“Why isn’t the new year on winter solstice?”

The answer, honestly, is that the Romans had no fucking idea how to run a calendar.

Like, seriously, people notice "OCTOber" and "DECEMber" and say, "hey, those mean 'eight' and 'ten', but they're the 10th and 12th months, what's up with that?".

If you've got a little more history, you'll know that July and August are named after Julius and Augustus Caesar, and think, "oh, they added those two months and bumped the rest of the months back."

Nope. The Romans were way, way worse at calendars than that.

Show thread

July and August were actually originally Quintilis and Sextilis - the fifth month and the sixth month. They were called this because the year traditionally started in March. So they had Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, December.

Martius was named for Mars; Junius was named for Juno. We have no idea what Aprilis and Maius were named after. (No, really.) Then they got lazy and just numbered the months.

Show thread

"But wait," you ask, "what about January and February?" Hold onto your butts, because calling the months by their numbers? Not even close to the laziest the Roman calendar got.

Between the end of December and the beginning of Martius were 50-odd intercalary days. They didn't HAVE months associated with them. They were just sort of there.

I swear I am not making this up.

Show thread

In addition, each month had either 30 or 31 days. I was going to say "alternated between" but I looked it up and nope, the Romans decided that was too easy, so it actually went:

Martius 31
Aprilis 30
Maius 31
Junius 30
Quintilis 31
Sextilis 30
September 30
October 31
November 30
December 30
intercalary 51

Okay. This is where we are at the beginning of the Roman Republic.

Look at that. Remember it. You will look back on this and say "actually, that makes sense" after what comes next.

Show thread

At the beginning of the Roman Republic, the Senate decided to fix the calendar. This was for two reasons:

1) The Romans thought the Greeks kicked ass, and wanted to emulate their calendar.

2) Count those days. You will notice that they add up to 355, which means that each year is actually ten (and change) days /shorter/ than an actual solar year - which meant that by the time of the Republic, March was somewhere in the autumn.

Show thread

So the Senate decided to do some reforming. They added two brand-new months to the calendar, Januarius and Februarius. Januarius was named after Janus, because his holiday fell about a week into the new month. (Janus was the god of doorways. We'll come back to him.) February was named after the Februa, a feast that fell in the middle of the new month and that had, in fact, long since been replaced by Lupercalia, an identical feast on the same date with a different name For Reasons.

Show thread

The Senate also added an intercalary month, Mercedonius, the Month of Wages.

Yes, an intercalary month. I want to make sure that's clear.

They also changed the lengths of the months to better fit the Greek system. The Greeks had largely lunar months, so they alternated between 29-day and 30-day months. Once again, the Romans said, "you know, we like this, but it's too easy".

Look, the next post is going to go into "what the hell was WRONG with them?" territory, just warning you.

Show thread

This is the calendar the Roman Senate ended up with:

Januarius 29
Februarius 23
Mercedonius 23
Martius 31
Aprilis 29
Maius 31
Junius 29
Quintilis 31
Sextilis 29
September 29
October 31
November 29
December 29

See what I meant about Mercedonius being an intercalary month? It's literally in the middle of February. Like, they got 3/4 of the way through February, got bored, and decided to do something else for a month and come back later.

Show thread

Also, the Romans had caught on to leap years by this point, so every fourth year, Februarius had an extra day on the end, bringing its total to 29.

I want to be clear, though, that while they'd caught on to leap days, they STILL had not caught on to the length of the damn year. Count those days again: it's 378. By the time of poor Gaius Julius Caesar in 46 BC, the calendar was so fucked up that he needed THREE intercalary months to right it again.

Show thread

The Julian reform - which was ordered by our friend G.Jiddy but not, as far as we know, actually created by him - did three important things.

First, it added those three intercalary months to put the year back where it was supposed to be (March had slid around to the dead of winter).

Second, it got rid of Mercedonius, putting the year back at 355 days.

Third, it scattered ten new days throughout the year, which gave us the calendar we know today.

Show thread

Julius's reforms still weren't /quite/ right - the length of a year is just a fraction shorter than 365.25 years, which forced the Gregorian reform of 1582 (and hey, I remembered that year right on the first try). But it was good enough for government work, as they say.

Show thread

Oh, also, as (*scrolls back four million pages*) @troubleMoney mentioned, the priesthood - who until not long before Julius controlled the /release/ of the calendar, meaning that people paid attention to them to know when the months started - would extend or contract years to keep politicians (who were on yearly terms) they liked in power or force politicians they didn't like out early.

