go Notices of Books. (January, 
vol. iii., p. 28), will find that Professor Smyth never attempted any 
such unscientific or blundering procedure; but from several 
sources (all of which gave values of the angle of rise due to the 
true ~ angle), found that the residual features of the building 
afforded evidence of that particular angle in preference to any 
other. On this same page also it is stated, that ‘Sir Henry 
James has completely solved the mystery of the Pyramid’s 
gradient angle, by the simple observation that the corner lines 
rise g units in height for every 10 units of horizontal distance 
along the angles.” It is true, indeed, that in the pages of a con- 
temporary Sir Henry James did try to make out such a case, but it 
does not appear to have been known in Sweden that that particular 
attempt had not been recognised as successful in this country. 
With regard to what indications the Pyramid has been shown 
to afford concerning the mean value of the solar radius-vector— 
most notably, too, just at the time when astronomers are divided 
into two mighty opposing armies on the point, waiting to settle 
their differences on the occasions of the coming transits of 
Venus,—M. Wackerbarth seems unaware that that particular 
feature was evolved by W. Petrie, although he ascribes it to 
Professor Smyth, and omits to notice how the discussions of 
Powalky in 1864, and Professor Simon Newcomb in 1867, point 
out W. Petrie’s Pyramid quantity; and that it falls right in the 
middle of all the values declared by no less than thirteen of the 
foremost modern astronomers.” 
Touching the coffer, a statement purporting to be a description 
of this vessel is given on page 7, full to overflowing with mis- 
statements and omissions of facts published by various observers, 
and not by any means free from abuse of the vessel itself for any 
scientific purpose, by reason of what M. Wackerbarth supposes 
to bé monstrous irregularities of figure. These irregularites are, 
however, so proportionately small, that they had escaped the 
notice of all observers prior to Professor Smyth; and although it 
is sounded in high tones, re-echoed from these observations 
alone, that no one of the surfaces is “ plane,” and attempts are 
made to show them in error by an amount really hideous to 
an accurate mind, yet the unalterable facts remain. And they 
assert that the errors in the plane of the east side of the coffer 
are in height absolutely invisible, and in length over a run of 
gi inches, under 0:02 of an inch, or almost certainly within 
the probable error of the measuring scale, and not the slightest 
notice is taken of what later observers have shown as qualities— 
nay, commensurabilities due to the particular irregularities of 
figure in question. Nor is it even hinted at that certain others— 
and notably Captain Baker, R.E.,—attach first-rate importance to 
the concavity of three sides, and the flatness of the fourth, 
or eastern one. 
Pages 8,9, and 1o contain misrepresentations far too numerous 
* See Proc. Phil. Soc., Glasgow, vol. vii. 
+ See ‘‘ Papers on the Pyramid,” by St. Joun V. Day. 1870. 
