calendars-msg - 1/25/08
Medieval calendars and saint's days.
NOTE: See also the files: clocks-msg, sundials-msg, med-calend-art, bells-msg, A-Gear-o-Time-art, Watches-art, holidays-msg.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: Ioseph of Locksley
Subj: Historical Dates
Date: 21 May 91
Bede calculated Creation to have occurred 3,952 years before 1 CE,
making it (in 1991 CE) the year 5943 AMB, while Eusebius calculated
5,198, making it (in 1990 CE) the year 7189 AME.
The year of the Christian Nativity must be ascertained by historical
and chronological research, since there is no certain and harmonious
tradition on the subject. The Christian era, which was introduced by
the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, and came
into general use two years later, during the reign of Charlemagne,
puts the Nativity Dec. 25, 754 Anno Urbis, that is, after the
founding of the city of Rome. Nearly all chronologers agree that
this is wrong by at least four years. CHrist was born 750 AU (or 4
BCE, if not earlier.
According to Mt 2:1 (comp. Lk 1:5, 26), Christ was born "in the days
of King Herod" I,"the Great," who died, according to Josephus, at
Jericho, 750 AU, just before Passover. This date has been verified
by the astronomical calculation of the eclipse of the moon, which
took place March 13, 750 AU, a few days before Herod's death.
Allowing two months or more for the events between the birth of
Christ and the murder of the Innocents by Herod, the Nativity must be
put back at least to February or January, 750 AU (or 4 BCE), if not
earlier.
From: samlb at optilink.UUCP (Sam Bassett)
Date: 12 Jun 91 20:18:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
salamon at sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Andrew Salamon):
> What, pray tell, does "CE" stand for?
"CE" stands for "Common Era" or "Current Era" or "Current Epoch" --
it is a way for those who are prissy about not being Christian to use the
conventional way of numbering years without mentioning Jesus or "Our Lord".
"A.D." is from the Latin "Anno Domini" -- "Year of Our Lord".
Instead of "B.C" (Before Christ), you will also see "B.C.E." (Before the Current Epoch". _REALLY_ with-it pedants will date things "A.U.C." -- "Anno (ab) Urbe Condita" -- from the traditional date of the founding of Rome, some 4 or 500 years B.C.
A good book on the history of calendars (hasn't Isaac Asimov written one :-) will give you even more info . . .
From: duncan at rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan)
Date: 13 Jun 91 13:27:39 GMT
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
samlb at optilink.UUCP (Sam Bassett) writes:
> "A.D." is from the Latin "Anno Domini" -- "Year of Our Lord".
More precisely, "Year of the Lord", else it would be
A.D.N. (anno domini nostra).
>_REALLY_ with-it pedants will date things "A.U.C." -- "Anno (ab) Urbe
>Condita" -- from the traditional date of the founding of Rome,
>some 4 or 500 years B.C.
>-- Sam'l Bassett -- System Administrator (among other things)
More like 750 BC. You can also date from the start of the Olympic games,
which began at about the same time. Also, the Romans calculated dates
funny, at least in regards to days, figuring both ends in the calculation.
I don't know if it applied to years as well.
Steve Duncan
duncan at rti.rti.org
Sam'l Bassett -- System Administrator (among other things)
7 Gothic Court, Novato CA 94947; 1-415-897-7424
UUCP: uunet!optilink!samlb; Internet: samlb at well.sf.ca.us
Compuserve: 71735,1776; WU Easylink: ESL 6284-3034; MCI: SBassett
From: perkins at msupa.pa.msu.EDU (Really with-it pedant)
Date: 14 Jun 91 16:18:18 GMT
Jeremy de Merstone greets the folk of the Rialto and amplifies some recent
remarks by Stephen Duncan <duncan at rti.rti.org> in response to Sam'l Bassett:
> >_REALLY_ with-it pedants will date things "A.U.C." -- "Anno (ab) Urbe
> >Condita" -- from the traditional date of the founding of Rome,
> >some 4 or 500 years B.C.
