of Edinburgh , Session 1867 - 68 . 
349 
Libel Third. 
In his next paragraph on p. 256, the Proceedings' author takes up 
all the known socket measures of the base-sides of the Pyramid ; 
and as they are precisely those which I have used for the same 
purpose, and are even taken from my pages,™ it might be hoped 
that there at least, we might agree. 
But no ! for in the course of the paragraph that author indulges 
both in a most damaging (if true) accusation against me for my 
use of the numbers, and in ridicule against the building and its 
mechanical qualities, for the strange accusation of, — not having 
been better measured by modern men. 
Now the charge against me lies within the simple rules of arith- 
metic. Three observers, M. Jomard, Colonel Howard Yyse, and 
Mahmoud Bey, had each of them measured the north side only, of 
the Pyramid’s base, making it 9163, 9168, and 9162 British inches 
in length, respectively to each observer. 
But Messrs Aiton and Inglis had measured all four sides, and 
made them respectively to each side, beginning with the north one, 
9120, 9114, 9102, and 9102 of the same inches long. 
From all these numbers then, what shall we conclude to be the 
length of a mean side of the G-reat Pyramid’s base? 
When only the three first determinations were in existence, the 
plain process was, to take a mean of them ; every computer assum- 
ing that the other sides of the base were of the same length. 
But Messrs Aiton and Inglis’ measures indicate, inter se, that 
the northern side is longer than the others. Can we, however, trust 
their measures to the greatest difference indicated, viz., 18 inches? 
Smyth has been able to find in the Colonel’s books, — and he requests the 
Royal Society of Edinburgh to ascertain from the Proceedings' author where 
Colonel Howard Yyse has said anything about 108 inches being a precise 
and mathematically exact measure by him of any part of the casing stones, or 
backing stones, or both together. 
3. Professor Smyth under the accusation of having had “ no adequate 
reason ” for employing 101 inches rather than 108, as a thickness to be added 
on to a present masonry course, as he estimated it, to give the ancient bevelled 
outside surface, — requests attention to pages 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, of vol. 
iii. of his Life and Work where he had discussed the matter on the best 
data known to him ; and in a work which was in the hands of the Proceed- 
ings' author when he composed his accusations. 
