Interesting background here on the month we're currently in. The name derives from a Latin term for purification, I suppose before spring and its various festivals. Pagan and Christian Rome would have had this in common.
One strange aspect is that, "January and February were the last months to be added to the Roman calendar, since the Romans originally considered winter a monthless period." The late addition of those two months stands to reason, what with September through October bearing the numbers 7 through 10. But the reasoning that winter had previously been considered a "monthless period"? How were they defining "month"?
2 comments:
The answer to your question appears to be a long one according to what I found on this website, but essentially the early Romans based their year on the lunar cycle and added days as necessary to those original ten months. I'll let you read it yourself to see if you get a better sense of how the whole thing worked in order to add up to the 365 day year.
Then in 1582 the calendar was changed to the Gregorian one we use today. That's a pretty interesting story too considering the fact there was an immediate loss 11 days in the year (apparently the Brits weren't happy because they thought it was a popish plot), but eventually it was pretty much universally adopted.
My favorite calendar story is The Phantom Time Hypothesis which postulates that 297 years were removed by two emperors and a pope in order to place them at the special year of 1000AD. While it's an amusing thought to consider I don't think many people have been convinced, or that anybody even knows about it for that matter.
That's an interesting facet about the Romans following a lunar calendar. It sounds tricky, but I guess it worked for them back then. Of course the Islamic calendar is still lunar-based. According to this page the shifting of dates from year to year is actually part of the point, as it puts Muslims worldwide on equal footing of course their calendar isn't that far from the Gregorian, as it has 355 days.
Elizabeth I was on the throne in 1582. Britain was rapidly being established as a majority Protestant country at any rate. So whether or not it was a popish plot, Gregory had to expect that they'd grumble a little while being dragged along. From that article I see that Sweden (Lutheran, natch) actually waited a year longer than the Brits to make the change.
The Phantom Time Hypothesis is pretty entertaining. Illig starts off on fairly solid ground, as there is something a bit arbitrary about determining which year it is, and you could see someone wanting to manipulate that choice. He gets more fanciful as it becomes more elaborate. I wonder if any fiction writers have used this hypothesis as a premise.
Post a Comment