> >-- Sam'l Bassett -- System Administrator (among other things)
>
> More like 750 BC. You can also date from the start of the Olympic games,
> which began at about the same time. Also, the Romans calculated dates
> funny, at least in regards to days, figuring both ends in the calculation.
> I don't know if it applied to years as well.
The year 1 A.U.C. ("anno urbis conditae", or "ab urbe condita") = 753 BC;
Sam'l was probably thinking of the founding of the *Republic*, in 509 BC;
the first year of the first Olympiad = 776 BC (note that an Olympiad is a
group of four years). Since the date of the founding of Rome was only
traditional, whether or not "figuring both ends" applied to years was
irrelevant -- i.e., back in, say, 752 BC, nobody would have said (in Latin
or Etruscan, of course) "this is now 2 A.U.C.", as the "A.U.C." system was
not put into effect until much much later. There was some dispute back
when it did appear as to what the date of the founding of Rome was, with
some scholars arguing for a different starting date. This is similar to
the odd situation that Jesus was born in or before 4 "B.C.". The scholars
who worked out the "A.D." system were working from incomplete or inaccurate
records; by the time more and better historical documents were found, the
"A.D." system had taken root, and the fact that King Herod certainly died
in 4 B.C. by the reckoning of that system was not enough to motivate a
change to the system (except, of course, that it was no longer expected to
*really* have anything to do with Jesus Christ's actual date of birth).
Speaking of which, all of the people who have explained the abbreviation
"CE" as "Common Era (or Epoch)" have pointed out that it was done in order
to avoid the "Christian" connotations of "A.D."; this is only half the
story -- "CE" had been in use to represent "Christian Era" (which the
Random House College Dictionary, among others, still gives as CE's primary
definition); it became more popular when it was realized that a non-secular
meaning could be given to it also, and thereby offend neither Christians
nor non-Christians.
Other calendrical systems have been more fortunate in that they are based
on specific historical events which made an impression *at the time*, so
that the calendric systems derived from them started up within a short
enough time that there was little ambiguity, examples being the Moslem
calendar and the calendar of the SCA.
As for "figuring both ends", the practice of starting calendars with the
year one instead of zero almost automatically does this, even for systems
based on a well-documented event. For example, the twenty-fifth anniver-
sary of the backyard party in Berkeley, fell on 1 May 1991, the first day
of AS XXVI (the twenty-*sixth* year of the Society). We tend to forget
that our "years" are actually ordinal numbers (first, second, third...)
rather than cardinal numbers (one, two, three...), and thereby end up
hearing people argue, for example, about whether the twenty-first century
will start on 1 January 2000 (wrong) or 1 January 2001 (right) [on a purely
practical basis, this confusion will mean putting up with two full years
of "End of the Century Sales" to say nothing of "Start of the New Millenium
Price Bonanzas"].
Ave atque vale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy de Merstone George J Perkins perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
North Woods, MidRealm East Lansing, MI perkins at msupa (Bitnet)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joshua at paul.rutgers.edu (Josh Mittleman)
Date: 13 Jun 91 15:33:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
A.S. = anno societatis "the year of the Society". We currently in the 26th
year of the Society, AS XXVI. "Societatis" is pronounced roughly
"so-kee-eh-tot-is" if you prefer classical Latin, and "so-see-eh-tot-is" if
you prefer medieval Latin.
The Rialto is our name for rec.org.sca. It was suggest by Master Kobayashi
Yutaka as a term that could be used at events if one wished to refer to
conversation here. "I heard it said on the Rialto that..." sounds much
more appropriate than "Someone posted to the net that..." The word
originally is the name of a market district in Venice, apparently known as
an excellent place to find news and gossip. "The Merchant of Venice" (I
think) contains the line "What news on the Rialto?"
Arval.
