CALENDA´RIUM
CALENDA´RIUM or rather KALENDA´RIUM, is
the account-book in which creditors entered the names of their debtors and
the sums which they owed. As the interest on borrowed money was due on
the
Calendae of each month, the name of
Calendarium was given to such a book. (Senec.
de
Benef. 1.2.3; 7.10.3.) The word was subsequently used to
indicate a register of the days, weeks, and months, thus corresponding to a
modern almanac or calendar.
1. Greek Calendar.
In the earliest times the division of the year into its various seasons
[p. 1.337]appears to have been very simple and rude.
Homer speaks of three seasons--
ἔαρ,
θέρος, and
χειμών--coupling
with
θέρος as a later summer
ὀπώρα (
Od.
11.191, &c.); and the threefold division seems to have
been the most usual as late as the time of Aristophanes [
ASTRONOMIA]. Where
greater precision was required, it was common to use as determining
points the rising or setting of certain stars. Thus Hesiod (
Op.
et Dies, 381) describes the time of the rising of the
Pleiades as the time for harvesting (
ἄμητος), and that of their setting as the time for
ploughing (
ἄροτος); the time at which
Arcturus rose in the morning twilight as the proper season for the
vintage (
l.c. 607), and other phenomena in
nature, such as the arrival of birds of passage, the blossoming of
certain plants, and the like, indicated the proper seasons for other
agricultural occupations; but although they may have continued to be
observed for centuries by simple rustics, they never acquired any
importance in the scientific division of the year. [
ASTRONOMIA]
The moon being that heavenly body whose phases are most easily observed,
formed the basis of the Greek calendar, and
all
the religious festivals were dependent on it. The Greek year was a lunar
year of twelve months, but at the same time the course of the sun also
was taken into consideration, and the combination of the two (Gemin.
Isag. 6; comp. Censorin.
de Die
Nat. 18;
Cic. in
Verr. 2.52, § 129) involved the Greeks in
great difficulties, which rendered it almost impossible for them to
place their chronology on a sure foundation. It seems that in the early
times it was believed that twelve revolutions of the moon took place
within one of the sun; a calculation which was tolerably correct, and
with which people were satisfied. The time during which the moon
revolved around her axis was calculated at an average or round number of
30 days, which period was called a month (Gemin.
l.c.); but even as early as the time of Solon, it was well known
that a lunar month did not contain 30 days, but only 29 1/2 . The error
contained in this calculation could not long remain unobserved, and
attempts were made to correct it. The principal one was that of creating
a cycle of two years, called
τριετηρίς,
or
annus magnus, and containing 25 months,
one of the two years consisting of 12 and the other of 13 months. Boeckh
(
Zur Gesch. des Mondcyclen, p. 10, 63
ff.) regards the
τριετηρὶς as wholly fabulous; but his views have been
refuted by Mommsen (
Röm. Chron. p. 211 ff.). The
months themselves, which in the time of Hesiod (
Op. et
Dies, 770) had been reckoned at 30 days, afterwards alternately
contained 30 days (full months,
πλήρεις) and 29 days (hollow months,
κοῖλοι). According to this arrangement, one year of the
cycle contained 354 and the other 384 days, and the two together were
about 7 1/2 days more than two tropical or solar years. (Gemin. 6;
Censorin. 18.) When this mode of reckoning was introduced, is unknown;
but Herodotus (
2.4) mentions it as still in
use in his own time, although he recognises the superior correctness of
the Egyptian method of intercalation. (In 1.32 there is either great
carelessness or some corruption of the text.) The 7 1/2 days, in the
course of 8 years, made up a month of 30 days, and such a month was
accordingly omitted every eighth year. (Censorin.
l.c.) But a more usual method of treating the
ἐνναετηρίς, or the cycle of 8 years,
1 was the following. The calculation was that as the solar year is
reckoned at 365 1/4 days, eight such years contain 2922 days, and eight
lunar years 2832 days; that is, 90 days less than eight solar years. Now
these 90 days were constituted as three months, and inserted as three
intercalary months into three different years of the
ἐνναετηρίς,--that is, into the third,
fifth, and eighth. (Censorin., Gemin.
ll. cc.)
It should, however, be observed that Macrobius (
Macr. 1.13.9) and Solinus (
Polyhist. iii.)
state that the three intercalary months were all added to the last year
of the
ennaeteris, which would accordingly have
contained 444 days. But this is not very probable. The period of 8 solar
years, further, contains 99 revolutions of the moon, which, with the
addition of the three intercalary months, make 2923 1/2 days; so that in
every eight years there is 1 1/2 day too many, and in fifty years the
year would begin not with a new moon, but with a full moon. The
ennaeteris, accordingly, again was incorrect.
The time at which the cycle of the
ennaeteris
was introduced is uncertain, but the prominent place which an eight
years' cycle has in many legends and ancient customs leads to the belief
that it was very ancient. Its inaccuracy called forth a number of other
improvements or attempts at establishing chronology on a sound basis,
the most celebrated among which is that of Meton. The cycle of Meton
consisted of 19 years, in 7 of which there was an intercalated month.
The total number of months was therefore 235, amounting to 6940 days.
The average year thus was one of 365 5/19 days, i. e. about
30′ 9″ too much. Callippus about a century later, by
combining four of Meton's cycles into one and omitting one day, brought
the duration of the year to 365 1/4 days, the length afterwards adopted
in the Julian Calendar. The slight error which still remained was
finally removed about B.C. 126 by Hipparchus of Nicaea, who again
combined four of the cycles of Callippus into a period of 304 years,
deducting from this one more day, so bringing the total to 111035 days.
By this means the greatest attainable accuracy was secured. But this
calendar of Hipparchus was never introduced into practice. Meton's new
year began probably on the 20th of June B.C. 432: but it has been shown
by Boeckh (contrary to the view previously current) that it is erroneous
to suppose that it was at this date formally adopted by the Athenian
state: it is, indeed, extremely doubtful whether it was ever so adopted
(cf. Unger,
Zeitrechnung der Griechen und Römer,
§ 33). Very elaborate calculations have been made to determine
the precise equivalence of the Athenian years to those of our own
calendar, and many coincidences can now be determined by the aid of
inscriptions, but scholars are still at variance on many details, and
much has to be left to uncertain conjectures. It seems probable that an
eight-year cycle was in use until B.C. 336, although somewhat
[p. 1.338]modified in B.C. 422: then a cycle of 19 years
appears to have been in use, but not one identical with that of Meton.
