Misplaced Pages

Talk:Julian calendar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:42, 29 April 2010 edit212.85.12.187 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:53, 24 December 2024 edit undoKimYunmi (talk | contribs)421 edits →Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget 
(615 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Time|class=C|priority=|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Time|importance=High|priority=}}
{{Classical Greece and Rome|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{British English}} {{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-01-01|oldid1=405369460}}


{{archive box|] ]}} {{archive box|] ] ]}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
==Triennial cycles debunked==
|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 5
There is an inscription which says that in Asia in an unspecified year the last day of the old lunar calendar was 14 Peritios = a.d. X Kal. Feb. (23 January). The following day, from which the calendar would remain aligned to the Roman calendar, was 1 Dystros, a.d. IX Kal. Feb. (24 January). Thereafter, the Asian month would begin on a.d. IX Kal. of the Roman month. The old calendar being lunar, the problem comes down to seeing when 23 January equates to a full moon.
|minthreadsleft = 3

|algo = old(90d)
My table shows two likely candidates - 8BC and 5BC.
|archive = Talk:Julian calendar/Archive %(counter)d

}}
{|class="wikitable"
!Year BC (*=regular leap year)||Julian||colspan=2|Irregular Julian (*=leap year)
|-
|10||January 19||January 16||January 16
|-
|9*||January 8||January 6||January 5*
|-
|8||January 27||January 25||January 24
|-
|7||January 16||January 14||January 13
|-
|6||January 5||January 3||January 2
|-
|5*||January 24||January 22||January 21
|-
|4||January 13||January 12||January 11
|-
|3||February 1||January 31||January 30
|-
|2||January 21||January 20||January 19
|-
|1*||January 10||January 9||January 8
|}

There was an eclipse on March 23, 5BC (Julian date). There was thus also a full moon on January 24, 5BC (Julian date). I have not investigated the arrangement of intercalary years in the ancient Greek calendar.

The inscription mentions an intercalation. It is unlikely that the irregular Julian calendar was being introduced (in 8BC) because it was no longer intercalated at that time, and the purpose of the reform (as in Egypt and Rome) was to introduce the correct Julian calendar. The likely date is therefore 5BC, with the regular Julian intercalation coming a few weeks after adoption.

There is clear indication that, having moved to correct the calendar in Rome in 9BC, Augustus turned his attention to Asia. He would have been well aware of the situation in Egypt, and the fact that he felt no need to take any action there indicates that no action was needed. Professor Jones says:

:The Egyptians must at some point have become aware that the Roman dates that they assigned to particular days differed by one or two days from the dates according to the pontifices, but we should not assume that they would have immediately changed the reckoning to conform with the official version of the calendar. The calendar equation Roman July 19 = Egyptian Epeiph 27 discussed by Hagedorn indicates that conformity was imposed by 2BC.

This date equation puts the wandering year out of the picture, but to conclude that that indicates that the Egyptians had been forced to abandon the fixed relationship with the Alexandrian calendar seems to me misguided. From 9BC the pressure was all the other way.

I used the Easter holiday to translate a paper made use of by Dr Bennett in his argument.

Dieter Hagedorn

On the Egyptian calendar under Augustus

from: Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 211 - 222.

Copyright: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

ON THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR UNDER AUGUSTUS

Theodore Cressy Skeat is the author of that basic description of the way the Ptolemaic calendars work , of which practical conversion tables we all make use, dealing with dates, which through the naming of the regnal years of one of the Ptolemies and of the day in an Egyptian month are fixed, to convert them to their Julian equivalent.

The problem there lies in this, that one used in Ptolemaic time the wandering Egyptian year with a constant 365 days (consisting of 12 months of 30 days and 5 additional days placed at the end of the year, epagomenai), while in the Julian calendar it is well known that every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. Through that the difference between the Egyptian and Julian year increases one day every four years from 29 February.

Under Augustus the Egyptian calendar was reformed. The final result of this reform, which we can trace over centuries, is the "Alexandrian" calendar, in which regularly every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. The Alexandrian and the Julian year agree thereafter in the long term, with an average 365 1/4 - day exact agreement, so that there is exact equivalence;always the leap day in the Alexandrian year was added not on the same day as in the Julian calendar, namely on 29 February , but at the end of the year as the sixth additional day. While the New Year's Day, 1 Thoth, normally falls on 29 August, it corresponds after an Alexandrian leap year with 30 August. This is regularly the case in the year which precedes the Julian leap year; up to 29 February of the following year there is always a difference compared to the normal relationship of one day.

