Jump to content

Page:Colson - The Week (1926, IA weekessayonorigi0000fhco).djvu/70

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

~ 58 ~

can hardly be earlier than the date at which we find this order accepted. When was this? We have no clear evidence of it earlier than 200 or so B.C., but tradition in the first century A.D. ascribed the determination of this order to Pythagoras[1]. Even if this is correct, we still have no really ancient date, for Pythagoras belongs to the sixth century B.C. But we have to set against this tradition the fact that Plato who had strong sympathy with Pythagoras' teaching does not observe this order, as he places the Sun in the sixth and not the fourth place of the Seven. It is more important to observe that a different order is stated to be found in Babylonian and Egyptian records[2]. Here then we have something more than negative evidence: for it is difficult to believe that in Egypt and Chaldaea there were two theories current of the planetary order; one powerful enough to create a time-cycle, but leaving no impression that has survived in the monuments, the other recorded in the monuments, but evidently having no relation to the week. This is a very strong argument, and to my mind so far conclusive, that the theory of the later origin of the week must hold the field, unless or until some evidence to rebut

  1. Pliny, Naturalis Historia, II, 84.
  2. V. Boll on Hebdomad in Pauly-Wissowa, p. 2567; Cumont, Astrology and Religion, p. 163. I must remind the reader that this is a point on which I must accept the best authority I can get.