English
Having adverted to the circumstance of the sun entering the same sign twice in every month, which to some may appear extra* ordinary^ as inconsistent wilh real facts, I shall now give the explanation which I promised, because I do not find that any of the Roman writers, whose works have come into my hands, have given the slightest mtimation of the cause, though they mention the fact, and expressed it in the Roman calendar in those months in which the solstices and equinoxes fiedL The cause, however, of this seeming i!nconsistency is simple, and founded on an ancient custom, that existed long befote the time of Julius Caesar. It is this : — In early times, the months and the signs comcided, and were therefore considered the same; and though in process of time they deviated, yet custom stiU held them the same, and no alteration was made on that account : so tfiat if the solstice happened to faU on the 8th, 10th, 12th, or 15th day of the month, according to the quantity of deviation, it Digitized by Google 280 APPENDIX. would be stated as being in the 8th, lOth, 12th, or 15th degree of the sign, by reason that the month and sign were considered as synonymous, or the same : and this practice prevailed down to the time of the Julian correction, which was the cause of the sun appearing to enter the sign twice in the month ; once according to the ancient method, the other according to the new, or rather Chaldean, as it appears to have been called. In order to show this more clearly, let us carry back the calculation to the old year of Numa, and see how they will then stand. I have stated above, that the nominal difference between the old and new style was 79 days, which made the 15th of October to be called the 1st Janu- ary. Now by the Roman calendar, Julian style, the sun is said to enter the sign Aquarius on the 16th of January. On what day; therefore, of the old year of Numa did this fall ? If the 15th of October be the 1 st of January, then the 16th of January must be the 30th of October, the day on which the sun was supposed to enter the sign in the old year. Again, as Uie sun entered the sign on the 18th of December by the Roman calendar, on what day of the month did that fall in the old year ? From the 18th of Decem- ber to the 1st of January is 14 days : count these back from the 15th of October, exclusive of that day, because already reckoned, and it will carry you to the 1st of October, the day on which the sun was supposed to enter the sign by the old method. Thus, I think, I have given sufficient proof that the months and the signs were considered the same in ancient times. But to proceed farther: — the winter solstice fell on the 25th of December, ac- cording to the calendar of Julius Caesar, which is the 8th day after the 18th of December, both inclusive ; but th^ 18th of December I have shown to have been the 1st of October, consequently the 25th must be the 8th of October, the day on which the winter solstice fell : and as the month and the sign were considered the same, the solstice of course would be said to be in the 8<h degree of the sign, — a circumstance which, though very simple in itself, has per{^exed many of our modern astronomers, who could not comprehend how the solstice, which of itself was the beginning of the sign, should be in the 8th degree. . Columella is the only writer that I know of that speaks on diis subject, but without entering into any explanation. He says^ Book ix. ch. 14. V From the setting of the Pleiades to the winter ** solstk^e, which happens ^most about the 23d of December, ill ^* the eighth degree of Capricorn, &c. Nor am I ignorant of Digitized by Google APPENDIX. 281 ^^ Hipparchtts's computatioo, which teachesi, that the solstices and *' equmoxes do not happen in the eighth, but in the first degree of •* the signs. But in this rural discipline, I now follow the calen- ** dars of Eudoxes and Meton, and those of ancient astronomers, ** which are adapted to the public sacrifices ; because husband- ** men are both better acquainted with that old opinion which has ** been commonly entertained ; nor yet is the niceness and exact- ** ness of Hipparchus necessary to the grosser apprehensions and ** scanty learning of husbandmen." Again, Book xi. ch. 2. he says : " The 17Ui of December the sun passes into Capricorn : it ** is the winter solstice, as Hipparchus will have it. The 24th of ** December is the winter solstice (as the Chaldeans observe)." Here Columella would make a distinction, as to the supposed difference between Hipparchus and the Chaldeans. But he was flustaken in his idea : he supposed the sun entered the sign on the 17th of December, because, according to his opinion, it was the beginning of the month in the old year ; but it did not .follow from thence that Hipparchus would have made it the solstice : on the contrary, he would, as before expressed, have made the sign to have commenced at the solstice, whether the time of it was by his own observations, or by the Chaldeans, if he found it right. The explanation now given, while it serves to show the original cause of the two entries of the sun into the same sign in one month, will, I hope, likewise be sufficient to point out the fallacy of depending on the positions of the colures, as mentioned by ancient writers, for determining the antiquity of the time to which they might be supposed to refer ; for we here see, that the de- grees referred to for the position of the colure are nothing more nor less than the days of the month, which cannot be of any . real use, as we are totally unacquainted with the various changes they may have undergone, and the timeis when such changes were made. Therefore nothing short of an actual observation, referring the positions of the colures to some fixed star, can be relied on. With respect to my translations of the two calendars above given, I hope they will be received with indulgence, and that weight and attention their apparent correspondence with the Roman calendar entitles them to. All I can now say is, that I have spared no pains to render them as correct as the imperfect state of the original^ would aUow, and that I have spent a great O O Digitized by Google 282 APPENDIX. deal of time in their investigation. Should, however, iny laboum in this respect ultimately prove useful, in throwing a ray of light on the subject of hieroglyphics, which was the principal object I had in view in undertaking so difficult a task, I shall not deem the time employed as lost or thrown away. FINIS, Taylor, Green, & Litdewood, Priuten, 15, Old Bailey. Digitized by Google •^ ^ V Digitized by Google igitized by Google v^ i Digitized by Google Digitized by -oogle 55 I I I Digitized by Google Digitizec oy /Google tx ^ Digitized by Google Digitized by Google ^ ^ i \ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ 5 ^ 1 .1 .1 5N i ^ V 1 ^^; i 1 N 1 5 1 SI ^^^. 5i "i ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ N^ 1 1 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 .fe c^j' X 5 sS ^ ^; ^ v^- i ' 1 ^. 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J^ 1 1 ^ 3 1 4\ ^ b| ^^' 1 feM Digitized by Google Digitized by Google Digitized by Google ^ ^ ^ ^.^ fe ^ fe fe t 0\ t: fe fet ^ Digitized by Google' Flale V2I. Digitized by Google Digitized by Google / Digitized by (ioogk Digiti zed by Google 5 \ \ Digitized by VjOOQ IC Digitized by Google Digitized by ^ Digitized by Google r Digitized by Google Digitized by ■^r^TT^^H CT- I ^ > X V Digitized by Google Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by Google Digitized by Google Digitized by Google Digitized by Google ^Mb^ Digitized by Google Digitized by Google