| Revision as of 09:14, 18 March 2008 edit156.61.31.31 (talk) Remove polemic← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:18, 18 March 2008 edit undo156.61.31.31 (talk) Chris,its not the number of people with a view that counts but their influence.Major reference works are used by the mass,Michels by a handful&after41 years shes probably dead&more forgettable dailyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| There are allusions in the classical writers to additional intercalations in February, designed to prevent a clash between certain festivals and the eight-day cycle of market days, the ''nundinae''. Some modern authors hold that some of these accounts are bogus. Some modern authors hold that one isolated account gives them the right to position the start of Intercalaris on the day immediately following 24 February in every 378-day year. In this model, uniquely, the period between the Ides and the Kalends would no longer be fixed, creating huge uncertainty as to the correct date on which to observe birthdays and festivals. Worse, the Regifugium (normally kept on the day after the Terminalia) would appear both in its usual place in ordinary years and in its usual place in intercalary years. | There are allusions in the classical writers to additional intercalations in February, designed to prevent a clash between certain festivals and the eight-day cycle of market days, the ''nundinae''. Some modern authors hold that some of these accounts are bogus. Some modern authors hold that one isolated account gives them the right to position the start of Intercalaris on the day immediately following 24 February in every 378-day year. In this model, uniquely, the period between the Ides and the Kalends would no longer be fixed, creating huge uncertainty as to the correct date on which to observe birthdays and festivals. Worse, the Regifugium (normally kept on the day after the Terminalia) would appear both in its usual place in ordinary years and in its usual place in intercalary years. | ||
| Some modern authors claim that Intercalaris never had 28 days. Fixing its length gives rise to the problems mentioned above. Also, the respected first-century jurist Celsus flatly denies it. |
Some modern authors claim that Intercalaris never had 28 days. Fixing its length gives rise to the problems mentioned above. Also, the respected first-century jurist Celsus flatly denies it. Here is the Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Oxford University Press (1996) ISBN 0-19-866172-X at page 274: | ||
| Post-reform, Chris said that Celsus said the Regifugium was celebrated on 24 February in leap years and was wrong. It was actually celebrated on 25 February. Thus Chris subscribes to the traditional view, unchallenged till the twentieth century, that the intercalary day immediately followed 23 February. | |||
| A few minutes later he changed his view, claiming that it was Celsus who said the Regifugium was celebrated on 25 February, Celsus was wrong, and it was actually celebrated on the intercalary day itself! Chris says his views are "state of the art". Here is the Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Oxford University Press (1996) ISBN 0-19-866172-X at page 274: | |||
| "The Egyptian solar calendar was adapted to Roman use, by inserting enough days in the shorter months to bring the total up to 365 and arranging for the insertion of a day, not a month, between 23 and 24 February, in leap year (thus 23 February occurred twice; the non-existent date '29 February' is a modern absurdity)." | "The Egyptian solar calendar was adapted to Roman use, by inserting enough days in the shorter months to bring the total up to 365 and arranging for the insertion of a day, not a month, between 23 and 24 February, in leap year (thus 23 February occurred twice; the non-existent date '29 February' is a modern absurdity)." | ||
| Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
| In point of fact they are not. In the Christian calendar, a jump in the dominical letter in a leap year is a reality. One hebdomadal letter served for the day following 23 February (the intercalation) and the following day, so subsequent Sundays were marked against the preceding letter in the series. The same thing would happen in the pre-Julian calendar - the 28th of Intercalaris not being marked (just as the Julian leap day was not marked) all subsequent nundines would be marked against the preceding letter in the series. | In point of fact they are not. In the Christian calendar, a jump in the dominical letter in a leap year is a reality. One hebdomadal letter served for the day following 23 February (the intercalation) and the following day, so subsequent Sundays were marked against the preceding letter in the series. The same thing would happen in the pre-Julian calendar - the 28th of Intercalaris not being marked (just as the Julian leap day was not marked) all subsequent nundines would be marked against the preceding letter in the series. | ||
| The pictorial calendar has been known since 1921; the 1968 edition of the above work says "To intercalate, a month of 22 or 23 days, called Mercedonius or Intercalaris, was placed between the 23rd and 24th of February." It is important to understand that all these reconstructions are precisely that - reconstructions. They are simply assumptions, anchored to reality at points where extrinsic evidence gives a correlation. For example, there is a |
The pictorial calendar has been known since 1921; the 1968 edition of the above work says "To intercalate, a month of 22 or 23 days, called Mercedonius or Intercalaris, was placed between the 23rd and 24th of February." It is important to understand that all these reconstructions are precisely that - reconstructions. They are simply assumptions, anchored to reality at points where extrinsic evidence gives a correlation. For example, there is a beautiful book of H Matzat, prepared with extensive tables on the basis of a solar eclipse, and giving the full calendar for the years 219 BC to 1 BC. | ||
| Romans believed that the month had been added to the Roman calendar, along with ] and Februarius, by King ] in the ]. The name ''Mercedonius'' comes from ''merces'', meaning ''wages'', as workers were paid at that time of year. | Romans believed that the month had been added to the Roman calendar, along with ] and Februarius, by King ] in the ]. The name ''Mercedonius'' comes from ''merces'', meaning ''wages'', as workers were paid at that time of year. | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 18 March 2008
Mercedonius, also known as Intercalaris, was the intercalary month added in leap years of the Roman calendar. All the ancient writers say this month was inserted immediately after the Terminalia (23 February). Varro, Livy, Censorinus and Macrobius are unanimous on this point.