There is reason, however, to believe that the eight years' cycle was
again adopted, for thus only can we explain the fact, that in the time
of the early empire the Attic new year seems to have fallen one month
too late. The Athenians were much later than some of the Oriental Greeks
in adopting the Roman calendar, with its year based wholly upon the sun,
and neglecting the phases of the moon. These circumstances render it
almost impossible to reduce any given date in Greek history to the exact
date of our calendar.
The Greeks, as early as the time of Homer, appear to have been perfectly
familiar with the division of the year into the twelve lunar months.
mentioned above; but no intercalary month
μὴν
ἐμβόλιμος)
or day is mentioned.
Independent of the division of a month into days, it was divided into
periods according to the increase and decrease of the moon. Thus, the
first day or new moon was called
νουμηνία. (
Hom. Od. 10.14,
12.325,
20.156,
21.258; Hes.
Op. ct Dies, 770.) The period from the
νουμηνία until the moon was full was
expressed by
μηνὸς ἱσταμένου, and the
latter part during which the moon decreased by
μηνὸς φθίνοντος. (
Hom. Od.
14.162.) The 30th day of a month, i. e. the day of the
conjunction, was called
τριακάς, or,
according to a regulation of Solon (
Plut. Sol.
25),
ἕνη καὶ νέα, because
one part of that day belonged to the expiring and the other to the
beginning month. The day of the full moon, or the middle of the month,
is sometimes called
διχομηνία
(
Inscr. Att. 1.1): cf.
Μήνα
διχόμηνις (
Pind. O. 3.35).
The month in which the year began, as well as the names of the months,
differed in the different countries of Greece, and in some parts even no
names existed for the months, they being distinguished only numerically,
as the first, second, third, fourth month, &c. In order,
there-fore, to acquire any satisfactory knowledge of the Greek calendar,
the different states must be considered separately.
The Attic year began with the summer solstice, and each month was divided
into three decads, from the 1st to the 10th, from the 10th to the 20th,
and from the 20th to the 29th or 30th. The first day of a month, or the
day after the conjunction, was
νουμηνία: and as the first decad was designated as
ἱσταμένου μηνός, the days were regularly
counted as
δευτέρα, τρίτη, τετάρτη,
&c.,
μηρὸς ἱσταμένου. The
days of the second decad were distinguished as
ἐπὶ δέκα, or
μεσοῦτος, and were counted to 20 regularly, as
πρώτη, δευτέρα, τρίτη, τετάρτη,
&c.,
ἐπὶ δέκα. The 20th
itself was called
εἰκάς, and the days
from the 20th to the 30th were counted in two different ways, viz.
either onwards, as
πρώτη, δευτέρα,
τρίτη, &c.,
ἐπὶ
εἰκάδι, or backwards from the last day of the month with the
addition of (
φθίνοντος, παυομένου,
λήγοντος, or
ἀπιόντος, as
ἐννάτη, δεκάτη, &c.,
φθίνοντος, which, of course, are
different dates in hollow and in full months. But this mode of counting
backwards seems to have been more commonly used than the other. With
regard to the hollow months, it must be observed that the Athenians,
generally speaking, counted 29 days, but in the month of Boedromion they
counted 30, leaving out the second, because on that day Athena and
Poseidon were believed to have disputed about the possession of Attica.
(
Plut. de Frat. Am. p.
489;
Sympos. 9.7.) It is to be noticed also that
the 21st day was called
δεκάτη
φθίνοντος, not, as some have supposed,
ἐνάτη, and that there was no
δευτέρα φθίνοντος in the hollow months. (Cp. Schol. on
Hesiod,
Op. et Di. 763.) So in the Rhodian inscription in
Newton,
Ancient Greek Inscr. 1883, No. 334,
τριακὰς follows immediately upon
τρίτη φθίνοντος in such cases,
προτριακὰς being omitted. (This has been
proved by K. F. Hermann against Ideler and Boeckh.) The following table
shows the succession of the Attic months, the number of days they
contained, and the corresponding months of our year:--
1. |
Hecatombaeon (Ἑκατομβαιών) contained 30
days, and corresponds nearly to our July. |
2. |
Metageitnion (Μεταγειτνιών) contained 29
days, and corresponds nearly to our August.. |
3. |
Boedromion (Βοηδρομιών) contained 30 days,
and corresponds nearly to our September.. |
4. |
Pyanepsion (Πυανεψιών) contained 29 days,
and corresponds nearly to our October.. |
5. |
Maimacterion (Μαιμακτηριών) contained 30
days, and corresponds nearly to our November.. |
6. |
Poseideon (Ποσειδεών) contained 29 days,
and corresponds nearly to our December. |
7. |
Gamelion (Γαμηλιών) contained 30 days,
and corresponds nearly to our January. |
8. |
Anthesterion (Ἀνθεστηριών) contained 29
days, and corresponds nearly to our February. |
9. |
Elaphebolion (Ἐλαφηβολιών) contained 30
days, and corresponds nearly to our March. |
10. |
Munychion (Μουνυχιών) contained 29 days,
and corresponds nearly to our April. |
11. |
Thargelion (Θαργηλιών) contained 30 days,
and corresponds nearly to our May. |
12. |
Scirophorion (Σκιροφοριών) contained 29 days,
and corresponds nearly to our June. |
At the time when the Julian Calendar was adopted by the Athenians,
probably about the time of the Emperor Hadrian, the lunar year appears
to have been changed into the solar year; and it has further been
conjectured, that the beginning of the year was transferred from the
summer solstice to the autumnal equinox.
The following lists of months may also be given with some confidence,
although there is uncertainty as to the exact place of some of them:--
[p. 1.339]
The intercalated month was probably in all cases a repetition of that
which corresponds nearly to our December.
The names of the months at Cyzicus and in Sicily are probably as
follows:--
We further know the names of several isolated months of other Greek
states; but as it is as yet impossible to determine what place they
occupied in the calendar, and with which of our months they correspond,
their enumeration here would be of little or no use. We shall therefore
confine ourselves to giving some account of the Macedonian months, and
of some of the Asiatic cities and islands, which are better known.
On the whole it appears that the Macedonian year agreed with that of the
Greeks, and that accordingly it was a lunar year of twelve months, since
we find that Macedonian months are described as coincident with those of
the Athenians. (See a letter of King Philip in Demosth.
de
Coron. p. 280; Plut.
