[continued from previous message]   
      
   knowledge, been used to specify a period of time rather than a   
   length of time.   
      
   Instead of having a fixed point from which an event is dated, the   
   Romans used a variety of methods, the most common being saying who   
   were the consuls in that year.  The Greeks used battles and other   
   major events (e.g., "three years after the Battle of Salamis"),   
   and the Romans copied this as well.   
      
   As for the placement of the start of the year. the Romans   
   initially placed it at March 1 (in the sense that the consuls took   
   office that day).  But they moved it to January 1 when the empire   
   expanded to include Spain.  Why?  Well, when the empire was more   
   compact, the consuls could take office on March 1 and be in the   
   field in time for the "battle season".  But when the empire got   
   larger, the consuls needed more time to get to the far reaches,   
   and so moved the date back to January 1.  (And then it was moved   
   to March 25 in 1155 and it wasn't changed back in the British   
   Empire until to 1752, when the Gregorian calendar was adopted.   
   However, January 1 was often celebrated as the start of some new   
   year as early as the 13th century.)   
      
   Ironically, this reason for the Roman change in the start of the   
   new year is strongly tied to the reason that the inauguration of   
   President of the United States was moved from March 4 to January   
   20, but in reverse.  The original date was to allow for travel to   
   the capital, particularly difficult during the winter.  January 20   
   became a viable date that eliminated a long lame-duck period, and   
   it was changed in 1937, after roads and railroads improved and   
   even air travel was possible.   
      
   Feeney also discusses the concept of "anniversary".  Roman dating   
   was based on the nones, the ides, and the calends, But rather than   
   counting from the start of the month, these were based more on the   
   end, and given the varying lengths of the months, this led to some   
   confusion when Julius Caesar introduced his calendar.  The ides   
   was the middle date of a month, the nones was the ninth day before   
   the ides (counting the ides as a day, so we would say the eighth   
   day before the ides), and the calends was the first day of the   
   month.   
      
   But dates were calculated backward from these markers, so   
   something would be described as happening, e.g., "six days before   
   the nones".   
      
   So what happened when Rome switched from the "Republican calendar"   
   to the Julian one?   
      
   Well, let's look at the Julian-to-Gregorian switch first.   
   Washington was born on 11 February 1732 (Julian calendar).   
   Britain (and the United States) changed from the Julian calendar   
   to the Gregorian calendar in 1752.  In 1753, the question arose as   
   to when his birthday fell: on 11 February (after only 354 days) or   
   on 22 February.  The latter won out with Washington, although for   
   a while in the early days of the United States, many kept to 11   
   February to celebrate his birthday.  But, as Feeney puts it, the   
   day (365 after the last) was chosen over the date (its "name").   
      
   For some 3% of the population, this was a moot point--if your   
   birthday was between 3 September and 13 September inclusive, you   
   couldn't celebrate it on that date in 1752 even if you wanted to.   
      
   Julius Caesar instituted his new calendar on 1 January 45 B.C.E.   
   Before that the Republican calendar year had four long months (31   
   days each) and eight short months (28 or 29 days each), which   
   added up to 355 days.  Caesar added ten days, making several of   
   the short months 31 days long.  But apparently he left the ides of   
   those months on the same date, i.e., the 13th, rather than moving   
   it to the 15th.  So the dates in the first "half" of the month are   
   fine over the change, but the end of the month gets weird.  The   
   example Feeney gives is Livia's birthday.  It had been the "third   
   day before the Kalends of February" under the Republican calendar.   
   Since January was a short month of 29 days under the Republican   
   calendar, and that the counting was inclusive, this meant it had   
   been on January 28.  Livia kept the date--the third day before the   
   Kalends of February--even though this was now January 30, a day   
   that didn't even exist before the new calendar.  I guess my   
   question is whether, if the Romans counted the date backwards, the   
   concept of "January 28" was even considered as meaningful.  After   
   all, we don't lay any importance on a day being "the third day   
   before the beginning of the next month".   
      
   So I guess Feeney got into the mathematical aspects after all.   
   [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
                         Mark Leeper   
                         mleeper@optonline.net   
      
      
              War does not determine who is right--only who is left.   
                                              --Bertrand Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)