With the completion of the above - mentioned standard work Skeat has now recently brought out a small volume with similar tables which for that will serve to illustrate the changeover from the Ptolemaic - Egyptian calendar to the Alexandrian calendar which - so it is said - was accomplished under Augustus.

In consideration of the high regard which Skeat as well as Fachmann enjoys on questions of the chronology, it is also to be expected that his interpretation becomes quickly and perhaps also uncritically generally accepted. To me there are after the reading of the little book however considerable doubts remaining on the rectitude of his approach. To me it seems that this interpretation is based on unproved (and by our present information also unprovable) theories. These are not one's own theories, which are based on other thoughts, so one comes to different conclusions. The purpose of this paper is to describe these conclusions and equally to offer them as an alternative to Skeat's solution to the question.

First the circumstances are set out in which the question how the reform of the Egyptian calendar under Augustus was accomplished became more complicated.When we speak of the "Julian" calendar, so by that we mean the calendar that theoretically was brought into effect through C. Julius Caesar's calendar reform in the year 45 in Rome. In reality however Caesar's ideas, which he had ordered, that ''quarto quoque anno'' should be intercalated, were falsified, because this expression, on account of the inclusive counting system customary in Rome, was misunderstood as "in every third year". One intercalated from there falsely in the years 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, and 9 BC. After that at first Augustus brought through his decree, future ''quinto quoque anno'' a leap year, however, to ensure again to save Caesar's original intentions for the system's validity through omission of the leap day in 5BC, 1BC and 4AD the already excess intercalated days. From 1 March AD4 onwards the actual misaligned and the ideal Julian calendar were in agreement, on 29 February AD8 it was for the first time intercalated in agreement with the ideal calendar. The modern scientific research uses the ideal Julian calendar exclusively, which it also applied during the time before 1 March AD4, reconciled with the fact that up to this time it was nowhere in use.

Skeat makes now in the succession to W. F. Snyder the following theories:

1. The reform of the Egyptian calendar brought in by Augustus had for its aim the alignment of this to the one found to be in use in Rome, i.e. perverted, to correct the Julian calendar.The second theory hangs tightly together with it: the reform must have taken place in a year in which 1 Thoth fell on 29 August (according to the Julian calendar then found to be in use). Skeat fixes that on the fact, that this equation was the usual one after the firm establishment of the Alexandrian calendar.

The postulate put forward under 2 is fulfilled in 30BC. The theory formulated under 1 forces the assumption, that in Egypt in the years 28, 25, 22, 19, 16, 13 and 10BC one had inserted a 6 epagomene, thereafter the intercalation was abandoned, with the correct intercalation to begin in a four - yearly cycle for the first time in the year AD 7. This is the essence of Snyder's solution to the problem, which Skeat follows. But are these theories acceptable? If the aim of the reform really was an alignment with the system practised in Rome, why has one then not plain and simple introduced the Roman calendar in Egypt? At the reorganisation of Egypt into a Roman province it had been lightly managed. On the other hand, i.e. at the reorganisation of the wandering new year and the 30 - day Egyptian months, a congruence with the months was never achieved, but a divergence in the numbers of the day - dates was inherent in the system. Already the diverging day - dates do not first of all stand after the reform in unchanging correlation, rather the correspondences were displaced, as above explained, after every Egyptian leap year for a half year by 1 day, more weight being given when one actually, as Skeat accepts, intercalated every three years.

One takes it as given, the reform of the Egyptian calendar by Augustus had another purpose, then the consequences are also quite different. Why should it not be the case, that Augustus in Egypt has wanted to achieve precisely this in the action, what Caesar also in the sense had had in Rome but had not been understood, and what already over 200 years before Ptolemy III. Euergetes I had planned,but likewise not had been able to carry through, namely an alignment of the calendars with the astronomical year, which it is well known comprises (roughly) 365 1/4 days. That the interval of three years fixed in the intercalation practised in Rome was absolute nonsense, the insights already soon allowed it to be grasped that this was right. That also Augustus listened to them, proves the fact, that he finally had achieved also in Rome the right understanding in the action.

