CHAPTER XXVI.

THE SOTHIC CYCLE AND THE USE MADE OF IT.

Although it is necessary to enter somewhat into the domain of chronology to really understand the astronomical observations on which the Egyptian year depended and the uses made of the year, I shall limit myself to the more purely astronomical part. To go over the already vast literature is far from my intention, nor is it necessary to attempt to settle all the differences of opinion which exist, and which are so ably referred to by Krall in his masterly analysis,[73] to which I own myself deeply indebted. The tremendously involved state of the problem may be gathered from the fact that the authorities are not yet decided whether many of the dates met with in the inscriptions really belong to a fixed or a vague year!

Let us, rather, put ourselves in the place of the old Egyptians, and inquire how, out of the materials they had at hand, a calendar could be constructed in the simplest way.

They had the vague year and the Sirius year, so related, as we have seen, that the successive coincidences of the 1st Thoth in both years took place after an interval of 1460 years. Now, for calendar purposes, they wanted not only to know the days of the years, but the years of the cycle. This latter is the only point we need consider here. How were they to do this? The _easiest_ way would be to conceive a great year or _annus magnus_, consisting of 1460 years, each day of which would represent four years in actual time; and further, to consider everything that happened, which had to be thus chronicled, to take place on the 1st of Thoth in each year. How would this system work? During the first four years, at the beginning of a cycle, the 1st Thoth vague would happen on the 1st Thoth of the cycle. During the next four years the 1st Thoth of the vague year would fall on the fifth epact, and so on; so, as the cycle swept onward, each group of four years would be marked by a date in the cycle, which would allow the place of the group of years in the cycle to be exactly defined. But as the cycle swept onward, the date would sweep backward among the months of the great sacred year until its end.

To make this clear, it will be well to construct another diagram somewhat like the former one.

Let us map out the 1460 years which elapsed between two successive coincidences between the 1st of Thoth in the vague year and the heliacal rising of Sirius at the solstice, so that we can see at a glance the actual number of years from any start-point (= 0) at which the 1st of Thoth in the vague year occurred successively further and further from the heliacal rising, until at length, after a period of 1460 years, it coincided again. As the Sirius-year is longer than the vague one, the first vague year will be completed before the first Sirius-year, hence the second vague year will commence just before the end of the fixed year, and that is the reason I have reversed the order of months in the diagram.

Now it is clear that, if the Egyptians really worked in this fashion, the date of the heliacal rising of Sirius, given in this way, would enable us to determine the number of years which had elapsed from the beginning of the cycle.

This calendar system, it will be seen, is good only for groups of four years. Now, a system which went no further than this would be a very coarse one. We find, however, that special precautions were taken to define which year of the four was in question, and the fact that this was done goes some way to support the suggestion I have made. Brugsch,[74] indeed, shows that a special sign was employed to mark the first year of each series of four.

Next, as a matter of fact it is known (I have the high authority of Dr. Krall for the statement) that each king was supposed to begin his reign on the 1st Thoth (or 1st Pachons) of the particular year in which that event took place, and the fact that this was so further supports the suggestion we are considering. During the reign its length and the smaller events might be recorded in vague years and days so long as the date of its commencement had been referred to a cycle.

The diagram will show how readily the cycle year can be determined for any vague year. If, for instance, the 1st Thoth in the vague year falls on 1 Tybi of the cycle, we see that 980 years must have elapsed since the beginning of the cycle, and so on.

Here, then, we have a true calendar system. If the Egyptians had not this, what had they?

Dealing, then, with the matter so far as we have gone, we find that the system suggested enabled the place of the beginning of each vague year and of each king's reign to be dated in terms of the cycle of 1460 years; and further that, if they had not such a system as this, they had no means of recording any lapse of time which exceeded a year. It is not likely that any nation would put itself in such a position, least of all the ancient Egyptians.

