------
a difference of only .056 between the
======

length of the Sacred Cubit derived from the actual lengths of the two
cubits which have come down to us, and the length of the Sacred Cubit
derived by Newton from the length of the King's chamber.

The method adopted by Professor P. Smyth, to find the length of the
Sacred Cubit, in p. 458, vol. ii. _Life at the Pyramids_, is also wrong
in principle. He has no right to take the means between the limits of
approach, or to say that the Sacred Cubit was, according to Sir Isaac
Newton, 25.07 inches, when, as I have shown in his own words, Sir Isaac
says it was 24.754 inches.

VI.--PROFESSOR SMYTH'S RECENT COMMUNICATION TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY ON 20TH
APRIL 1868.

It has been already stated (see footnote, p. 248) that, on the 20th
April Professor Smyth brought before the Royal Society a new
communication on the pyramids, the principal part of which consisted of
a criticism upon the preceding observations, and a defence of his
hypotheses regarding the Great Pyramid. His chief criticisms related to
points already adverted to, and answered in footnotes, pp. 234, 248,
etc. In addition, he expressed great dissatisfaction that the quotation
from Sprenger, in Vyse's Work, quoted in footnote, p. 237, was not
extended beyond the semicolon in the original, at which the quotation
ends, and made to embrace the other or latter half of the sentence,
viz., " ...; and that they appear to have repeated the traditions of the
ancient Egyptians, mixed up with fabulous stories and incidents,
certainly not of Mahometan invention."[276] But this latter half, or
the traditions about the pyramid builders, Surid, Ben Shaluk, Ben
Sermuni, etc., who lived "before the Flood," etc. etc., did assuredly
not require to be quoted, as they had really nothing whatever to do with
the object under discussion--viz., the opening of the sarcophagus under
the Caliph Al Mamoon, and the accounts or history of the pyramids, as
given by Arabian authors themselves.

In the course of this communication to the Royal Society, Professor
Smyth did not allude to or rescind the erroneous table and calculations
from Sir Isaac Newton regarding the Sacred Cubit, printed and commented
upon in some of the preceding pages (see _ante_, p. 244, etc.) But, at
the end of the subsequent discussion he handed round, as a printed
"Appendix" to his three volume work, a total withdr