[883] For θήκαις, “tombs,” in the text, Kramer is of opinion that we should read Θήβαις, Thebes, which is also the translation of the passage by Guarini.
[884] The meaning of the passage is clear, and can be understood, as critics have already explained, only as implying the intercalation of a 366th day every fourth year. Some have asserted that Julius Cæsar adopted this method of intercalating a day from the civil practice of the Alexandrines; others, on the contrary, appear disposed to believe that J. Cæsar was the first to give an idea of it, according to the advice of Sosigenes. There is truth and error in both these opinions. On the one hand, it is certain that Strabo, who visited Egypt a short time after the conquest of the country by the Romans, would not have omitted to attribute to them the institution of this year, if it really belonged to them. So far from doing so, he says (above, § 29) distinctly, that this method of intercalation was known and practised by the priests of Heliopolis and Thebes. Diodorus Siculus, who visited Egypt just at the time of the first arrival of the Romans, gives the same account as Strabo. Can we therefore believe that the Egyptians before this period were ignorant of the bissextile intercalation? On the other hand, it is not less certain that this method of intercalation was only introduced into civil use at Alexandria from the time of Julius Cæsar: before this period, the incomplete year of 365 days was adopted throughout the whole of Egypt, as is attested by a host of authorities, and confirmed by the date of the Rosetta stone, which only applies to this method of reckoning. Hence we see (I.) that Julius Cæsar really obtained the idea of a fixed year of 365-1/4 days from the Egyptians, where it was employed for scientific or religious purposes only, whilst the incomplete year was the vulgar and common year; (II.) that he made this fixed year the common year, both among the Romans and Alexandrines, who were a people most readily disposed to adopt foreign innovations. It is, however, probable that the rest of Egypt preserved the ancient use of the incomplete year.
[885] Strabo, I think, is the only author who places Crocodilopolis and Aphroditopolis in this part of Egypt. Letronne.
[886] For καὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν of the text, Casaubon reads τεκμηρίων, “signs.” Coray proposes καὶ μέτρων, “measures.” The expression in the text is obscure, and the translation is a conjecture of the meaning.
[887] This was the general opinion of antiquity, and was reproduced by Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and others; in short, by all the Alexandrine school. At the time of Eratosthenes, the obliquity of the ecliptic was 23° 45’ 17”. Syene was therefore 20’ 6” from being exactly under the tropic; for 24° 5’ 23” (latitude of Syene)—23° 45’ 17” = 20’ 6”. This would be the distance of the centre of the sun from the zenith of Syene; whence it follows that the northern limb of the sun was about 5’ from it. In the time of Strabo, the obliquity was only 23° 42’ 22”; the difference between the zenith of Syene and the northern limb of the sun was about 8’. Lastly, about 140 of the vulgar era, the obliquity was reduced to 23° 41’ 7”. Syene was then 24’ 16” from the tropic, and its zenith was about 10’ from the northern limb of the sun; when the shadows of gnomons of any tolerable size must have been perceptible, and Syene could not have been any longer considered as lying under the tropic. As regards the well which served to ascertain the instant of the solstice, Pliny and Arrian both mention it. The formation of it no doubt belonged to a very remote period. In the time of Strabo, the rays of the sun could not have reached entirely to the bottom, but the shadow was so small that it was not sufficient to shake the ancient opinion. In fact, the angle being about 8’, and supposing the depth to have been 50 feet, the northern side would have projected a shadow of about 18 lines; the rest would have remained in full light, and the reflexion would have caused the whole circumference of the well to appear illuminated. Letronne.
[888] Kramer considers the passage between brackets to be an interpolation, as the same sense is conveyed in the passage which immediately follows.
[889] The number here given is nearly twice too great. Kramer quotes G. Parthey (de Philis insula) for correcting the error to 50 stadia, and for perceiving that it arose from the very frequent substitution in manuscripts of the letter P (100) for N (50).
[890] Unhewn stones, with a head of Mercury upon them.
[891] Herod. ii. 28, who, however, seems to doubt the veracity of his informant.