88 Notices of Books. [January, 
by better admeasurements of the stones of the Pyramid? Has 
he studied the several indications which the stones give, indeed, 
of two widely distinct cubits having been employed? One, by 
numerous indications giving a value slightly on the + side of 
25 inches, or so close to 25°025 inches, that that particular 
length is marked out by no less than five different represen- 
tations! The other by as many, indicating 20°7 as the length of 
the common or profane cubit; whilst both are doubtless identi- 
fied in many more representations now gradually being unfolded ! 
M. Wackerbarth, too, may be surprised to learn, that whilst indi- 
cations of the linear value of these two cubits have been 
hitherto found scattered at different parts throughout the 
structure, very lately they are discovered to be laid up together 
in a specially-set-apart portion of the ante-chamber, with 
their subdivisions as plainly marked as in an ordinary 2-foot 
rule; nevertheless the two cubits are so strikingly placed there, 
that whilst both visible to simultaneous contrast, they are 
still separated as the sacred and profane ever must be, even so 
that they cannot touch each other. 
On the same page as that from which the preceding passage is 
quoted we find it stated, that ‘‘ Professor Smyth, moreover, 
assumes, in the teeth of all that is historically known about the 
Pyramid, that, though built before the age of Abraham, it is not 
an Egyptian but a Hebrew building,” which is simply not true ; 
as anyone may be assured of by turning to ‘“ Life and Work,” 
vol. ili., Div. 3, chaps. 2 and 5, on the Egyptian Quarry Marks 
and Egyptian History of the Times of the Great Pyramid. 
Further on it is stated that Professor Smyth, instead of using 
the mean of the base-length quantities ascertained by him, 
assisted by Messrs. Aiton and Inglis (which quantities, be it 
remembered, were from the very nature of the circumstances 
under which they had been ascertained, at best but uncertain 
approximations), adopts a length of g142 inches, and in another 
place g166 inches, because to bring out two different results 
which the theory involves, these two values are called into 
requisition; all of which in mild expression—is a most un- 
unjustifiable misrepresentation of what the said Professor has 
set out. It would be well that those who have not seen suff- 
cient as yet to accept the modern theory of the Pyramid, 
should remember that the several individuals who have worked 
at its evolution have not attempted to assert anything except in 
cases where the chain of evidence leads up unbroken to a 
definite index, where doubts exist, as they certainly do, in regard 
to the length of the originally perfect base side, the pro- 
babilities of certain eventual results have been discussed, and no 
one has more openly confessed that than Professor Smyth, by 
publishing to the full all the observations of the only accurately 
marked base-side features, viz., the ‘‘ socket corners,’ which 
he has been able to collect; and finding them to differ from g102 
