Theodore Gaza's Book on the Months

THEODORE GAZA’S BOOK ON MONTHS

^A 1. It is indeed worthwhile to know the names of the months and to follow the Attic order in using them, although this is not easy to achieve. For among men of letters, both of ancient times and of our own, some have made no mention at all of their order and use; while others have handed down some sort of order, and in believing that they were stating the sequence, they are clearly shown to be straying far from the truth. Moreover, those who attempt to interpret which of the months is Hecatombaeon, or which is Posideon, and how each of the others aligns with the names of the months as the Romans calculate time, report nothing sound, nor do they even relate things consistent with one another; but one calls the month of March Hecatombaeon, another July; and in the same way they disagree with each other regarding the others, while at the same time every one of them fails to hit the truth.

^B And even Plethon, a man of note in our own time, considering it difficult to find the corresponding values for these, ceased to inquire; and in his commentaries on the institution of laws, while offering instructions about days, months, and the year, he does not name them as the Athenians did (even though he is eager to follow the Attic style in other matters of speech, and is highly diligent in this), but calls them simply as any common person might do by chance, the first, the second, and the others likewise, as each has its order relative to the first; just as if someone intending to name the fingers of the hand were not to call them the thumb, the index, the middle, and so on, but rather, out of a dearth of the names established for each, should call them first, second, and third.

^C Nor does it seem to have been less difficult for those who flourished long before. For Pollux, in the book *On the Vocabulary of Things* which he wrote for Caesar Commodus, says how the days of the month are to be numbered and named, even if not correctly, but he leaves the Attic months themselves unmentioned. Yet he ought to have enumerated and clarified them too, if he knew them—especially since he was teaching Commodus, a man of a different tongue, to speak in the Attic manner. It is, therefore, no easy task to render the Athenian months with Roman names and to find the proper order for them. Nevertheless, one must apply oneself to this inquiry and examine the statements of those who have mentioned any month in various treatises; and from many accounts, one must draw conclusions and set them apart, to the extent that it is possible to achieve precision even regarding such matters; so that by using the Greek names of the months, I…

^A should not mix in foreign ones, nor seem like a foreigner speaking in my native tongue, making the discourse discordant. For it is the part of a philosopher to consider even matters of this kind; seeing that it belongs to the same science both to use correctly the names that have been assigned, and to suffer nothing foreign to overflow into one's own native language: just as, of course, one should also establish names for things that lack them, and correct those that have been poorly named by the common people. For thus would each of the sciences, by achieving its own purpose better, contribute to the political community; especially those sciences that are concerned with discourse.

Months of the Athenians

^B II. That these are the names of the Attic months, twelve in number, is acknowledged by all. They are: ^B Munychion, Thargelion, Scirophorion, Hecatombæon, Metagitnion, Boedromion, Mæmacterion, Pyanepsion, Anthesterion, Posideon, Gamelion, Elaphebolion.

Concerning their order and sequence, there is both a difference of opinion and a controversy; and further, concerning how one ought to name them when translating into the Latin language. First, then, one must consider their order and sequence; next, their interpretation. For this order ^C seems to be, as it were, an element of interpretation; and perhaps many of the things that tend toward interpretation ought to be demonstrated by taking them from the properties of the order and construction. After these things, it must be said concerning their use; for the sake of which we chiefly choose to know the order. And in addition to these, if there is anything else appropriate to this consideration, it should be taken in, adopting a brief inclusion, so that the digression may not become greater than the work itself.

