Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Start of year

As it was not directly relevant to Old Style and New Style dates so I removed it:

When recording history it is usual to use the dates recorded at the time of the event with the year adjusted to the start on the 1 January. But the start of the Julian year was not always 1 January and was altered at different times in different countries.

The ancient Roman calendar the year used in dates was the consular year, which began on the day when consuls first entered office — fixed at the Ides of March (15 March) in 222 BC, but this event was moved to 1 January in 153 BC. When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar the first day continued to be at 1 January of the new year.

While the start of Julian year was always 1 January the start of year was at different times in different countries. In the Middle Ages in Europe a number of significant feast days in the came to be used as the beginning of the year:

• In Christmas Style dating the new year started on 25 December. This was used in Germany and England until the thirteenth century, and in Spain from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century.

• In Incarnation or Annunciation Style dating the new year started on 25 March, the feast of the Annunciation. This was used in many parts of Europe in the Middle Ages, and was the style introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525.

• In Easter Style dating, the new year started on Easter Saturday (or sometimes on Good Friday). This was used in France and some Italian cities from the eleventh to the sixteenth century. A disadvantage of this system was that because Easter was a movable feast the same date could occur twice in a year; the two occurrences were distinguished as "before Easter" and "after Easter".

• In Circumcision Style dating, the new year started on 1 January, the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ.

1 March was the first day of the numbered year in the Republic of Venice until its destruction in 1797, and in Russia from 988 until 1492 (AM 7000). 1 September was used in Russia from 1492 until 1700.

It is not sourced, but some of it it may be of use for this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here and expected to find a reason for why the year starts on January 1st. Suspected Solstice + calendar drift (e.g. leapyear) over the centuries. There is a note on the jan 1st page about Roman's introducing it for "military reasons", but it is a bit vague. 88.159.74.100 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

why doesn't this article link to disambiguation?

Not to be confused with Julian day.

Not to be confused with Julian year (astronomy).

70.55.88.21 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

presumably because it is not ambiguous. Julian calendar only means one thing even if it's close to meaning other things. By contrast "salsa" needs to be disambiguated because it might mean the sauce, the dance or the music. 62.56.111.170 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Devolving the four year 1461-day interval

The four year Leap Year cycle of the Julian Calendar involves 4 * 365 + 1 - 1461 days, plus other corrections made on a century scale. Earth's orbit is not synchronized with an integer number of days probably because the four largest outer planets and the quadrupole moment of the solar system strongly impose the number four on the Solar System as it orbits a barycenter that is not within the Sun's surface.

It is useful to consider the quantity 1461 / ( 2 * pi ) = 232.5253... days, a period of about seven months and three weeks. 232.52 days is interesting because it discharges nicely in some aspect of the 'firmament' though this writer does not know much about what that is yet. It is 232 days hence, plus half a day, plus two and a half hours so if one predicts it during the day, the synchronous state or event is at night, and so on. SyntheticET (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Old High German month names/meanings are inconsistent with other Wikipedia content

In the last paragraph of the Month Names section, some of the Old High German names and translations do not match those given on Germanic calendar. 75.62.108.53 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)logiczero

Roman Dates Right?

I was looking at the dates, and it seems that the date in this paragraph are off:

Macrobius states that the extra days were added immediately before the last day of each month to avoid disturbing the position of the established Roman fasti (days prescribed for certain events) relative to the start of the month. However, since Roman dates after the Ides of the month counted down towards the start of the next month, the extra days had the effect of raising the initial value of the count of the day after the Ides. Romans of the time born after the Ides of a month responded differently to the effect of this change on their birthdays. Mark Antony kept his birthday on the 14th day of Ianuarius, which changed its date from a.d. XVII Kal. Feb. to a.d. XIX Kal. Feb., a date that had previously not existed. Livia kept the date of her birthday unchanged at a.d. III Kal. Feb., which moved it from the 28th to the 30th day of Ianuarius, a day that had previously not existed. Augustus kept his on the 23rd day of September, but both the old date (a.d. VIII Kal. Oct.) and the new (a.d. IX Kal. Oct.) were celebrated in some places.

To take Augustus' birth date. Using the new month of 30 days, a.d I Kal Oct should be the 30, II 29, III 28, IV 27, V 26, VI 25, VII 24, VIII the 23. However, the text says the OLD form would be a.d. VIII Kal Oct. while, in reality, VIII should be new form and VII old form.

Likewise the date for M. Antonius is the 14th of January. It gives the new form as XIX Kal Feb. I Kal. Feb is the 31 of January. Thus the 21 of January is XI Kal Feb. And 7 days before that would be the XVIII Kal. Feb. Thus the 14th in the new form would be XVIII Kal Feb, not XIX Kal Feb. And in the old form it should be a.d. XVI Kal Feb, not a.d. XVII Kal Feb as the text states.

Or am I missing something here? The Kalends are the first day of the month, so the final day of the month would be one day before. And January in the Julian Calendar has 31 days and September 30, correct?

I just couldn't make the dates work. It appears they are all one day off. Or is there something I am missing? 128.164.107.177 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed one other date:

It is said that a.d. III Kal. Feb. moved from 28th to the 30th of January. But as far as I can tell, January 30 is 2 days before the Kalends of February, not 3. For it to be II Kal. Feb, wouldn't January have to have 32 days? 128.164.107.177 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the Romans counted inclusively, so the date "a.d. I Kal." cannot exist. "prid. <month>" is effectively equivalent to "a.d. II Kal. <month>". See Roman calendar for more detail. --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AD/BC vs. CE/BCE

I realise this is a Christian calender but shouldn't we be using CE/BCE instead? -Shaque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.20.2 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NO 76.77.225.169 (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

YES 62.56.111.170 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

references that do not support their text

There are a couple of references that do not support the text to which they are attached. The Pepys diary entry does not mention celebrating a New Year festival and the quotation "year starting 25th March was called the Civil or Legal Year, although the phrase Old Style was more commonly used" does not appear in [1]. I propose to remove these references, but will wait a day or two for comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The refs should not be removed. Instead, the text in the article should be modified. The Pepys ref shows that that he regarded 31 December as the end of the year, even though he doesn't mention a festival. I have other refs which discuss a festival. Spathaky apparently changed his website—it used to be more colorful. Nevertheless, the first half of his quote is still present, even though the last half is no longer present. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, changed the text to match the ref. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unodecember?

"Unodecember" get 12 hits on google (mostly Wiki mirrors), none on Google books or scholar. Undecember and Undecimber get some hits. jnestorius^(talk) 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I originally wrote this sentence. I don't recall where I saw the form Unodecember. If all you are looking for is a citation for that precise spelling it could well be faulty memory on my part. If you want an example of the assertion that the two months had these names see e.g. [2] -- but does this really need to be cited??

The story might originally come from a tax extortion based on December being the "tenth month" described by Dio Cassius (see [3] ). In the Loeb edition ([4]) they annotate these fictitious months as "Undecember and Duodecember". But this is an event dated 15 BC, it has nothing to do with the Julian reform, the months never existed except as an instrument of fraud, and Dio doesn't call them by those names. And in any event in the case of 46 BC the months were before December, not after it. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Undecember and Duodecember are placed between November and December by Claus Tondering in his Frequently asked questions about calendars. Undecember and Duodecember are placed after December by Guglielmo Ferrero in Characters and Events of Roman History (1909). Why are there no leap year days? (in the Perpetual 13 moon calendar proposed by Terry Tortuga) mentions Unidecember and Duodecember. The Longest Year on Kelley's Planet already cited by Chris also mentions Unidecember and Duodecember. A story in the Orlando Sentinel distributed to many other newspapers also mentions Unidecember and Duodecember. Considering the quality of these citations I recommend that Undecember be in the article. A citation for "intercalares priores" in Cicero's letters is Cicero, Ad Familiares VI.14. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Cicero says one thing and a bunch of moderns of variable trustworthiness say another, then we're pitting a primary source against a bunch of secondary sources; which is Very Bad. There should be a reliable secondary source that, at least, says "there is no basis for the myth that the months were called Undecember/Duodecember"; and, ideally, gives an origin to the myth. Is Cicero the only source for "intercalares priores"? I imagine lots of Roman history comes from a single source, but I also imagine historians are appropriately cautious in such instances. jnestorius^(talk) 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This reasoning is exactly backwards. A contemporary primary source of Cicero's authority outweighs any number of secondary sources. You can't get more contemporary or more authoritative than Cicero: he wrote his letters in Rome during those months. If you can cite any evidence of anything like equal value that these months were also called Undecember and Duodecember by all means do so, but the fact is that you can't because it doesn't exist.

This issue is similar to Sacrobosco's story of the month lengths which is also repeated by very many modern sources. Notwithstanding that, it is flatly wrong -- and the proof is exactly the same: it doesn't reflect the contemporary evidence. There is no need to justify recourse to this evidence by citing a "reliable secondary source" who says so. (In fact the reliable secondary sources usually ignore the question precisely because they know its a myth.) We don't know where the story comes from because we can't trace it before Sacrobosco. I doubt he made it up. But just because we can't trace it back to its origin is no reason to be "appropriately cautious": it is simply and provably not true.

By all means change "Unodecember" to "Undecember", I agree that the evidence of modern (ab)usage is clear. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. In doing academic research, primary sources are key. In writing an encyclopedia, particularly one that's anonymously edited, it's a completely different matter. The Sacrobosco story is explicitly rebutted in this article by reference to a Popular Astronomy article. The same is required for Undecember. jnestorius^(talk) 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Sacrobosco is rebutted by citing the primary evidence against him, much of which was unknown to Roscoe Lamont, the author of the Popular Astronomy article. That article is cited only as providing the evidence that the story goes back at least to Sacrobosco, which is an entirely different matter.

If I understand your reasoning, it would have been OK for me to reference Cicero and not mention Undecember and Duodecember. Suppose some other user then came along -- let's call him JNestorius for the sake of argument -- and added the statement that these months were also known as Undecember and Duodecember, citing the same sources you have cited. What would be the proper response? Would we be obliged to accept that statement, even though it is certainly false, because JNestorius cited numerous secondary sources that repeat it, and buy doing so complies with some WP policy on truthiness? Or would it have been OK for another user -- let's call him Chris Bennett -- to challenge it by asking JNestorius to point to a secondary source that cites actual primary source evidence for the assertion? And, if JNestorius then dug his heels in, as such users frequently do, by demanding in response that Chris Bennett cite a "reliable" secondary source which points out that there are no primary sources for this assertion, how do you think that challenge would have been decided according to WP procedures?

Do you see the problem?