If from now on the reform in that was effected, that with no consideration for the practice in Rome immediately the right manner of intercalation in a four - yearly interval was brought in, then it is a simple calculation to find out, when for the first time a 6 epagomene must have been intercalated, fixed, that through that the Alexandrian calendar so familiar to us at a later time was probably established. The solution already found for a long time is: at the end of Augustus' 8th regnal year, i.e. on 29th August 22BC (in the "ideal" Julian calendar); cf also the following tables.

For an irrefutable proof for the rightness of the traditional basis to take, which I share, I see myself not in the situation; because an absolutely certain verdict between the two solutions put forward might well be only then hit upon, if in the source a date equation on a 6 epagomene were found, and actually in one year, which according to only one of the two hypotheses was a leap year. I have not been able to find such evidence.

But while Snyder and Skeat, on every attempt to do without, to substantiate their theses through documentary evidence, I believe a contemporary source to be able to furnish a compelling argument for the rightness of the traditional basis.

It comes in the form of the well - known Latin letter P. Vindob. L1c = CPL 247.The text, which with certainty dates from the time of Augustus in an unknown year carries in 2.16 the date equation

:''XIIII K(alendas) August(as)'' Epeiph 27.

Also 19 July is equated with 27 Epeiph, in which the same thing is understood, that the Latin statement only can cover the calendar actually in use, not our ideal Julian calendar. One now takes Skeat's tables as the basis, then it quickly becomes apparent that the correspondence of a 27 Epeiph with 19 July of the "Current Julian Calendar" is never possible. In "Table B" on pp 8ff namely 1 Mesore falls on 25 July in every year of the "Current Julian Calendar", 27 Epeiph consequently on 21 July. This is unavoidably so, because according to Snyder/Skeat the Egyptian calendar under Augustus already employed all ''vagaries'' of the Julian calendar actually in use (cf footnote 6 above), so that in the relation of the Egyptian calendar to the Julian calendar actually in use already the equivalences must be valid, which are known later in the relation of the Alexandrian calendar to the ideal (and up to this time no more different from the actually used) Julian calendar. 27 Epeiph then likewise always corresponds with 21 July.

That however on the basis of the traditional opinion a correspondence of 19 July in the calendar actually in use with 27 Epeiph is definitely possible J. Kramer has already pointed out.It occurs namely in regnal years 6 - 11, 13 - 14, 17 and 25 - 28 ( = 24 - 19, 17 - 16, 13 and 5 - 2 BC.) In those years 27 Epeiph falls thereafter on 21 July of the ideal Julian calendar, but the Julian calendar actually in use lagged behind the ideal Julian calendar an exact two days here: to that just compare Skeat's "Table A". 27 Epeiph fell in them consequently on 19 July.

One will also not dismiss the date equation in P. Vindob. L1c as a copying error, then can Snyder and Skeat's portrayal not be true, while on this basis a plausible explanation can be found.

The following tables illustrate the equivalences between the Egyptian and the ideal Julian calendar, which on this basis are produced for the first 9 regnal years of Augustus.For the next following years the standard tables provided for the Alexandrian year mentioned in footnote 2 above can be used. By that is to observe, that Augustus' regnal years 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 etc. in the Egyptian calendar were leap years, so that to the start of each next following year (i.e. Julian 18/17, 14/13, 10/9, 6/5, 2/1, 3/4, 7/8 etc. the earlier alternative equivalences are allowed for.

Notes

1 Th. C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 39), Muenchen 1 1954, 2 1969.

2 These correlations illustrate e.g. the tables by P. W. Pestman, Chronologie egyptienne d'apres les textes demotiques (Papyrologica Lugduno - Batavia, vol. 15), Leiden 1967, after p. 8 and R. S. Bagnall - K. A. Worp, The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia, vol. 7), Zutphen 1978, pp 96 - 102.

3 Th. C. Skeat, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt. Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C. - 14 A.D. (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 84), Muenchen 1993.

4 I follow here entirely Skeat's implementations (The Reign of Augustus, pp 2 - 3), the explanation at that time of P. V. Neugebauer, Der julianische Kalender und seine Entstehung, in: Astronomische Nachtrichten 257, 1935, No. 6149, Sp. 65 - 74 reviews. Cf also A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I 7,) Muenchen 1972, pp 155 - 158.

