CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CALENDAR AND ITS REVISION.

In the last chapter the so-called Sothic cycle was discussed, and dates of the commencement of the successive cycles were suggested.

These dates were arrived at by taking the very simplest way of writing a calendar in pre-temple times, and using the calendar inscriptions in the most natural way.

The dates for the coincidence of the heliacal rising of Sirius and the 1st Thoth of the vague year at, or near, the solstice, were--

270 B.C. 1728 B.C. 3192 B.C.

Here, _in limine_, we meet with a difficulty which, if it cannot be explained, evidently proves that the Egyptians did not construct and use their calendar in the way we have supposed.

We have it on the authority of Censorinus that a Sothic period was completed in 139 A.D., and that there was then a vague year in partial use. It is here that the work of Oppolzer is of such high value to us; he discussed all the statements made by Censorinus, and comes to the conclusion that his account is to be depended upon. It has followed from the inquiries of chronologists that in this year the 1st of Thoth took place on July 20 (Julian), the date originally of the heliacal rising of Sirius, the beginning of the year.

This being so, then, in the year 23 A.D.--in which the Alexandrine reform of the calendar, of which more presently, was introduced--the 1st of Thoth would take place on August 29, a very important date. Censorinus also said that in his own time (A.D. 238) the 1st of Thoth of the vague year fell on June 25. The diagram will show the connection of these three dates in reference to the vague year. The relations of the statements made as to the years 139 and 238 are very clearly discussed by Prof. Oppolzer.

Oppolzer, then, being satisfied as to the justice of taking the year 139 A.D. as a time of coincidence of the fixed and vague years--the latter being determined alone by the heliacal rising of Sirius, and, be it remembered, not by the solstices--calculated with great fulness, using Leverrier's modern values, the years in which, in the various Egyptian latitudes, chiefly taking Memphis (lat. 30°) and Thebes (lat. 25°), the coincidence between the two Thoths occurred in the previous periods of Egyptian history. He finds these dates for latitude 30° as follow:--

Julian year. Historical year.[76] 0 -4235 -4236 1 -2774 -2775 2 -1316 -1317 3 + 139 + 139 4 +1591 +1591 5 +3039 +3039

Now, the date which Oppolzer gives for the coincidence which is nearest the date we had previously determined at 270 B.C. is 139 A.D. There is a difference of 409 years.

The question is, Can this fundamental difference be explained? I think it can.

In the first place, it is beyond doubt that, in the interval between the Ramessids and the Ptolemies, the calendar, even supposing the vague year to have been used and to have been retained, had been fundamentally altered, and the meanings of the hieroglyphics of the tetramenes had been changed--in other words, the designations of the three seasons had been changed.

On this point I quote Krall[77]:--

"It is well known that the interpretation of the seasons and the months given by Champollion was opposed by Brugsch, who propounded another, which is now universally adopted by experts. Something has happened here which is often repeated in the course of Egyptian history--the signs have changed their meaning. Under the circumstance that the vague year during 1461 years wanders through the seasons in a great cycle, it is natural that the signs for the tetramenes should have changed their significations in the course of millenniums.

"While Thoth was the first month of the inundation in the documents of the Thutmosids and Ramessids, we have in the time of the Ptolemies the month Pachons as the first month of the flood season. Whilst Brugsch's explanation is valid for the time of the Ramessids, it is not so for that of the Ptolemies, to which Champollion's view is applicable."

The signs used for the tetramenes are supposed to represent water, a field with growing plants, and a barn; the natural order would be that the first should represent the inundation, the second the sowing which succeeds it, and the last harvest-time. If this be conceded, the initial system would have had the month Thoth connected with the water sign, as Thoth in early Egyptian times was the first inundation month. But in the times of the Ramessids even this is not so. Thoth has the sowing sign assigned to it. In the time of the Ptolemies the Hood is no longer in Thoth, but in Pachons, and Pachons has the barn sign attached to it, while the month Thoth is marked by the water sign, thereby bringing back the hypothetical relation _between the name of the month and the sign_, although, as we have seen, Thoth is no longer the flood month.

Egyptologists declare that all, or at least part, of this change took place between the periods named; they are undoubtedly justified as regards a part.

At one point in this interval we are fortunately supplied with some precise information. In the year 238 B.C. a famous decree was published, variously called the decree of Canopus and the decree of Tanis, since it was inscribed on a stone found there. It is perfectly clear that one of the functions of this decree was to change, or to approve an already made change in, the designation of the season or tetramene in which the inundation commenced, from Thoth to Pachons.