The existence of periods of 365 years and of 120 years among the Egyptians is easily explained when the existence of this great year is recognised; the 365 years' period, marking approximately the intervals from solstice to equinox and equinox to solstice, in the natural year.

Let us next try to get a little further by assuming the supposed method of dating to have been actually employed, and finding the year of the beginning of one or more of these cycles thus obtained. This should eventually help us to determine whether or not the Egyptians acted on this principle, or used one widely different. In such an investigation as this, however, we are terribly hampered by the uncertainty of Egyptian dates; while, as I have said before, there is great divergence of opinion among Egyptologists as to whether, from very early times, there was not a true fixed year.

But let us suppose that the vague year was in common use as a civil year, and that the rising of Sirius started the year; then, if we can get any accepted date to work with, and use the diagram to see how many years had elapsed between that date and the start-point of the cycle, we shall see if there be any cyclical relation; and if we find it, it will be evidence, so far as it goes, of the existence not only of a vague year, but of the mode of reckoning we are discussing.

Now it so happens that there are three references, with dates given, to the rising of Sirius in widely different times; and, curiously enough, the month references are nearly the same. I begin with the most recent, as in this case the date can be fixed with the greater certainty. It is an inscription at Philæ, described by Brugsch (p. 87), who states that, when it was written, the 1st of Thoth = 28th of Epiphi. That is, according to the view we are considering, the heliacal rising of Sirius--that is, the 1st Thoth of the vague year fell on the 28th Epiphi of our cycle. He fixes the date of the inscription between 127 and 117 B.C. Let us take it as 122. Next, referring to our diagram to find how many years had elapsed since the beginning of the cycle, we have--

Days. 5 Epacts. 30 Mesori. 2 Epiphi. ── 37 × 4 = 148 years elapsed.

The cycle, then, began in (118 + 122 =) 270 B.C.

We next find a much more ancient inscription recording the rising of Sirius on the 28th of Epiphi. Obviously, if the Sothic cycle had anything to do with the matter, this must have happened 1458 years earlier, _i.e._, about (1458 + 122 =) 1580 B.C. Under which king? Thothmes III., who reigned, according to Lepsius, 1603-1565 B.C.; according to Brugsch, 1625-1577. Now, the inscription in question is stated to have been inscribed by Thothmes III., and, it may be added, on the temple (now destroyed) at Elephantine.

There is yet another inscription, also known to be of a still earlier period, referring to the rising of Sirius on the 27th of Epiphi. We may neglect the difference of one day in the cycle (representing four years); and again, if the use of the Sothic cycle were the origin of the identity of dates, we have this time, according to Oppolzer, a period of 1460 years to add: this gives us (1580 + 1460 =) 3040 B.C. Again under which king? Here we are face to face with one of the difficulties of these inquiries, to which reference has already been made. It may be stated, however, that the inscription is ascribed to Pepi, and that, according to various authorities, that king reigned some time between 3000 and 3700 B.C.

We come, then, to this: that one of the oldest dated inscriptions known seems to belong to a system which continued in use at Philæ up to about 100 B.C., and it was essentially a system of a vague year, the 1st Thoths of which were represented as days on a 1460-years' cycle.

Now, assuming that the approximate date of the earliest inscription is 3044 B.C., and that it represented the heliacal rising of Sirius on the 27th of Epiphi, the year 3044 must have been the [(5 + 30 + 3) x 4 =] 152nd after the beginning of the cycle. The cycle, then, must have commenced (3044 + 152 =) 3196 B.C.

If we assume that the real date of Pepi, who, it is stated, reigned 100 years, included the year 3044 B.C., it may be, then, that the inscriptions to which I have directed attention give us three Sothic cycles beginning--

122 + 148 = 270 B.C. 1580 + 148 = 1728 B.C. 3044 + 148 = 3192 B.C.

