Recently over luncheon and casual conversation at table our co-host curiously began a discussion of the etymology of measurement. He started for example with reference to a stone’s throw which of course is an obvious allusion to the estimate of that standard of achievement. After mentioning as well other prescriptions such as a stone of weight and a foot or a league, his iteration adopted a more scientific approach to measuring by noting that a second of time is a reflection of the duration which a particle of light travels by some unfathomable calculation.
(The) second, fundamental unit of time, now defined in terms of the radiation frequency at which atoms of the element cesium change from one state to another. The second was formerly defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day—i.e., the average period of rotation of the Earth on its axis relative to the Sun.
By strange consequence this peculiar rumination provoked me to recall an equally singular law school study of comparative law from which I had drawn the conclusion that all laws of whatever geographic jurisdiction or cultural evolution are essentially the same. This seemingly odd transition from a chat about measurement to one of law reminded me of a greater synthesis; namely, we’re all looking at the same thing however differently it is characterized or identified or measured. The importance is that it is not identity or calculation which predicts the nature of things. Measurement of any description – whether fundamental or scientific – is nothing more dignified than human attribution howsoever plain or grand it may be. And while one’s weight or height are tolerably variable, it is a reminder too that the more esoteric constructs of religion and law are equally subject to different descriptions of the same thing (notwithstanding how independently we may choose to manifest them). Furthermore there is nothing inherently significant in the terms or manner in which we choose to dignify those calculations of measurement or limitation of conduct. They are all products and estimates of our own human invention and calculation (and dare I say prejudice), not some mystical revelation or magical scientific discovery.
The common cubit was the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. It was divided into the span of the hand or the length between the tip of little finger to the tip of the thumb (one-half cubit), the palm or width of the hand (one sixth), and the digit or width of the middle finger (one twenty-fourth). The Royal Cubit, which was a standard cubit enhanced by an extra palm—thus 7 palms or 28 digits long—was used in constructing buildings and monuments and in surveying in ancient Egypt. The inch, foot, and yard evolved from these units through a complicated transformation not yet fully understood. Some believe they evolved from cubic measures; others believe they were simple proportions or multiples of the cubit. In whichever case, the Greeks and Romans inherited the foot from the Egyptians. The Roman foot (~296 mm) was divided into both 12 unciae (inches) (~24.7 mm) and 16 digits (~18.5 mm). The Romans also introduced the mille passus (1000 paces) or double steps, the pace being equal to five Roman feet (~1480 mm). The Roman mile of 5000 feet (1480 m) was introduced into England during the occupation. Queen Elizabeth I (reigned from 1558 to 1603) changed, by statute, the mile to 5280 feet (~1609 m) or 8 furlongs, a furlong being 40 rod (unit)s (~201 m) of 5.5 yards (~5.03 m) each.
The result is therefore moderately disturbing. The insinuation naturally is that apart from what we attribute to anything, it has no critical meaning. Given the right intelligence and perspicacity one may dilate anything into anything. That, I might add parenthetically, is the psychology behind what little culinary talent I have; viz., I never measure when cooking.