Date: 17 May 92
From: perkins at msupa.pa.msu.EDU (Jeremy de Merstone)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Tadhg [Tim at f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim)] writes:
> LE> Midwinter (winter solstice) ~ 12/21
> No, not "midwinter" - you can't call the first day of winter "midwinter".
> (A common mistake.) Traditionally Yule (12/25)
> [...]
> LE> Midsummer (summer solstice) ~ 6/21
> No, not "Midsummer" - you can't call the first day of summer "Midsummer".
> (A common mistake.) [...]
Such common "mistakes" that they are the *definitions* of those terms in
English and have been for nearly a thousand years...
From the OED:
Midwinter: The middle of winter; spec. the winter solstice, Dec. 21st,
or the period about that time. Also formerly applied to
Christmas.
Midsummer: The middle of summer; the period of the summer solstice, about
June 21st.
For the latter, there is a citation from Byrhtferth's Handboc (c 1055 CE):
"<thorn><aesc>t ys on lyden solstitium & on englisc midsumor". [modernizing
the spelling: "That is in Latin solstitium and in English midsummer"].
This is not unreasonable since the solstice is when the days stop getting
longer and start getting shorter. If the original meaning of summer had
more to do with "time of long days" rather than "time of hot weather", then
the solstice is the logical midpoint, as the longest days of the year are
centered on it.
"Midsummer's Day" in England refers to June 24th (supported exactly by date
in the OED by a quotation from 1530, and indirectly by other citations back
to c 1000), or "St John's Day". The 1992 _Old Farmer's Almanac_ even
recognizes this date (while reporting the solstice a few days earlier), so
the usage is not entirely restricted to England.
The modern concept of the solstices as the *first* days of summer and winter
and the equinoxes as the *first* days of spring and autumn is due to the
influence of the "learned" community. The language we speak, however, is
influenced by the common folk.
Classical Latin practice mirrors that of such common folk (note that these
are the traditional dates as codified by Julius Caesar as part of his
calendrical reforms; they did not move around to accommodate actual
astronomical reality, which was plus or minus about two days from these
values at the time of the Caesars, and gradually further off as the Julian
calendar accumulated error):
Latin term Date English translation Triggering event
Veris initium = 7 Feb = start of spring = warm west wind
"Favonius" arrives
Aequinoctium vernum = 25 Mar = vernal equinox = night/day same
length
Aestatis initium = 9 May = start of summer = heliacal rising
of the Pleiades
Solstitium = 24 Jun = summer solstice = longest day; days
start shortening
Autumni initium = 11 Aug = start of autumn = heliacal setting
of Lyra
Aequinoctium autumni = 24 Sep = autumnal equinox = night/day same
length
Hiemis initium = 11 Nov = start of winter = heliacal setting
of the Pleaides
Bruma = 25 Dec = winter solstice = shortest day; days
start lengthening
Solstice comes from roots meaning "sun-stopped"; equinox from "equal night";
and "Bruma" appears to have started as an abbreviated form of "brevissima",
meaning "shortest". These dates were chosen to approximately coincide with
the astronomical/meteorological events listed in the rightmost column.
(These are all from Leverett's _Latin Lexicon_, BTW).
One can compare this with the lists of "quarter" and "cross-quarter" days
by earlier posters, and find a pretty good match (with a couple of days'
shift in some cases to account for the Gregorian calendar's reset to
"Nicaean" time rather than original "Julian" time). The Celtic cultures
had a similar set of named-days around the same times as these (and for
similar purposes). Other ancient peoples observed many of these as well.
The early Christian church tended to make religious holidays out of them
(and arguing whether this is an example of the Christians assimilating or
being assimilated by the pagans is another thread...;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy de Merstone George J Perkins perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
North Woods, MidRealm East Lansing, MI perkins at msupa (Bitnet)
Subject: Calendar
Date: 19 May 92
From: jeffs at math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Jeremy de Merstone:
>The Gregorian reforms were supposed to wind the clock back to achieve the
>calendar-to-astronomical reality conditions prevailing at the time of the
>Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century
_supposed_ to being the operative word....
