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.
Anyone know the answer?
Mike Shaw
53.37 North
03.02 West |
- Calendar The Shaws
- Re: Calendar john shepherd