Camill. 19,
Alex. 3, 16.) All chronologers agree as to the order and
succession of the Macedonian months; but we are altogether ignorant as
to the name and place of the intercalary month, which must have existed
in the Macedonian year as well as in that of the Greek states. The order
is as follows :--1. Dius (
Δῖος), 2.
Apellaeus (
Ἀπελλαῖος), 3. Audynaeus
(
Αὐδυναῖος), 4. Peritius(
Περίτιος), 5. Dystrus (
Δύστρος), 6. Xanthicus (
Ξανθικός), 7. Artemisius (
Ἀρτεμίσιος), 8. Daesius (
Δαίσιος), 9. Panemus (
Πάνημος), 10. Lous (
Λῶος), 11. Gorpiaeus (
Γορπιαῖος), 12. Hyperberetaeus (
Ὑπερβερεταῖος). The difficulty is to identify the
Macedonian months with those of the Athenians. From Plutarch
(
Camill. 19, comp. with
Alex. 16) we
learn that the Macedonian Daesius was identical with the Athenian
Thargelion; but while, according to Philip, the Macedonian Lous was the
same as the Athenian Boedromion, Plutarch (
Plut.
Alex. 3) identifies the Lous with the Attic Hecatombaeon.
This discrepancy has given rise to various conjectures, some supposing
that between the time of Philip and Plutarch a transposition of the
names of the months had taken place, and others that Plutarch made a
mistake in identifying the Lous with the Hecatombaeon. But the best
solution is probably to suppose that by the time of Plutarch the
beginning of the Attic year had come to be one month after its true date
according to the Roman calendar. We know that the Macedonian year began
with the month of Dius, commencing with the autumnal equinox. When
Alexander conquered Asia, the Macedonian calendar was spread over many
parts of Asia, though it underwent various modifications in the
different countries in which it was adopted. When subsequently the
Asiatics adopted the Julian Calendar, those modifications also exercised
their influence and produced differences in the names of the months,
although, generally speaking, the solar year of the Asiatics began with
the autumnal equinox. During the time of the Roman emperors, the
following calendars occur in the province of Asia:--
1. |
Caesarius (Καισάριος) had 30 days, and
began on the 24th of September. |
2. |
Tiberius (Τιβέριος) had 31 days, and
began on the 24th of October. |
3. |
Apaturius (Ἀπατούριος) had 31 days, and
began on the 24th of November. |
4. |
Posidaon (Ποσιδαών) had 30 days, and
began on the 25th of December. |
5. |
Lenaeus (Λήναιος) had 29 days, and began
on the 24th of January. |
6. |
Hicrosebastus (Ἱεροσέβαστος) had 30 days, and
began on the 22th of February. |
7. |
Artemisius (Ἀρτεμίσιος) had 31 days, and
began on the 24th of March. |
8. |
Evangelius (Εὐαγγέλιος) had 30 days, and
began on the 24th of April. |
9. |
Stratonicus (Στρατόνικος) had 31 days, and
began on the 24th of May. |
10. |
Hecatombaeus (Ἑκατόμβαιος) had 31 days, and
began on the 24th of June. |
11. |
Anteus (Ἄντεος) had 31 days, and began
on the 25th of July. |
12. |
Laodicius (Λαοδίκιος) had 30 days, and
began on the 25th of August. |
[p. 1.340]
Among the Ephesians we find the following months:--
1--4.
Unknown. |
5. |
Apatureon (Ἀπατουρεών) nearly answers to
our November. |
6. |
Poseideon (Ποσειδεών) nearly answers to
our December. |
7. |
Lenaeon (Ληναιών) nearly answers to our
January. |
8. |
Unknown. |
9. |
Artemision (Ἀρτεμισιών) nearly answers to
our March. |
10. |
Calamaeon (Καλαμαιών) nearly answers to
our April. |
11, 12.
Unknown. |
At a later time the Ephesians adopted the same names as the Macedonians,
and began their year with the month of Dius on the 24th of September.
The following is a list of the Bithynian months:--
1. |
Heraeus (Ἡραῖος) contained 31 days, and
began on the 23rd of September. |
2. |
Hermaeus (Ἕρμαιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of October. |
3. |
Metrous (Μητρῷος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of November. |
4. |
Dionysius (Διονύσιος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 24th of December. |
5. |
Heracleius (Ἡράκλειος) contained 28 days,
and began on the 24th of January. |
6. |
Dius (Δῖος) contained 31 days, and began on the
21st of February. |
7. |
Bendidaeus (Βενδιδαῖος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of March. |
8. |
Strateius (Στράτειος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of April. |
9. |
Periepius (Π̔εριέπιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of May. |
10. |
Areius (Ἄρειος) contained 31 days, and
began on the 23rd of June. |
11. |
Aphrodisius (Ἀφροδίσιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of July. |
12. |
Demetrius (Δημήτριος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of August. |
The following system was adopted by the Cyprians:--
1. |
Aphrodisius (Ἀφροδίσιος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of September. |
2. |
Apogonicus (Ἀπογονικός) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of October. |
3. |
Aenicus (Ἀἰνικός) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of November. |
4. |
Julius (Ἰούλιος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 24th of December. |
5. |
Caesarius (Καισάριος) contained 28 days,
and began on the 24th of January. |
6. |
Sebastus (Σεβαστός) contained 30 days,
and began on the 21st of February. |
7. |
Autocratoricus (Αὐτοκρατορικός) contained 31
days, and began on the 23rd of March. |
8. |
Demarchexusius (Δημαρχεξούσιος) contained 31
days, and began on the 23rd of April. |
9. |
Plethypatus (Πληθύπατος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of May. |
10. |
Archiereus (Ἀρχιερεύς) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of June. |
11. |
Esthius (Ἔσθιος) contained 30 days, and
began on the 24th of July. |
12. |
Romaeus (Π̔ωμαῖος contained 31 days, and
began on the 23rd of August. |
The system of the Cretans was the same as that used by most of then
inhabitants of Asia Minor, viz.--
1. |
Thesmophorion (Θεσμοφοριών) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of September. |
2. |
Hermaeus (Ἑρμαῖος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of October. |
3. |
Eiman (Εἴμαν) contained 31 days, and began on the
23rd of November. |
4. |
Metarchius (Μετάρχιος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 24th of December. |
5. |
Agyius (Ἄγυιος) contained 28 days, and
began on the 24th of January. |
6. |
Dioscurus (Διόσκουρος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 21st of February. |
7. |
Theodosius (Θεοδόσιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 23rd of March. |
8. |
Pontus (Πόντος) contained 31 days, and
began on the 23rd of April. |
9. |
Rhabinthius (Π̔αβίνθιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of May. |
10. |
Hyperberetus (Ὑπερβέρετος) contained 31
days, and began on the 23rd of June. |
11. |
Necysius (Νεκύσιος) contained 30 days,
and began on the 24th of July. |
12. |
Basilius (Βασίλιος) contained 31 days,
and began on the 23rd of August. |
It should be observed that several of the Eastern nations, for the
purpose of preventing confusion in their calculations with other
nations, dropped the names of their months, and merely counted the
months, as the first, second, third, &c., month. For further
information see Corsini,
Fast. Att., which however is
very imperfect; Ideler,
Handbuch der Mathem. u. technischen
Chronol., Berlin, 1826, vol. i. p. 227, &c.;
Clinton,
Fast. Hellen. vol. ii. Append.