The year is about 365.2422 days long. The Julian calendar (one leap
year every four) gave an average year length of 365.25 days, meaning
that one day was gained every 125 years or so. The Gregorian calendar
made century years not divisible by 400 non-leap years, for an average
year length of 365.2425 days; thus, it gains one day every 3000 years.
Bede noticed that the equinoxes were slipping 'way back when he
miscalculated the date of Christ's birth. The last great unsuccessful
attempt to reset the calendar was sponsored by a certain Pope (I think
it was Clement V) with a team of astronomers and mathematicians headed
by Johann Muller a.k.a Regiomontanus. Muller was assassinated before
he could do much more than think about the problem.
In 1582, Gregory announced the Great Calendrical Reform, and dropped
11 days from the Christian calendar to bring the sun back in line.
(This supposedly caused riots because people felt their lives had been
shortened by 11 days. Pragmatically, it probably played hell with
bookkeeping)
One teensy problem....the Protestant Reformation begain in 1517. Not
everyone agreed with the Pope. England, the most stubborn holdout,
didn't change until 1752, and had to drop 13 days from the calendar.
(After the Revolution, the Soviets also changed, but had to drop 14
days from the calendar...talk about an International Date Line!)
The Orthodox calendar, if my foggy memory serves me right, uses a
slightly oddball system that gains one day every 7000 years. (They do
something like century years divisible by 900 are leap years, or
something strange) Finally, the Soviet system (if they're still using
it) was supposed to have a change that made it gain only one day every
40,000 years or so.
Fujimoto
CALENDAR
19 May 92
From: perkins at msupa.pa.msu.EDU (Jeremy de Merstone)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Unto the gentlefolk of the Rialto does Jeremy de Merstone send greetings.
Alas, but I must be nit-picky about some otherwise fine postings by
Fujimoto and Tio d'Abaco (as they are both Jeff Suzuki <jeffs at math.bu.edu>,
and neither is especially serious, I will combine these into one posting
and get it over with).
Fujimoto, on calendrical reform:
> In 1582, Gregory announced the Great Calendrical Reform, and dropped
> 11 days from the Christian calendar to bring the sun back in line.
> [...]
*Ten* days were dropped: the day after 4 October 1582 was 15 October 1582
(rather than 5 October 1582). Extending these backwards through time, it
can be seen that the "extra" Julian calendar leap years back through 300
are being retroactively subtracted.
> One teensy problem....the Protestant Reformation begain in 1517. Not
> everyone agreed with the Pope. England, the most stubborn holdout,
> didn't change until 1752, and had to drop 13 days from the calendar.
The day after 2 September 1752 was 14 September 1752, dropping *eleven*
days, not 13 (the only year with any difference in length between the
Julian and Gregorian calendars in the interval 1582-1752 had been 1700,
a leap year under the Julian but a normal year under the Gregorian;
except in Sweden, but that's another story! I would also argue with
this characterization of England -- but not here, as it is peripheral
to the topic at hand).
> (After the Revolution, the Soviets also changed, but had to drop 14
> days from the calendar...talk about an International Date Line!)
*Thirteen* days (the day after 31 January 1918 became 14 February 1918).
Ah well, it's not as if actual numbers matter to a mathematician ;-) :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy de Merstone George J Perkins perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
North Woods, MidRealm East Lansing, MI perkins at msupa (Bitnet)
Calendar
19 May 92
From: rancke at diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
jeffs at math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki) writes:
>In 1582, Gregory announced the Great Calendrical Reform, and dropped
>11 days from the Christian calendar to bring the sun back in line.
10 days.
>(This supposedly caused riots because people felt their lives had been
>shortened by 11 days. Pragmatically, it probably played hell with
>bookkeeping)
The riots were not as stupid as one might think. The main
grievance was that many workers were paid by the day and
landlords charged rent by the month.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
rancke at diku.dk
22 May 92
From: perkins at ms