used by the Ancient Egyptians. ' 171 



expressing dates. The month Athur might have been expressed in a date by 

 the known symbol of the goddess of that name, who presided over it ; namely, a 

 hawk within an enclosure ; but it always is expressed by a much more compli- 

 cated group of hieroglyphics, signifying " the third month of vegetation." Now, 

 on any of the hypotheses which we have been considering, except the first, it is 

 a strange and unaccountable circumstance, that names of this last kind (names 

 expressive of physical character) should have been given to the months at all ; 

 and on any of the hypotheses, the first inclusive, it is unaccountable how they 

 continued in use, after they were found not to represent correctly the physical 

 characters which they professed to represent. There is, it appears to me, only 

 one way, in which this most remarkable fact can be accounted for. The names 

 were first applied to the months of & fixed year ; they continued to be applied to 

 the months of such a year, until the use of them was firmly established by cus- 

 tom ; and, when a wandering year was substituted for the old fixed one, the 

 deviation was gradual ; there was no violent change, sufficient to overcome the 

 force of habit, which would plead powerfully for the retention of the old names. 



But, it will be asked, how can we suppose it possible that the Egyptians, if 

 they had ever enjoyed the advantage of having a fixed year, would abandon it, 

 and adopt the less perfect year of 365 days in place of the more perfect one ? 

 To this I reply, that the Egyptians had a different notion of what a year ought to 

 be from what we have ; and that we have no right to question their having acted 

 in a particular manner, merely because, if we, with our present feelings, had 

 been in their situation, we should have acted otherwise. I conceive that, ac- 

 cording to Egyptian notions, the year of 365 days, as it existed In the age of the 

 Ptolemies, and for fourteen or fifteen centuries previously, was the perfect model 

 of what a year ought to be ; that the change, which introduced it in place of the 

 old fixed year, would be considered as a grand reformation of the calendar ; and 

 that the getting rid of the 366th day, which had previously occurred at the end 

 of certain years, would be regarded as the getting rid of an abominable 

 nuisance. 



This is not a mere conjecture of my own ; the testimony of antiquity deci- 

 dedly favours this opinion. Geminus, the most ancient writer extant, who 

 alludes to the form of the year, further than simply to describe it, says that " it 

 possessed a great advantage in the estimation of the Egyptians, in that it sancti- 



r 2 