--Chris Bennett (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem might be that a small number of experts know the Undecember myth is false, but none of them has ever bothered to publish this fact anywhere, thereby allowing free rein to the ignorant perpetuators of the myth. If that is the problem, then Wikipedia is not the place to fix it. If that is not the problem, i.e. if the fact has in fact been published, then please do the article a favour and tell us where. jnestorius^(talk) 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source that mentions Cicero is the entry Calendarium in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities by William Smith (1875). However, like most other reliable secondary sources, it simply repeats the statement of Censorinus in De die natali (238) that Caesar "inserted between November and December two intercalary months of 67 days", without mentioning either their names or the number of days within each. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Chris Bennett's website Roman Dates is a reliable secondary source. He indicates the primary source for most of his statements on numerous pages not readily apparent from his introductory page (he needs a site map). For example, he references the names of the two intercalary months mentioned in Cicero's letters at A.U.C. 708 = 46 B.C.. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Bennett, Egpytologist may be a reliable source, User:Chris Bennett, like all Wikipedia users, is not. jnestorius^(talk) 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if I had cited my own website and it had said exactly the same thing there, that might have been acceptable to you. Do you see the problem with that?

I see no problem with that. What problem do you see with that? Links to self-published material are usually inadequate, but if you're a published expert, they're OK. jnestorius^(talk) 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I found that I was running into this type of lunatic discussion whenever I got involved in a WP article. That's why I stopped editing anything. I thought it would at least do no harm to offer an explanation of why this text is what it is. I guess I was wrong -- yet again I run into a wikihead who blindly substitutes WP policy for thought and reason.

Wikipedia articles rot. Whatever great stuff you add, some crank or vandal will alter later. The only way to future-proof the article is to cite the sources. jnestorius^(talk) 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe, there is a sidepanel which helps you navigate the site. For some reason only the content panels show up in Google. If you select the [HOME] entry at the top of every content page it will get you the site the way it is meant to look. The navigation panel expands to fill out whatever area of the site you are in. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Leap year error

Several inconsistencies/errors in this sentence:

Roman dates between 45 and 32 BC were typically a day or two before the day with the same Julian date, so 1 January in the Roman calendar of the first year of the Julian reform was 31 December 46 BC (Julian date). A curious effect of this is that Caesar's assassination on the Ides (15th day) of March fell on 14 March 44 BC in the Julian calendar.

There was no "14 March" in the year 44 BC. The Julian calendar only came into effect after the reforms by Augustus. And even then most people still spoke of the Ides and calculated using the standard civil calendar. Furthermore, the assumption that the calendars were off by one or two days is based on conjecture taken from the tyndale website linked to in "External Links." This is not the majority opinion. The majority opinion still holds that in 44 BC the Ides of March were on the Julian date of 15 March, if one calculates backward from the time of the Augustan reform. Wikipedia is not the place for fringe opinions. —85.178.127.137 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I only just noticed this comment. The IP user is correct that these sentences are only a consequence of a particular model of the triennial intercalation (mine), and that this should be made clear. I'll fix that. I wrote them because I thought the effect on the date of Caesar's assassination is an interesting factoid. WP has policies on "trivia", I'll let a WP policy geek decide whether this falls under that heading. --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Julian calendar went into effect in 45 BC, but many sources indicate it was not properly observed until the reforms by Augustus. Just because the English language did not exist does not mean we can't translate Latin dates into English dates, such as 14 March, so it makes no sense to say "there was no '14 March' in the year 44 BC." That's like saying there was no such thing as the Roman empire because the English word "empire" was not invented until the second millennium.

What is your source for claiming "the majority opinion still holds that in 44 BC the Ides of March were on the Julian date of 15 March, if one calculates backward from the time of the Augustan reform"?

I am not aware of any reliable source that indicates with certainty how many leap years were actually observed between 43 BC and AD 8 (inclusive). In the absence of certainty about the number of leap days, we cannot say with certainty whether the proleptic Julian date of Caesar's assassination was 14 March, 15 March, or some other date.

You do raise a good point that it is confusing to try to distinguish between the "Julian calendar" and the "Roman calendar" for the years between 45 BC and AD 8 because one can take the view that they are one and the same. It would be better to use the name proleptic Julian calendar for the calendar that starts with dates in the middle ages that are certain, and applies the rules of the Julian calendar backward. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Was the Julian calendar designed to the allow calculation of ordinal dates?

If one looks at the months March through February the number of days in each month has a neat arrangement with the exception of February. This is more clearly seen if one assigns to each month the number of days that preceeds it which is needed if one is to calculate the ordinal date. The sequence of numbers is equal to a multiple of 30 plus the result of the integer division of a multiple of 7 by 12, i.e., floor(7k/12). An expression for the calculation of the ordinal date would be,

$OrdDate(m,d)=-31+30m+floor{\Bigg (}{\frac {7(m-2)}{12}}{\Bigg )}-2floor{\Bigg (}{\frac {m-3}{12}}{\Bigg )}+d$

The second term involving the floor function corrects for the length of February. With the exception of m = 2 the function is nearly linear. The 7/12ths helps to explain the value, 30.6, that is often used to calculate ordinal dates. Were changes in the lengths of the months made in order to facilitate this calculation? The evidence of the number of days in each month is only circumstantial. It would help if there were some historical information to corroborate this theory. --Jbergquist (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

An inconsistency is that in the Roman calendar the days were indicated as being either specific days of the month or a number of days before them. The count is reversed. The Ptolemaic rulers tried to reform the Egyptian calendar in 238 BC by adding a leap day every four years. The change did not take place until the introduction of the Alexandrian calendar of Augustus. The new calendar had twelve months of 30 days each and with 5 or 6 "epagomenal" days at the end of the year. --Jbergquist (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the Julian calendar was so poorly communicated that it was not properly observed for around 40 years, and also considering that the records are so fragmentary that there is uncertainty about when leap years were actually observed between the introduction of the Julian calendar and Augustus's reform, it seems unlikely any contemporaneous sources will be found that set out clear information about the intent behind the system. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jbergquist's theory does have Roman support, in the sense that the apparently irregular arrangement of the number of days in each month of the year was intentional. Macrobius in the Saturnalia (c. 430), as translated by Percival Vaughan Davies (1969), stated in book 1, chapter 14, page 96:

Subsequently, however, since there was no consistency in marking of the times and seasons but all was still vague and uncertain [using the Republican calendar], Gaius Caesar introduced a clearly defined arrangement of the calendar, with the help of a clerk named Marcus Flavius, who provided the dictator with a list of the several days so arranged that their order could be easily found and, that order once found, the position of each day would remain constant.

The theory would be stronger if this "list of the several days so arranged that their order could be easily found" is coupled with the religious year which began with March, but this requires us to ignore the consular year and especially the calendar year as displayed on fasti, both of which began with January. However, the additional claim regarding ordinal dates, that is, the number of the day in the year, is clearly not supported simply because the Romans numbered each day of the month backward, so why would they number each day of the year forward? A slight possibility exists that this support is an illusion because the "list of the several days" may refer to the arrangement of dies fasti, dies nefasti, dies comitiales, etc. I consider that highly unlikely because the same arrangement existed in the Republican calendar and the one or two days added to each of its 29-day months were located in the Julian calendar in such a way (near the end of each month) that they would not disturb the Republican arrangement. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Day rollover

in JULIAN.JULIANDATE it is mentioned that the Julian day changes at midday, not midnight as per modern convention. I have been unable to find evidence on the internet to back this up except in the context of calculations of julian dates.

I think this should be reflected in the text, as it has bearing on several medieval traditions, e.g. Xmas eve ran from noon until noon, April fools' day ends at noon.

Sweavo (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article Julian day only refers to the astronomical day. It is a short name for the official named astronomical "Julian day number" and the astronomical "Julian Date" (note that Date is capitalized). The Julian day number was given its name by the astronomer John Herschel in 1849, who named it for the Julian period of 7,980 years used by Joseph Justus Scaliger in 1583, who named his period for the Julian calendar. Hence, "Julian" in its name is twice removed from the Julian calendar, so does not belong in this article. Julian Dates only refer to an instant in time, they do not refer to an entire day. But Julian day numbers do refer to an entire day. Julian days have never been a date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. Julian day numbers (and astronomical Julian Dates) have been sequentially numbered since their invention in 1849, with Julian day number 0 beginning at noon 1 January 4713 BCE, which marked Julian Date 0.0. Before 1925, astronomical dates in the Gregorian calendar did begin at noon, which is why the astronomical Julian day itself begins at noon. Since 1925, an astonomical date in the Gregorian calendar has begun at midnight, but the International Astronomical Union explicitly stated that Julian day numbers and Julian Dates would continue to begin at noon. Julian day number 2451545 began at noon 1 January 2000 in the Gregorian calendar, which is Julian Date 2451545.0. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation format

I am unable to discern any citation format for this article. Does anyone know what format was intended? --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct observance

This edit, in the part that begins "The reasoning here is that the astronomical..." sees to be claiming that the Julian calendar was always correctly observed in Rome. I do not have access to the entire source that supposedly supports this claim, but the part of it that I can see indicates the Egyptian calendar, which was essentially a Julian calendar with Egyptian month names, may have been observed in the manner intended by Julius Caesar. There are many reliable sources that indicate the calendar was not correctly observed in Rome until Augustus' reform.

I believe this edit should be removed because the source does not appear to support the edit. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerry, thanks for that. The addition to the text in the article clearly states that the Julian calendar may have been correctly observed from inception in Egypt. You can access the relevant ZPE paper through Chris Bennett's website.156.61.160.1 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph is almost entirely wrong from beginning to end and should be removed. In detail:

The reasoning here is that the astronomical observations recorded in this papyrus demonstrate that 24BC was not a leap year, and therefore Scaliger's theory is incorrect.

That is not the reasoning. The reasoning is that the astronomical observations recorded in this papyrus demonstrate that the Roman calendar in 24BC was two days out of alignment with where Scaliger says it ought to be, and that the non-Scaligerian triennial cycle described fits this data and all other available contemporary evidence.

However, there is strong evidence that the Egyptian astronomers operated the Julian calendar correctly from inception.

Egyptian astronomers operated the wandering Egyptian calendar, not the Julian calendar, nor even the Alexandrian one.

It was set up on their advice,

This is the only correct statement in the paragraph, but it is already stated at the beginning of the article.

and they knew exactly how long the tropical year was from their observations of the Sothic cycle over millennia.

The length of the tropical year was known to Hipparchus. There is no evidence that pre-Ptolemaic Egyptians knew what it was or even that they understood the concept. If there was a Sothic year (which hardly any Egyptlogist accepts), it was a sidereal year, not a tropical year. Not that the point is relevant to the issue under discussion.

If they did operate it correctly from the start 24BC would not be a leap year anyway and Scaliger is vindicated.

