DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6552#0247
20S
APPENDIX.
nine stones, and that two were wanting at the corners. He remarks
also, that this space, according to Henricus Stephanus, in his
" Commentary on Herodotus," was said to he eight orgyise (or
six feet) ; according to Diodorus Siculus, nine; and to Pliny,
twenty-five.
This platform had been supposed to have been used for
astronomical observations, as was related by Proclus ; but he
conceives, that the additional height could not, in this situation,
have been of any consequence, and that the Pyramid was simply
a tomb.
It was most easily accessible at the north-eastern angle.
The ranges of stone towards the bottom were about four feet
in height and three in breadth, and diminished towards the top
to the height of about two feet — the antient account, that the
smallest block in the edifice measured thirty feet, applied, in his
opinion, to cubic measure — they were supposed to have been
quarried in the Arabian mountains. Notwithstanding the dila-
pidated state of the building, the courses of stone were counted
by himself and his companion, Titus Livius Barretinus, a Vene-
tian, and were found to be two hundred and seven or two hun-
dred and eight. He observes, that the number of them had not
been given by the antients, and that the modern accounts of
them varied ; that they were, according to Bellonius, two hun-
dred and fifty; to Albertus Lewinstein, two hundred and sixty;
to Johannes Helfricus, two hundred and thirty ; and to Grimano,
two hundred and sixteen. He ridicules the antient assertion that
the Pyramids had not shadows, although at noon-day they are
not always to be observed ; and in proceeding to describe the
interior, he attributes the want of accuracy in the antient his-
torians to a religious awe, and to a reluctance to disclose their
mysterious construction, and also to their credulity in trusting to
the assertions of the priests, who, for instance, had informed
Aristides that the foundations were as deep below the base as the
Pyramid was high above it.
Before, however, he enters into any further detail, the author
inserts the account of Ibn Abd Alliokin; observing at the same
time, that the Arabian traditions respecting these buildings were
apparently mere fables.3
Professor Greaves then describes his ascent over a mound of
rubbish thirty-eight feet high, to the entrance in the centre of the
3 See Arabian authors.
APPENDIX.
nine stones, and that two were wanting at the corners. He remarks
also, that this space, according to Henricus Stephanus, in his
" Commentary on Herodotus," was said to he eight orgyise (or
six feet) ; according to Diodorus Siculus, nine; and to Pliny,
twenty-five.
This platform had been supposed to have been used for
astronomical observations, as was related by Proclus ; but he
conceives, that the additional height could not, in this situation,
have been of any consequence, and that the Pyramid was simply
a tomb.
It was most easily accessible at the north-eastern angle.
The ranges of stone towards the bottom were about four feet
in height and three in breadth, and diminished towards the top
to the height of about two feet — the antient account, that the
smallest block in the edifice measured thirty feet, applied, in his
opinion, to cubic measure — they were supposed to have been
quarried in the Arabian mountains. Notwithstanding the dila-
pidated state of the building, the courses of stone were counted
by himself and his companion, Titus Livius Barretinus, a Vene-
tian, and were found to be two hundred and seven or two hun-
dred and eight. He observes, that the number of them had not
been given by the antients, and that the modern accounts of
them varied ; that they were, according to Bellonius, two hun-
dred and fifty; to Albertus Lewinstein, two hundred and sixty;
to Johannes Helfricus, two hundred and thirty ; and to Grimano,
two hundred and sixteen. He ridicules the antient assertion that
the Pyramids had not shadows, although at noon-day they are
not always to be observed ; and in proceeding to describe the
interior, he attributes the want of accuracy in the antient his-
torians to a religious awe, and to a reluctance to disclose their
mysterious construction, and also to their credulity in trusting to
the assertions of the priests, who, for instance, had informed
Aristides that the foundations were as deep below the base as the
Pyramid was high above it.
Before, however, he enters into any further detail, the author
inserts the account of Ibn Abd Alliokin; observing at the same
time, that the Arabian traditions respecting these buildings were
apparently mere fables.3
Professor Greaves then describes his ascent over a mound of
rubbish thirty-eight feet high, to the entrance in the centre of the
3 See Arabian authors.