xix.; and more especially K. F. Hermann,
Ueber Griechische
Monatskunde, Göttingen, 1844, 4to; Th. Bergk,
Beiträge zur Griechischen Monatskunde,
Giessen, 1845, 8vo; A. Boeckh,
Ueber die vierjähriger
Sonnenkreise der Alten, Berl., 1863; Mommsen,
Chronologie, Leipz., 1883.
[
L.S] [
A.S.W]
2. Roman Calendar.
The early history of the Roman calendar is a question of great
difficulty, and on some of the most important points involved the
opinions of scholars are still widely divided, according as they are
inclined to attach more or less weight to the statements of ancient
authorities. In the following article an attempt is made to state both
the traditional views and the criticisms to which they have been
recently subjected, especially by Mommsen in his work on Roman
Chronology.
I.
Censorinus (
de die natali, c. xx.) says:
“Licinius Macer, and after him Fenestella, maintained that
from the first there was at Rome a solar year (
annus vertens) of twelve months; but we
ought rather to follow Junius Gracchanus, Fulvius, Varro, and
Suetonius, in the belief that the year consisted of ten months,
as it was with the Albans, from whom the Romans were sprung.
These ten months had
[p. 1.341]304 days, as
follows: March 31, April 30, May 31, June 30, Quintilis 31,
Sextilis and September 30, October 31, November and December 30;
the four longer months being called full (
pleni), the other six hollow (
cavi).” This view is confirmed by Ovid
(
Ov. Fast. 1.27, 43; 3.99, 119,
151), Gellius (
Noct. Att. 3.16), Macrobius (
Saturn. 1.12), Solinus
(
Polyh. i.), and Servius (on
Georg.
1.43). The existence of a year of ten months is established in the
judgment of Niebuhr by the fact that ten months is a period
frequently employed in legal provisions:
e.g., for the time of a widow's mourning, for the paying back
of a dowry, for the credit allowed for goods not bought for ready
money, for the calculation of interest, and apparently for truces.
(
Hist. Rom. 1.275 if.) He further
endeavours to support it by pointing out that 110 solar years
correspond to 132 years of 304 days; but inasmuch as the supposed
cycle of 110 is merely a figment of a later age, the view obtains no
confirmation from this source. Mommsen regards the existence of the
ten-month year as proved, not only by the excellent authorities
which vouch for it, but still more convincingly by the indications
of its legal use; but he regards it as adopted merely for business
purposes, in order to avoid the inconvenience arising from the
varying lengths of the ordinary years, produced by intercalation. He
holds that it was in earlier times composed of ten calendar months,
varying thus between 298 and 292 days, but that after the decemviral
calendar reforms it was fixed as ten-twelfths of the average year of
365 days. On the other hand, Hartmann sees in it an evidence of the
statement of Macrobius, that originally it was only the period
between the beginning of spring, when the activities of life
recommenced, and mid-winter when they ceased, which was divided into
months, while what remained over of the sun's course was left
undivided, and unmarked by Kalends, Nones, and Ides. The number of
304, which does not correspond to any number of lunar months, he
regards as a late invention.
II.
Mommsen holds that the earliest full Roman year was one which
attempted to take account both of the moon and of the sun. That the
moon was regarded as especially the “measurer of time”
is proved by the common origin of most of the Indo-European names
for month and moon in the root
ma,
“to measure.” (Curtius,
Principles of Greek
Etymology, 1.415.) But the names of the Roman months
show that at a very early time the months must have been grouped
into a cycle, the length of which was determined by the course of
the sun. Names like
Aprilis (from
aperio),
Maius (the month of growth, akin to
maior), and
Junius (the
month of increase, connected with
iuvo), could not have been used, except at a time when
their place was fixed as falling in the spring and early summer. Now
the simplest way of reconciling approximately the lunar and the
solar years is that which seems to have been adopted in the Greek
trieteris. Taking the average
length of a lunation at 29 1/2 days, the months have to be made up
of 29 and 30 days alternately. Now, a solar year answers pretty
nearly to 12 1/2 of such months: that is to say, a cycle can be
framed by taking alternately 12 and 13 months of alternating length
(the additional month in every alternate year being in the first
instance of 30 days, in the next of 29, and so on), which shall not
at first depart very widely from the actual phenomena. Thus:--
The first ordinary year |
= 6 x 30 + 6 x 29 |
= |
354
days. |
The first intercalated
year |
= 6 x 30 + 6 x 29 + 30 |
= |
384
days. |
The second ordinary year |
= 6 x 30 + 6 x 29 |
= |
354
days. |
The second intercalated
year |
= 6 x 30 + 6 x 29 + 29 |
= |
384
days. |
|
The period of four years |
= |
1475
days. |
|
The average of each year |
= |
368
3/4 days. |
The Romans, it is supposed, having learnt this cycle from the
astronomers of Magna Graecia, kept to the total number of days, but
re-arranged the months so as to harmonise with that love of odd
numbers which marked the Pythagorean system, and produced the
following cycle:--
First ordinary year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 28 |
= 355 days. |
First intercalated year |
= 4 x 31 + 8 x 29 + 27 |
= 383 days. |
Second ordinary year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 28 |
= 355 days. |
Second intercalated year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 28 +
27 |
= 382 days. |
with the sum total and average as before. This theory
represents as close an approximation as is possible to the
traditional account, consistently with an intelligible explanation
of the origin of the system. The date of the introduction of this
cycle cannot be fixed with precision. It must have been long enough
before the decemviral legislation to allow the effects of the
accumulated error of 3 1/2 days in each year to have become so
marked as to call imperatively for reform; but it cannot have been
before a considerable Greek influence had been felt in matters of
science.