The Egyptian dates in pOxy 61.4175 are correct on the wandering calendar, which was the same as the Alexandrian calendar in 24 BC. It's the Roman dates that are wrong.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't you indent when you go on the talk page? My recollection of the Celsus point is that there is a sentence there in which mensis intercalaris appears and nobody suggests that he was not talking about the mensis intercalaris. Then in the very next sentence he again refers to the mensis intercalaris. The "intercalary fool" is another contributor but it seems to me that to suggest that Celsus is talking about something completely different the second time he uses the phrase is oddball. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indent, sorry it was not in a fashion that was to your liking.

If you are not the intercalary fool, I apologise for the confusion, but you can hardly blame me for it since you are pushing the same outdated theories and are acting in a very similar fashion, repeatedly trying to insert these ideas despite being reverted by several people. At least you know how to use the Talk page, which the IF refused to do. As Joe Kress noted on 29 January, your arguments were extensively refuted on Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day, Talk:Mercedonius etc, albeit in a one-sided fashion since the IF refused to actually debate except through increasingly cryptic edit summaries. If you really wish to pursue this issue you should at least review this past discussion to understand why it went nowhere last time, and why the IF ended up getting locked out of these pages for a long time.

As to your recollection of the Celsus point, Byzantine commentators, who actually used the Law Code that included Celsus' comment, explicitly state that he meant the 28 days of February (ο Φεβρουαριος εικοσι οκτω ημερον εστιν), a point that was noted by Mommsen in 1858. That really should settle the matter.

You do not bother to discuss any of the reasons I gave for reverting the second paragraph. None of them had anything to do with whether or not my analysis has been published "in reputable scientific journals". They were about your errors of representation and your errors of fact, the latter being errors about facts that are entirely separate from the phase of the triennial cycle.

As to publication, you don't have that fact right either, as you would have learned if you had bothered to consult the Bibliography on my website. For your information, the analysis was published in exactly the same journal that Jones' article was published in: the Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, which is one of the leading journals on the subject. See ZPE 142 (2003) 221-240 and ZPE 147 (2004) 165-168.

So, I am reverting you again, and it's up to you to justify your proposed edits on the Talk page and get agreement from other editors that you have made a case, before you can justify reinserting the text. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look on your website and I can't find any reference to your ZPE paper refuting Jones. Please advise which volume, and on which page it can be found. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations as above: ZPE 142 (2003) 221-240 and ZPE 147 (2004) 165-168. They are listed in the Bibliography section of my website, as previously stated. The URL is http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/bibliography/bibliography_b.htm. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Celsus point, please give me an English translation of the Greek phrase included in your post. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It says "February has 28 days". The context is in the same discussion as Celsus' remarks, and the point is that legally the bissextile day was counted as part of a 48 hour day. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just typed the following two URLs into my web browser:

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/2003/142pdf/142221.pdf

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/2004/147pdf/147165.pdf

I got a 404 error message each time. Can you help? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Those pages don't exist because those articles are not available for free from the ZPE website. The range of ZPE articles freely available from their website is given at http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/index.html. Articles published from 2001 to 2004 are purchasable from the publisher: see http://212.202.124.254/site.php?show=41. All ZPE volumes through 2006 are available through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=zeitpapyepig) if you have access to JSTOR. Purchase and JSTOR links are given in my Bibliography page.

Or you can go to any university library which subscribes to the journal. But the argument is fundamentally what's on my website, and it is absolutely not what this paragraph says it is.

I see that the IP user 62.31.226.77 has yet again reinserted this material without making any attempt of any kind whatsoever to justify it, let alone to address any of the detailed explanations I gave as to why it is wrong.

And he has the gall to say to Joe Kress "He hasn't made his case at all". Does he really imagine I don't know what my own analysis is? How can he possibly justify his statement that The reasoning here is that the astronomical observations recorded in this papyrus demonstrate that 24BC was not a leap year, and therefore Scaliger's theory is incorrect.? It is flatly wrong, as he would know if he had looked at anything I had ever actually written about this topic.

As to the rest -- has he ever looked at the Almagest or any other Egyptian astronomical text? Does he know what the difference is between a tropical year and a sidereal year? Can he cite a single reputable authority to show that the pre-Ptolemaic Egyptians knew what the tropical year was (he can't: there aren't any)? Doesn't he know that almost no Egyptologist seriously accepts the Sothic year? [And yes there are one or two -- but they are in a very distinct minority, and for good reason.]

So, its not up to me to add to the justification for removing that paragraph. I've already justified it more than adequately. It is up to 62.31.226.77 to provide what justification he can for reinserting it, if he can find any.

I'm going to revert it again, and I will also add the ZPE references to note 7. But this is the last time. I long ago got tired of dealing with WP editors like this one who not only have no idea what they are talking about but also have no idea how a group editorial process works, and WP seems to be full of them. If no-one else is willing to deal with people whose only interest is in pursuing their own agenda I see no reason why I should be holding the candle. I have better things to spend my time on. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the polemic for a moment, 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly polemical to point out that objections to these paragraphs have not even been responded to, let alone addressed, and to list what it would take to address them. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

are you aware that in the third century BC Egypt's rulers directed that the wandering calendar should be abandoned and a sixth epagomenal day should be inserted every fourth year? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that in the third century BC Egypt's rulers were Greek and relied on Greek astronomical knowledge, not the fictitious 3,000 year old wisdom of the Egyptians? --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How could they have done that if they didn't know the exact length of the tropical year? Anyone who thinks that astronomers are unable to work it out (it's a simple observation involving observations of the sun against landmarks on the horizon) shouldn't be working in this field. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that the Egyptians had known the exact length of the tropical year and the difference between a tropical year and a sidereal year for 3000 years has no knowledge of what they are talking about. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even the Druids could do it and they were hardly civilised. You've submitted nothing to prove that Jones is wrong and you are right. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the point at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Jones. The claim made in this paragraph is that the triennial model which explains the dates of pOxy 61.4175 is based on the assumption that 24 BC was a Roman leap year. This is flatly untrue. It is a complete misrepresentation of the argument, which you might take the trouble read some day if you are going to comment on it. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But since you ask: Jones is a very fine scholar and I am generally in awe of the work that he does. But in this instance, his explanation is ad hoc, and unnecessary. He supposes that the Julian calendar was correct in Egypt in 24 BC but not in Rome, but that the incorrect Julian calendar was in use in Egypt by 5 BC, only to be corrected again later. His theory also needs to explain why the correct Julian calendar was adopted, since the incorrect one was two days out of alignment on the day that the Roman administration began, on Scaliger's model. The Roman calendar was used by Roman administration in Egypt, not by the Egyptians or the Greeks, so his argument requires that Octavian corrected the Julian calendar in Egypt over two decades before he tried it anywhere else in the Roman world. It makes no sense. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jones does not claim that his explanation is correct, it is simply the best proposal he can come up with. At its core is the unexamined assumption that Scaliger's model of the triennial cycle was correct. I doubt that he was aware that the standard model of the triennial cycle is only a 16th century reconstruction, let alone that others have been proposed. Once you realise this it is a straightforward matter to show that there is another model which fits the data perfectly, and also fits all the other contemporary data we have for this period, without requiring any difference between the Roman calendar in Egypt and the Roman calendar in Rome. Indeed, as new data has come to light it continues to explain it; most recently it explains why the birthday of Augustus was celebrated on two different dates in Egypt, something Scaliger's model cannot do. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, if you want to argue that there is more than one explanation in the literature for this data I would have no problem with that. But if you want to do that you must represent all the proposed explanations correctly. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Celsus quote, you've done nothing on that side at all. I asked you for an English translation of the Greek quote you provided in your post. If you can't provide it because you don't understand Greek you should say so. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And I gave it to you. It says, in English translation: "February has 28 days". What part of that did you not understand? --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just spotted your response to the Celsus query in an unsigned interpolation to my post. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In deference to your sensitivities I am now signing each individual paragraph of my response. I hope that allows you to track them more easily. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are just pretending to be stupid. The Greeks say February has 28 days, which it does, and possibly (although I have yet to see any evidence) they were making the point that in leap year February consists of 27 days plus a biduum. This has absolutely nothing to do with Celsus' observation that the mensis intercalaris had 28 days. The mensis intercalaris is part of the Roman Republican Calendar which predates the Julian calendar in which February could never have less than 28 days. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, we went over all this in great detail two years ago, but let me briefly refresh your memory. The legal problem is how to account birthdays of someone who was born on an intercalary day -- which in the 6th century AD was a day in February. The Digest quotes various authors, including Cato, who wrote before the Julian reform. It then quotes Celsus, who says "However the intercalary month has 28 days". Now, Celsus was a contemporary of Hadrian, nearly 200 years after the Julian reform. For him the intercalary month was February. By saying "However" ("Autem") he was setting himself up in opposition to Cato, because Cato's remarks were now obsolete.--Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This was perfectly clear to the Byzantines, who even rewrote the comment exactly that way. The confusion came in with later chronologists. Whether it was Ideler or a predecessor I don't know, but Ideler made the same mistake you are making and felt it was necessary to emend Celsus' text to read "However the intercalary month has (27 or) 28 days". Ideler is still a useful authority, but he was writing in 1827, and our knowledge has increased since then. Mommsen pointed out the error in 1858, no modern expert accepts Celsus as evidence on the republican intercalary month, and you have yet to adduce any evidence that Mommsen was wrong or that the general consensus of modern experts on the Republican calendar should be overturned. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you any further unless you start being constructive. However, I do thank you for finally starting to use the Talk page -- it's only taken you two years. I don't suppose you have read Michels yet? She is, after all, the standard modern authority on the subject. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calendar edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your ignorance would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Rather than tie me down answering your points why don't you just hang up your boots now? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are under no obligation to justify anything you write no matter how blatantly false it may be? --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do know the difference between the tropical and sidereal years, thank you very much, and I do know that the purpose of the Egyptian astronomers' observations was to predict the annual inundation of the Nile. That is not tied to the sidereal year - it's tied to the tropical year. The dates were carefully recorded in the wandering calendar and over millennia that gives an incredibly accurate value for the tropical year. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is: and they knew exactly how long the tropical year was from their observations of the Sothic cycle over millennia.

First, the Sothic cycle is an interval of 1461 years, but I know you meant the Sothic year. Sothis is a star. Therefore a Sothic year is not a tropical year. It is a sidereal year, by definition. Because of the motion of Sothis it happens to be a reasonable approximation of a tropical year but that does not make them the same thing. If anything, the story shows that he Egyptians did not know the difference between a tropical and a sidereal year.

Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Sothic dates were "carefully recorded in the wandering calendar", only, at best, a general awareness that they slipped by a day roughly every four years. If the Egyptians had had astronomical records of that type, the Greeks would have been all over them, just as they made every effort to use Babylonian data which really was carefully recorded over many centuries.

