82 



DISCOVERY 



that the old builders may have set out their work on the 

 outside face, the centre, or the inside face of the containing 

 wall, we realise that the chances of correspondence, may 

 be greatly increased since we have a choice of three 

 slightly varj-ing rectangles upon which we may apply 

 our unit figures. 



As an example of the second difficulty, we may take 

 the " I-Cing's Chamber" in the Great Pyramid, where 

 there is no question of a containing wall. Here, on the 

 basis of the figures given — length 34 feet, height ig feet, 

 and width 17 feet — the floor embraces two squares of 17 

 feet and the height is almost exactly equal to half the full 

 diagonal on plan. 



This solution seems simpler than that suggested in the 

 article, if we think in terms of practical building. Yet, 

 without further proof from the Pyramid as a whole and 

 from other examples, one cannot feel convinced that the 

 builders consciously adopted either this or Mr. Bowes' 

 unit for fixing the height. If we seek to find a key to the 

 setting out of symbolic architecture, we must look for a 

 system which pervades the structure as a whole in much 

 the same way as engineering formulae to-day are applied 

 throughout a great bridge. 



It cannot be enough to rest content with the discovery 

 of isolated correspondences, many of which will naturalh- 

 turn up in any series of complex buildings. 



Yours, etc., 

 F. C. Mears. 

 The College of Art, 



Edinburgh. 

 Decemb:r 1921. 



Sir, 



To the Editor of Discovery 



I am glad to have had the opportunity of seeing 

 the remarks of Mr. Mears, and wish to express my agree- 

 ment with him in his plea for caution in accepting results 

 which may possibly be due only to coincidence or incorrect 

 data. The difficulty in obtaining reliable data is a very 

 real one, and in investigating plans it is easy to be led astray 

 by the choice of a wrong unitary figure. It is for this 

 reason that I have confined myself to instances where 

 measured dimensions are obtainable. The geometrical 

 examination of a plan is a useful preliminary measure in 

 the search for the type of unit, but the true test is the 

 agreement of the calculated results with recorded measure- 

 ments. 



The diagram of four rectangles derived from different 

 units, as drawn by Mr. Mears with their edges overlapping 

 on all sides, minimises the real differences in size. It is 

 not thus that one would compare the sizes of four envelopes 

 or playing cards. Instead of trusting to the drawn 

 figures it is safer to use the calculated proportions. For 

 the rectangles formed from the four unitary figures 

 named by Mr. INIears the ratios of width to length are as 

 below : 



3-4-5 • 



Diagonal of square 

 Vesica Piscis 

 Double Square 



I to 1-333 

 I .. 1414 

 I ,, 1732 



With these ratios it is easy to investigate the measured 

 dimensions. Agreement with dimensions, however, as 

 Mr. Mears justly points out, may be merely due to coin- 

 cidence. Corroborative arguments are desirable, and 

 guidance in this direction may be found in matters which 

 I have refrained from introducing — I refer to considera- 

 tions derived from history, religion, tradition, mythology,. 

 and symbolism — in fact, from the sense of general fitness 

 in the result. For example, Mr. Mears points out that 

 " the height of the King's Chamber is almost exactly half 

 the diagonal of the plan," the plan being a double square. 

 This is mathematically correct, but the relation does not 

 suggest any meaning or any reason for its presence. Also, 

 it is not known to occur elsewhere. The 3.4.5 triangle, 

 on the other hand, was intimately bound up with Egyptian 

 art and thought. In religion its three sides were associated 

 with the trinity of Isis, Osiris, and Horus. It was known 

 as a practical expedient to their land-surveyors and archi- 

 tects from time immemorial, and in all likelihood they were 

 acquainted with certain recondite uses of the triangle 

 which, although they have been made public in the last 

 few years, may still be said to be almost unknown to our 

 age. One of the angles derived from it stands openly 

 displayed in the slopes of neighbouring pyramids. The 

 3.4.5 triangle seems a particularly fitting symbol to be 

 embodied in the King's Chamber, and until a better 

 solution presents itself, I think we may leave it to occupy 

 the position it now fills so adequately and unobtrusively. 



Yours, etc., 

 Arthur Bowes. 



Wargrave, 

 Ne\vton-le-Willows (Langs). 

 January 1922. 



UNEMPLOYMENT 



To the Editor of Discovery 



Sir, 



Simply because I emphasised the fact that technical 

 knowledge is very advantageous in the successful captaincy 

 of a businesss enterprise, it by no means follows that I 

 ignore the value of business capacity as regards the 

 disposal of the goods produced, and general organisation, 

 etc. I simply argue that it is possible to find men who 

 possess both qualifications, even amongst those who have 

 not the necessary capital at their command. I should like 

 to mention also, as a reminder, the cases of large businesses 

 wfticli have originated from small " one-man undertakings " 

 — Messrs. Lipton, for instance. Apparently, Professor 

 Knoop has in mind, chiefly, the case of large engineering 

 and shipbuilding enterprises, whereas I, perhaps, was 

 thinkiner more particularly of those industries where hand- 

 made for hand-finished) goods of original design, superior 

 craftsmanship, or introducing new inventions, have, 

 even at the present day, a chance of competing with 

 vulgar and flimsy machine " mass " production wnen the 

 higher priced articles are concerned. 



As regards the " economies " of large-scale produc- 

 tion, in many cases the consumer never gets the benefit, 

 because, the larger and fewer the business concerns are. 