Another function was to establish a fixed year, as we shall see presently. We must assume, then, that a vague year was in vogue prior to the decree. Now the decree tells us that at its date the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on 1 Payni. Assuming that this date had any relation to the system we have been considering, the cycle to which it belonged must have begun

Days. 5 Epacts 30 Mesori 30 Epiphi 30 Payni ── 95 × 4 = 380 years previously--that is, in the year 618 B.C.

Here at first sight it would seem that the Sothic cycles we have been considering have no relation to the one now in question; for, according to my view, the last Sothic cycle began in 1728 B.C. A little consideration, however, will lead to the contrary view, and show that the time about 600 B.C. was very convenient for a revision of the calendar.

In the first place, nearly a month now elapsed between the coming of the flood and the heliacal rising; and in the second, by making the year for the future _to begin with the flood_, a change might be made involving tetramenes only.

Thus, commencement of cycle 1728 B.C. Epacts 5 Two tetramenes 240 Month between flood and rising of Sirius 30[78] ——— 275 × 4 = 1100 ———— 628 B.C.

Nor is this all. A very simple diagrammatic statement will

1728 B.C.

Thoth ┐ Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph] Athyr │ Choiach ┘ Tybi ┐ Menchir ├ [Hieroglyph] Phamenoth │ Pharmuti ┘ Pachons ┐ Payni ├ [Hieroglyph] Epiphi │ Mesori ┘

show what might also have happened about 618 B.C. if a reformer of the calendar (and one especially of conservative tendencies) appeared upon the scene, who believed that the ancient sign for the inundation-tetramene was the water sign, and that the ancient name was Thoth. Finding the cycle beginning in 1728 B.C. with the signs as shown above--

B.C. 618

Thoth ┐ Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph] Athyr │ Choiach ┘ Tybi ┐ Menchir ├ [Hieroglyph] Phamenoth │ Pharmuti ┘ Pachons ┐ Payni ├ [Hieroglyph] Epiphi │ Mesori ┘

when starting fresh, he would seize the opportunity of effecting a change, not only by dealing with a tetramene, but he would change the names of the tetramenes allocated to the signs; as Krall remarks, it was almost merely a question of a change of the sign! It really was more, because the new tetramene began with the flood.

Assuming this, we can see exactly what was done in 238 B.C., _i.e._, about 380 years later. We have seen that the 380 years is made up of

5 Epacts 30 Mesori 30 Epiphi 30 Payni ── 95 × 4 = 380

--the heliacal rising of Sirius occurring on 1 Payni, having swept backwards along the months in the manner already explained. We had, to continue the diagrammatic treatment--

B.C. 238

Pachons ┐ Payni ├ [Hieroglyph] Epiphi │ Mesori ┘ Thoth ┐ Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph] Athyr │ Choiach ┘ &c.

To sum up, so far as we have gone, we have the three inscriptions at Philæ, Elephantine and the still more ancient one of Pepi (?), indicating on the simple system we have suggested beginnings of Sothic cycles on the 1st Thoth about the years

270 ┐ 1728 ├ B.C. 3192 ┘

On the other hand, we have the decree of Canopus, giving us by exactly the same system a local revision of the calendar about 600 B.C. I say _about_ 600 B.C. because it must be remembered that a difference of 2½ days in the phenomena observed will make a difference of 10 years in the date, and we do not know in what part of the valley the revision took place, and therefore at what precise time in relation to the heliacal rising the Nile-rise was observed.

Whenever presumably it took place, New Year's Day was reckoned by the Flood, and the rising of Sirius followed nearly, if not quite, a month afterwards. The equivalent of the old 1st Thoth was therefore 1 Payni. In months, then, the old 1st Thoth was separated from the new one (= 1 Payni) by three months (Payni, Mesori, Epiphi) and the Epacts.

In this way, we can exactly account for the difference of 409 years referred to above as the dates assigned by Censorinus and myself for the beginning of the Sirius cycle.

Difference between 270 and 239 = 31 years. 3 months = 90 days × 4 = 360 " 5 epacts × 4 = 20 " ─── 411 "

The difference of two years is equal only to half a day!

It seems, then, pretty clear from this that the suggestion I have ventured to make on astronomical grounds may be worth consideration on the part of Egyptologists. If our inquiries have really led us to the true beginnings of the Sothic periods, it is obvious that those who informed Censorinus that the year 139 A.D. was the end of a cycle _omitted to tell him what we now can learn from the decree of Tanis_.