Third, while it would have been theoretically possible for the average length of the Sothic year to be accurately calculated if the dates had been carefully recorded over three millenia, there is no evidence that any Egyptian astronomer ever attempted to make such a calculation. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim your views represent the majority of editors'. That's not true. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My claim is that you have been reverted by many editors, and that is true. Just look at the history page. And as you know from two years ago, at that time you had editors and admins piling on top of you like a rugby scrum in a desperate effort to get you to behave. Apparently you haven't got the point yet. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are so blatantly POV that you went to the trouble to delete the link to Professor Jones' paper that was added to the article. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your paragraph, which happened to reference Jones' paper. It did so in an inappropriate way since Jones does not discuss any of the points you make. If you actually want to make a fair presentation of his theory it would be appropriate to refer to his paper. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as consensus is concerned, if editors were asked the question "Does Chris Bennett know what he is talking about?" the consensus answer would be "no". 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider the question asked. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On this board you have claimed that Professor Jones' Roman dates are wrong. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you raised the issue of the differences between my analysis and Jones': You've submitted nothing to prove that Jones is wrong and you are right.. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't say that on your website, and presumably you don't say it in ZPE either. So what are you griping about, actually? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentally, your statement The reasoning here is that the astronomical observations recorded in this papyrus demonstrate that 24BC was not a leap year, and therefore Scaliger's theory is incorrect. That statement is just wrong. It is so badly wrong that it shows you have absolutely no clue what the argument really is. And for all your bluster you have yet to make any attempt to justify it. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You always put words into my mouth. At no time have I said that Egyptians were aware of the difference between the tropical and sidereal years. To do that would require a knowledge of precession, which only becomes apparent from careful observation of heliacal risings over a very long period. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim that the Egyptians knew the length of the tropical year based on Sothic sightings. That's a wrong statement in several respects, as I pointed out. It's not a big deal, it's just one of many inaccuracies in the paragraph. In itself it could be fixed, but there is no point since the fundamental argument of the paragraph is just bogus. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you say the point has nothing to do with Professor Jones. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And so it is. What does The reasoning here is that the astronomical observations recorded in this papyrus demonstrate that 24BC was not a leap year, and therefore Scaliger's theory is incorrect. have to do with Jones? --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, why did you say on this board that Professor Jones' Roman dates were wrong? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to your comment: You've submitted nothing to prove that Jones is wrong and you are right.--Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How can a triennal model explain the dates of pOxy 61.4175? We don't know if a triennial model was used, and if it was it certainly doesn't tell us the phase cycle. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/roman/024bc.htm which spells it out in great detail, and which you have evidently already read but apparently have not tried to understand. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that Professor Jones postulates a double dislocation of Julian dates in Egypt, before 24BC and before 5BC. I have just re - read his paper and there is nothing on that at all. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was before 2 BC, not 5 BC -- see p. 164 ("indicates that conformity was imposed by 2 B.C"). The other dislocation is a logical consequence of his theory. He does not address that point, and I did not say that he did. What I said is that his theory needs to explain it. His statement is:

What I suppose had happened was that people in Egypt who needed to work with dates in the Roman calendar, during the latter part of Cleopatra’s reign as well as immediately after the beginning of Roman rule, did not depend on bulletins from Rome to regulate the calendar, since they knew the rule according to which the intercalations were supposed to take place.

And the point is that Alexandria fell on the Roman date 1 August, but on Jones' theory the "people in Egypt who needed to work with dates in the Roman calendar" would have thought it was 3 August. Do you suppose that they told Octavian that he didn't know what day it was? --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent other people's work for your own ends. You take exception, on your website, to Professor Jones dating positions of the moon to 6 P.M. "because it was daylight". Most people can pick out the moon in daylight if they look carefully enough. The Jews also refer their lunar calculations to 6 P.M. and they probably got that from the Babylonians. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of misrepresentation, I do no such thing. That objection is raised in a paper by Gonzalez and Belmonte. My exact statement is: "In analyzing the lunar and planetary ephemeris data in pOxy 61.4175, Jones assumed a reference local time of 6pm. A. C. Gonzalez-Garcia & J. A. Belmonte, Archaeoastronomy 20 (2006) 97 at 106 n. 7, object... " and later on I say that " I am unable to obtain this result with SkyMap Pro, which shows good agreement with Jones' numbers. " Try reading what is written some time. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also on your website you talk of Egyptian astronomers "spitting blood" at the way their carefully crafted Julian calendar was being abused for political and/or superstitious reasons and/or just plain ignorance. So you admit the astronomers thought it desirable that it should be correctly operated. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is not the same thing as saying that they used it themselves. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as balancing the article is concerned, every time someone puts in views that are opposed to your own you revert them. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I revert your statements because you insist on making factual errors and advancing long-outdated and refuted theories and representing them as fact or as generally held opinion. If you were to represent them neutrally and accurately (In 1827, Ideler held that... In 1858 Mommsen pointed out that.... In 1967 Michels argued ... and the consensus position is ...) it would be fine. I really don't care what your personal opinion is. What I do care about is your misrepresentation of facts and your attempts to impose rejected and minority arguments as facts or as the state of the art when I happen to know they are nothing of the kind. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You make the point that at the time of the Decree of Canopus Egypt's rulers were Greek. So the Egyptians got the benefit of the Greeks' superior astronomical knowledge. That advances my argument. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How? Your statement is: and they knew exactly how long the tropical year was from their observations of the Sothic cycle over millennia. In 238 the Greeks had been ruling Egypt for less than a century! --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Celsus point, can you point to anybody who does not have a diseased mind using the term mensis intercalaris to mean February? In all the literature I have seen the term mensis intercalaris refers to the occasionally - added extra month of the Republican calendar and the term "February" means just that - February, a regular (not intercalary) month in both the Republican and Julian calendars. Celsus' description does not need amendment. The mensis intercalaris does have 28 days, but not every year - just as February has 28 days, but not every year. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because you have only read about the intercalary month in the context of the Republican calendar. The point that February, as the intercalary month, only had 28 legal days was standard in medieval law.

For your information here is Mommsen's full discussion, from GoogleBooks. If you don't understand German, Babelfish will give you the general sense.

Die Stelle des Celsus in Justinians Digesten: Mensis intercalaris constat ex diebus viginti octo23), aus welcher die gewöhnliche Meinung recht eigentlich hervorgegangen ist, stimmt doch auch mit dieser sehr schlecht, da dieselbe keineswegs dem Schaltmonat durchgängig 28 Tage giebt noch geben kann. Ideler sieht sich genöthigt die Emendation viginti septem vel octo vorzuschlagen, und mit demselben Recht könnte man octo in septem ändern. Aber das eine würde so irrig sein wie das andere; man hat offenbar nicht bedacht, in welchem Zusammenhange diese Angabe auftritt. Sie spricht in der Gegenwart und ist im Sinne der justinianischen Compilatoren nicht eine antiquarische Notiz, die ja auch in das Gesetzbuch gar nicht gehören würde, sondern ein zu Justinians Zeit praktisch gültiger Satz. Celsus hat gewiss nicht an den Februar gedacht, als er vom Schaltmonat schrieb; aber ebenso gewiss dachten die Redactoren, als sie diese Notiz aufnahmen, nicht an Numas Schaltmonat, sondern an den julianischen Februar — ganz entscheidend ist dafür die griechische Uebersetzung24): ο Φεβρουαριος εικοσι οκτω ημερον εστιν. Dann aber verliert die Stelle alle Beweiskraft für den älteren Schaltmonat; denn welche Zahl die Redactoren immer vorfanden, so konnten sie nicht bloss, sondern mussten dieselbe in XXVIII umändern. Demnach steht der Annahme eines immer gleichen 27tägigen Schaltmonats kein Hinderniss im Wege.

Note 23 reads: Dig. 50, 16, 98, 2 und dazu Idcler 2, 58. 59.

And note 24 reads: Basil. 2, 2, 95. Ebenso ward die Stelle im Mittelalter verstanden und man nahm nur Anstoss daran, dass dem Februar als Schaltmonat vielmehr 29 Tage zukommen würden (Savigny System 3, 461).

So take up your argument with Mommsen, and not with me. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions here? Chris Bennett clues everyone up on Ideler's take on this by providing an English translation of the German. Also I note Chris says "you have absolutely no clue what the argument really is." So why doesn't Chris amend '160.1's contribution to show what the argument really is? On Celsus, Chris shows a lamentable lack of understanding of the workings of luni - solar calendars. An intercalary month is an extraordinary month which is added from time to time to plug the gap between the length of the lunar year and the length of the tropical year. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about doing some work yourself for a change? If you want a translation of Mommsen's German (not Ideler's! you obviously don't read any better than your IP sock puppet) then either sit down with a dictionary or go to Babelfish. As to the argument, WP is not the appropriate place to present that type of detail, at least not in this article, any more than it is the place to present Scaliger's or Kepler's or Mommsen's or Matzat's or Radke's argument in detail. References and links are provided for those who want (or in your case, need) to dig deeper and that is good enough. As to Celsus, since he is talking about Julian February, lunisolar calendars don't come into it. (Actually, even if he isn't they don't -- the Republican calendar was not a lunisolar calendar, because it wasn't lunar). --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That really takes the biscuit! You can put your own argument in the article, but no- one else can balance it out because that would make the article too complicated! 62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know know the difference between an argument and a conclusion??? It's my conclusions that are in the article, not the argument that gets one to them, just as it presents Scaliger's and Kepler's and Mommsen's and Matzat's and Radke's conclusions, not their arguments. And the context is a discussion that points out there are multiple solutions to the triennial leap year cycle, so its totally appropriate to point out there is a 5th that can be added to the other 4. Whether I am right or Jones is right as to the history, or whether the historical explanation is something totally different, the fact is that it's a fifth reconstruction that fits the facts we have about the triennial cycle. And Jones doesn't belong except maybe in a footnote because he did not propose another cycle.--Chris Bennett (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On Celsus, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Celsus talks about the intercalary month because he's talking about the Republican calendar. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but in fact he isn't. Believe what you want all you want but realise that nobody else does, for the reason Mommsen came up with and which I have explained to you an infinite number of times, both 2 years ago and now, and which you have yet to address let alone refute.--Chris Bennett (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you knew anything about astronomy/chronology at all, you would realise that the 355 - day Republican year is the ceiling function of twelve lunar months. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A lunisolar calendar maintains an alignment to the sun AND to the moon -- it has lunar months. How many lunations of 23, 24, 27, 28 or 31 days can you point to in recorded astronomy? How many lunar calendar years last for 377 or 378 days? --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want lunations of 28 or 31 days you'll find plenty at the end of the post on the next section of this board timed at February 15d 21h 37m 2010. The mensis intercalaris is intercalary and it's also a month, so I don't see why you have an issue with it being described as an intercalary month. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't. What does really puzzle me is why you have a problem in accepting even the concept that Celsus described February as the intercalary month, even though that's the only intercalary month that existed in his lifetime, Leo the Wise said in the 9th century that the text meant February, Mommsen showed in 1859 that that's the only sensible interpretation in the context of the Digest, and no modern scholar of the Roman calendar accepts Celsus as evidence on the length of the pre-Julian intercalary month.

