| Revision as of 16:59, 24 March 2008 view sourceChris Bennett (talk | contribs)1,492 edits Rv. Noone calls it the "Imperial Civil Calendar", everyone calls it the "Julian calendar" and it long outlasted the empire← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:01, 24 March 2008 view source Chris Bennett (talk | contribs)1,492 edits Remove diplication of Julian calendar articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} | |||
| {{calendars}}The '''Julian calendar''' was a reform of the ] which was introduced by ] in 46 BC and came into force in 45 BC (709 '']''). It was chosen after consultation with the astronomer ] and was probably designed to approximate the ], known at least since ]. It has a regular year of 365 ]s divided into 12 ]s, and a ] is added to ] every four years. Hence the Julian year is on average 365.25 days long. | |||
| The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a national calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the modern ]. It is still used by the ] of ] and by many national ] churches. Orthodox Churches no longer using the Julian calendar typically use the ] rather than the Gregorian calendar. | |||
| The notation ] is sometimes used to indicate a date in the Julian calendar, as opposed to ], which either represents the Julian date with the start of the year as ] or a full mapping onto the ]. | |||
| ==Motivation== | |||
| The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of 12 months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27-day intercalary month, the ], was sometimes inserted between February and March. This intercalary month was formed by inserting 22 days after the first 23 or 24 days of February, the last five days of February becoming the last five days of Intercalaris. The net effect was to add 22 or 23 days to the year, forming an intercalary year of 377 or 378 days. | |||
| According to the later writers ] and ], the ideal intercalary cycle consisted of ordinary years of 355 days alternating with intercalary years, alternately 377 and 378 days long. On this system, the average Roman year would have had 366¼ days over four years, giving it an average drift of one day per year relative to any solstice or equinox. Macrobius describes a further refinement wherein, for 8 years out of 24, there were only three intercalary years, each of 377 days. This refinement averages the length of the year to 365¼ days over 24 years. In practice, intercalations did not occur schematically according to these ideal systems, but were determined by the ]. So far as can be determined from the historical evidence, they were much less regular than these ideal schemes suggest. They usually occurred every second or third year, but were sometimes omitted for much longer, and occasionally occurred in two consecutive years. | |||
| If managed correctly this system allowed the Roman year, on average, to stay roughly aligned to a tropical year. However, if too many intercalations were omitted, as happened after the ] and during the ], the calendar would drift rapidly out of alignment with the tropical year. Moreover, since intercalations were often determined quite late, the average Roman citizen often did not know the date, particularly if he were some distance from the city. For these reasons, the last years of the pre-Julian calendar were later known as "years of confusion". The problems became particularly acute during the years of Julius Caesar's pontificate before the reform, 63 to 46 BC, when there were only five intercalary months, whereas there should have been eight, and none at all during the five Roman years before 46 BC. | |||
| The reform was intended to correct this problem permanently, by creating a calendar that remained aligned to the sun without any human intervention. | |||
| == Julian reform == | |||
| The first step of the reform was to realign the start of the calendar year (]) to the tropical year by making 46 BC 445 days long, compensating for the intercalations which had been missed during Caesar's pontificate. This year had already been extended from 355 to 378 days by the insertion of a regular ] in February. When Caesar decreed the reform, probably shortly after his return from the African campaign in late Quintilis (July), he added 67 (= 22 + 23 + 22) more days by inserting two extraordinary intercalary months between November and December. These months are called ''Intercalaris Prior'' and ''Intercalaris Posterior'' in letters of Cicero written at the time; there is no basis for the statement sometimes seen that they were called "Unodecember" and "Duodecember". Their individual lengths are unknown, as is the position of the Nones and the Ides within them. Because 46 BC was the last of a series of irregular years, this extra-long year was, and is, referred to as the "last year of confusion". The first year of operation of the new calendar was 45 BC. | |||