On the Order of the Months

III. Let, then, any month ^D that comes to mind be taken first for our discourse; and let it be, if you please, Posideon; and immediately after Posideon, Gamelion. Witnesses to this are Aristotle and Theophrastus, men of ancient memory and experienced in the Attic tongue. For it is not permitted here to speak without witnesses, as those before us have handed down positions—lying or lacking any authority—when treating of these matters; but one must, in each case, call upon authoritative witnesses, men worthy of belief, just as in a court of law. For whatever belief is held in these matters ought not to follow from such evidences and arguments, but rather from those things which famous and celebrated men have said. Of these, one says in his History of Animals: "The female tunny spawns once; but because she sheds some offspring early and others late, she seems to spawn twice. The first spawning is near Posideon, before the

^A winter solstice, and the second after the spring." Theophrastus, in his History of Plants, says that the beginning of the second sowing is after the winter solstice, in the month of Gamelion. The words of this author are as follows: "They are thus named, he says, not with a view to the sowing, but with a view to the genesis and use of each. For indeed the sowing happens in almost opposite times. For the beginning of the winter [sowing], which they call the first sowing, is after the summer solstice, in the month of Metageitnion (and they call this the first of the sowings); again, that of the second [is] after the winter solstice, in the month of Gamelion." If, then, it has been said by those famous men that it is about Posideon before the solstices, and about Gamelion after the solstices, it is necessary that Gamelion is after Posideon. That it also follows next is evident from the preceding remarks, and it is proper to understand it from the expression. For he who says "about Posideon before the solstices" and "Gamelion after the solstices," wishes either to signify that the solstices are about the month named, or at least about the one nearest to it. That Posideon is also a winter month is clear from what Aristotle sets forth in the same history concerning the fish called mullets. For having said before that the mullet spawns in winter, he afterwards names the month in which it spawns, saying that it is Posideon. Both of these he writes in the fifth [book] of his history in these words: "Some spawn both in winter and in summer; in winter the bass, the mullet, the needlefish; in summer, about the month of Hecatombaion, the tunny." And a little later: "The mullets begin to spawn, specifically the labeones in the month of Posideon, and the mucones, and the capitones; and they gestate for thirty days." He says this same thing again in the seventh book. ^B At the same time, it is manifest that Posideon is a solstitial month. For if it is about Posideon before the solstices, and Posideon is a winter month, it is clear that the solstices are about Posideon. For the solstices occur about the first month of the winter. And that expression, "about Posideon before the winter solstice," delimits the month in which it occurs; just as the formula of speech, by which anything is said to happen after the winter solstice, designates that it is about the same month in which the solstice has been concluded. Furthermore, the halcyon bird spawns about the winter solstice. ^C Wherefore, as often as the winter solstice is calm, those days are called Halcyon days, seven before the solstice and seven after the solstice; even as Aristotle also says. And the bird is called "Posideonis" by many, the name having been borrowed, it seems, from some witty and urban author, because it spawns in the month of Posideon; so that this too might be a sign that Posideon is a solstitial month, and the first of the winter months. For the present, therefore, let it be accepted from these things that Posideon is both a winter and a solstitial month; although it will be demonstrated more accurately hereafter. But it is not necessary to require this same precision in all things; but in each case according to the subject matter, and only so far as is proper to the method of teaching. ^D Gamelion is forthwith followed by Elaphebolion; for there is need of the last winter month; and this one is the

^A last. A sign of this is that Thucydides, in the fourth book of his Histories, says that the annual truce made between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, occurring in the eighth year of the war, was agreed upon on the fourteenth day of the month Elaphebolion; and that the same truce, when winter had ended, happened at the same time as the spring of the following summer. And, again, in the fifth book of the same histories, he says that a peace treaty was made when Alcaeus was archon in Athens, on the twenty-fourth day of the month Elaphebolion. He says that the same peace treaty happened when winter had ended, at the same time as the spring. Furthermore, Aristotle relates in his history of animals that the bear mates in the month of Elaphebolion, carries its young for thirty days, and gives birth during the time it lies hidden; but when it has reared its offspring, it comes out in the third month of spring. He records these things in the seventh book. Again, in the eighth, he says that ^B the bear gives birth about this time and remains hidden until it is time to bring the cubs out into the open; and that this occurs in the third month of spring from the solstices. So, whether one is to understand "birth" as being in the third month from the winter solstices, or "bringing them out" as being in the third month from the vernal equinox, in both ways it turns out that Elaphebolion is the last of the winter months and the third. For he says it gives birth during the time it is mostly hidden; and all land animals hide during the winter, as was said in the eighth book. Therefore, Elaphebolion is a winter month, in the course of which it conceives. But it is not the first, nor the second; it is the third; inasmuch as three months are assigned to each of the seasons.