OK, so the bottom line here is that you still have produced no support for your obsolete and long-refuted interpretation of Celsus, and you have not even uttered one word in defence of your peculiar claim that the justification for a fifth candidate for the triennial cycle is a belief that pOxy 61.4175 shows that 24 BC was not a leap year. Your idea of debate is still never to admit the possibility of error: to ignore objections you can't answer, to repeat the same statements incessantly without making any attempt to justify them, and to do your level best to distract attention into trivia. But at least you've stopped trying to insert this indefensible text. I suppose it's progress. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you're saying that a month which is adjusted in length is an intercalary month. Is that a fair summary of your argument? 62.31.226.77 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read me correctly. No I am not saying that a month which is adjusted in length is an intercalary month. No that is not a fair summary of my (or rather Mommsen's) argument. And I am not going to repeat it for you yet again.

Since you are now only pursuing the Celsus issue I take it you have dropped the other matter. Good. --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, I spoke too soon, I should have known better. I see you are still at it. You really have no clue do you? --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. You said that according to Celsus February was an intercalary month because it sometimes contained a biduum and sometimes not. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this unexpected little walk down memory lane with you over the last week has certainly been interesting. I'm so pleased you've finally learned how to use the Talk page, and I look forward to the day that you can actually use it productively. Otherwise, you haven't changed a bit! We must do this again some day -- say in about 50 years time? --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like no - one's going to provide a translation of the Mommsen text, so I'm having a go at doing it myself. If you feel I'm not getting the sense at any point, please feel free to amend.

The Celsus passage in Justinian's Digest: Mensis intercalaris constat ex diebus viginti octo [note 23], on which the usual opinion actually followed is that this is right. However, it is also true that this opinion is very bad, since the same opinion can not at all still give to the leap month always 28 days. Ideler feels himself obliged to put forward the amendment twenty - seven as well as eight, and with that right one could change eight to seven. But the one would be as incorrect as the other: one has obviously not thought, in which connection this statement applies. One speaks in the present tense and it is in the senses of the compilers of the time of Justinian not an antiquarian note, which now would no longer belong in the law code, but a practical current phrase in Justinian's time. Celsus has certainly not thought of February, when he wrote of the leap month [emphasis added]; but also certainly the redactors thought, when they receive this statement, not on Numa's intercalary month, but on the Julian February - quite decisive for that is the Greek translation [note 24]: February has 28 days. But then the statement loses all evidential value for the old intercalary month; then what number the redactors found they not only could but must change to XXVIII. Accordingly no obstacle stands in the way of the assumption of an always equal 27 - day leap month.

Note 23 reads: Dig. 50,16,98,2 and with it Ideler 2,58.59.

And note 24 reads: Basil. 2,2,95. Just as the statement was understood in the middle ages and one can only guess at it, that February as leap month would come up to just 29 days.

So we have it straight from the horse's mouth. Continuing with the animal metaphors, Dr Bennett says that the use of the present tense (constat) is the "elephant in the room", but if it is it's a white elephant. This is a very common construction and Dr Bennett uses it himself:

"As to your recollection of the Celsus point, Byzantine commentators, who actually used the Law Code that included Celsus' comment, explicitly state that he meant the 28 days of February (...), a point that was noted by Mommsen in 1858" [emphasis added].

Mommsen himself made use of it:

Die Stelle des Celsus in Justinians Digesten: Mensis intercalaris constat ex diebus viginti octo [note 23], aus welcher die gewoehnliche Meinung recht eigentlich hervorgegangen ist, stimmt doch auch mit dieser sehr schlecht, da dieselbe Keineswegs dem Schaltmonat durchgaengig 28 Tage giebt noch geben kann. Ideler sieht sich genoethigt die Emendation viginti septem vel octo vorzuschlagen, und mit demselben Recht koennte man octo in septem aendern. Aber das eine wuerde so irrig sein wie das andere; man hat offenbar nicht bedacht, in welchem Zusammenhange diese Angabe auftritt. Sie spricht in der Gegenwart und ist im Sinne der justinianischen Compilatoren nicht eine antiquarische Notiz, die ja auch in das Gesetzbuch gar nicht gehoeren wuerde, sondern ein zu Justinians Zeit praktisch gueltiger Satz. Celsus hat gewiss nicht an den Februar gedacht, als er vom Schaltmonat schrieb, aber enso gewiss dachten die Redactoren, als sie diese Notiz aufnahmen, nicht an Numas Schaltmonat, sondern an den julianischen Februar -- ganz entscheidend ist dafuer die griechische Uebersetzung:(...) Dann aber verliert die Stelle alle Beweiskraft fuer den aelteren Schaltmonat; denn welche Zahl die Redactoren immer vorfanden, so koennten sie nicht bloss, sondern mussten dieselbe in XXVIII umaendern. Demnach steht der Annahme eines immer gleichen 27taegigen Schaltmonat kein Hinderniss im Wege [emphasis added].62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually my "elephant in the room" was not the use of the present tense, though Mommsen also notes this as evidence ("Sie spricht in der Gegenwart"). My elephant (Talk:Mercedonius, from February 2008!), which is still trumpeting, is "What on earth does a 28-day pre-Julian intercalary month have to do with bissextile birthdays in the Julian calendar?" Or, as Mommsen put it: "man hat offenbar nicht bedacht, in welchem Zusammenhange diese Angabe auftritt. Sie spricht in der Gegenwart und ist im Sinne der justinianischen Compilatoren nicht eine antiquarische Notiz, die ja auch in das Gesetzbuch gar nicht gehören würde, sondern ein zu Justinians Zeit praktisch gültiger Satz."

In other words, one can't consider Celsus' statement in isolation, as you insist on doing. One has to consider it in the context of Justinian's Digest.

And when you consider the sentence of Mommsen you have highlighted in context, it ought to be clear to you that the literal translation cannot be "Celsus has certainly not thought of February, when he wrote of the leap month; but also certainly the redactors thought, when they receive this statement, not on Numa's intercalary month, but on the Julian February" but must be "Celsus has not certainly thought of February, when he wrote of the leap month; but also certainly the redactors thought, when they receive this statement, not on Numa's intercalary month, but on the Julian February".

I understand the sense as: Even if Celsus originally talked about the pre-Julian Mensis Intercalaris, Justinian's redactors understood him to mean February. But let us suppose that Mommsen was merely admitting uncertainty about what Celsus meant, as the literal translation suggests -- or even that your literal translation is correct. It still doesn't allow you to justify the statement you want to insert into this article (among others) that "Celsus says that it can have 28 days".

Mommsen's argument is that, since the redactors understood Celsus to mean February, we can only safely attribute the number 28 to the redactors. If Celsus didn't mean February then we have no idea what number he originally wrote. Therefore, Mommsen concludes, no matter how you cut it there is no way that Celsus can be used to support a pre-Julian Mensis Intercalaris of 28 days. ("Dann aber verliert die Stelle alle Beweiskraft für den älteren Schaltmonat; denn welche Zahl die Redactoren immer vorfanden, so konnten sie nicht bloss, sondern mussten dieselbe in XXVIII umändern. ") Which leaves you unable to cite Mommsen in support of your theory.

So: you still have no evidence that modern scholarship accepts Celsus as evidence of a 28 day pre-Julian Mensis Intercalaris, let alone that it is a modern consensus, which means you have no justification to put that statement into this article or into any of the other articles where it would actually be more appropriate.

Incidentally, I note that your last two IP addresses have both been totally blocked from editing for three months, and that the one you are now using was also blocked from editing last November. You probably think we're all out to get you.... but you also might want to consider the possibility that you really are going about this the wrong way. --Chris Bennett (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is actually Dr Bennett's statement that February cannot be the intercalary month. Technically that disposes of the case, but as Dr Bennett is unlikely to be satisfied by the short answer, here is the long answer.

There is no difficulty. Constat ex is a Latin legal phrase which means "it appears on the record that...". If Celsus had wanted to make the point that the mensis intercalaris was invariable in length he would have written "mensis intercalaris habet xxviii dies".

Dr Bennett had better allow his elephant a little rest because Celsus' discourse is a general explanation of the calendar, not limited to coming of age in a Julian leap year.

Remember, at the time he wrote there were still many documents extant with dates written in the Republican calendar. That's why Celsus took time out to explain to lawyers how it worked. If you look at the current record you will see that February has 29 days allocated to it and uses the 29th day when it needs to. In the same way the mensis intercalaris had 28 days allocated to it and used the 28th day when it needed to.

Dr Bennett's amended translation does not make sense - the text is "certainly not" in both English and German - "not certainly" is a phrase he has specially minted for the occasion.

In his next sentence, Dr Bennett admits Celsus was talking about the mensis intercalaris - case closed. He then goes on to suggest that the redactors inserted the number "xxviii" in place of the number Celsus wrote, which in that case would have been 27 or 29. Using that argument, you could say that he actually wrote "xxvii" which would support a fixed - length mensis intercalaris. But then you have this fatal objection to the theory - if Celsus had indeed written "xxvii" why didn't the redactors leave it as it was? Basically, Dr Bennett's argument here boils down to this - if the sources don't support a theory assume that the scribe adulterated the source so that it then does support the theory.

Go teach your self something about source criticism, which you clearly don't understand. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other matter, I think that you will find that if you project the current Alexandrian and Julian calendars proleptically back to the time in which the various papyri were written you will find the dates inscribed thereon match perfectly.

Which, as you know, is precisely the problem. They shouldn't. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of blocking IPs, there is another possibility - that Dr Bennett is behaving like the rulers of communist China - desperately trying to stifle discussion which conflicts with the line he is trying to hold. Also, can he explain why I was blocked when the complaint related to another contributor? 62.140.210.158 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, and it is on the record, I had nothing to do with your latest suspensions, which are the result of you making threats of legal action. The two IP addresses you have been using here were suspended because the admins correctly figured out that they were same user. They should suspend this one too for the same reason. If you have a problem being suspended, take it up with the admins. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On impoliteness to contributors and the penalties therefor:

Dr Bennett has given up trying to justify his theory and continues to make personal attacks. He has been frequently warned about his conduct. The following is just one example: User talk:Chris Bennett#Warning!.62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have given up trying to get you to justify your theories. Yes, I am sometimes short-tempered. The combination of wilful ignorance and obstinacy exhibited by some WP editors -- usually IP editors -- tends to bring that out in me. That's why I am not in the teaching or nursing professions -- and why I really have very little to do with WP these days.

