257 
of Edinburgh , Session 1867 - 68 . 
the construction of the body of the Great Pyramid, the architect 
built 10 feet or 10 cubits of horizontal length for every 9 feet or 
9 cubits of vertical height; while in the construction of the various 
galleries the proportion was adhered to of horizontal length to 
vertical height as 9 to 4, — rules which would greatly simplify the 
building of such a structure. The Egyptian derail of 25‘48 inches 
is practically one-fourth more in length than the old Egyptian 
cubit of Memphis of 207 inches. Long ago Sir Isaac Newton 
showed from Professor Greaves’ measurements of the chambers, 
galleries, <fcc., that the Memphis cubit of 20*7 British inches was 
apparently the working cubit of the masons in constructing the 
pyramid — an opinion so far admitted more lately by both Messrs 
Taylor and Smyth; “the length” (says Professor Smyth) “of the 
cubit employed by the masons engaged in the Great Pyramid build- 
ing, or that of the ancient city of Memphis,” being 2073 British 
inches.* According to Mr Xnglis’ late measurement of the four 
bases of the pyramid, after its four corner sockets were exposed, the 
length of each base line was possibly 440 Memphis cubits, or 9108 
English inches; or, if the greater length of Jomard and Yyse be 
held nearer the truth, 442 Memphis cubits, or 9150 British inches. 
But Professor Smyth tries to show that (1.) if 9142 be granted 
him as the possible base line of the pyramid ; and (2.) if 25 inches 
be allowed to be the length of the “ Sacred Cubit,” as revealed to 
the Israelites (and as revealed in the pyramid), then the base line 
might be found very near a multiple of this cubit by the days of 
the year,f or by 365'25 ; for these two numbers multiplied together 
* Yet this, the Memphian cubit, “ need not ” (somewhat mysteriously adds 
Professor Smyth), “ and actually is not, by any means the same as the cubit 
typified in the more concealed and symbolised metrological system of the Great 
Pyramid.” 
t Godfrey Higgins, in his work on “ The Celtic Druids,” shows how, among 
the ancients, superstitions connected with numbers, as the days of the year or 
the figures 365, have played a prominent part. “ Amongst the ancients” (says 
he) “ there was no end of the superstitious and trifling play upon the nature 
and value of numbers. The first men of antiquity indulged themselves in 
these fooleries” (p. 244). Mr Higgins points out that the old Welsh or 
British word for Stonehenge, namely Emrys, signifies, according to Davies, 
365 ; as do the words Mithra, Neilos, &c. ; that certain collections of the old 
Druidic stones at Abary may be made to count 365 ; that “ the famous 
Abraxas only meant the solar period of 365 days, or the sun,” &c. “ It was all 
judicial astrology. ... It comes (adds Mr Higgins) from the Druids.” 
VOL. VI. 