2
III.
The year as we find it employed after the decemviral reforms is that
which is commonly known as the year of Numa. Censorinus (c. xx.)
says expressly that it consisted of 355 days, “although the
moon appeared to make up 354 days in its course of 12
months.” The one additional day, he says, was due either to
carelessness, or (and this explanation he prefers) to
[p. 1.342]the superstitious feeling in favour of an
unequal number. The diminution in the length of the year was
effected by cutting down the number of days assigned to February in
an intercalated year to 23 or 24, and by intercalating a period of
27 days, or what comes to the same thing, of intercalating 22 or 23
days in the course of February. Thus the cycle now became--
First ordinary year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 28 |
= |
355
days. |
First intercalated year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 23 +
27 |
= |
377
days, |
Second ordinary year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 28 |
= |
355
days. |
Second intercalated year |
= 4 x 31 + 7 x 29 + 24 +
27 |
= |
378
days. |
|
Total
of four years |
= |
1465
days. |
|
Average of a year |
= |
366
1/4 days. |
This is again in excess of the real year by one day; but the
inaccuracy of the cycle is no justification for rejecting the
positive testimony of good authorities like Censorinus, who must
have quoted the statement of Varro about a calendar which he had
used all his life. The notion of an intercalated day, based upon a
statement by Macrobius, Mommsen rejects altogether, as a
transference from the imperial times to those of the republic.
Matzat, however (
Röm. Chron. 1.47), defends
it, and would regard the 23rd of February as the invariable day
after which intercalation was made, and the intercalated month as
varying between 28 and 27 days. There is no practical difference
between these views (Matzat, 1.228-9).
It hardly admits of doubt that the origin of this reform in the
calendar is to be sought in the Greek
octaeteris. In this, as has been shown above, three
months of 30 days each were intercalated in the course of eight
years; and it cannot be by accident that the intercalation of 22 +
23 days every four years exactly corresponds to this. Of the date of
the change we have no positive evidence: but Macrobius tells us
(1.13, 21), on the authority of Tuditanus and of Cassius, that
“the decemvirs, who added two tables to the ten, brought a
proposal before the people for intercalation.” As so much
of the decemviral legislation was based upon the Athenian
jurisprudence, it is natural to suppose that the same reformers made
an attempt to incorporate in their own calendar the period then
current at Athens: and it may well have been the case that one of
the additional tables was really a calendar, with directions for
intercalation. Varro indeed (quoted by Macrobius, 1.13, 21) shows
that there was intercalation in the consulship of Pinarius and
Furius, B.C. 472, twenty years before their time; but this statement
may naturally have referred to the earlier system. Dionysius (
10.59) intimates that the
decemvirs brought the calendar into harmony with the phenomena of
the moon's course again:: and though this statement is erroneous as
it stands, it points in the same direction as the other evidence.
Ovid, too (
Fast. 2.47), states that
before the decemvirs January was the first month of the year and
February the last, so that the order was January, March,
&c., December, February--a statement which, though rejected
by Mommsen and many other scholars, seems strongly confirmed by the
nature of the festivals held in these two months. In any case this
points to an alteration made by the decemvirs in the treatment of
February. We may therefore safely ascribe to the decemvirs a change
in the calendar, which entirely deprived it of its connexion with
the phases of the moon--a connexion which, however, had long ceased
to be more than nominal.
It remains now to consider how it was possible that in this reform an
average length should have been assigned to the year exceeding its
true length by a whole day. It is impossible to suppose that this
was mere error. The true length of the solar year was known to the
Greeks at least as early as the introduction of the
octaeteris. It is evident that the Greek
advisers of the decemvirs must have had some reason for this
inaccuracy. Mommsen's explanation, which is at least plausible, is
as follows. They started from the assumption that the Roman calendar
was essentially the same as that of Athens before the
octaeteris, and must be set right in the
same way, by reducing the average intercalation from 14 3/4 to 11
1/4 days, and that it was a matter of indifference how the previous
intercalation was reduced in each four years by 4 x 3 1/2 days. It
would evidently have been the simplest thing to reconstruct the
whole system, but the strongly conservative religious feelings of
the Romans made this impossible. Hence they did not venture to
attack either the ordinary year, or the alternation of intercalated
and ordinary years, or the four-year period of intercalation, or the
intercalated month of 27 days. The only course left was to shorten
the month of February, which preceded the intercalated month. Now,
if they had reduced this month to 22 and 21 days in the alternate
years of intercalation, all would have been well, and the cycle
would have been 1461 days, instead of 1475. Other considerations may
have contributed to hinder them from doing this, but probably the
main difficulty lay in the fact that the festival of Terminus fell
on February 23. The obstinate god, who had refused to yield his
shrine even when required for a temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus
(
Liv. 1.55), would not have
surrendered his ancient feast-day for all the mathematics in the
world. That the intercalation was not always after the 23rd, which
would have lessened the mischief by one-half, but in alternate years
after the 24th, was probably due to the love for lucky odd numbers,
which had already been the source of confusion.
The first attempt. to reform the system of intercalation of which we
have any indication was made by a
lex
Acilia of B.C. 191 (Censor. 20.6). This law empowered the
pontiffs to deal with intercalation at their discretion (
“pontificibus datum negotium, eorumque arbitrio
intercalandi ratio permissa” ). But, as Censorinus
informs us, this only made matters much worse, for “most of
them, either from hatred or from favour, to cut short or to
extend the tenure of office, or that a farmer of the public
revenue might gain or lose by the length of the year, by
intercalating more or less at their pleasure, deliberately made
worse what had been entrusted to them to set right.” This
statement is supported
[p. 1.343]by what Cicero says
in
Legg. 2.12, 29. We find in fact that great
irregularity prevails, and that the years known to us from Livy and
the Fasti Triumphales to have been intercalated cannot be brought
into any system.
Similar to this is the language employed by Macrobius (1.4), Ammianus
(26.1), Solinus (c. i.), Plutarch (
Plut. Caes. 100.59); and their assertions are confirmed
by the letters of Cicero, written during his proconsulate in
Cilicia, the constant burthen of which is a request that the
pontifices will not add to his year of government by intercalation.
In consequence of this licence, says Suetonius (
Caes,
40), neither the festivals of the harvest coincided with the summer,
nor those of the vintage with the autumn. But we cannot desire a
better proof of the confusion than a comparison of three short
passages in the third book of Caesar's
Bell. Civ.
