The Great Pyramid of Jeezeh
A C Height of Pyramid.
D B Diameter of Pyramid— 365*242 Pyramid Cubits.
E F G H Base of Pyramid.
A B C D Diametrical Vertical Section.
A EC J Diagonal Vertical Section.
AC is to twice DB as π, or as 1 is to 3.14159, or as the diameter is to the circumference of a circle.
And A D B, the right section of the Pyramid, is to EFGH, the area of the base, as π, or as 1 is to 3.14159, or as the diameter to the circumference of a circle.
And AC, the height, is the radius of a circle equal in circumference to the external lines of the square base.
Thus actually squaring the circle as accurately as possible.
See Piazzi Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid."
The Week.
[Read 21st December, 1874.]
Circumstances have lately led me to investigate the subject of The Week, so far as the limited time and opportunities at my disposal permitted, and as a result I have a proposal to make, involving I conceive an improvement, equally important, desirable, and practicable. Before however explaining it in detail, it will be proper to glance at the natural history of the present conventional institution.
* Symposia 5. Other points of resemblance between the Jewish and other mythologies are too striking for mere coincidence. Abraham corresponds with Brahma as well as with Saturn, Samson with Hercules, Jephtha's daughter with Iphigenia, &c., &c.
* See Adams' Roman Antiquities, pp. 84 and 331.
† Kees' Cyclopcedia (week) and English Cyclopædia.
‡ History of Rome, vol. xxxvii. See Sir G. C. Lewis, Astronomy of Ancients, p. 301.
§ Humboldt's Cosmos, vol. iv. p. 412, quoting Lepsius in a note.
Mr. Proctor shows* that none of these peoples had any original astronomy, any more than the Egyptians; and I find elsewhere† that they reckoned eclipses, &c., by rules, of the origin and basis of which they had no knowledge. But Mr. Proctor shows also that all their old astronomical records present indications of having been derived from a far superior but extinct civilisation, of which no historical vestige remains, but which must have had its seat in a much more northern latitude. He says, that the length of the winter and summer days given in the oldest Brahminical and Persian records—the oldest Babylonian star risings obtained by Ptolemy—and the measurement of the earth adopted by ancient astronomers, all correspond to a latitude of about 45° north. Finally he adduces reasons—from old Chaldæan representations, which he reproduces, of Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, as Mylitta, Bel, and Nisroch or Asshur; and from the fact of a plano-convex rock crystal lens having been discovered by Layard at Nimroud—for believing that these ancient astronomers probably possessed telescopic appliances of sufficient perfection to enable them to discern the crescent form of Venus, the satellites of Jupiter, and perhaps even the ring of Saturn.
* Saturn and his System, (appendix on Chaldæan Astronomy).
† Bailly's Histoire de l'Astronomie.
‡ Sir Wm. Drummond died in 1828. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and British Ambassador at the Two Sicilies and at Constantinople. He wrote a Review of the Government of Sparta and Athens, Herculanensia, Odin, Origines, œdipus Judaicus, and this work on the Zodiacs.
§ See Godfrey Higgins' Keltic Druids, p. 50, and Do Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes, p. 164.
With respect to the extent to which the Copernican or Pythagorean system was received about the time of our era, it will suffice to refer to St. Augustin (De Civitate Dei, lib. 16, ch. 9, vol. vii. Paris 1685) and Lactantius (Institutiones Divince, lib. 3, ch. 24, vol. i. Deux Ponts 1786), who both found the doctrine so prevalent as to require their special and too successful opposition and condemnation.*
* See Patrice Larroque's Examen Critique des Doctrines de la Religion Chretienne, 4th ed. Paris, 1870. Vol. ii. p. 68. See also Supernatural Religion, p. 87, Australian Edition.
I believe that M. Bailly* the historian of astronomy, is the author of the specific hypothesis of an antediluvian highly civilised people, who, as he says, "brought the sciences to perfection; a people who in the great enterprise of discovering the exact measurement of the earth, dwelt under the 49th degree of latitude." He is often quoted without specific references, and his works in our Public Library are without that indispensable feature in the eyes of inquirers—a good index. The cycles were special subjects of investigation with Bailly. He held that the week was certainly antediluvian, concluding that it was impossible that the seven days composing it could have been dedicated to the same planets in Egypt, India, and Chaldæa, in identical order in these and in many other places beside, unless it had been derived from some older common source. As regards the prehistoric high civilisation his position seems impregnable. But his theory that it was destroyed or scattered by the traditionary flood seems irreconcileable with facts. In the first place the date assigned to Noah's flood, 1655 B.C., is not nearly so old as the Chinese and the Brahminical eras, which also imply a much older separate civilisation; and as Bailly remarks, they evidently exhibit the debris rather than the elements of science. But if the careful labours of Piazzi Smyth at the Great Pyramid have not been altogether thrown away and misrepresented too, the construction of that most ancient of monuments alone bears ample and irrefragable testimony to the existence—when it was designed—of astronomical and mathematical science,† far excelling any which obtained for thousands of subsequent years, but which must have been entirely obsolete and forgotten before the other pyramids in its vicinity were built; probably about 4,000 years ago. The Great Pyramid should thus be clearly antediluvian.
* Maire de Paris, Garde honoraire des tableaux du Roi. L'un des quarante de l'Academie Royal des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, de celle des Sciences, et de l'lnstitut de Bologne, des Academies de Stockholm, de Harlem et de Padoue, et de la Soeiété des Antiquitfis de Cassel.
† See Plates I., II., and III., pp. 27 and 28. I take Professor Smyth's best attested facts, but do not accept his theories.
From this primeval high civilisation, antecedent to that deluge, we derive I think, besides this significant lesson, the weekly cycle, the Great Pyramid, the Sanscrit language, the Zodiacal signs and constellations, if not the symbols of both—the still extant esoteric system of Freemasonry—Chaldæan and Indian astronomy—the Aryan race and civilising instinct—and in fact the germs of civilisation generally. page 7 It may be said that the invention of the week belongs to a very early period and rude condition in the history of Astronomy; being probably but a subdivision of the lunar cycle. Doubtless so it is. But that marks some progress made, especially as I think the week was a subdivision of the sidereal revolution of the moon in 27-32166 days, not of the synodical one of 29-53059 days; which is the more obviously observable cycle, though not approximately divisible by four; and which forms the apparent basis of the Julian and other months of 30 and 31 days. The Kelts, I find, had not only the seven-day week but twelve months also;* and I have met with a statement† with regard to astronomy, to the effect that Rudbeck calculated from the displacement of a festival recorded as being anciently fixed at 20 days from the winter solstice, that the Swedes 2,300 years B.C. knew the right number of days in the year, though they had not provided the intercalation necessary to compensate for the fractional excess. Nevertheless, the coincident order of the Scandinavian days, and the Aryan roots in the Keltic languages, prove their indebtedness to the same stock as the Indian and Chaldæan civilisations. For further instance, it can scarcely be a mere coincidence that the British measure of capacity—the quarter—that of which it is a quarter having otherwise completely eluded research, corresponds closely with the cubic measure of which the standard is extant in the antechamber of the Great Pyramid, and which is an exact Quarter of the contents of the great coffer or sarcophagus in the King's Chamber.‡ Professor Piazzi Smyth considers that he has identified many other interesting items of our inheritance in the Great Pyramid.
* See Toland's History of the Druids.
† Bailly's Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne, p. 324.
‡ See Plate II. p. 27.
* Brande's Dictionary (Aryan).
† Laplace's Systeme du Monde, p. 316.
‡ Dupuis' Origines des tons les Cultes, vol. iii. p. 426.
§ lb. vol. v. p. 67.
The suicidal esoteric system seems to have subsisted in this primeval civilisation in the most exclusive form, and to have effectually prevented the spread and survival of more than mere fragments of the knowledge upon which it was based. But I believe that ethnology and philology both point to the same approximate site for the original home of the Aryan family and speech. The patriarchs of the Brahmin race seem to have been those who survived the collapse of their ancestors' civilisation, and are admitted to have brought with them to India (but how long afterwards must be mere matter of conjecture), amongst the relics of their former state, the Sanscrit language, the weekly cycle, and a half-understood or forgotten astronomy; together with the most radical distinctions of classes known.