| The Julian months were formed by adding ten days to a regular pre-Julian Roman year of 355 days, creating a regular Julian year of 365 days: Two extra days were added to Ianuarius,<ref name=J>The letter ] was not invented until the 16th century.</ref> Sextilis (Augustus) and December, and one extra day was added to Aprilis, Iunius, September and November, setting the lengths of the months to the values they still hold today: | |||
| {| class=wikitable align=center | |||
| ! Months || Lengths before 45 BC || Lengths as of 45 BC | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Ianuarius<ref name=J/> || 29 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Februarius || 28 (23/24) || 28 (29) | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Martius || 31 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Aprilis || 29 || 30 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Maius || 31 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Iunius<ref name=J/> || 29 || 30 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Quintilis (Iulius) || 31 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Sextilis (Augustus) || 29 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | September || 29 || 30 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | October || 31 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | November || 29 || 30 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | December || 29 || 31 | |||
| |- align=center | |||
| | Intercalaris || (27) || (abolished) | |||
| |} | |||
| ] states that the extra days were added immediately before the last day of each month to avoid disturbing the position of the established Roman ''fasti'' (days prescribed for certain events) relative to the start of the month. However, since Roman dates after the ] of the month counted down towards the start of the next month, the extra days had the effect of raising the initial value of the count of the day after the Ides. Romans of the time born after the Ides of a month responded differently to the effect of this change on their birthdays. ] kept his birthday on the 14th day of Ianuarius, which changed its date from a.d. XVII Kal. Feb. to a.d. XIX Kal. Feb., a date that had previously not existed. ] kept the date of her birthday unchanged at a.d. III Kal. Feb., which moved it from the 28th to the 30th day of Ianuarius, a day that had previously not existed. ] kept his on the 23rd day of September, but both the old date (a.d. VIII Kal. Oct.) and the new (a.d. IX Kal. Oct.) were celebrated in some places. | |||
| The old ] was abolished. The new leap day was dated as ''ante diem bis sextum Kalendas Martias'', usually abbreviated as ''a.d. bis VI Kal. Mart.''; hence it is called in English the ] day. The year in which it occurred was termed ''annus bissextus'', in English the bissextile year. | |||
| There is debate about the exact position of the bissextile day in the early Julian calendar. The earliest direct evidence is a statement of the first century jurist ], who states that there were two halves of a 48-hour day, and that the intercalated day was the "posterior" half. An inscription from A.D. 168 states that ''a.d. V Kal. Mart.'' was the day after the bissextile day. The 19th century chronologist ] argued that Celsus used the term "posterior" in a technical fashion to refer to the earlier of the two days, which requires the inscription to refer to the whole 48-hour day as the bissextile. Some later historians share this view. Others, following ], take the view that Celsus was using the ordinary Latin (and English) meaning of "posterior". A third view is that neither half of the 48-hour "bis sextum" was originally formally designated as intercalated, but that the need to do so arose as the concept of a 48-hour day became obsolete.<ref>W. Sternkopf, "Das Bissextum", (JCP 41 (1895) 718-733) available at . </ref> | |||
| There is no doubt that the bissextile day eventually became the earlier of the two days. In 238 ] stated that it was inserted after the ] (23 February) and was followed by the last five days of February, i.e. a. d. VI, V, IV, III and prid. Kal. Mart. (which would be the 24th to 28th days of February in a common year and the 25th to the 29th days in a leap year). Hence he regarded the bissextum as the first half of the doubled day. All later writers, including ] about 430, ] in 725, and other medieval ] (calculators of ]) followed this rule, as did the ] of the Roman Catholic Church until 1970. | |||
| During the late ] days in the month came to be numbered in consecutive day order. Consequently, the leap day was considered to be the last day in February in leap years, i.e. ], which is its current position. | |||
| ==Leap year error== | |||
| Although the new calendar was much simpler than the pre-Julian calendar, the pontifices apparently misunderstood the algorithm for leap years. They added a leap day every three years, instead of every four years. According to Macrobius, the error was the result of counting inclusively, so that the four-year cycle was considered as including both the first and fourth years. This resulted in too many leap days. ] remedied this discrepancy after 36 years by restoring the correct frequency. He also skipped several leap days in order to realign the year. | |||