5 W. F. Snyder, When Was the Alexandrian Calendar Established? AJPh 64, 1943, 385 - 398. The verbose in superior mixture rather than argumentatively written paper attempts through the use of illustrative tables to give the impression of its exact scientific nature, but it contains not one single compelling argument to the immediate support for the aforementioned theories. To my evaluation Snyder has only created confusion after, when the old research already has recognised the right thing for a long time - compare only Wilcken, Grundzuege p. 55 et seq.

6 Cf p. 4: "Thereafter the reformed Egyptian Calendar must have shared in all the vagaries of the current Julian Calendar, since the intention of the reform was to stablish a constant relationship between the two calendars".

7 Cf pp 1 - 2: "Since, as a result of this reform, 1 Thoth always fell on 29 August ..., it is obvious that the reform must have taken place in a year when it did in fact fall on 29 August ''in the Roman Calendar currently in use''". Also p. 3: "The problem, already stated, is to find a period when Thoth 1 in the unreformed Egyptian calendar fell on 29 August ''in the Roman Calendar currently in use''."

8 He had likewise already wanted to intercalate every four years a 6 epagomene. The intention is in the Canopus decree, documented and well - founded; cf OGIS 56 = A. Bernand, Le Delta egyptien d'apres les textes grecs, 1 - les confins libyques, vol. III, Cairo 1970, pp 989 - 1036, lines 32 - 37.

9 I have searched with help the CD of the Duke Data Bank as well as also in the extremely helpful Lists of C. Balconi, Documenti greci e latini d'Egitto di eta augustea, Aegyptus 56, 1976, 208 - 286. It gives in the uncertain period in general no date equation for a 6 epagomene.

10 Cf on that J. Kramer, Die Verwendung des Apex und P. Vindob. L1c, ZPE 88, 1991, 141 - 150. One finds there pp 143 - 144, footnote 17 the necessary references to older literature. Kramer's paper could not be more consulted than the new edition by P. Cugusi, Corpus Epistularum Latinarum Papyris Tabulis Ostracis servatarum (Papyrologica Florentina, Vol. 23), Florence 1992, No. 8.

11 cf pp 144 - 145.


== Edit 'Table of months' ==
12 Kramer's paper, loc. cit., which purely arithmetically puts also the year 27 and 26 into consideration, needs correction. In the years 27 and 26 in my opinion 22 July of the ideal Julian calendar corresponds with 27 Epeiph; there the date in the calendar actually used is likewise retarded by two days, one must have in this year expected ''XIII K(alendas) August(as)''. There further the renaming according to tradition of the month ''Sextilis'' as ''Augustus'' was effected first in the year 8 BC (cf Samuel, ''loc. cit''., p. 155, footnote 6), only the years 5 - 2BC for the writing of the papyrus fall into consideration.


'Table of months' needs a capital for months; eg: 'Table of Months' as it is a title.
13 In far scarcer detail already Martina Richter has achieved the same thing in ZPE 86, 1991, 252.


The table is incorrectly formatted. There is a section under the names of English months for the total number of days, it shouldn't be there. I also think either two separate tables should be made, one for the Roman side and one for the English side, or change the positioning of the English side to be between the Roman number of days and the English number of days. ] (]) 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
14 Those tables respectively parts of the tables by Skeat, which illustrate the equivalence between the initially practised and the ideal Julian calendar, are through this not relevant.


:Table also has the wrong date for Julian lengths. These values came into effect after Augustus reformed the Julian calendar. Between 45BCE (Julius's reform) and Augustus's reform, Feb was 29 days in common years (30dys in leap years by doubling Feb 24th), and Sextilus (soon, future August) through December lengths were opposite (Sextilus was 30, Sept was 31, Oct was 30, Nov was 31, and Dec was 30). An additional column could be inserted before the current one for actual 45BCE, and the current column could be renamed to reflect the Augustus reform a few decades later. — ] (]) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
(Translator's Note)


:: Please read ]. ] (]) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
There then follows a set of tables. The sixth epagomenal day makes a solitary appearance between 31 August 30 BC and 28 August 21BC on 29 August 22BC. The Julian leap day (taken as 29 February) appears in 29, 25 and 21 BC. The last day of the wandering year is taken as epagomene 5, 28 August 22BC.


