We have here a distinct and an admitted analogy between the original characteristic of the Egyptian and the American Pyramids,--proved upon the very point [the sides] brought forward by him to negate the proposition, and from his own words. Again; at the base of the Pyramid of Cephrenes (Egypt), the triangular stones that formed the smooth sides are still perceptible; so, also, are they to be seen at the base of the Pyramid of Palenque,--each stone an oracular witness against his "conclusive consideration." He objects to similitude upon another ground, and again refutes himself,--viz.: "The Pyramids of Egypt are all square at the base,--the nearest approach to this _is at Copan_; but even at that place there is no entire Pyramid standing alone and disconnected,--_nor one with four sides complete_, but only _two_, or at most _three sides_, and intended to form part of other structures." At Copan (as we have shewn) the very measurement of the base is within a few feet and (from errors in sum total by different authors) may justly be regarded as identical in size with the great Pyramid of Egypt. It has, it is true, but three sides (pyramidal); the fourth being on the river, consists of a perpendicular wall, identical in height to the sea-wall of Tyrus. In Egypt they had no river-walls that were perpendicular. But why does he select Copan only, to prove whether _four sides_ existed? Why not again review Palenque? His _motive_ is not concealed with the proverbial ingenuity of his country; for at Palenque the _four_-sided pyramidal structure is found, both in his description and in his map of locality, where no less than _five_ "Casas" (houses) are presented on pyramidal bases, having distinctly _four sides_, and three of them square; nor is this all, _the Temple of Palenque itself_ stands on a pyramidal elevation, having distinctly _four sides_! As he read a "Congressional" document in the Ruins of Palenque, by the light of "fire beetles," it would almost appear that he formed his "_conclusions_" by the same uncertain midnight lamps;--for from such treacherous and deceptive flames has he illumined the historical portion of his volumes; but yet the glimmering of the "feeble light" is sufficient to discover his hidden motive. We now bring forward a contradiction more astonishing than all the preceding: and but that his volumes are before us, it would scarcely be credited from the pen of any critic. Vol. ii., p. 439, he writes-- "Besides, the Pyramids of Egypt are known to have _interior chambers_, and whatever their other uses, to have been intended and _used as sepulchres_. These (American), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No INTERIOR CHAMBERS _have ever been discovered, and probably none exist_!" In the _first_ volume (p. 143), in writing of the pyramidal structure rising from the centre of the Temple of Copan, is the following description, and which was reserved from the details of that City, to prove this contradiction.