| The historic sequence of leap years in this period is not given explicitly by any ancient source, although the existence of the triennial leap year cycle is confirmed by an inscription that dates from 9 or 8 BC. The ] ] established in 1583 that the Augustan reform was instituted in 8 BC, and inferred that the sequence of leap years was 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9 BC, AD 8, 12 etc. This proposal is still the most widely accepted solution. It has sometimes been suggested that there was an additional bissextile day in the first year of the Julian reform, i.e. that 45 BC was also a leap year. | |||
| Other solutions have been proposed from time to time. ] proposed in 1614 that the correct sequence of leap years was 43, 40, 37, 34, 31, 28, 25, 22, 19, 16, 13, 10 BC, AD 8, 12 etc. In 1883 the German chronologist Matzat proposed 44, 41, 38, 35, 32, 29, 26, 23, 20, 17, 14, 11 BC, AD 4, 8, 12 etc., based on a passage in ] that mentions a leap day in 41 BC that was said to be ''contrary to (Caesar's) rule''. In the 1960s Radke argued the reform was actually instituted when Augustus became pontifex maximus in ], suggesting the sequence 45, 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12 BC, AD 4, 8, 12 etc. With all these solutions, except that of Radke, the Roman calendar was not finally aligned to the Julian calendar of later times until ] (a.d. V Kal. Mar.) ]. On Radke's solution, the two calendars were aligned on ] ]. | |||
| In 1999, an Egyptian ] was published that gives an ] table for 24 BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. From this it can be shown that the most likely sequence was in fact 44, 41, 38, 35, 32, 29, 26, 23, 20, 17, 14, 11, 8 BC, AD 4, 8, 12 etc, very close to that proposed by Matzat. This sequence shows that the standard Julian leap year sequence began in AD 4, the 12th year of the Augustan reform, and that the Roman calendar was finally aligned to the Julian calendar in 1 BC, as in Radke's model. The Roman year also coincided with the proleptic Julian year between 32 and 26 BC. This suggests that one aim of the realignment portion of the Augustan reform was to ensure that key dates of his career, notably the fall of Alexandria on ] ], were unaffected by his correction. | |||
| Roman dates before 32 BC were typically a day or two before the day with the same Julian date, so ] in the Roman calendar of the first year of the Julian reform was ] ] (Julian date). A curious effect of this is that Caesar's assassination on the Ides (15th day) of March fell on ] ] in the Julian calendar. | |||
| ==Month names== | |||
| Immediately after the Julian reform, the twelve months of the Roman calendar were named Ianuarius,<ref name=J/> Februarius, Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Iunius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December, just as they were before the reform. The old intercalary month, the ], was abolished and replaced with a single intercalary day at the same point (i.e. five days before the end of Februarius). The first month of the year continued to be Ianuarius, as it had been since 153 BC. | |||
| The Romans later renamed months after ] and ], renaming Quintilis (originally, "the fifth month", with March = month 1) as Iulius (July)<ref name=J/> in 44 BC and Sextilis ("sixth month") as Augustus (August) in 8 BC. Quintilis was renamed to honour Caesar because it was the month of his birth. According to a ''senatus consultum'' quoted by Macrobius, Sextilis was renamed to honour Augustus because several of the most significant events in his rise to power, culminating in the fall of Alexandria, fell in that month. | |||
| Other months were renamed by other emperors, but apparently none of the later changes survived their deaths. ] renamed September ("seventh month") as ]; ] renamed Aprilis (April) as Neroneus, Maius (May) as Claudius and Iunius (June) as Germanicus; and ] renamed September as ] and October ("eighth month") as Domitianus. At other times, September was also renamed as ] and ], and November ("ninth month") was renamed as ] and Romanus. ] was unique in renaming all twelve months after his own adopted names (January to December): Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, and Exsuperatorius. | |||
| Much more lasting than the ephemeral month names of the post-Augustan Roman emperors were the names introduced by ]. He renamed all of the months agriculturally into ]. They were used until the 15th century, and with some modifications until the late 18th century in Germany and in the Netherlands (January through December): ''Wintarmanoth'' (winter month), ''Hornung'' (the month when the male red deer sheds its antlers), ''Lentzinmanoth'' (Lent month), ''Ostarmanoth'' (Easter month), ''Wonnemanoth'' (love-making month), ''Brachmanoth'' (plowing month), ''Heuvimanoth'' (hay month), ''Aranmanoth'' (harvest month), ''Witumanoth'' (wood month), ''Windumemanoth'' (vintage month), ''Herbistmanoth'' (autumn/harvest month)<!--(grazing month)-->, and ''Heilagmanoth'' (holy month). | |||
