CONFLICTING VIEWS ON SCALE OF THE PLAN
But Boeckelmann's theory was challenged, in turn, in
1965 by Adolf Reinle,[339]
who came forth with a new interpretation
of the textual incongruities of the Plan that
departed radically from all views previously expressed on
this subject. The meaning of the axial title of the Church, so
Reinle contended, is not as is generally assumed,
FROM EAST TO WEST
THE LENGTH IS 200 FEET
but rather,
THIS PLAN IS DRAWN AT THE
SCALE OF 1:200
Reinle arrived at this interpretation in the following
manner:
1. PED̄, he maintained, must not be transcribed as
PEDUM (genitive plural of pes = "foot"), but as PEDA or
PEDIA (imperative form of the verb pedare or pediare = "to
measure in feet").[340]
2. LONGĪT̄. must not be read as LONGITUDO (nominative
of the noun longitudo = "length"), but as LONGITUDINE
(ablative form of the noun longitudo = "in length").[341]
3. .CC. is not the simple cardinal figure ducentum =
"two hundred," but must be interpreted as a multiplicative
term, in the sense of ducenties = "two hundred times."
Reinle, accordingly, transcribes the title:
AB ORIENTE IN OCCIDENTEM
LONGITUDINE PEDA DUCENTIES
and purports this to mean
FROM EAST TO WEST, IN LENGTH,
MEASURE TWO HUNDRED TIMES,
or
THIS PLAN IS
DRAWN AT THE SCALE OF 1:200.[342]
This interpretation is untenable on two counts: first, it is
based on an improper textual exegesis; and second, it
ascribes to the ninth century a method of defining architectural
scale relationships that does not antedate the French
Revolution.[343]