Work doesn't follow the price of beef;
And if the wretch complain,
Men answer, 'Nobody wants your work,
Beggar! you've lived in vain!'

No. XXXIX.-GOING TO BED.

One old man jumped overboard and said he was going to bed.'-Narrative of the Loss of the Steamship ‘Hibernia.'

I'M faint and very weary,

I've trouble in my head,

I've something heavy on my heart,
And I'd like to go to bed,

To sleep on a soft soft pillow

Well wrapped from the gusty cold

And the winds of frosty fortune.
That pinch me uncontrolled.

I think I'll go to sleep

One jump-and all is done!
And I'll never know grief again
Under the cruel sun.

'Tis but a plash in the billows,

'Twill cure my sorrowful head; I do not want to wake again,

Good night! I'm going to bed!

No. XL.-A POET'S ADMIRER.
THE rich man doats on Robert Burns,
And all his choicest lore he learns,
Echoes the slightest words he spake
For Poetry's and Scotland's sake,—
And builds a palace in the land,
That from his door he may command
The varying beauties of a clime
Made classic by the poet's rhyme;
And he is proud of holy work,
Gives half a million to the Kirk,
And scatters largess ere he dies,
Assured of pulpit flatteries,
But if

poor Burns were still alive,
Bowed down by want, too weak to strive,
Would Jamie give him fifty pound,
To help him over Sorrow's bound?
Perhaps if Burns could do without it!
If not, God wot! I more than doubt it!

No. XLI.-FAME.

WHATE'ER his wit or genius be,
A self-deluding fool is he
Who thinks that immortality
Shall be his bountiful reward

For work achieved, though great and hard,
As hero, painter, sculptor, bard.

Did Homer ever sing ?-who knows?
Or Ossian ?-Shakespeare's self has foes,
Who say he struts in stolen clothes,
And hint that Bacon wrote Macbeth!
Fame for the living is but breath,—
It may be mockery after death!

No. XLII.-TO-MORROW.

FROM birth to death we live in sorrow,
And have no joy but in To-morrow,
That mocks our hope and never breaks
With joys so many as it takes!

No. XLIII.-APPRECIATION.

SWEET is appreciation! wherefore not!
If fools should praise the book that once I wrote,
Why should I weigh their folly ? or despise ?
Fools may be wiser than the very wise!
And if a man, clear-sighted more than most,
Finds beauties countless as the starry host
In verse of mine, shall I not bless his name,
And thank him for a whiff of coming fame ?

No. XLIV.-WHAT TO CALL IT.

'LET's start a new journal to tickle the town,' Said Robinson, winking to Tomkins and Brown;

'Topographical titles are favourites of late,

So we'll call our new venture-bright thought!-BILLINGSGATE.'

FF

VOL. XXXII. NO. CXXVIII,

434

The Mystery of the Pyramids.

BY RICHARD A. PROCTOR.

FEW subjects of inquiry have proved more perplexing than the question of the purpose for which the pyramids of Egypt were built. Even in the remotest ages of which we have historical record, nothing seems to have been known certainly on this point. For some reason or other, the builders of the pyramids concealed the object of these structures, and this so successfully that not even a tradition has reached us which purports to have been handed down from the epoch of the pyramids' construction. We find, indeed, some explanations given by the earliest historians; but they were professedly only hypothetical, like those advanced in more recent times. Including ancient and modern theories, we find a wide range of choice. Some have thought that these buildings were associated with the religion of the early Egyptians; others have suggested that they were tombs; others, that they combined the purposes of tombs and temples; that they were astronomical observatories; defences against the sands of the Great Desert; granaries like those made under Joseph's direction; places of resort during excessive overflows of the Nile; and many other uses have been suggested for them. But none of these ideas are found on close examination to be tenable as representing the sole purpose of the pyramids, and few of them have strong claims to be regarded as presenting even a chief object of these remarkable structures. The significant and perplexing history of the three oldest pyramids—the Great Pyramid of Cheops, Shofo, or Suphis, the pyramid of Chephren, and the pyramid of Mycerinus; and the most remarkable of all the facts known respecting the pyramids generally, viz. the circumstance that one pyramid after another was built as though each had become useless soon after it was finished, are left entirely unexplained by all the theories above mentioned, save one only, the tomb theory, and that does not afford by any means a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances.