Receiving a Warning only proves that someone didn't like what I wrote. It says nothing about why nor about who, if anybody, was in the wrong. For example, if you care to read the "Warning" you cited you will see that the user who issued it agreed on consideration that he had jumped the gun.

Unlike you, I have never been banned or had articles protected against me editing them. You have been banned several times under multiple IP addresses, and have triggered semi-protection on many articles, for persistent insertion of disputed edits, for refusal to debate your theories on the talk page, for attemptng to find places to insert them that won't be noticed by people who know you are wrong, and most recently for uttering legal threats. That really should tell you something. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Over the past two years I have been filing my contributions from the public library. This can be verified by examining the record. According to the administrators, the IP which was blocked originally had only been used for about a month.

On use of literary sources as sockpuppets:62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This title is a joke. One of many serious problems with WP as a concept is that it requires an ability to cite reputable sources which state anything repeated in a WP article. Anything that cannot be so backed up may be condemned as "original research" and therefore removed. The extreme implication of this is that the author of an WP entry is not permitted to draw any conclusions of his or her own.

In fact if I was a true Wikihead I would have received a ruling against you on those grounds long ago. As I keep pointing out to you, no modern scholar of the Roman calendar accepts your theory of Celsus. That alone, according to this WP policy, is enough to stop this argument dead in its tracks. It is my failing that I like to understand and explain the reasons for things and prefer to debate and argue on that plane. Assuming I can get a protagonist who thinks likewise. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr Bennett seeks to bolster his case by claiming that the Celsus text cannot be used to support any theory other than his own because it has been "got at". The suggestion that Celsus' mensis intercalaris was February was first mooted by Greeks some 700 years after he wrote. There is no evidence that they had any understanding of technical terms in the Latin language.62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. That is not my claim, that is Mommsen's claim. And his point is that that is how the lawyers who wrote the Digest in Latin understood it, as is shown conclusively by the later Greek commentary. The notion that Greek lawyers working in a continuous tradition from their Latin predecessors didn't understand what they meant is absurd on its face. Prove it. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The theory remained dormant for 1,000 years until it was resurrected by Mommsen in 1858. There was then a further period of slumber until 1967, when Mrs Michels again spotlighted it and, rather daringly, overthrew the received model. A few others (not many) followed her like sheep.62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion, based on Celsus' comment, that February was legally always a 28 day month was standard medieval law until at least the 16th century. It was not "dormant", it was unquestioned. All Mommsen did was to point out its relevance to calendrical history.

As to "sheep": I don't suppose you have actually read Michels yet, even though you have had at least 2 years to do so. I seriously doubt it. Her work is in fact "the received model" at this time. On the length of the intercalary month, it is accepted without question by both the monographic calendar studies of the republican calendar published since her time -- P. Brind'Amour, Le calendrier romain (Ottawa, 1983) and J Rupke, Kalender und Offentlichkeit (Berlin, 1995). Every single specialist paper I have ever seen on the subject of republican intercalation written since 1967 accepts this reconstruction.

Show me the specialist papers or other studies on pre-Julian intercalation published since 1967 which discusses Michels' work and attacks her reconstruction of the intercalary month on this point. Just one. And I don't mean the Encyclopedia Britannica which is still reprinting 19th century material. I mean a real scholarly study by a specialist. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There was an interesting case here in Britain not long ago when a second world war historian accessed files in the Public Records Office at Kew and inserted forged letters. He then wrote a book referring to the forged letters. He was quickly unmasked.

Dr Bennett's theory would require a forger to get hold of the Latin text of Celsus and doctor it in such a way that the amendment would not be visible. That is far - fetched in the extreme. It would not profit the forger, so why would he attempt it? Also, he would have had to obtain access to all copies of the Latin text, which is inherently implausible. And it is most unlikely that there would have been a central catalogue listing exactly where all copies of the work were located. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the distasteful and irrelevant comparison to Martin Allen, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Seriously, what are you trying to prove? That Celsus is proof that the Roman intercalary month could have had 28 days? But that's not what Celsus says as we have him, even on your own interpretation of his "mensis intercalaris" -- he says that it does (constat) have 28 days -- without exception. Ideler thought that was a problem in 1827 -- why don't you?

Are you trying to prove that your interpretation is the standard interpretation? If so, then cite the modern authorities to back that up. Show that there is an entire vein of scholarship I have missed which is accepted as being superior to and refuting the views of Michels, Brind'amour, Rupke, Warrior, Lintott...

Whatever it is, why don't you just make a case that actually cites real evidence and current scholarship? --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On speculation on triennial cycles:

I am currently reading a very interesting book: The Suspicions of Mr Whicher or the murder at Road Hill House. I have yet to reach the denouement so please do not reveal "whodunnit" on this board.

It is by Kate Summerscale, published by W F Howes Ltd, Leicester, England in 2008 (ISBN 978 1 40742 680 8). The book deals with the origins of detective science and the qualities required of a successful detective. It is generally the case that the simple answer is likely to be the correct one.

If we assume that the Roman and Alexandrian calendars were unchanged in Egypt from the time they were introduced and this fits the evidence there is no need to speculate about triennial cycles. The problem we have is that the sources are few, the observations are open to interpretation, and it is not always clear whether the fixed or wandering calendar is being employed.

There are some pointers nevertheless. Theon says that the Alexandrian calendar did not have a triennial cycle, and posits a date for its introduction which would allow a smooth transition from the wandering year. In my last post I wrote:

"I think you will find that if you project the current Alexandrian and Julian calendars proleptically back to the time in which the various papyri were written you will find the dates inscribed therein match perfectly."

Dr Bennett's response is

"Which is precisely the problem. They shouldn't."

Dr Bennett is a Doctor of Philosophy. I have not read the dissertation that earned him his degree, but if he had used the same critical approach that he employs here he would have failed. A researcher should approach the evidence dispassionately, with no pre - conceived opinions.

Augustus captured Alexandria on 1 August = 8 Mesore, 30BC. Skeat reads the date in P. Oxy. 1453 as showing that the first year of the new era introduced to commemorate this, with a fixed calendar, ended on 31 July = 7 Mesore, 29BC.

Note that these are Julian dates, not Roman dates. Also that there is great controversy as the reading of the numeral of the day in Mesore in P. Oxy. 1453 -- 5, 6 and 7 have all been proposed. As you would know if you read my page on 26 BC. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now there are no problems with converting the wandering calendar dates to regular Julian dates. On his website Dr Bennett says this:

The most important date concerning the operation of the Roman calendar between A.U.C. 709 = 45 and A.U.C. 746 = 8 is given by pOxy 61.4175, first published in 1999 (A. Jones, The Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 4133-4300a), 177). This records the planetary and lunar longitudes on a series of dates in Iulius, Sextilis and September in A.U.C. 730 = 24, giving both Roman and Egyptian dates.

This papyrus shows that the eighth Roman month was called "Sextilis" at this time and that it was 31 days long. This confirms that the month was renamed in A.U.C. 746 = 8 and that the Augustan reform did not change the lengths of the months set by Caesar. Most importantly the papyrus allows the equivalent Julian dates to be determined precisely. They show that A.U.C. 730 = 24 was precisely aligned to the Julian calendar in these months. According to the standard model there should be a two - day difference. For example, the papyrus gives 8 Mesore, year 6 (=1 August, 24BC) = Kal. Sex., but on the standard model of the early Julian calendar Kal. Sex. AUC 730 = 3 August, 24BC.

This information can conveniently be collected together in a table:

Year BC (*regular leap year)	1 Thoth (wandering) in regular Julian	1 Thoth (wandering) in irregular Julian (* = leap year)
45*	September 3	September 3*
44	September 3	September 3
43	September 3	September 3
42	September 3	September 2*
41*	September 2	September 2
40	September 2	September 2
39	September 2	September 1*
38	September 2	September 1
37*	September 1	September 1
36	September 1	August 31*
35	September 1	August 31
34	September 1	August 31
33*	August 31	August 30*
32	August 31	August 30
31	August 31	August 30
30	August 31	August 29*
29*	August 30	August 29
28	August 30	August 29
27	August 30	August 28*
26	August 30	August 28
25*	August 29	August 28
24	August 29	August 27*

Dr Bennett argues that it is proved that there must have been 17 leap days between 24BC and AD45, the next year for which we have an ephemeris. He then goes on to argue that the 17 days are made up of 6 triennial intercalations and 11 regular intercalations. But there is a much simpler solution - a straightforward 17 regular intercalations. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If this were the only item of evidence we had I would agree with you. But it isn't -- as you well know if you have read my webpages. The existence of the triennial cycle is not just an accepted fact it is a proven fact. In addition to the consistent statements in the literary sources that there was a triennial cycle, we have inscriptions from Asia Minor dated to 9 or 8 BC which explicitly state that Roman intercalation occurred every three years. We have a later double-dated papyrus from Egypt which shows that the Roman calendar really was misaligned to the Julian calendar even in Egypt some time between 8 and 2 BC. And that's only the start.

The theory of "a straightforward 17 regular intercalations" has to resort to all sorts of ad hoc explanations for this other data. But all of it is a natural consequence of the triennial cycle if it is given a different phase and alignment from Scaliger's reconstruction (the one you use in your table as if it were the only possibility).

As far as WP is concerned, however, it is not particularly relevant which explanation of this evidence is right. Both are published in a highly reputable journal (ZPE), and it's a bit too soon for a scholarly consensus to emerge. The subject of this section of the article is the triennial cycle. The essential points being made are (a) that Scaliger's reconstruction is still the standard one and (b) that other solutions have been proposed over the years for various reasons. You can't make point (b) without listing the other solutions. This is just one of them. That's all that matters here. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On 29 November, 2006 Dr Bennett inserted the following text into Julian calendar:

"This information must be used with care, because the Roman calendar used in Egypt was not necessarily the same as the one used in Rome where Augustus was ruling the Empire."

What new evidence has become available since then to make him change his view? 62.140.210.158 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. That text was inserted by User:Verdy p on 28 November 2006. I deleted it on 29 November 2006 for the reason I gave in the edit summary line: it was baseless. There is no evidence that "the Roman calendar used in Egypt was not necessarily the same as the one used in Rome." It is only Jones' speculation. Please try to read what's written. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Alexandrian reform was almost certainly introduced in year 5 according to Dr Bennett's website. The epoch appears to be 30BC, but my table shows that if the Alexandrian calendar was introduced any time between 30 August 26BC and 29 August 22BC there is no need to postulate a triennial cycle. The section "A.U.C. 728 = 26 BC" appears to say that Roman dates were used to describe regnal years in Egypt. There is no proof of this proposition, which is counter - intuitive. There is absolutely nothing to require (as opposed to speculate) that the Egyptians ever found it either necessary or desirable to operate the Alexandrian calendar with a triennial cycle. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I propose a minor modification to Skeat's reconstruction of the regnal years of Augustus to take the Roman year into account. It fits the data, such as we have, but indeed it may or may not be correct. But what does this have to do with the reason I pointed you at this page -- the paleographic alternatives of 5 6 or 7 Mesore which various papyrologists have suggested for the date of pOxy XII 1453??