:::{{User|AstroLynx}}, Didn't they just find something from the 30s BCE that upended that a couple years ago? — ] (]) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
'''Conclusions'''


::::If you can find a reliable source for this claim then you can add this to the section on Sacrobosco's error. WP is, however, not based on hearsay. ] (]) 13:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hagedorn's paper is '''not''', as Dr Bennett claims, support for his proposed text. The letter is written in Latin, obviously by a Roman. The situation is similar to that of a Russian equating his old style Christmas (25 December) with the corresponding Meletian date (7 January). ] (]) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::I'm not exactly sure what piece of evidence al-Shimoni is referring to, but mentions a calendar from the 30s BCE with the modern month lengths. Modern research is clear-cut on the matter, though the theory still gets trotted out every now and then (Nothaft 2018 mentions a couple of examples).
:::::Incidentally, the section discussing the theory was much larger until by JMF in September 2023, <s>leaving a remnant that needs cleanup</s>. ] (]) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::I deleted it because it was grossly ]. It is certainly ] to say that there was a notable but incorrect theory and but it was a disservice to users to clutter ''this'' article with its details. They belong in the article about ], not here. (If there is a loose end, I will clean it up now.) --] (]) 11:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Arcorann}} Sorry but I can't see any obvious "remnant that needs cleanup"? --] (]) 11:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::After reading it back again it wasn't as bad as I thought so I've struck the comment. Having said that, it does seem a bit strange to me to talk about the evidence that contradicts the model without a description of the model. ] (]) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I can understand that. Would it help if I copied to ] the material I deleted? That way you can refer to it but it doesn't need to be spelt out in detail in the same article. Perhaps you could add a very brief summary of Sacrobosco's theory here, or perhaps better still move the analysis that disproved it to the Sacrobosco article? For comparison, it might be worth looking at ] article, where an erroneous theory is mentioned but readers who want to know more about it are referred to another article. --] (]) 11:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


===Outright deletion===
==Eastern European calendar: naming proposal==
{{ping|Jbening}}, you have just deleted all mention of Sacrobosco from the article. Did you take into account the discussion above or the one in ]? I also considered it undue but stopped short of outright deletion. If otherwise reliable sources are still citing his theory then at least some reference should be made? I won't revert: if anyone else considers it significant, then they should do so{{snd}} and say that they are writing a section about it at ]. --] (]) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|JMF}}, I noticed after my edits that it was you who (late last year) deleted the explanation of Sacrobosco's theory, leaving a section that said his theory was wrong but never explained what his theory was. To me, the fact that the theory isn't even mentioned (much less explained) in his WP bio indicates that it's no big deal. So I'm fine with the article as is, notwithstanding the earlier discussion. The alternatives would I think be either to restore the explanatory text that you deleted, or to find some briefer way to explain the gist of the theory, without all those tables. And if his theory is worth mentioning in this article, you'd think it would also be worth mentioning in his bio. ] (]) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::...which was pretty much my logic too. Clearly nobody considered it notable enough to take time to transfer it to his article. ] (]) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


== January 15 ==
On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot.


What was January 15 called according to the Julian calendar? Ides Januari or...? ] (]) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option)
:Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended)
:Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended)
:Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended)


:Idus Ianuarie in English is January 13. January 15 is a.d. XVIII Kalendas Februarias, that is, eighteen days before the first day of February, counted inclusively as the Romans did. See Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, ''The Oxford Companion to the Year'' (1999, reprinted with corrections 2003), pp. 33, 37. ] (]) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of option 1.


== Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget ==
The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n.


I'm looking at this article and it tells me today's Gregorian date is 14 Nov. What's up with that? ] (]) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
'''This is not the place to vote'''. Click on this link ], read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others.
:Possible cache interference? See ] and then ]. The widget certainly works. --] (]) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


==Needs sourcing==
Uma Paschoa muito feliz a todos. '''O povo unido jamais sera vencido'''. ] (]) 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Gregory's calendar reform modified the Julian rule, to reduce the average length of the calendar year from 365.25 days to 365.2425 days and thus corrected the Julian calendar's drift against the solar year: the Gregorian calendar gains just 0.1 day over 400 years." --] (]) 01:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:53, 24 December 2024

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTime High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 1, 2011.
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Edit 'Table of months'

'Table of months' needs a capital for months; eg: 'Table of Months' as it is a title.