† See Encyclopædia Britannica, art. Chronology.
* See Meadows' The Chinese and their Rebellioyis, p. 329.
† See Home's Introduction, and Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on Daniel.
* Humboldt's Cosmos, vol. iv. p. 413. English Cyclopædia and Horne's Introduction.
† I find that it is a disputed point when the Hebrew calendar was formed. It has been referred by some to our year 500, by others to 325, by others 300, while some contend for an older origin. (English Cyclopedia, art. Calendar.) I am willing to concede a possibly much greater antiquity for it than is even claimed, and I offer the following as a rational solution—in strict accordance with the known style of esoteric Oriental tradition—of a part of Genesis (ch. 5), which has hitherto defied reconciliation with experience or probability. I think it not unlikely that the exceptional longevity attributed to the antediluvian patriarchs, and which Professor Owen has concluded to have been physiologically impossible, may really be a symbolical record of the numerous attempts to discover the true length of the annual cycle; and that Enoch the perfect man who was taken and accepted by God, and who lived just three hundred and sixty-five years, represents the epoch when that was discovered to be the true number of days in the year, and the calendar was thenceforward upon that basis taken and accepted as perfect. I am of course aware that the record refers to no specific date, and that it was promulgated and perhaps written after the 10th Century, B.C.
I now come to the proposition—the making of which is the object of this paper. This is, to shorten the week from seven to five days, as the Romans formerly found it convenient to reduce theirs from eight to seven. I am satisfied from a variety of reasons that the present week is too long. I think that people work much harder now than they did when the septenary cycle was first instituted, and that six days of such continuous hard work to one of rest is too much. This is proved by the innovations made upon the Saturday, which is now neither one thing nor the other. It is admitted that it is no business day; that for business purposes it is practically worthless. People attend at their offices as a mere matter of form, though as a business day they allow that it is a delusion and a mockery. But as a holiday it is worse than a delusion; it is a snare. It is no holiday. For no one worth noticing gets it all, and very many—particularly those who most require it—never get it at all. It is clear that the eight hours movement is of very partial benefit, and the fact that numerous classes are entirely and hopelessly excluded from it, makes it extremely desirable to devise some method of affording them equivalent advantages. I cannot see that this can be done, unless by a change like that which I propose. In any case, the only thing that the half-Saturday does plainly and completely, is this; it furnishes ample proof that the week is felt by every one to be too long.
Now the lunar synodic cycle is twenty-nine days and a page 13 little over a half. A weekly cycle therefore of six days, or five days, would synchronise with the lunar cycle much more nearly than any division of twenty-eight could possibly do; if it were any object to conform to a lunar period at all. I recommend the quinary rather than the sexenary cycle. It would concur better with the denary scale now in use in notation and computation; it would leave no odd day over in an ordinary year; and I believe it would better proportion hard labour to rest. If any man works his best for four full days continuously, I think that he will be quite ready, and that it will be good for him, to rest on the fifth. This is all that would really be necessary, except the rigorous preservation of the fifth day as a day of rest from labour; and of intellectual cultivation, for which one day in five would be little enough, though infinitely better than any evening after a hard day's work.
But the proposed change would not be nearly such a startling innovation as it might at first sight appear. By having a complete universal holiday, on one day in five, instead of one day and a half (but the half-day neither universal nor complete) in seven, there would be really a difference of but one seventieth. That is, there would be in seventy days—at four working days and one rest day to the week—fourteen complete days of rest; and at five and a half working days and one and a half rest days to the week, fifteen days of rest. My plan would thus subtract just one-seventieth of rest from those who get more than they require, but would secure to those who really want it the real equivalent of the half day which now they cannot get.