I also agree that there is no need to postulate a triennial cycle for the Alexandrian calendar and I never suggest otherwise. Others (Ideler, Snyder) have done so, but I think there is good reason to believe they are wrong. However, the point is irrelevant. We're discussing the Roman calendar here, not the Alexandrian one, and the Roman calendar unquestionably did operate a triennial cycle at this time. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On Celsus, Dr Bennett is, as Gerry Ashton would put it, "conflating" two different concepts. On the one hand you have Celsus talking about February (and he does talk about February because he mentions a.d. VI Kal. Mart.). He explains the concept of the biduum, and everyone, including the Greeks and medieval lawyers, understands this to mean 28 calendar days but 29 natural days. Nobody (apart from Dr Bennett himself) says that when Celsus speaks of the mensis intercalaris having 28 days he is referring to February. Challenged on the point, Dr Bennett has said that it is impossible for the phrase mensis intercalaris to refer to February. He is not averse to putting lies into his argument - nowhere does Celsus say that the mensis intercalaris has 28 days without exception, as he claims. Dr Bennett criticises Encyclopedia Britannica for reprinting 19th century material. Well, Mommsen was 19th century, so I suppose Dr Bennett actually believes that Mommsen is wrong. Let's turn to the twentieth century. Has Dr Bennett read The history and practice of ancient astronomy by James Evans, published by Oxford University Press in 1998? 62.140.210.158 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but thanks for the reference. Large sections of it happen to be available online through Google Books. It looks like a worthwhile survey of ancient astronomy. However, according to Google, the word "Celsus" does not appear anywhere in it, and its very brief discussion of republican intercalation on p. 165 relies entirely on Samuel's book on Greek and Roman chronology (p. 457 n. 6). So how exactly is it relevant to Celsus and why exactly is it an authoritative source on the matter?? --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of misbehaviour, the examples I quoted are just the tip of the iceberg. How about this: [5] or this: [6] or this: [7] or this: [8] or this: [9] or this: [10] or this: [11] or this: [12] or this: Talk:Descent from antiquity#Crappy Article Protected from Any Improvement by Chris Bennett or this (perish the thought): Talk:Mercedonius#Resolution of Length of Mercedonius Issue. (Scroll up slightly from the start of this thread to see what I mean). 62.140.210.158 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I can be short-tempered. You have to admit that the provocation was pretty real in each case. And in your case (the majority of these examples) I have no problem arguing that despite being short-tempered I also bent over backwards to give you every opportunity to make a case, if you could. You just refused to debate -- so what did you expect? --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't short - tempered, it's psychopathic. Dr Bennett has been terrorising the contributors ever since he joined the community. He is also a congenital liar. He - not I - was the one who refused to join in discussion. I pointed out way back in 2008 that his theory of the significations was untenable. When you refer to a dictionary, the only connection between successive entries is alphabetical. In the significations there is an item about ownership of the foreshore followed (or preceded) by an item about joint tenancies. I pointed out that there could be no connection - how could there be a case about two people arguing over ownership of land subject to tidal flooding? You wouldn't get one person to buy it, let alone two. And most likely the position is similar to that which applies in England - the foreshore is owned by the Crown. There was no response, apart from a request for page protection.

Dr Bennett knows very little about this subject. His ignorance is displayed here: [13]. Joe Kress gets it right, but Dr Bennett reverts Joe! [14]. It took Joe three days to sort out the mess.

When the Julian calendar was introduced my table shows that, certainly from March 45BC, there was a relationship established so that 1 Thoth = September 3. The Egyptian astronomers would have expected that to remain for four years, so when 1 Thoth began falling on September 2 they would have been quickly on the 'phone to Augustus (or whoever was in charge at the time) pointing this out. Why nothing was then done depends on how frightened the Romans were of their new 1 January coinciding with a market day. With a triennial cycle things can be so arranged that 1 January is never a market day.

Eventually, it seems that when the difference reached three days Augustus panicked and realised that this could not go on, superstitions notwithstanding. Meantime, he had managed to suppress the wandering year (for some purposes, at least). Now can you believe that the Egyptians would have allowed their new Alexandrian calendar to be mismanaged by a bunch of incompetent, superstitious Romans? Of course not. It would have had the correct quadrennial cycle from the start.

Dio Cassius records how the Romans fiddled with the calendar, capriciously adding days and taking them away later. The Egyptians would have had none of that. They would have maintained an orderly relationship with their wandering year, and later a perpetual correlation with the Alexandrian year, adjusting when the Romans should have intercalated, not when they actually did. That this is the correct reconstruction is demonstrated by what happened when the Alexandrian year was brought in. It was so arranged that the sixth epagomenal day was as near as possible to the leap day that would have been inserted if the Romans were operating the leap year cycle correctly.

So the only viable solution is that right from the start the Egyptians were the guardians of the correct Julian calendar and were just waiting for Augustus to stop playing the fool and adjust his Roman date to coincide with theirs. Thus it is not surprising that pOxy. 61.4175 confirms this - the surprise would have been if it had not confirmed it. Dr Bennett demonstrates his very limited knowledge of near Eastern chronology - Professor Jones puts the relevant astronomical data into his paper, and all Dr Bennett can say is that Professor Jones is "speculating" that the data is correct.

On Celsus, let's face it - everyone (except for Dr Bennett, that is) relies on Varro. Varro is the source of both Censorinus' and Macrobius' texts. Varro says that the last five days of February were removed, Dr Bennett that the 24th wasn't. Varro says that the mensis intercalaris immediately followed February 23, Dr Bennett that it was delayed by one day. So why it it that what is good enough for everybody else is not good enough for Dr Bennett?

Dr Bennett still claims that "it is generally held by modern scholars that Februarius was truncated to 23 or 24 days, to be followed by an intercalary month of 27 days." He has mentioned certain names - Brind'amour, Lintott, Agnes Michels, Rupke and Warrior. Are any of these people still alive? 62.140.210.158 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect edit

This edit is incorrect.

It claims "The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a national calendar, but thirteen days have generally been excised to make the date the same as in other countries." Every reliable source I have ever seen indicates that the Gregorian calendar is the standard international calendar, although some nations retain traditional calendars for internal use. I have never seen any mention of a national goverment maintaining the use of the Julian calendar.

The edit goes on to say "The sixteenth - century leap - year rules have not been adopted - national churches have formulated different rules." This is a flat statement that the sixteenth-century leap-year rules have not been adopted. The second half of the statement mentions national churches, but it is not clear that the national churches have anything to do with the first half of the sentence. Furthermore, some Christian national churches have adopted the Gregorian calendar, for example, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. Finally, "church" is not restricted to "Christian church". Jc3s5h (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article claims that Orthodox churches adopted the Gregorian calendar in the twentieth century. Whoever wrote that does not understand the Orthodox position. Anything that emanates from the papacy is anathema to Orthodox. As far as Orthodox are concerned the Julian calendar is perfect for the regulation of their temporal religious life. However, the exigencies of the situation were such that a "New calendar" was introduced for civil purposes and, in certain areas, religious purposes as well.

Naturally, before introducing this "New calendar" enquiries were made as to the astronomical and mathematical assumptions behind it. The results were disconcerting. The papal astronomers had a number of tables before them, using different values for the length of the mean tropical year. The one that attracted them was 365 d 05h 49m 12s, this converting exactly to 365 97/400 days. What they didn't realise, however, was that this value was a translation of a Babylonian sexagesimal value - 365 days, 14 degrees and 33 minutes. So what appeared to them to be a value accurate to within a second was in fact 26 seconds too long.

This error caused immense problems to Orthodox. First, the New calendar must necessarily synchronise with the Julian calendar at the time of the Council of Nicaea in AD325. The 400 - year cycle didn't achieve this. So a 900 - year cycle was adopted with an error of only two seconds. The Orthodox do not run parallel versions of the New calendar - why should they? It is exactly the same whether used for civil or liturgical purposes.

Of course, there were other models which could have been used. The 33 - year adjustable cycle of eight leap years, used in Iran, has a "jitter" comparable with observation - one day. Ingenious members of the CALNDR - L discussion group have pointed out how easy it is to find the position of a year in this cycle. For 2010, for example, you add the 10 to the 20 giving 30, which tells you that it is year 30 in the cycle. However, such a cycle would not harmonise with the one used in neighbouring countries and the 900 - year cycle was preferred. This eliminates the continual backsliding of the equinox in the Gregorian calendar - by 2896 it will have retreated to March 19.

For the 400 - year cycle to be legal it must be specified. It is certainly legal in England, Scotland and the remaining colonies because it is specified in the Calendar (New Style) Act, 1751 which introduced the Gregorian calendar. Is it legal in the United States? That probably depends on whether there was a repeal of existing legislation when the treaty which brought the War of Independence to an end was signed.

Now, to avoid confusion in the future it is obviously desirable that countries using the 400 - year cycle change to the superior 900 - year cycle and that all the countries using the 900 - year cycle synchronise their leap years. A 900 - year cycle requires two centennial leap years to occur before it becomes locked - in the Gregorian calendar this condition was fulfilled in 2000. For the Gregorian calendar, therefore, the leap year rule may be stated as follows:

Every year which is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, with the exception of years which are exactly divisible by 100 - these are only leap years if they give remainder 200 or 700 on division by 900.

In comparison, the 900 - year cycle of Orthodox countries has not become locked - there has been just one centennial leap year (2000) since the cycle was introduced. It would be sensible, therefore, for Orthodox countries to synchronise their leap year cycle with the Gregorian 900 - year leap year cycle. I note that a contributor has suggested (in Talk: Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars # General rule) that a standard SI calendar year should be specified (as has happened with the SI second).

There is one other consideration. When a calendar is projected back proleptically it is desirable that the leap year rule for the BC portion is identical to the leap year rule for the AD portion. This condition is fulfilled in the rule for the Gregorian 900 -year cycle set out above.

