[Footnote 261: Thus, after deducing the length of the cubit of Memphis from the length of the King's Chamber, Sir Isaac Newton observes:--"From hence I would infer that the Sacred Cubit of Moses was equal to 25 unciae of the Roman foot and 6/10 of an _uncia_." (See his _Dissertation on the Sacred Cubit_, as republished 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] [Footnote 264: _Traite de la Grandeur et de la Figure de la Terre._ Amsterdam edition (1723), p. 195.] [Footnote 265: _Tables Portatives de Logarithmes._ Paris, 1795, p. 100.]