| ==Month lengths== | |||
| The Julian reform set the lengths of the months to their modern values. However, a 13th century scholar, ], proposed a different explanation for the lengths of Julian months which is still widely repeated but is certainly wrong.<ref>Roscoe Lamont, "", ''Popular Astronomy'' '''27''' (1919) 583–595. The reference is the second article in the hyperlink; its last page is . Sacrobosco's theory is discussed on pages 585–587.</ref> According to Sacrobosco, the original scheme for the months in the Julian Calendar was very regular, alternately long and short. From January through December, the month lengths according to Sacrobosco for the Roman Republican calendar were: | |||
| 30, 29, 30, 29, 30, 29, 30, 29, 30, 29, 30, 29 | |||
| He then thought that Julius Caesar added one day to every month except February, a total of 11 more days, giving the year 365 days. A leap day could now be added to the extra short February: | |||
| 31, 29/30, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30 | |||
| He then said Augustus changed this to: | |||
| 31, 28/29, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31 | |||
| so that the length of ''Augustus'' would not be shorter than (and therefore inferior to) the length of ''Iulius'', giving us the irregular month lengths which are still in use. | |||
| There is abundant evidence disproving this theory. First, a wall painting of a ] predating the Julian reform has survived,<ref></ref> | |||
| which confirms the literary accounts that the months were already irregular before Julius Caesar reformed them: | |||
| 29, 28, 31, 29, 31, 29, 31, 29, 29, 31, 29, 29 | |||
| Also, the Julian reform did not change the dates of the ] and ]. In particular, the Ides were late (on the 15th rather than 13th) in March, May, July and October, showing that these months always had 31 days in the Roman calendar, whereas Sacrobosco's theory requires that March, May and July were originally 30 days long and that the length of October was changed from 29 to 30 days by Caesar and to 31 days by Augustus. Further, Sacrobosco's theory is explicitly contradicted by the 3rd and 5th century authors ] and ], and it is inconsistent with seasonal lengths given by Varro, writing in 37 BC, before the Augustan reform, with the 31-day Sextilis given by the new Egyptian papyrus from 24 BC, and with the 28-day February shown in the ''Fasti Caeretani'', which is dated before 12 BC. | |||
| ==Year numbering== | |||
| The dominant method that the Romans used to identify a year for dating purposes was to name it after the two consuls who took office in it. Since 153 BC, they had taken office on ], and Julius Caesar did not change the beginning of the year. Thus this consular year was an eponymous or named year. In addition to consular years, the Romans sometimes used the regnal year of the emperor, and by the late fourth century documents were also being dated according to the 15-year cycle of the ]. In 537, ] required that henceforth the date must include the name of the emperor and his regnal year, in addition to the ] and the consul, while also allowing the use of local eras. | |||
| In 309 and 310, and from time to time thereafter, no consuls were appointed.<ref>Chronography of AD 354, see </ref> When this happened, the consular date was given a count of years since the last consul (so-called "post-consular" dating). After 541, only the reigning emperor held the consulate, typically for only one year in his reign, and so post-consular dating became the norm. Similar post-consular dates were also known in the West in the early 6th century. <!-- Commented out pending further research. ] is up to 4th year of the consulate of ] with no assurance he is the latest. --~~~~ The last known post-consular date is year 22 after the consulate of ].{{Verify source|date=August 2007}} The last emperor to hold the consulate was ]. --> The system of consular dating, long obsolete, was formally abolished in the law code of ], issued in 888. | |||
| Only rarely did the Romans number the year from the ], '']'' (AUC). This method was used by Roman historians to determine the number of years from one event to another, not to date a year. Different historians had several different dates for the founding. The ], an inscription containing an official list of the consuls which was published by Augustus, used an ] of 752 BC. The epoch used by ], 753 BC, has been adopted by modern historians. Indeed, ] editors often added it to the manuscripts that they published, giving the false impression that the Romans numbered their years. Most modern historians tacitly assume that it began on the day the consuls took office, and ancient documents such as the ''Fasti Capitolini'' which use other AUC systems do so in the same way. However, ], writing in the 3rd century AD, states that, in his time, the AUC year began with the ], celebrated on ], which was regarded as the actual anniversary of the foundation of Rome. Because the festivities associated with the Parilia conflicted with the solemnity of ], which was observed until the Saturday before Easter Sunday, the early Roman church did not celebrate Easter after ].<ref>Charles W. Jones, "Development of the Latin Ecclesiastical calendar", ''Bedae Opera de Temporibus'' (1943), 1-122, p.28.</ref> | |||
