348 
Proceedings of the Royal Society 
my “ Life and Work,” vol. iii. pp. 123 and 124. And third , I still 
think that the course I followed was the correct one to be pursued 
under the circumstances then existing.* 
* Although I would not interfere with the current of the argument in the 
above pages, concerning the socket measures for the lengths of the base-sides 
of the Great Pyramid, by introducing there any refutations of charges 
brought against me on a different matter by the Proceedings' author, — I had 
no intention of eluding altogether any Pyramid accusation by him, which 
implies faults of a most serious nature. 
Such an accusation is this (pp. 255 and 256) — “ But Professor Smyth has 
“ ‘ elected ’ (to use his own expression) not to take the mathematically exact 
“ measure of the casing stones as given by Colonel Vyse and Mr Perring, 
“ who alone ever saw them and measured them (for they were destroyed 
“ shortly after their discovery in 1837), but to take them, without any 
“ adequate reason, and contrary to their mathematical measurement, as equal 
“ only to 202 inches, 
This passage evidently implies that I had taken as 202 inches only, what 
a mathematically accurate measure had made something more ; how much 
then ? In the previous two sentences of the Proceedings' author (p. 255) we 
read that Professor Smyth “ made each side of the present masonry courses 
“ (of the base of the Great Pyramid) ‘ between 8900 and 9000 inches in 
“ length,’ or (to use his own word) ‘ about' 8950 inches for the mean length 
“ of one of the four sides of the base ; exclusive of the ancient casing and 
“ backing stones — which last Colonel Howard Yyse found and measured to 
“ be precisely 108 inches on each side, or 216 on both sides. These 216 
“ inches, added to Professor Smyth’s measure of ‘ about ’ 8950 inches, makes 
“ one side (of the base of the Pyramid) 9166 inches.” 
Here then, evidently, we may see that what the Proceedings' author attaches 
216 to, is not the casing stones alone, as mentioned in the sentence previously 
quoted; but, either the backing stones by themselves, or backing stones with 
casing stones ; yet whichever it was, he plainly says that Colonel Howard 
Vyse measured the quantity to be ‘precisely 108 inches on each side, or 216 on 
both sides ; and we must presume that this is the mathematically exact measure 
which he would have had Professor Smyth adopt instead of the quantity of 
only 202 inches, and which he declares was taken by Professor Smyth at that 
figure without any adequate reason. 
But Professor Smyth states in answer, — 
1. Colonel Howard Vyse did most positively not measure casing stones on 
two sides of the Pyramid’s base ; he himself does not say, or hint, that he did, 
and the condition of the rubbish mounds at the Pyramid, testifies to the 
error of any one who, like the Proceedings' author, makes the assertion for him. 
2. Colonel Howard Vyse did not measure any lengths about the casing 
stones which he found on the north side of the Pyramid with “ mathematical 
“ accuracy ; ” for, the casing stones themselves, he and Mr Perring measured 
only to the nearest whole inch ; making the greatest base-breadth = 8 feet 
3 inches; and stating elsewhere generally, that the outside of the casing 
stones is distant from the Pyramid courses of rude and now broken masonry, 
at that particular part, “ about 9 feet.” At least that is all that Professor 