For 2000 years it was accepted without question that this was the true position. In 1967, however, the suggestion first surfaced that it might sometimes have been inserted immediately after 24 February. This creates further conflict with the ancient writers, because they say that when Intercalaris was inserted the last five days of February were dropped. If Intercalaris immediately follows 24 February only the last four days of February are dropped.
The ordinary year in the pre-Julian calendar consisted of 12 months, for a total of 355 days. As the calendar kept pace with the sun, there was an annual shortfall of some 10¼ days. There was therefore an intercalary cycle, in which this error was allowed to accumulate until it was periodically corrected by the insertion of an intercalary month.
In the classical model, that of the ancient writers, a 27 or 28-day intercalary month, the Mensis Intercalaris, was sometimes inserted between February and March. It followed 23 February, and the last five days of February took their places, with their attendant festivals, as the last days of Intercalaris. They kept their usual dates of "a.d. .. Kal. Mart." For an explanation of the Roman dating system, see the article Roman calendar.
There are allusions in the classical writers to additional intercalations in February, designed to prevent a clash between certain festivals and the eight-day cycle of market days, the nundinae. Some modern authors hold that some of these accounts are bogus. Some modern authors hold that one isolated account gives them the right to position the start of Intercalaris on the day immediately following 24 February in every 378-day year. In this model, uniquely, the period between the Ides and the Kalends would no longer be fixed, creating huge uncertainty as to the correct date on which to observe birthdays and festivals. Worse, the Regifugium (normally kept on the day after the Terminalia) would appear both in its usual place in ordinary years and in its usual place in intercalary years.
Some modern authors claim that Intercalaris never had 28 days. Fixing its length gives rise to the problems mentioned above. Also, the respected first-century jurist Celsus flatly denies it. Here is the Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Oxford University Press (1996) ISBN 0-19-866172-X at page 274:
"The Egyptian solar calendar was adapted to Roman use, by inserting enough days in the shorter months to bring the total up to 365 and arranging for the insertion of a day, not a month, between 23 and 24 February, in leap year (thus 23 February occurred twice; the non-existent date '29 February' is a modern absurdity)."
The impetus for the reappraisal of the classical model was the rediscovery of the sole surviving pre-Julian calendar. In this, Intercalaris is depicted with 27 days. There is a reason for this. Intercalaris always had 27 days (although the 27th might not always be the last). It did not always have 28. Roman months were depicted with a column of letters (A to H) in the left-hand column, which serves exactly the same function as the hebdomadal letters (A to G) in the Christian calendar. The intercalary month had no letters associated with it (the same is true of the intercalary day in the Christian calendar) or if it did the series would start with E, since the letter for 23 February was D. To balance his drawing the artist repeated the December sequence, starting with G. Unfortunately, with a 27-day Intercalaris this means the sequence ends with A, and since March begins with B it is easy to jump to the conclusion that all intercalary years are like this.
In point of fact they are not. In the Christian calendar, a jump in the dominical letter in a leap year is a reality. One hebdomadal letter served for the day following 23 February (the intercalation) and the following day, so subsequent Sundays were marked against the preceding letter in the series. The same thing would happen in the pre-Julian calendar - the 28th of Intercalaris not being marked (just as the Julian leap day was not marked) all subsequent nundines would be marked against the preceding letter in the series.
The pictorial calendar has been known since 1921; the 1968 edition of the above work says "To intercalate, a month of 22 or 23 days, called Mercedonius or Intercalaris, was placed between the 23rd and 24th of February." It is important to understand that all these reconstructions are precisely that - reconstructions. They are simply assumptions, anchored to reality at points where extrinsic evidence gives a correlation. For example, there is a beautiful book of H Matzat, prepared with extensive tables on the basis of a solar eclipse, and giving the full calendar for the years 219 BC to 1 BC.
Romans believed that the month had been added to the Roman calendar, along with Januarius and Februarius, by King Numa Pompilius in the 7th century BC. The name Mercedonius comes from merces, meaning wages, as workers were paid at that time of year.
This month was supposed to be inserted every two or three years to align the 355-day common year with the tropical year. The decision whether to insert the intercalary month was made by the pontifex maximus, supposedly based on observations to ensure the best possible correspondence with the seasons. Unfortunately the pontifex maximus (whose office was generally held by a politician or soldier, notably Julius Caesar during the so-called Years of Confusion) often neglected to insert the month at the proper time, or deliberately inserted it early or late to allow some officials to stay in office longer or force others out early. Such unpredictable intercalation meant that dates following Februarius could not be known in advance; neither could the current date for citizens out of communication with the city.
The month was eliminated by Julius Caesar when he introduced the Julian calendar in 46 BC.
Notes
- "The lunar year of 354 days fell short of the solar year by 11-1/4 days;—this in 8 years amounted to 90 days. These 90 days he divided into 2 months of 22 and 2 of 23 days, and introduced them alternately every second year for two octennial periods: every third octennial period, however, Numa intercalated only 3 months because he adopted 355 days as the length of his lunar year"
D. Spillan, Livy's History of Rome, Book I. 19. Footnote 24.
This is the theory of Macrobius in Saturnalia (c. AD 430). - "Their management was left to the pontiffs—ad metam eandem solis unde orsi essent—dies congruerent; 'that the days might correspond to the same starting-point of the sun in the heavens whence they had set out.'"
D. Spillan, Livy's History of Rome, Book I. 19. Footnote 24.