I propose to give here a brief account of some of the most suggestive facts known respecting the pyramids, and, after considering the difficulties which beset the theories heretofore advanced, to indicate a theory (new so far as I know) which seems to me to correspond better with the facts than any heretofore advanced; I suggest it, however, rather for consideration than because I regard it as very convincingly supported by the evidence. In fact, to

advance any theory at present with confident assurance of its correctness, would be simply to indicate a very limited acquaintance with the difficulties surrounding the subject.

Let us first consider a few of the more striking facts recorded by history or tradition, noting, as we proceed, whatever ideas they may suggest as to the intended character of these structures.

It is hardly necessary to say, perhaps, that the history of the Great Pyramid is of paramount importance in this inquiry. Whatever purpose pyramids were originally intended to subserve, must have been conceived by the builders of that pyramid. New ideas may have been superadded by the builders of later pyramids, but it is unlikely that the original purpose can have been entirely abandoned. Some great purpose there was, which the rulers of ancient Egypt proposed to fulfil by building very massive pyramidal structures on a particular plan. It is by inquiring into the history of the first and most massive of these structures, and by examining its construction, that we shall have the best chance of finding out what that great purpose was.

According to Herodotus, the kings who built the pyramids reigned not more than twenty-eight centuries ago; but there can be little doubt that Herodotus misunderstood the Egyptian priests from whom he derived his information, and that the real antiquity of the pyramid-kings was far greater. He tells us that, according to the Egyptian priests, Cheops' on ascending the throne plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour one and all in his service; viz. in building the Great Pyramid.' Still following his interpretation of the Egyptian account, we learn that one hundred thousand men were employed for twenty years in building the Great Pyramid, and that ten years were occupied in constructing a causeway by which to convey the stones to the place and in conveying them there. 'Cheops reigned fifty years; and was succeeded by his brother Chephren, who imitated the conduct of his predecessor, built a pyramid--but smaller than his brother's-and reigned fifty-six years. Thus during one hundred and six years, the temples were shut and never opened.' Moreover, Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians so detested the memory of these kings, that they do not much like even to mention their names. Hence they commonly call the pyramids after Philition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place.' 'After Chephren, Mycerinus, son of Cheops, ascended the throne. reopened the temples, and allowed the people to resume the practice of sacrifice. He, too, left a pyramid, but much inferior in size to his father's. It is built, for half of its height, of the

stone of Ethiopia, or, as Professor Smyth (whose extracts from Rawlinson's translation I have here followed) adds, 'expensive red granite.' 'After Mycerinus, Asychis ascended the throne. He built the eastern gateway of the Temple of Vulcan (Phtha); and, being desirous of eclipsing all his predecessors on the throne, left as a monument of his reign a pyramid of brick.'

This account is so suggestive, as will presently be shown, that it may be well to inquire whether it can be relied on. Now, although there can be no doubt that Herodotus misunderstood the Egyptians in some matters, and in particular as to the chronological order of the dynasties, placing the pyramid-kings far too late, yet in other respects he seems not only to have understood them correctly, but also to have received a correct account from them. The order of the kings above named corresponds with the sequence given by Manetho, and also found in monumental and hieroglyphic records. Manetho gives the names Suphis I., Suphis II., and Mencheres, instead of Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus ; while, according to the modern Egyptologists, Herodotus's Cheops was Shofo, Shufu, or Koufou; Chephren was Shafre, while he was also called Nou-Shofo or Noum-Shufu as the brother of Shofo; and Mycerinus was Menhere or Menkerre. But the identity of these kings is not questioned. As to the true dates, there is much doubt, and it is probable that the question will long continue open; but the determination of the exact epochs when the several pyramids were built is not very important in connection with our present inquiry. We may, on the whole, fairly take the points quoted above from Herodotus, and proceed to consider the significance of the narrative, with sufficient confidence that in all essential respects it is trustworthy,

There are several very strange features in the account.

In the first place, it is manifest that Cheops (to call the first king by the name most familiar to the general reader) attached great importance to the building of his pyramid. It has been said, and perhaps justly, that it would be more interesting to know the plan of the architect who devised the pyramid than the purpose of the king who built it. But the two things are closely connected. The architect must have satisfied the king that some highly important purpose, in which the king himself was interested, would be subserved by the structure. Whether the king was persuaded to undertake the work as a matter of duty, or only to advance his own interests, may not be so clear. But that the king was most thoroughly in earnest about the work is certain. A monarch in those times would assuredly not have devoted an enormous amount of labour and material to such a scheme unless he was thoroughly