(100.6), “Pridie nonas Januarias navis solvit”
--(100.9), “jamque hiems adpropinquabat” --(100.25)
“multi jam menses transierant et hiems jam
praecipitaverat.”
Livy (
1.19,
6)
asserts that Numa established a year to suit the revolutions of the
moon (
ad carsus lunae), which, because the
moon does not complete thirty days in each month, and some days are
lacking to the complete solar year (even if it did), he arranged by
inserting intercalary months, so as to agree at the end of nineteen
years (
vicesimo anno) with the solar
year. It seems to be generally admitted that this statement of
Livy's is a mere invention of some late authority (perhaps one of
the pontiffs) who was acquainted with the Metonic cycle, and who
wished to ascribe the credit of it to the traditional founder of the
Roman year, and the confusion into which the calendar after-wards
fell, to the neglect of the original provision. Cicero (
de
Leg. 2.12, 29) has probably the same tradition in his
mind when he writes: “diligenter habenda ratio intercalandi
est; quod institutum perite a Numa posteriorum pontificum
neglegentia dissolutum est.” But there is no reason to
believe that this cycle was ever really the guide for intercalation
at Rome. Macrobius (
Macr. 1.13,
13) talks of a cycle of twenty-four years
(
tertio quoque octennio) by which
the errors of the decemviral system had been removed; and some have
wished to bring Livy's statement into harmony with this by inserting
quarto after
vicesimo (l.c.). But Mommsen has acutely seen that
this, too, only represents a suggestion put forward by some
reforming pontiff. He points out that, assuming that the years are
to be of one of the three normal lengths--355, 377, or 378
days--there are two cycles by which these can be made to coincide
with the number of days in the (Julian) solar year. Either 20 x 365
1/4 = 7305 = 11 x 355 + 2 x 377 + 7 x 378, or 24 x 365 1/4 = 8766 =
13 x 355 + 7 x 377 + 4 x 378.
The former is the shortest possible cycle; and if it is adopted, one
intercalated month of twenty-two days is omitted, and two of
twenty-two days are lengthened into two of twenty-three days. In the
latter, one intercalated month of twenty-three days is omitted, and
a second of the same length is shortened by one day. Hence the
longer cycle has a slight advantage in the way of simplicity.
It is extremely difficult, or rather quite impossible, to determine
the actual dates, which correspond to the nominal dates of any
events before the Julian reform of the calendar, especially after
the irregularities introduced by the
lex
Acilia. The eclipse of the sun, mentioned by Ennius
(
apud
Cic. de Rep. 1.16) as
happening on June 5th in the year after the foundation of Rome 351,
must have been that which took place on the Julian June 21st, B.C.
400: the eclipse of July 11th, in Varro's year 564 (
Liv. 37.4), was that of the Julian March
14th, B.C. 190. But to deduce any other correspondences from these
ascertained facts requires very elaborate and (in part) very
untrustworthy calculations.
Year of Julius Caesar.
In the year 46 B.C. Caesar, now master of the Roman world,
crowned his other great services to his country by employing his
authority, as pontifex maximus, in the correction of this
serious evil. For this purpose he availed himself of the
services of Sosigenes, the peripatetic, and a
scriba named M. Flavius,
3 though he himself too, we are told, was well acquainted
with astronomy, and indeed was the author of a work of some
merit upon the subject, which was still extant in the time of
Pliny. The chief authorities upon the subject of the Julian
reformation are Plutarch (
Plut.
Caes. 100.59), Dio Cassius (43.26), Appian (
de
Bell. Civ. ii. ad extr.), Ovid (
Fasti, 3.155), Suetonius (
Suet. Jul. 100.40), Pliny
(
Plin. Nat. 18.211),
Censorinus (c. xx.), Macrobius (
Macr.
1.14), Ammianus Marcellinus (
26.1), Solinus (
1.45). Of
these Censorinus is the most precise: “The confusion was
at last,” says he, “carried so far that C.
Caesar, the pontifex maximus, in his third consulate, with
Lepidus for his colleague, inserted between November and
December two intercalary months of 67 days, the month of
February having already received an intercalation of 23
days, and thus made the whole year to consist of 445 days.
At the same time he provided against a repetition of similar
errors by casting aside the intercalary month, and adapting
the year to the sun's course. Accordingly to the 355 days of
the previously existing year he added ten days, which he so
distributed between the seven months having 29 days, that
January, Sextilis, and December received two each, the
others but one; and these additional days he placed at the
end of the several months, no doubt with the wish not to
remove the various festivals from those positions in the
several months which they had so long occupied. Hence in the
present calendar, although there are seven months of 31
days, yet the four months, which from the first possessed
that number, are still distinguishable by having their nones
on the seventh, the remaining three having them on the fifth
of the month. Lastly, in consideration of the quarter of a
day, which he considered as completing the true year, he
established the rule that, at the end of every four years, a
single day should be intercalated, where the month had been
hitherto inserted,
[p. 1.344]that is,
immediately after the Terminalia; which day is now called
the
Bisextum.”
This year of 445 days is commonly called by chronologists the
year of confusion; but by Macrobius, more fitly, the last year
of confusion. The kalends of January, of the year 708 A.U.C., fell on the 13th of October,
47 B.C. of the Julian Calendar; the kalends of March, 708 A.U.C., on the 1st of January, 46 B.C.; and lastly, the kalends of
January, 709 A.U.C., on the 1st of
January, 45 B.C. Of the second of the two intercalary months
inserted in this year after November, mention is made in
Cicero's letters (
ad Fam. 6.14).
It was probably the original intention of Caesar to commence the
year with the shortest day. The winter solstice at Rome, in the
year 46 B.C., occurred on the 24th of
December of the Julian Calendar. His motive for delaying the
commencement for seven days longer, instead of taking the
following day, was probably the desire to gratify the
superstition of the Romans, by causing the first year of the
reformed calendar to fall on the day of the new moon.
Accordingly it is found that the mean new moon occurred at Rome
on the 1st of January. 45 B.C., at 6h.
16′ P.M. In this way alone
can be explained the phrase used by Macrobius:
Annum civilem Caesar, habitis ad lunam
dimensionibus constitutum, edicto palam proposito
publicavit. This edict is also mentioned by
Plutarch (
Cacs. 59), where he gives the anecdote
of Cicero, who, on being told by some one that the constellation
Lyra would rise the next morning, observed, “Yes, no
doubt, in obedience to the edict.”