The table is incorrectly formatted. There is a section under the names of English months for the total number of days, it shouldn't be there. I also think either two separate tables should be made, one for the Roman side and one for the English side, or change the positioning of the English side to be between the Roman number of days and the English number of days. 122.199.2.194 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Table also has the wrong date for Julian lengths. These values came into effect after Augustus reformed the Julian calendar. Between 45BCE (Julius's reform) and Augustus's reform, Feb was 29 days in common years (30dys in leap years by doubling Feb 24th), and Sextilus (soon, future August) through December lengths were opposite (Sextilus was 30, Sept was 31, Oct was 30, Nov was 31, and Dec was 30). An additional column could be inserted before the current one for actual 45BCE, and the current column could be renamed to reflect the Augustus reform a few decades later. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please read Sacrobosco's incorrect theory on month lengths. AstroLynx (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
AstroLynx (talk · contribs), Didn't they just find something from the 30s BCE that upended that a couple years ago? — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source for this claim then you can add this to the section on Sacrobosco's error. WP is, however, not based on hearsay. AstroLynx (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what piece of evidence al-Shimoni is referring to, but Lamont in 1919 mentions a calendar from the 30s BCE with the modern month lengths. Modern research is clear-cut on the matter, though the theory still gets trotted out every now and then (Nothaft 2018 mentions a couple of examples).
Incidentally, the section discussing the theory was much larger until this edit by JMF in September 2023, leaving a remnant that needs cleanup. Arcorann (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was grossly wp:undue. It is certainly wp:due to say that there was a notable but incorrect theory and but it was a disservice to users to clutter this article with its details. They belong in the article about Sacrobosco, not here. (If there is a loose end, I will clean it up now.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Arcorann: Sorry but I can't see any obvious "remnant that needs cleanup"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
After reading it back again it wasn't as bad as I thought so I've struck the comment. Having said that, it does seem a bit strange to me to talk about the evidence that contradicts the model without a description of the model. Arcorann (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I can understand that. Would it help if I copied to Sacrobosco the material I deleted? That way you can refer to it but it doesn't need to be spelt out in detail in the same article. Perhaps you could add a very brief summary of Sacrobosco's theory here, or perhaps better still move the analysis that disproved it to the Sacrobosco article? For comparison, it might be worth looking at oxygen#Phlogiston theory article, where an erroneous theory is mentioned but readers who want to know more about it are referred to another article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Outright deletion

@Jbening:, you have just deleted all mention of Sacrobosco from the article. Did you take into account the discussion above or the one in Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 3#Sacrobosco's theory on month lengths? I also considered it undue but stopped short of outright deletion. If otherwise reliable sources are still citing his theory then at least some reference should be made? I won't revert: if anyone else considers it significant, then they should do so – and say that they are writing a section about it at Sacrobosco. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@JMF:, I noticed after my edits that it was you who (late last year) deleted the explanation of Sacrobosco's theory, leaving a section that said his theory was wrong but never explained what his theory was. To me, the fact that the theory isn't even mentioned (much less explained) in his WP bio indicates that it's no big deal. So I'm fine with the article as is, notwithstanding the earlier discussion. The alternatives would I think be either to restore the explanatory text that you deleted, or to find some briefer way to explain the gist of the theory, without all those tables. And if his theory is worth mentioning in this article, you'd think it would also be worth mentioning in his bio. Jbening (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
...which was pretty much my logic too. Clearly nobody considered it notable enough to take time to transfer it to his article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

January 15

What was January 15 called according to the Julian calendar? Ides Januari or...? 0m9Ep (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Idus Ianuarie in English is January 13. January 15 is a.d. XVIII Kalendas Februarias, that is, eighteen days before the first day of February, counted inclusively as the Romans did. See Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year (1999, reprinted with corrections 2003), pp. 33, 37. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget

I'm looking at this article on 17 Nov 24 and it tells me today's Gregorian date is 14 Nov. What's up with that? 75.185.193.38 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible cache interference? See Misplaced Pages:Bypass your cache and then WP:PURGE. The widget certainly works. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Needs sourcing

"Gregory's calendar reform modified the Julian rule, to reduce the average length of the calendar year from 365.25 days to 365.2425 days and thus corrected the Julian calendar's drift against the solar year: the Gregorian calendar gains just 0.1 day over 400 years." --KimYunmi (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: