52

Ancient traditional testimony.

Here another consideration comes in ; the only piece of really useful and accurate
information on the design, that the classical writers give, is that collected by the
earliest literary visitor to the monument.

The original statement made to Herodotus (as most harmoniously interpreted by
John Taylor) was that the height squared was equal to the area of one face, and that
this doubly-represented quantity was equal to 8 arourai of 100 cubits in the side.
Now, as Ave have already seen, this Egyptian cubit is exactly equal in mean value to
the 400th of the Pyramid cone line on 366* base, and accordingly half the cone line,
or 200 of these cubits square, or 100 Double King's Chamber units square, is exactly
(by the π proportion) as already mentioned, equal to half the square of the height ; in
short, this account given to Herodotus is the tradition of the true derivation of the
Egyptian cubit from the whole external and then accessible Pyramid, an account of
connection sufficiently complex not to have been accidentally discovered if undesigned,
and yet a true account of the connection and derivation of that cubit from its great
prototype and originator.

Further, if Ave even could reject the intention of this beaiitiful harmony • of the
Egyptian tradition Avith the actual facts, it is certain that if the 365' base be assumed,
the length of the Egyptian cubit required to produce the relationship asserted, is far
from Avhat can be legitimately deduced from the total of knoAvn examples.

An objection has been raised, that the solar day is the clay Avhich concerns man, and
therefore should be represented in the base, in place of the sidereal day. Noav
though all such ideas of Avhat should be have absolutely no A'alue in the face of Avhat
■is, still it may be desirable to sheAV that the Great Pyramid is not irrational, as some
seem to suppose, by referring to the sidereal day. Though it is objected that but feAV
in the kingdom knoAV the beginning or end of the sidereal day, yet it is true that
no one knows, or cares to knoAV, the true beginning or end of the solar day. In pro-
fessing to use solar time we are obliged to resort to mean solar time determined by the
stars, Avhich is neArer the actual solar time but tAvice in the year, rather in the Avay that
a clock standing still is always right twice a day.

It is only barbarians and savages in science that could resort for proper time to a
timekeeper so bright no one can look at it, and so broad that no accurate shadow can
be cast by it. The stars, on the contrary, are the- perfection of timekeepers, as perfect
as any natural objects can be, clearly visible and observeable, infinitely narrow
angularly, so as to disappear or transit instantaneously, and by observing them the
equable motion of the earth is not interfered Avith, and complicated, by such a complex
allowance as must be made for the solar trouble of the earth's orbit being elliptic,
and moreover, of A^ariable ellipticity.

AH
then ol

also