Next message: Jared Sherman: "Re: A calendar question"
Jared Sherman wrote:
>...Who shortchanged February?!
>
>
Cesar's reform started out from the old Roman calendar that, by the time
of the republic, had evolved from a year of originally 10 months = 304
days to a lunisolar year of 12 months = 355 days. Of course, 12
lunations would be 354 days, but superstition apparently prevented even
numbers. For the same reason, the lengths of the months were not simply
alternating between 29 and 30 days (like in all the other places in the
world with lunar calendars). Instead, 4 months had 31 days, 7 months had
29 days and February normally 28 days. February was the last month and
also the leap month.
When Cesar converted from lunisolar to solar, he had to add 10 days to
the year. He added 1 or 2 days to some of the months that had only 29
days before. February, still the last month of the year, was not changed
and kept as the month during which intercalation was effected.
Cesar's reform was just one more patch (although an important one) on an
enormous patchwork. His reform was practical and politically reasonable.
(Remember what happened to the French calendar, when a reform from
scratch was attempted?) But the whole issue affords us a good
perspective on the state of science in the Roman Empire. As a Western
European, I tend to think that we might have fared better if Alexander
would have come our way instead of these country bumpkins.
Herbert Prinz
