265 
of Edinburgh , Session 1867 - 68 . 
to suit human happiness.” To express this, Mr Smyth suggests 
the new noun “ fiveness.” But it applies to many other matters as 
strongly, or more strongly, than to the Great Pyramid. For instance, 
the range of rooms belonging to the Royal Society is “five” in 
number ; the hall in which it meets has five windows ; the roof of 
that hall is divided into five transverse ornamental sections ; and 
each of these five transverse sections is subdivided into five longi- 
tudinal ones ; the books at each end of the hall are arranged in ten 
rows and six sections — making sixty, a multiple of five ; the official 
chairs in the hall are ten in number, or twice five ; the number of 
benches on one side for ordinary fellows is generally five; the office- 
bearers of the Society are twenty-five in number, or five times five ; 
and so on. These arrangements were doubtless, in the first instance, 
made by the Royal Society without any special relation to “ five- 
ness,” or the “ symbolisation ” of five; and there is not the 
slightest ground for any belief that the apparent “ fiveness ” of 
anything in the Great Pyramid had a different origin. 
Minuteness of Modern Practical Standards or Gauges. 
In all these l( standards ” of capacity and length alleged to 
exist about the Great Pyramid, not only are the theoretical and 
actual sizes of the supposed “ standards ” made to vary in different 
books — which it is impossible for an actual “ standard ” to do, — but 
the evidences adduced in proof of the conformity of old or modern 
measures with them is notoriously defective in complete aptness 
and accuracy. Measures, to be true counterparts, must, in mathe- 
matics, be not simply 11 near ” or u very near,” which is all that is 
generally and vaguely claimed for the supposed pyramidal proofs ; 
but they must be entirely and exactly alike, which the pyramidal 
proofs fail altogether in being. Mathematical measurements of 
lines, sizes, angles, &c., imply exactitude and not mere approxima- 
tion ; and without that exactitude they are not mathematical, and 
—far more— are they not “ superhuman ” and “ inspired.” 
Besides, it must not be forgotten that our real practical standard 
measures are infinitely more refined and many thousand-fold more 
delicate than any indefinite and equivocal measures alleged to be 
found in the pyramid by even those who are most enthusiastic in 
the pyramidal metrological theory. At the London Exhibition in 
2 M 
VOL. VI. 
