Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
Fred Read (Fred@foxhouse.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 15 Aug 95 18:31:24 GMT
In article <souters-1508951756200001@mac15lvl2-3s.edfac.usyd.edu.au>
souters@mackie.edfac.usyd.edu.au "Stephen Souter" writes:
> [Snip]
>
> 5) The inference that one or more months were *added* to the calendar ("so
> that the emperors could have a month named after them like the other
> gods")
>
> Technically speaking, Julius Caesar *deleted* a month from the calendar.
> Before 46 BC, the (ordinary) Roman year had 12 months, but every second
> year a 13th intercalary month (of 22 or 23 days) was added every second
> year much in the same fashion as we add leap days every fourth year.
>
> What was *added* to the calendar were not months but days: 10 of them (to
> bring the number in an ordinary year from 355 to 365). This was done not
> by inventing any months but by distributing the new days around the
> existing months. Plus there was to be an extra "leap day" every fourth
> year.
You obviously know your way around the calendar, so I'll ask you
something that has been bugging me...
If the Romans DIDN'T add two months to the year (as I have always
believed to be the case) when did September, October, November and
^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
December (respectively the seventh, eigth, ninth and tenth months
^^^
of the ancient Roman calender) become the ninth, tenth, eleventh
and twelfth months of the modern calendar?
By the way, great post - lots of good stuff.
Fred "Who Nones his Ides from his Kalends..." Read
--
Fred Read
How many people do *you* know with a C function named after them ?
|