According to Biot's calculation, the first heliacal rising of Sirius at the solstice took place in the year 3285 B.C.; it is possible, then, that the Egyptians utilised this heliacal rising within a hundred years of the date on which it would have been first possible for them to do so. This shows how keenly alive they were in these matters, and also, I think, that they had been trained by watching some other star previously.

It would also follow that the vague year was in common use. There is ample evidence to show, however, that by this time the priests were fully acquainted with the true year, which was called the sacred year, and that every four years an additional epact was interpolated. Their solar temples, then, at last had been utilised.

One argument which has been used to show that a vague year was not in use during the time of the Ramessids has been derived from some inscriptions at Silsilis which refer to the dates on which sacred offerings were presented there to the Nile-god. As the dates 15th of Thoth and 15th of Epiphi are the same in all three inscriptions, although they cover the period from Rameses II. to Rameses III.--120 years--it has been argued by Brugsch that a fixed year is in question.

Brugsch points out that the two dates are separated by 65 days; that this is the exact interval between the Coptic festivals of the commencement of the flow and the marriage of the Nile--the time of highest water; and that, therefore, in all probability these are the two natural phenomena to commemorate which the offerings on the dates in question were made.

But Brugsch does not give the whole of the inscription. A part of it, translated by De Rougé,[75] runs thus:--

"I (the king) know what is said in the depôt of the writings which are in the House of the Books. The Nile emerges from its fountains to give the fulness of life-necessaries to the gods," etc.

De Rougé justly remarks:

"Le langage singulier que tient le Pharaon dédicateur pourrait même faire soupçonner _qu'il ne s'agit pas de la venue effective de l'eau sainte du Nil à l'une des deux dates précitées_."

Krall (_loc. cit._, p. 51) adds the following interesting remarks:--

"Consider, now, what these 'Scriptures of the House of Life' were like. In a catalogue of books from the temple of Edfû we find, besides a series of purely religious writings, 'The knowledge of the periodical recurrence of the double stars (sun and moon),' and the 'Law of the periodical recurrence of the stars.'

" ... The knowledge embodied in these writings dated from the oldest times of the Egyptian empire, in which the priests placed, rightly or wrongly, the origin of all their sacred rolls" (_cf._ Manetho's "History," p.130).

Now, to investigate this question we have to approach some considerations which at first sight may seem to be foreign to our subject. I shall be able to show, however, that this is not so.

_Imprimis_ we must remember that it is a question of Silsilis, where we know, both from tradition and geological evidence, in ancient times the first cataract was encountered. The phrase "the Nile emerges from its fountains" would be much more applicable to Silsilis, the seat of a cataract, than as it is at present. We do not know when the river made its way through this impediment, but we do know that after it took place and the Nile stream was cleared as far as the cataract that still remains at Elephantine, a nilometer was erected there, and that during the whole of later Egyptian history, at all events, the time of the rise of the river has been carefully recorded both there and at Rôda.

From this it is fair to infer that in those more ancient times the same thing took place at Silsilis; if this were so, the reason of the record of the coming of the inundation at Silsilis is not far to seek, and hence the suggestion lies on the surface that the records in question may state the date of the arrival _in relation to Memphis time_.

It has been rendered, I hope, quite clear in Chapter XXIII. that there is a difference of fifteen or sixteen days between the arrival of the inundation at Elephantine and at Memphis. Hence, if in Pepi's time a Nile rise were observed at Silsilis, there might easily be a difference of fifteen days between the rise of the Nile at Silsilis and the Memphic 1st of Thoth. If both at Silsilis and Memphis the Nile rise marked 1st Thoth, the day of the rise at Memphis would correspond to 15th Thoth at Silsilis, so that a king reaching Silsilis with Memphis local time would be struck with this difference, and anxious to record it. May not this, then, have been the important datum recorded in the sacred books? If so, it would not touch the question of the fixed or vague year at all.

Let it, then, be for the present conceded that there was a vague year, and that at least some of the inscriptions which suggest the use of only a fixed year in these early times may be explained in another way.