used by the Ancient Egyptians. 161 



as being In its nature a wandering one, — as having been so, and as still to con- 

 tinue so ; and, this being the case, it seems hard to conceive how any legislator 

 would think of giving names to the seasons of the wandering year, grounded on 

 their coincidence with the seasons of a fixed year ; and it is still harder to con- 

 ceive how the names given by such a legislator should have supplanted those 

 previously in use, and become the only ones, by which time was hieroglyphically 

 described for above 2000 years ! 



3. The next supposition which I have to refute is, that these hieroglyphical 

 names were originally given to the months of a year of 360 days. In the first 

 draught of this paper I had not thought it necessary to notice an hypothesis, 

 which appeared so irrational as this ; but I have since learned that M. Biot has 

 adopted it ; and respect to his talents induces me to notice his work. There does 

 not appear to be any argument brought forward by M. Biot in support of this 

 opinion. He assumes, as two incontrovertible propositions, that the Egyptians 

 originally used a year of 360 days, and that their calendar was originally adapted 

 to such a year ; and all his ingenuity is employed in inventing for them cycles, 

 which, if they had known and used them, would have obviated, in some measure, 

 the inconveniences of the system which he ascribes to them. Now I have 

 already shown, thkt there is no ancient testimony in support of the opinion that 

 the Egyptians used a year of 360 days ; and as for the form of the calendar 

 being an evidence of it, M. Blot might have recollected that the Sanscullotides 

 were an original and essential part of the year, which his countrymen adopted at 

 the Revolution, and which was precisely similar In its construction to the Egyptian 

 year. There is not a shadow of evidence opposed to the opinion, that the " five 

 celestial days" were, in like manner, an original and essential part of the hiero- 

 glyphic calendar. M. Blot has stated, that " in the first ages of a nascent ■ 

 civilization a year of 360 days, divided as in Egypt, would express the annual 

 series of operations of agriculture with a fidelity which should have been long 

 sufficient (qui a du long-temps suffire)." In reply to this, I will only observe, 

 that. In the short space of thirteen years, during which the French revolutionary 

 calendar continued in use, if the sanscullotides had been omitted, the commence- 

 ment of the year, and of course that of each of the months, would have deviated 

 sixty-eight days from its original place ; the vintage would scarcely be over when 

 Nivose would commence, and the snow might be still on the ground in the 



VOL. XVIII. X 



