2. It represents the period when the natural year of 12 months
coincides for the first time with the artificial one of 10; since 60
months = 6 years of 10 months and 5 of 12.
The historical application of these numbers is considered to lie beyond
the pale of the present inquiry.
In Suidas we meet an application of the principle recognised by Rask,
viz. the assumption of some period of which the _sarus_ is a fraction.
Such at least is the probable view of the following interpretation:
ΣΆΡΟΙ--μέτρον καὶ ἁριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, οἳ γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν
ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, οἳ γίγνονται ιε´ ἔνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ.--From Cory's
_Ancient Fragments_[3].
[Footnote 3: This gloss in some MSS. is filled up thus:--
Σάροι. μέτρον καὶ ἀριθμος παρὰ Χαλδαίοις. ὁι γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν
ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, κατὰ τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων ψῆφον, εἴπερ ὁ σάρος ποιεῖ μῆνας
σεληνιακῶν σκβ´, ὁὶ γίνονται ιε´ ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἥξ.]
In Josephus we find the recognition of an _annus magnus_ containing as
many ἔτη as the _nerus_ did: ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν
ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς
παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους
ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται.--_Antiq._ i. 3.
The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the word _sosus_
we have the Hebrew שֵש = six. If this be true, it is
probable that the _sosus_ itself was only a secondary division, or some
other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or
ten ἔׁτη (so-called). With this view we get two probabilities,
viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6
and 10 throughout; _i. e._ from the ἔτος[4] (or 12 hours) to
the _sarus_ (or five years).
[Footnote 4: In the course of the evening it was stated, that even
by writers quoted by Syncellus ἔτος had been translated _day_; and a
reference was made to an article in the Cambridge Philological Museum
_On the Days of the Week_, for the opinion of Bailly in modern, and of
Annianus and Panodorus in ancient times: ταῦτα ἔτη ἡμέρας ἐλογίσαντο
στοχαστικῶς.--p. 40, vol. i. See also p. 42.]
* * * * *
After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the
question, how far the _sarus_ could be considered as belonging to
historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there
could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the
mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian
computations, although there might be some variety in their application.
1. A _mahayuga_ or great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four
successive _yugas_ or ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.
2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian
lunar year, give 12,000 periods.
3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced
respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of the
_saroi_ of the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and
3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.