The mode of denoting the days of the month will cause no
difficulty, if it be recollected that the kalends always denote
the first of the month, that the nones occur on the seventh of
the four months March, May, Quinctilis or July, and October, and
on the fifth of the other months; that the ides always fall
eight days later than the nones; and lastly, that the
intermediate days are in all cases reckoned backwards upon the
Roman principle of counting both extremes.
For the month of January the notation will be as follows:--
1 |
Kal. Jan. |
2 |
a. d. IV. Non.
Jan. |
3 |
a. d. III. Non.
Jan. |
4 |
Prid. Non.
Jan. |
5 |
Non. Jan. |
6 |
a. d. VIII. Id.
Jan. |
7 |
a. d. VII. Id.
Jan. |
8 |
a. d. VI. Id.
Jan. |
9 |
a. d. V. Id.
Jan. |
10 |
a. d. IV. Id.
Jan. |
11 |
a. d. III. Id.
Jan. |
12 |
Prid. Id.
Jan.. |
13 |
Id. Jan. |
14 |
a. d. XIX. Kal.
Feb. |
15 |
a. d. XVIII. Kal.
Feb. |
16 |
a. d. XVII. Kal.
Feb. |
17 |
a. d. XVI. Kal.
Feb. |
18 |
a. d. XV. Kal.
Feb. |
19 |
a. d. XIV. Kal.
Feb. |
20 |
a. d. XIII. Kal.
Feb. |
21 |
a. d. XII. Kal.
Feb. |
22 |
a. d. XI. Kal.
Feb. |
23 |
a. d. X. Kal.
Feb. |
24 |
a. d. IX. Kal.
Feb. |
25 |
a. d. VIII. Kal.
Feb. |
26 |
a. d. VII. Kal.
Feb. |
27 |
a. d. VI. Kal.
Feb. |
28 |
a. d. V. Kal.
Feb. |
29 |
a. d. IV. Kal.
Feb. |
30 |
a. d. III. Kal.
Feb. |
31 |
Prid. Kal.
Feb. |
The letters
a. d. are an abridgment of
ante diem, and the full phrase
for “on the second of January” would be
ante diem quartum nonas Januarias. The
word
ante in this expression seems
really to belong in sense to
nonas,
and to be the cause why
nonas is an
accusative. Hence occur such phrases as (
Cic. Phil. 3.8,
20)
in ante diem quartum
Kal. Decembris distulit,
“he put it off to the fourth day before the kalends of
December,” (Caes.
Bell. Gall. 1.6)
Is dies erat ante diem V. Kal. Apr., and
(
Caes. Civ. 1.11)
ante quem diem iturus sit, for
quo die. The same confusion exists in
the phrase
pest paucos dies, which means
“a few days after,” and is equivalent to
paucis post diebus. Whether the
phrase
Kalendae Januarii was ever
used by the best writers is doubtful. The words are, commonly
abbreviated; and those passages where Aprilis, Decembris,
&c. occur, are of no avail, as they are probably
accusatives. The
ante may be
omitted, in which case the phrase will be
die
quarto nonarum. In the leap year (to use a modern
phrase), the last days of February were called--
Feb. 23 = a. d. |
VII. |
Kal. Mart. |
Feb. 24 = a. d. |
VI. |
Kal. Mart.
posteriorem. |
Feb. 25 = a. d. |
VI. |
Kal. Mart.
priorem. |
Feb. 26 = a. d. |
V. |
Kal. Mart. |
Feb. 27 = a. d. |
IV. |
Kal. Mart. |
Feb. 28 = a. d. |
III. |
Kal. Mart. |
Feb. 29 = Prid. Kal. Mart. |
In which the words
prior and
posterior are used in reference
to the retrograde direction of the reckoning. Such at least is
the opinion of Ideler, who refers to Celsus in the Digest (
50, tit. 16, s. 98).
From the fact that the intercalated year has two days called
ante diem sextum, the name of
bissextile has been applied to it. The term
annus bissextilis, however, does not occur in any
writer prior to Beda, but in place of it the phrase
annus bisextus.
It was the intention of Caesar that the bisextum should be
inserted
peracto quadriennii
circuitu, as Censorinus says, or
quinto quoque incipiente anno, to use the words
of Macrobius. The phrase, however, which Caesar used seems to
have been
quarto quoque anno, which
was interpreted by the priests to mean every third year. The
consequence was, that in the year 8 B.C. the Emperor Augustus,
finding that three more intercalations had been made than was
the intention of the law, gave directions that for the next
twelve years there should be no bissextile (
Plin. Nat. 18.211).
The services which Caesar and Augustus had conferred upon their
country by the reformation of the year seems to have been the
immediate causes of the compliments paid to them by the
insertion of their names in the calendar. Julius was substituted
for Quinctilis, the month in which Caesar was born, in the
second Julian year, that is, the year of the dictator's death
(Censorinus, c. xxii.); for the first Julian year was the first
year of the
corrected Julian Calendar,
that is, 45 B.C. The name Augustus, in place of Sextilis, was
introduced by the emperor himself, at the time when he rectified
the error in the mode of intercalating (
Suet. Aug. 100.31),
anno
Augustano xx. The first year of the Augustan era was
27 B.C., viz. that in which he first
took the name of Augustus,
se vii. et M. Vipsanio Agrippa
coss. He was born in Sep. tember; but gave the
preference to the preceding month, for reasons stated in the
senatus consultum, preserved by Macrobius (1.12): “Whereas
the Emperor Augustus Caesar, in the month of Sextilis, was
first admitted to the consulate, and thrice entered the city
in triumph,
[p. 1.345]and in the same month
the legions, from the Janiculum, placed themselves under his
auspices, and in the same month Egypt was brought under the
authority of the Roman people, and in the same month an end
was brought to the civil wars; and whereas for these reasons
the said month is, and has been, most fortunate to this
empire, it is hereby decreed by the senate that the said
month shall be called Augustus.”
“A plebiscitum, to the same effect, was passed on the
motion of Sextus Pacuvius, tribune of the plebs.”
Domitian gave to the month of September the name of Germanicus
from his own surname, and to the month of October the name of
Domitianus; but these names fell into disuse after the death of
the tyrant.