But the advantages of making the months of a uniform length of thirty days or six weeks each, leaving an odd week, and in leap year also an odd day, for an annual festival to welcome the new year, are so very clear and great, as to induce me to include this amendment also in my proposal. I think it would be a great convenience and advantage to be able to know at once the day of the week by that of the month; or the day of the month by that of the week. Commercially and privately, the vast simplification of all calculations of interest, wages, &c., by making all the months of a uniform length, would prove of immense advantage. Indeed, at present, in the calculation of interest, the great inconveniences of reckoning by the week or month, are so obvious, as to lead to their abandonment altogether; and interest tables are always constructed for the number of days page 14 alone, which has then to be adapted in each case to the actual period required. The constantly recurring complex computations rendered inevitable by the weeks and months being non-coterminous, and the months being of various lengths, involve an enormous amount of unnecessary labour, which my proposal would entirely obviate.
I will offer one or two simple illustrations of the advantages of the change. Say—on what day of the week will fall the 3rd of next September or October, or the 23rd of those months? It would take some time under present arrangements to ascertain this simple information, without an almanac; and even with one the easiest plan would be to refer to it for each required day separately. By my plan you would know at once, without reference or calculation, that the 3rd, 8th, 13th, 18th, 23rd, and 28th of every month must always fall on the 3rd day of the week, and the like would be as easily known of every other day of the week or month. Say—next, to what does five shillings a week for nine months amount ? or for one month ? You cannot give it at all, until the month or months are specified, and then the amount will vary for other nine months, or another month. Whereas by my system of having six weeks in each month, you would know at once that five shillings a week is thirty shillings a month, and adding one week to the twelve months it is £18 5s. a year. The enormous saving in trouble, time, and labour, which would thus constantly accrue, must be obvious. Nearly all the ordinary every day calculations of wages, &c., would be saved entirely, and after the first year almanacs would be almost superfluous.
I think it would furnish also a very good opportunity for discarding the present old pagan names of our days, by substituting others for them, such as "Oneday," "Twoday," "Threeday," "Fourday," for the current heathen names of the week days, and some appropriate distinctive name instead of Sunday, which has of course been a complete misnomer ever since the worship of the sun on that day was abolished. "Redday " would too readily suggest idleness as the proper use of it, and ignore the fact that the best mental rest is variation rather than cessation of occupation. I think that "Goodday" would best express the intended value and right use of it. I also think that the odd intercalatory day every fourth year should be a "goodday" added at the end of the year.
page 15Such an alteration would interfere with the calendar no further than as it would prove a convenience. All dates, historical, legal, or commercial; all anniversaries and calendrical epochs, are fixed by the day of the year or month, not of the week, and therefore would not be affected. In fixing the date of Easter-day, it would give two-sevenths more precision. It would, in fact, greatly facilitate every computation in which portions of a year, month, or week, were factors. Indeed it is difficult to see whom or what it would affect otherwise than advantageously. The proportion of weekly to daily wages would adjust itself at once. To those engaged in ordinary necessary labour on Sundays now, it could, of course, make no difference; while to those engaged in the special ministrations and exercises which are regarded as peculiarly appropriate to the Sunday, it would afford additional opportunities, in the twenty-one more Sundays, or total of seventy-three in the year, of performing duties for which time is all too short, and must appear to those who sincerely delight in them still shorter. From this class, therefore, I count upon the strongest support.
I contemplate one possible effect with much complacence. If our Jewish brethren would also adopt my suggestion, on account of what I cannot but regard as its manifest advantages, how gratifying it would be to know that they were enjoying their holiday at the same time as ourselves. I protest that I never meet a Jew going to or returning from his synagogue on Saturday, without feeling a strong impulse to apologise for doing my secular business upon his Sabbath, while he is debarred from doing his upon our Sunday. The present one-sided distinction always strikes me painfully as a relic of ancient illiberality and alienation of feeling, which should surely now be obsolete, and I cannot but think that the adoption of a common day of rest would tend much to promote the social feeling to which it is so desirable that there should be no exception. The fact that these excellent fellow-citizens have hitherto had practically only five working days a week to our six, is demonstrative proof that six working days in seven are not indispensable. Four working days in five are obviously a larger proportion by 3-35ths, than five in seven. But should the sect to which I allude decline to adopt the quinary week which I propose, were we to do so, there would still occur on every seventh Goodday and fifth Sabbath, a synchronism of practice which would surely promote a sympathy of feeling. The prospect page 16 of the attainment of such objects is surely a strong ground of recommendation of my scheme.