Show thread

So remember how we were talking about why the year doesn't start on the winter solstice? A couple reasons. First, it /never/ did (in the Roman tradition, anyway). It originally started in March, which contained the spring equinox but didn't /start/ on it.

The start of the year was moved back to January for political reasons. Remember Janus, the god of doorways? It was considered auspicious for consuls to change out near his festival. His festival was nearest the calends of January.

Show thread

So consuls wanted to start on the kalends (I know I spelled it calends in the last toot, hush) of Januarius so they could start their term with an offering to the god of doorways, who would then grant an auspicious transition between consuls.

So why didn't the kalends of Januarius get moved back to the winter solstice? Because of Yule.

Not because the Romans celebrated Yule - it was a pagan holiday. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia.

Show thread

Saturnalia was originally on the 18th of December (or, as the Romans would have measured it, the 13th/12th/14th day before the kalends of Januarius), but it expanded, becoming a week-long event. This was partly because, well, people liked a party at the end of the calendar year (not to be confused with the end of the actual year pre-Republic) and partly because it was, consciously or not, taking over Yule.

Show thread

Moving the kalends of Januarius back to the winter solstice would have necessarily moved Saturnalia /away/ from the winter solstice - and the people who'd been celebrating Yule and were now celebrating Saturnalia didn't want that. So Saturnalia stayed where it was, and Januarius stayed where it was. And that's why the new year doesn't start on the winter solstice.

Show thread

@noelle I'm amused by your use of "pagan" to mean "non-Roman religion." Talk about shifting goalposts!

@DialMforMara That's what it meant! To the Romans, "paganus" was someone who lived in the country and practiced a non-Roman religion. :)

@noelle so did the meaning change when Rome adopted Christianity, to become "anyone who isn't Christian"?

I've also seen it used in a couple weird places to refer to ancient non-Jews, but those might have been books for a Christian audience.

@DialMforMara I have to assume so, yeah. The Romans used "paganus" the way the Greeks used "βάρβαρος", to indicate someone who wasn't Part Of The Culture, so it makes sense that Christian Romans would have started using it to mean "non-Christians".

religion, careless language use 

@noelle Pagans and barbarians, right. They don't worship like us, and they don't talk like us.

Now I'm not sure who's in and who's out.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not pagans.
Wiccans, Norse revivalists, and adherents of Native American faiths probably are.
What about Asian faiths? Are Shinto and Buddhism too hippie for a Eurocentric in-group?

religion, careless language use 

@DialMforMara I was using the term in a particular sense to convey a particular meaning. I feel like you're trying to assign a value judgment to the term, but in a discussion of pre-Christian Rome the word "pagan" literally just means "someone who doesn't practice the Roman religion or follow city customs". The Romans would have thought of a practitioner of every one of the religions you mentioned as "pagani".

religion, careless language use 

@noelle I'm saying the meaning has changed again, and yes, become a value judgement, though not one I agree with. So I'm trying to figure out...actually I'm not sure what I'm trying to figure out.

religion, careless language use 

@DialMforMara Now I'm glad I didn't use "heathen". ;) (Although that wouldn't have been accurate, since it's an English invention and has nothing to do with Rome.)

Anyway, I apologize for the confusion. I was using the term in its classical and academic sense - the way the Republican Romans would have used it - and not in the sense a Christian would.

religion, careless language use 

@noelle or the way a contemporary self-declared pagan would. Case in point: wandering.shop/web/statuses/99

religion, careless language use 

@DialMforMara actually, that's quite a bit closer to the definition I had in mind - someone who follows the old rural European (predominantly Celtic) belief system, or what survives of it.

religion, careless language use 

@DialMforMara @noelle in my bit of 21st Century England "pagan" and "wiccan" are used interchangeably to mean followers of Celtic/Germanic religions -(I don't know how "theologicially correct") that is. Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus Muslims etc are referred to with their faiths own modern names.

#Ipswich has a significant number of #Buddhists of White European ancestry (although this isn't uncommon across modern Northern Europe)_

@noelle @DialMforMara Do you know whether it's true that barbaros / barbarian comes from the idea that people who didn't speak Greek or Latin sounded (to those who did) as if they were just saying "bar bar" all the time?

@y6nH @DialMforMara Every source I've encountered confirms that it's onomatopoetic, yeah.

@noelle @DialMforMara It's funny, because my Latin teacher was called Barbara.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Wandering Shop

The Wandering Shop is a Mastodon instance initially geared for the science fiction and fantasy community but open to anyone. We want our 'local' timeline to have the feel of a coffee shop at a good convention: tables full of friendly conversation on a wide variety of topics. We welcome everyone who wants to participate, so long as you're willing to abide by our code of conduct.