Orthodox have no interest in the lunar portion of the papal calendar, in which months can have 28, 31 or 58 days and even no days at all. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The preceding comment by '77 begins "This article claims that Orthodox churches adopted the Gregorian calendar in the twentieth century." The article says no such thing. It says "The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582." with the footnote "For countries which appeared to adopt the Gregorian calendar after 1922, research would be required to determine if they actually adopted the Revised Julian calendar which agrees with the civil aspects of the Gregorian calendar until 2800. See Miriam Nancy Shields, "The new calendar of the Eastern churches", Popular Astronomy 32 (1924) 407-411 (page 411). This is a translation of M. Milankovitch, "The end of the Julian calendar and the new calendar of the Eastern churches", Astronomische Nachrichten No. 5279 (1924)." (emphasis added). It is ridiculous to claim that the USSR adopted the New Calendar or Revised Julian Calendar, or whatever name you prefer, because (1) the USSR was a secular nation, (2) the Russian Orthodox Church, as far as I know, still uses the Julian calendar, and (3) The New Calendar did not exist in 1918. Are you unable to understand the concept of a civil calendar, or a country that can make decisions independently of the largest religion that happens to exist in the country? Are you also unaware that people who are members of the various Orthodox churches live all over the world, and those who live in countries that use the Gregorian calendar still use whatever calendar their church chooses to calculate when religious holy days will be observed?

Since the passage begins with such a flagrant error, I won't bother responding to the rest of it. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch there, Gerry. I was going to file an edit when I broke off to deal with Chris. The text I had ready to save was

The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but thirteen days have been excised to make the date the same as in other countries. This is described as the "New calendar". Research will be needed to establish which leap year model has been adopted (if any), but the civil calendar is identical with the New calendar of fixed holy days in Orthodox countries. All Orthodox churches (with the exception of Estonia and Finland) still use the Julian calendar for calculating the dates of movable feasts. Some Orthodox churches do not use the New calendar at all. The Julian calendar is still used by the Berber etc.

62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

When does Julian proleptic = Roman?

I edited the article to say that the Julian proleptic calendar is the same as the Roman calendar after AD 8 at the latest. This is based on the following from Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris (hereafter ESE) page 411:

The year 45 B.C. was a Julian intercalary or leap year; but because of misunderstandings and confusion during the period following the adoption of the revised calendar, the intercalations were incorrectly made until the error was rectified by Augustus, who omitted further intercalations until A.D. 8. The adjustments actually made before the Augustan reform cannot be determined with certainty, and are ignored in the following sub-sections, but after A.D. 8 the Julian calendar was used without further change until the Gregorian reform in 1582.

I think those of our readers who are not inclined to wade through the complications are entitled to a definite statement about when the Julian proleptic and Roman calendars are surely the same.

I find the wording in the ESE frustrating. Was the intercalation that the Julian proleptic calendar calls for in AD 8 omitted? Are we sure the calendars agree beginning March 1, 4, or are we unsure until March 1, 8? I tried to use "safe" wording, but perhaps someone can improve it. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't omitted. Everyone agrees that the Roman and Julian calendars match starting in AD 4 (ad V Kal Mart), what is less clear is whether they also agreed for the previous four years as well. I took out the previous wording which was too definitive and, I thought, not necessary, but I have no problem with your suggestion. It is certainly reasonable to regard the Augustan reform to have been completed with the first bissextile day after the period of suspension, even if actual alignment was achieved four years earlier. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find an unimpeachable source that says, in so many words, the observed and proleptic calendar agree beginning 1 March 4, that would be great. It would be even better if it were online, because there are some vandals who like to go around changing numbers at random. Some editors follow these vandals around, cleaning up the mess. These cleaners don't always know much of anything about the subject that was vandalized, so an online reference to the true number, explained in the simplest possible terms, is ideal.

My reason for saying 1 March rather than 25 February is that some might feel that in the proleptic calendar, it is 29 February that is intercalated. I'm looking for a bullet-proof statement that no one would disagree with. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing. The trouble is, the ancient literary sources are open to interpretation. Until there is unimpeachable contemporary evidence, it will not be possible to settle this with a "bullet-proof" statement. As to what that might be, I can only imagine that it will be a double-dated inscription or papyrus. So far the best I have found is what really looks to me like a double date in AD 6, but there are epigraphers who are squabbling about whether it is one or not, and even if it is one the best it proves is that the Julian and Roman calendars were correctly aligned in AD 6, it doesn't settle whether alignment first occurred in AD 4 or earlier. I think what you've got is as good as you are going to get for now. --Chris Bennett (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Celsus and the Triennial cycles: A Proposal

Enjoyable as this long argument isn't, we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia entry here, not engaging in an endurance match. So, Mr Anonymous multi-IP Public Library Terminal User, here is a proposal for you on each of the items under dispute:

Celsus

The text you wish to add to this article reads:

It is impossible to be dogmatic about the length of the mensis intercalaris. Celsus says that it can have 28 days, while Varro says that in intercalary years the last five days of February (including the 24th) were "removed".

Now, this is an article about the Julian calendar, not the pre-Julian one. So, in this article, the only reason to go into the structure of the pre-Julian intercalary month at all is to explain how Julian intercalation replaced it. For that purpose it is only necessary to give the current standard reconstruction, not to lay out alternative models.

The article where it is appropriate to go into finer detail on alternative models is Mercedonius. The relevant text in that article currently reads:

It is generally held by modern scholars[1] that Februarius was truncated to 23 or 24 days, to be followed by an intercalary month of 27 days. Earlier scholars such as Ideler held the view that in intercalary years February's length was fixed at 23 days and it was followed by a variable length mensis intercalaris with 27 or 28 days.

In my opinion this accurately represents the state of the art (but then I am biased: I wrote it in an attempt to satisfy your concerns two years ago). It also fairly indicates there have been alternate views, including the possibility that the intercalary month might have had 28 days, which is what you want to see (as far as I can tell).

What it doesn't do is to go into any detail on the reasoning. IMO it isn't necessary to do so. All that is needed is a pointer to more information outside of WP. However, I would have no objection if such detail was added. The subject is clearly very important to you, and, frankly, it isn't so important to me, so why don't you add it.

Specifically, I propose that you draft a few paragraphs for Mercedonius, to be inserted following this text, which lays out the evidence in detail and develops the various interpretations which has been made of that evidence. So long as you do it in a neutral and objective fashion, representing not your own views but the opinions of various scholars, including modern scholars, notably Michels, and so long as you give their reasoning in each case -- both pro and con -- that would be a valid addition to the article.

For example, on Celsus, by all means say that some (who?) claim that he is talking about a republican intercalary month of 28 days -- so long as you also point out that others (e.g. Ideler) think the text is corrupt, while others (e.g. Mommsen) argue that the compilers of Justinian's Law Code understood him to be talking about February. If you can find a modern scholar who actually relies on this text for reconstructing the republican calendar, by all means cite him or her; I don't know of any.

But don't limit yourself to Celsus or even Celsus and Varro. You should go through all the sources -- particularly Livy and the Fasti Antiates Maiores. FWIW they are conveniently assembled in Michels' book.

The other point that needs to be resolved here is your repeated claim that Michels' model is not the standard model in modern scholarship. If so, that should be very easy to prove. Just list some of the classical scholars who argue against her, preferably with citations, summarize their reasons for doing so, and show that those scholars are followed by other scholars and by secondary sources. If you can't do that -- and I don't believe you can, but, hey, I could be wrong -- then why not just drop the point?

The triennial cycle

Here I think we should be able to reach a resolution pretty easily since you are no longer trying to insert text stating that my justification for proposing another solution is something that is not what it actually is.

You are currently proposing:

One suggested resolution of this problem is that they are according to the correct Julian calendar, which was introduced in Rome at the latest in early February, AD4. Another is a a fifth triennial sequence: 44, 41, 38, 35, 32, 29, 26, 23, 20, 17, 14, 11, 8 BC, AD 4, 8, 12 etc, very close to that proposed by Matzat.

The only problem I have with this is that it doesn't belong in the body of the text, which is only about which years were intercalary on the triennial cycle. However, it would not be unreasonable to add this to the footnote which cites Jones' article. E.g.:

A R Jones, "Calendrica II: Date Equations from the Reign of Augustus", ZPE 129 (2000) 159-166, available at [15]. Jones suggests that they are according to the correct Julian calendar, and that the correct calendar may have operated in Egypt even while it was in error in Rome.

Do these seem constructive suggestions to you? --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Only problem with this is that you are making two unverified assumptions: (1) that a triennial cycle was in use in Egypt and (2) if there was such a cycle, that is evidence that an identical cycle was in use in Rome. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re (1) -- what do you think the words "suggested resolution" means? Re (2) -- Are you seriously proposing that there is no evidence for a triennial cycle in Rome? That Pliny, Suetonius, Solinus, Censorinus and Macrobius don't count? Or that the triennial cycle in Rome was different from, say, the triennial cycle whose existence is explicitly documented in inscriptions from Asia Minor?

Anyway, you are evidently not interested in trying to resolve this dispute. I tried. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by blocked users and block evasion are unacceptable. I object to any interaction with the blocked user. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that he could be blocked. Permanently.

As for non-interaction, you know as well as I do that if he is not opposed he will claim victory and the right to insert whatever he wants. So I thought it was worth a shot. But in view of the astonishing farrago of lies, slander, obfuscation, ignorance and misinformation presented above, my patience with this crank -- however testy it may be -- is finally exhausted.

I am not going to bother with the Wiki admin process. Been there, done that in 2008, too much like hard work for an ineffective result. WP has no real defence against monomaniacs. If you or anyone else wishes to push it, be my guest. You have more than ample evidence from 2008 and above to make the case, but the result is ultimately unenforceable. For me, the only option is revert on sight. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the triennial cycle used in Asia Minor was different from the one in use in Rome. It's a question of evidence. Dio Cassius talks about the cycle being modified for superstitious reasons because of a clash between dates on which certain ceremonies were carried out and nundines. Did they have nundines in Asia Minor? Did they have nundines in Egypt? If Dr Bennett is seriously interested in ringing down the curtain on this discussion why doesn't he reply to my last post under "correct observance"? It takes two to tango. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And you sir are a Morris dancer. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New calendar (Eastern churches)

Regarding Chris Bennett's denigration of the Encyclopedia Britannica, ("Correct observance", above) the following email may be of interest: [16].

Don't take any notice of Cassidy's diatribe - "once bitten, twice shy" - they got into trouble for printing Sacrobosco's October story, so they were unlikely to make the same mistake repeating Agnes Michels' mensis intercalaris story.

Newcomb's value for the mean interval between vernal equinoxes is spot on. A mean interval corrects for all periodic disturbances. A calendar which tracks the observed vernal equinox is a non - starter, because it creates unacceptable jitter in the other cardinal points - the summer solstice, autumnal equinox and winter solstice. As Kepler said, "Easter is a feast, not a planet." According to Cassidy, the new calendar of the Eastern churches is less accurate than the Gregorian. It is in fact more than thirteen times more accurate.

Incidentally, there is (until the end of this month) a ballot running on changing the name of the relevant article. Please familiarise yourself with the arguments and vote on Talk:Revised Julian calendar. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)