I propose thus simply to have a week of five days, instead of seven. This would give exactly 73 complete weeks in a common year, and one day over in leap year. I also recommend the allotment of an equal number (30) of days, or six weeks, to each month, leaving over one festival week, say at the new year, with an extra "Goodday" added every leap year. I presume that an act of the Legislature would be necessary to give effect to the proposal, but public opinion must, of course, precede legislative action. I have thought it better to make the suggestion first to this Society, in order that it may be at once subjected to the skilled criticism of those competent to say whether any inconvenience could possibly result in connection with the calendar, so that objections on that score, which is really of primary importance, might be disposed at once one way or the other. When no rational objection can be discovered to a proposal of this kind, it is not unusual to allege that, however desirable it may be in theory, it would nevertheless be bad in practice, or that it would be impracticable* Such an argument of course yields entirely the question of expediency, but is itself obviously no better than the opposite simple assertion; and if reasons be on the other hand advanced to show that similar innovations have formerly been successfully made, it stands refuted until at least the experiment be tried. But in this case far more difficult innovations, even involving an alteration of the calendar, have at different times been made with perfect success by Julius Cæsar, Pope Gregory XIII, and others. But more, the week itself was actually altered by the Romans, Greeks, and many other peoples; and, in fact, as there is no record of any attempt to alter the week having ever failed, the allegation of impracticability is so far proved to be utterly baseless. The probability is that there would be no difficulty whatever.
* For the refutation of this "Fallacy of Confusion," see Bentham's Book of Fallacies, ch. 9.
Doubtless some people can congratulate themselves upon having rest and leisure enough. Some, there is shrewd reason to suspect, have too much of both. My proposal accommodates even them, by reducing their superfluous leisure by one-seventieth. But it is not made expressly in their interest. I make it in the interest of those who, by the force of circumstances, have too little; who not only labour hard on five days and a half in every week, but cannot secure time for self-improvement on the other half of the Saturday which their more fortunate neighbours have and do not appreciate, and which they are never likely also to get, unless it be guaranteed to them by making it as inviolable as Sunday itself.
I append a table showing the names of the days of the week in ten different languages, and three diagrams from Piazzi Smyth's Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, giving sufficient proofs of the science displayed in the construction of that ancient monument.
Names of the Days of the Week in
English. | French. | Latin. | Italian. | Spanish. | Portuguese. | German. | Dutch. | Arabic. | Brahman. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sunday | Dimanche | Dies Solis | Domenica | Domingo | Domingo | Sonntag | Zondag | Youm el ahad | Addita varam |
Monday | Lundi | Dies Lunæ | Luned"ì | Léones | Secunda feira | Montag | Maandag | Youm eth thani | Soma varam |
Tuesday | Mardi | Dies Martis | Martedi | Martes | Terza feira | Dienstag | Dingsdag | Youm eth thaleth | Hangala varam |
Wednesday | Mercredi | Dies Mercurii | Mercoledi | Miercoles | Quarta feira | Mittwoch | Woensdag | Youm el arbaa | Bouta varam |
Thursday | Jeudi | Dies Jovis | Giovedi | Jueves | Quinta feira | Donnerstag | Donderdag | Youm el khamis | Brahaspati varam |
Friday | Vendredi | Dies Veneris | Venerdi | Viernes | Sexta feira | Freitag | Vrijdag | Youm el djoumaa | Soucra varam |
Saturday | Samedi | Dies Saturni | Sabbato | Sabado | Sabbado | Samstag | Zaturdag | Youm el effabt | Sany varam |
Based upon Arago's Pop. Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 727.
page breakMelbourne: Stillwell and Knight, Printers, Collins Street East.