| While the Julian reform applied originally to the Roman calendar, many of the other calendars then used in the Roman Empire were aligned with the reformed calendar under ]. This led to the adoption of several local eras for the Julian calendar, such as the ] and the ], some of which were used for a considerable time. Perhaps the best known is the ], sometimes also called ''Anno Diocletiani'' (after ]), which was often used by the ] to number their Easters during the 4th and 5th centuries and continued to be used by the Coptic and Abyssinian churches. | |||
| In the Eastern Mediterranean, the efforts of Christian chronographers such as ] to date the Biblical creation of the world led to the introduction of ] eras based on this event. The most important of these was the ], used throughout the Byzantine world from the 10th century and in Russia till 1700. In the West, ] proposed the system of ] in 525. This era gradually spread through the western Christian world, once the system was adopted by ]. | |||
| ==New Year's Day== | |||
| The Roman calendar began the year on ], and this remained the start of the year after the Julian reform. However, even after local calendars were aligned to the Julian calendar, they started the new year on different dates. The ] in Egypt started on ] (] after an Alexandrian leap year). Several local provincial calendars were aligned to start on the birthday of Augustus, ]. The ] caused the ] year, which used the Julian calendar, to begin on ]; this date is still used in the ] for the beginning of the ]. When the Julian calendar was adopted in AD 988 by ], the year was numbered ] 6496, beginning on ], six months after the start of the Byzantine Anno Mundi year with the same number. In 1492 (AM 7000), ], according to church tradition, realigned the start of the year to ], so that AM 7000 only lasted for six months in Russia, from ] to ] ].<ref></ref> | |||
| During the ] ] retained the name '']'' (or an equivalent name) in all ]an countries (affiliated with the ]), since the medieval calendar continued to display the months from January to December (in twelve columns containing 28 to 31 days each), just as the Romans had. However, most of those countries began their numbered year on ] (the Nativity of ]), ] (the ]), or even ], as in ] (see the ] article for more details). | |||
| In England before 1752, ] was celebrated as the New Year festival,<ref>, "I sat down to end my journell for this year, ..."</ref> but the "year starting 25th March was called the Civil or Legal Year, although the phrase ] was more commonly used".<ref name=MS>Spathaky, Mike .</ref> To reduce misunderstandings on the date, it was not uncommon in parish registers for a new year heading after ], for example 1661, to have another heading at the end of the following December indicating "1661/62". This was to explain to the reader that the year was 1661 Old Style and 1662 New Style.<ref name=MS-oblique-stroke>Spathaky, Mike . "An oblique stroke is by far the most usual indicator, but sometimes the alternative final figures of the year are written above and below a horizontal line, as in a fraction (a form which cannot easily be reproduced here in ASCII text). Very occasionally a hyphen is used, as 1733-34."</ref> | |||
| Most Western European countries shifted the first day of their numbered year to ] while they were still using the Julian calendar, ''before'' they adopted the Gregorian calendar, many during the 16th century. The following table shows the years in which various countries adopted ] as the start of the year. Eastern European countries, with populations showing allegiance to the ], began the year on ] from about 988. | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Country !! Year starting <br> 1st January<ref>John J. Bond, , ''Handy-book of rules and tables for verifying dates with the Christian era'', (London: 1875), 91-101.</ref><ref>Mike Spathaky ''''</ref> !!Adoption of <br> Gregorian calendar | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1522 || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ]<ref>The source has Germany, whose current area during the sixteenth century was a major part of the Holy Roman Empire, a religiously divided confederation. The source is unclear as to whether all or only parts of the country made the change. In general, Roman Catholic countries made the change a few decades before Protestant countries did.</ref>|| 1544 || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ], ] || 1556 || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ], ]|| 1559 || 1700 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1559 || 1753<ref>Sweden's conversion is complicated and took much of the first half of the 18th century. See ].