Our days of the
Month. |
March, May, July, October, have 31 days. |
January, August, December, have 31 days. |
April, June, September, November, have 30 days. |
February has 28 days, and in Leap Year 29. |
1. |
KALENDIS.
|
KALENDIS.
|
KALENDIS.
|
KALENDIS.
|
2 |
VI. |
ante Nonas. |
IV. |
ante Nonas. |
IV. |
ante Nonas. |
IV. |
ante Nonas. |
3. |
V. |
III. |
III. |
III. |
4. |
IV. |
Pridie Nonas. |
Pridie Nonas. |
Pridie Nonas. |
5. |
III. |
NONIS.
|
NONIS.
|
NONIS.
|
6. |
Pridie Nonas. |
VIII. |
ante Idus. |
VIII. |
ante Idus. |
VIII. |
|
7. |
NONIS.
|
VII. |
VII. |
VII. |
|
8. |
VIII. |
an
te Indus. |
VI. |
VI. |
VI. |
|
9. |
VII. |
V. |
V. |
V. |
|
10. |
VI. |
IV. |
IV. |
IV. |
|
11. |
V. |
III. |
III. |
III. |
|
12. |
IV. |
Pridie Idus. |
Pridie Idus. |
Pridie Idus. |
13. |
III. |
IDIBUS.
|
IDIBUS.
|
IDIBUS.
|
14. |
Pridie Idus. |
XIX. |
Ante Kalendas (of the month following) |
XVIII. |
Ante Kalendas (of the month following). |
XVI. |
Ante Kalendas Martias. |
15. |
IDIBUS.
|
XVIII. |
XVII. |
XV. |
16. |
XVII. |
Ante Kalendas (of the month following). |
XVII. |
XVI. |
XIV. |
17. |
XVI. |
XVI. |
XV. |
XIII. |
18. |
XV. |
XV. |
XIV. |
XII. |
19. |
XIV. |
XIV. |
XIII. |
XI. |
20. |
XIII. |
XIII. |
XII. |
X. |
21. |
XII. |
XII. |
XI. |
IX. |
22. |
XI. |
XI. |
X. |
VIII. |
23. |
X. |
X. |
IX. |
VII. |
24. |
IX. |
IX. |
VIII. |
VI. |
25. |
VIII. |
VIII. |
VII. |
V. |
26. |
VII. |
VII. |
VI. |
IV. |
27. |
VI. |
VI. |
V. |
III. |
28. |
V. |
V. |
IV. |
Pridie
Kalendas Martias |
29. |
IV. |
IV |
III. |
30. |
III. |
III. |
Pridie
Kalendas (of the month following). |
|
|
31. |
Pridie Kalendas (of the month following). |
Pridie Kalendas (of the month following). |
|
|
The Fasti of Caesar have not come down to us in any one table, in
their entire form. Such fragments as exist may be seen in the
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
vol. i. (Berlin, 1863), edited with the most minute accuracy,
and with very valuable notes, by Mommsen. They are nineteen in
number, and by combining them the Fasti can be completely
reconstructed. Three others have been discovered since, and
published in the
Ephemeris Epigraphica.
The official year before the Julian reforms, with its frequent
and irregular intercalations, could not have at all met the
practical requirements of an agricultural population; and there
is reason to believe that the “farmers' year” was
that which had been adopted with slight modifications from the
Egyptian sages of Heliopolis by Eudoxus. This gave up altogether
the attempt to take notice of the phases of the moon, and was a
purely solar year. The cycle was made up of four years,--the
first of 366, the others of 365 days,--thus corresponding
exactly with the reformed Julian system. There was no division
into months, but the subdivisions were marked by the entrance of
the sun into the various signs of the zodiac, and by the tropics
and equinoxes. Spring began when the sun was in Aquarius, summer
when it was in Taurus, autumn when it was in Leo, and winter
when it was in Scorpio. (Varro,
de R. R. 1.28.)
The new year began when the sun entered Leo and the dog-star
rose.
The Gregorian Year.
The Julian Calendar supposes the mean tropical year to be 365 d.
6 h.; but this exceeds the real amount by 11′
12″, the accumulation of which, year after year,
caused at last considerable inconvenience. Accordingly, in the
year 1582, Pope Gregory XIII., assisted by Aloysius, Lilius,
Christoph. Clavius, Petrus Ciacconius, and others again reformed
the calendar. The ten days by which the year had been unduly
retarded were struck out by a regulation that the day after the
fourth of October in that year should be called the fifteenth;
and it was ordered that, whereas hitherto an intercalary day had
been inserted
[p. 1.346]every four years, for
the future three such intercalations in the course of four
hundred years should be omitted, viz. in those years which are
divisible without remainder by 100, but not by 400. Thus,
according to the Julian Calendar, the years 1600, 1700, 1800,
1900, and 2000 were to have been bissextile; but, by the
regulation of Gregory, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were to
receive no intercalation, while the years 1600 and 2000 were to
be bissextile, as before. The bull which effected this change
was issued Feb. 24, 1582. The fullest account of this correction
is to be found in the work of Clavius, entitled
Romani
Calendarii a Gregorio XIII. P. M. restituti
Explicatio. As the Gregorian Calendar has only 97
leap-years in a period of 400 years, the mean Gregorian year is
(303 x 365 + 97 x 366) / 400; that is, 365 d. 5 h. 49′
12″, or only 24″ more than the mean tropical
year. This difference in 60 years would amount to 24′,
and in 60 times 60, or 3600 years, to 24 hours, or a day. Hence
the French astronomer, Delambre, has proposed that the years
3600, 7200, 10,800, and all multiples of 3600 should not be leap
years. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in the greater part
of Italy, as well as in Spain and Portugal, on the day named in
the bull. In France, two months after, by an edict of Henry
III., the 9th of December was followed by the 20th. The Catholic
parts of Switzerland, Germany, and the Low Countries adopted the
correction in 1583, Poland in 1586, Hungary in 1587. The
Protestant parts of Europe resisted what they called a
Papistical invention for more than a century. At last, in 1700,
Protestant Germany, as well as Denmark and Holland, allowed
reason to prevail over prejudice; and the Protestant cantons of
Switzerland copied their example the following year.
In England the Gregorian Calendar was first adopted in 1752, and
in Sweden in 1753. In Russia, and those countries which belong
to the Greek Church, the Julian year, or
old
style as it is called, still prevails.
In this article free use has been made of Ideler's work
Lehrbuch der Chronologie (2 vols. Berlin,
1826). Cf. also Mommsen,
Die Römische
Chronologie, Berlin, 1858; and Matzat,
Röm. Chronologie, 2 vols., Berlin,
1883. For other information connected with the Roman measurement
of time, see ASTRONOMIA; DIES; HOROLOGIUM;
LUSTRUM; NUNDINAE; SAECULUM.
[
T.H.K] [
A.S.W]