As a follow on from the Calendar questions from Frank Evans a few
weeks ago, there's something that's been niggling me for a while.
Someone on the list is bound to know the answer.
46 BC is widely reported to have had 2 extra months, and to have
been 445 days long, to make things ready for the introduction of the
new Julian calendar.
But it doesn't say why.
I have a thought about it, and I wonder if this is the reason.
The pre-Julian Roman calendar was lunar with an extra month being
added as necessary to keep it in line with the solar year.
Each month started at a new moon - I guess they thought of it as a
"life", starting with nothing, growing to full maturity, then going
back to nothing again.
It would seem logical then, for the new solar calendar to start at
the shortest day - the year would then work on a similar principle.
So why didn't it?
Perhaps someone, (the priests, the traditionalists, even Julius
himself?) said "We must start off the new calendar on a new moon -
it's been like that for about 700 years, we can't break away from
tradition completely".
Now, if I set up my "moonstick", I see that 1st January 45 BC WAS a
new moon, so it does seem to hang together.
According to George Abell in "Exploration of the Universe" 4th. Ed.
and other readings I believe the reasons are as follows. The old
Roman Calendar was Lunar in the sense that the months were tied to
the moon. But to keep the calendar tied to the seasons, in particular
to the Vernal Equinox, they had to have full and empty years. The
empty years had 12 months and the full year had 13 months. They
needed a full year approximately every 3 years but it was not exact.
To compound the problem politics got into the act. It was considered
more important to be in office during the full year than an empty
year and so the politicians sometimes brought pressure to bare on the
priests controlling the calendar. For whatever reason by 46 BC the
vernal equinox was 3 months off from the traditional March 25. It
wasn't changed to the current March 21st. until 325AD, at the council
of Nicaea.
There is a lot of confusion on when a year started. Some peoples used
the Vernal Equinox or March 25th and this persisted in England (and
it's colonies) until the calendar reform in 1752. Some started on
February 24th and others January 1st, Julius Caesar's reform started
on Jan. 1st. 45 BC.
I know why we use March 21st. for the Vernal Equinox now but does any
one know of the reason for the Early Roman March 25th. That 25th.
date appears again as the date of Christmas which almost certainly
was originally the date used for the Winter Solstice.
--
Cheers,
John
-