</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1564 || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| |] || 1576<ref>Per decree of ] ]. Hermann Grotefend, "" (Easter beginning), '''' (Chronology of the German Middle Ages and modern times) (1891-1898)</ref> || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1579 || 1760 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ], ] || 1583 || 1582 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] except <br> Holland and Zeeland || 1583 || 1700 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1600 || 1752 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1700 <!--(not 1725)--> || 1918 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1721 || 1750 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1752 || 1752<ref>1751 in England only lasted from ] to ]. The following dates ] to ] which would have concluded 1751 became part of 1752 when the beginning of the numbered year was changed from ] to ].</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 1804{{Fact|date=January 2008}} || 1918 | |||
| |} | |||
| ==From Julian to Gregorian== | |||
| The Julian calendar was in general use in Europe and Northern Africa from the times of the ] until 1582, when ] promulgated the ]. Reform was required because too many leap days are added with respect to the astronomical seasons on the Julian scheme. On average, the astronomical ]s and the ]es advance by about 11 minutes per year against the Julian year. As a result, the calculated date of ] gradually moved out of phase with the moon. While ] and presumably ] were aware of the discrepancy, although not of its correct value, it was evidently felt to be of little importance at the time of the Julian reform. However, it accumulated significantly over time: the Julian calendar gained a day about every 134 years. By 1582, it was ten days out of alignment. | |||
| The ] was soon adopted by most Catholic countries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Poland, most of Italy). Protestant countries followed later, and the countries of Eastern Europe even later. In the ] (including the ]), Wednesday ] ] was followed by Thursday ] ]. For 12 years from 1700 ] used a ], and adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753, but ] remained on the Julian calendar until 1917, after the ] (which is thus called the "]" though it occurred in Gregorian November), while ] continued to use it until 1923. During this time the Julian calendar continued to diverge from the Gregorian. In 1700 the difference became 11 days; in 1800, 12; and in 1900, 13, where it will stay till 2100. | |||
| Although all ] countries (most of them in ] or ]) had adopted the Gregorian calendar by 1927, their national churches had not. A ] was proposed during a synod in ] in May 1923, consisting of a solar part which was and will be identical to the Gregorian calendar until the year 2800, and a lunar part which calculated Easter astronomically at ]. All Orthodox churches refused to accept the lunar part, so almost all Orthodox churches continue to celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar (the ] uses the Gregorian Easter). | |||
| The solar part of the revised Julian calendar was accepted by only some Orthodox churches. Those that did accept it, with hope for improved dialogue and negotiations with the Western denominations, were the Ecumenical Patriarchate of ], the Patriarchates of ], ], the Orthodox Churches of ], ], ], ], ] (the last in 1963), and the ] (although some OCA parishes are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do, ] Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of ], ], ], ], ], ], and the ] continue to use the Julian calendar for their fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on ] Julian (which is ] Gregorian until 2100). The ] has some parishes in the West which celebrate the Nativity on 25 December. Parishes of the ], both before and after the 1976 transfer of that diocese from the ] to the ], were permitted to use the December 25 date. | |||
| In Northern Africa, the Julian calendar (the ]) is still in use for agricultural purposes, and is called فلاحي ''fellāhī'' "peasant" or sاﻋﺠﻤﻲ ''a<small><sup>c</sup></small>jamī'' "not Arabic". The first of ''yennayer'' currently corresponds to ] and will do so until 2100. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| <!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| See Misplaced Pages:Footnotes for a discussion of different citation | |||
| methods and how to generate footnotes using the <ref>, </ref> | |||
| and <reference /> tags | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * on WebExhibits. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * - compare the Julian and Gregorian calendars for any date between 1582 and 2100 using this side-by-side reference. | |||
| * | |||
| * — converts between several calendars, for example Gregorian, Julian, Mayan, Persian, Hebrew | |||
| {{Time Topics}} | |||
| {{Time measurement and standards}} | |||
| {{Chronology}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 17:01, 24 March 2008
Redirect to: