certain English Cathedrals, but it seems unlikely that the stonemasons would have referred,to it as a specifically Egyptian unit. It should also be mentioned that this unit bears a particular relationship of 1:3½ to the English foot and so is not necessarily an arbitrary choice.

I feel that the main problem at the moment is lack of information. At the moment we are only scratching the surface in effect, and an extensive survey will be needed to resolve the issue – looking at the little village churches of the Middle Ages in the same way as Thom took the smaller stone circles around the country rather than the more dramatic sites such as Stonehenge,

Finally, I give an example, which shows some of the pitfalls which can be found in this kind of research. One of the most important of Michell’s gematrial numbers is 666. Now the Mediaeval Mark, a unit of currency, was worth 13/4d, two-thirds of a pound (£). In modern money the value of 10 marks is the seemingly-significant £6·66! Does this suggest that decimal coinage harks back to hundreds of years ago?