Following Elaphebolion is Munychion; for Scirophorion is the fourth from Elaphebolion, but the third from Munychion. ^C Aristotle, in this same history of animals, counted them thus: "Most fish bring forth their young in three months: Munychion, Thargelion, and Scirophorion." Demosthenes, in his oration *On the False Embassy*, says: "The peace, then, was made on the sixteenth day of Elaphebolion; but we were away for three whole months to receive the oaths, and during all this time the Phocians were safe. And we returned from that embassy concerning the oaths on the thirteenth day of Scirophorion." And Aeschines, in his *Defense of the False Embassy*, after having said that the letter was written by Chares on the twenty-fourth day of the month Elaphebolion, added the following: "You hear that the decree was passed in the assembly on the third of Munychion; but how many days before I left did Cersobleptes lose Thrace? As Chares the commander says, and the letter, it was in the preceding month; for Elaphebolion is ^D surely prior to Munychion."

That the vernal equinox is about Munychion.

IV. Now, this very thing is also evident because it is necessary that there be a continuous month about which the vernal equinox occurs. And this is around Munychion. For Theophrastus, in the same place concerning sowing as mentioned above, just as he says that the beginning of the first and second sowings is from each of the solstices, so he also indicates that the third is after the vernal equinox: "The beginning of this one," he says, "which they call summery, is Munychion."

^A Since he sows the cucumber, the gourd, and the blitum. Nor does Aristotle say only that most fish spawn around the vernal equinox, ^B but also that there are many during three months: Munychion, Thargelion, and Scirophorion, as has been said. Therefore, the vernal equinox is around Munychion, and Elaphebolion is immediately followed by Munychion. That Thargelion exists immediately after Munychion, and then Scirophorion, is manifest not only from what we have just cited from Aristotle, but also from the things said by him concerning oxen and stags, recorded in those same books on animals. "The beginning of coitus," he says, "for oxen is in the month of Thargelion and for most in Scirophorion; though some indeed continue to conceive until autumn." He also says that stags shed their horns in the month of Thargelion, and this we see happening in the second month of the spring. The statement made in his *Metaphysics* also leads to the same point: that "the voyage took place from the equinox," and "the Thargelia festivals from the Dionysia," because they are after the Dionysia. For it is clear that the festival for Dionysus was held in the month of Munychion and around the vernal equinox. Theophrastus also testifies that Scirophorion is next after Thargelion, in those same books on plants, saying: "The pine, the fir, and the oak pause in their growth, and put forth three shoots: the first at the height of spring, immediately as Thargelion begins; the second, after an interval of about thirty days or a little more, is added as the month of Scirophorion is ending; and the third, after an interval of about fifteen days, is added for six or seven days of Hecatombaion." ^C A testimony [is found] in the plebiscite which Aeschines presents in his speech *Against Ctesiphon*. For he says it was decreed that on the penultimate day of the month of Thargelion, the assembly of the tribes should be held on the second or third day of the beginning of Scirophorion. That Hecatombaion follows after Scirophorion is declared both by Theophrastus in the aforementioned works, and in those things which he records concerning the cutting of the reed used for pipes. For he says that before Antigenides, when they still used simple music, the proper time for cutting was under Arcturus, in the month of Boedromion; but later, when they turned to artificial modes, the cutting was changed and began in Scirophorion and Hecatombaion, as if slightly before the solstice or at the solstice itself. Aristotle also establishes these three months continuously and in order, when he said: ^D "Among crustacea, the crayfish spawn after copulation and carry their eggs for about three months: Scirophorion, Hecatombaion, and Metageitnion." Moreover, this is certain and explored from many other things. For it is necessary to arrange the continuous month in which the summer solstice occurs as the fourth from Munychion, which was indeed the first of the spring months. For the summer solstice is around Hecatombaion, as Aristotle also clarifies, saying in the same works on animals: "Some spawn in winter and summer; the sea-bass and the mullet in winter, but in summer around Hecatombaion the tunny, around the summer solstices." And again: "Tunnies and mackerel pair," he says, "around the end of Elaphebolion; but they spawn around the start of Hecatombaion." For that which he earlier said about

the summer solstices, he later speaks of as beginning around Hecatombaion—as if the summer solstices occurred at the beginning of Hecatombaion. Consistent with these points is what Theophrastus said about the cutting of the reed for pipes: "They cut them, in fact, at this season, in the months of Scirophorion and Hecatombaion, a little before the solstice, that is, or at the solstice itself." And this also matches that which we cited earlier from the same author, namely that the first sowing takes place in the month of Metageitnion after the summer solstice; for Metageitnion is immediately after Hecatombaion.

That the Hecatombaion is the beginning of the year for the Athenians.

^BV. The Athenians, for their part, began their year from Hecatombaion, because the solstice occurred during that month. For from the summer solstices was the beginning of their year, just as for the Romans it was later from the winter solstices. That Hecatombaion is the beginning of the year, Demosthenes makes clear in the third of his Olynthiacs, saying: "After this, when this year has elapsed, Hecatombaion, Metageitnion, Boedromion; in this month, with difficulty, after the mysteries, you sent ten ships." He demonstrates the negligence of the Athenians, in that it was protracted even unto the third month of the incoming year. That the beginning is from the summer solstices, Simplicius, explaining the fifth book of Aristotle’s *Physics*, confirms concerning that which is naturally prior and posterior, by saying these words: "The beginnings we establish—of the year, indeed, either at the summer solstice, as the Athenians; or at the autumnal equinox, as those who inhabit what is now called Asia; or about the winter solstice, as the Romans; or about the vernal equinox, as the Arabs and Damascenes; and as to the month, as some say, at the full moon or the new moon—these will be by convention." Again, if the beginning of the year for the Athenians is, as Simplicius relates, from the summer transition of the sun, and in the summer the tunnies spawn around the same time, in the month of Hecatombaion, as Aristotle would have it: it follows, therefore, that Hecatombaion is the beginning of the year, being both summer and solstitial. But indeed, the Athenians at that time held public festivals and sacrificed magnificently to the Sun, as it was at the solstice; whence also the name for the month, Hecatombaion, which was called Cronius ^C earlier, as Plutarch says.

But Cecus, mocking Proclus, interprets the days of Hesiod ridiculously, assuming that there is a different month Chronius than Hecatombaion, and positing a third one from it, and—out of ignorance—not naming Thargelion and Metageitnion at all, while counting Lenæon (which he himself knew to be January) among the Athenian months, and setting it in the place near Hecatombaion. That Hecatombaion, therefore, is immediately after Scirophorion, and that the summer solstice happens around Hecatombaion, is clear from this. Furthermore, that Metageitnion comes next, and then Boedromion, is declared indeed by the words of Demosthenes just repeated.

^A For Theophrastus also attests to the aforementioned on the sowing, that Metageitnion is next to Hecatombaion. For he says that the beginning of the winter sowing is after the summer solstices, in the month of Metageitnion; and the summer solstice was around Hecatombaion. And further: there is the evidence of Aristotle concerning the pregnancy of locusts. For after Hecatombaion he counts Metageitnion subsequently. Boedromion, too, must be inferred to be after Metageitnion, and it is from what was said by Aristotle concerning the birth of the locusts. For he says the locusts hatch before Arcturus; and they carry their eggs in the womb for about three months: Scirophorion, Hecatombaion, Metageitnion. And Arcturus rises around Boedromion. For he reports that the hinds are mounted by Arcturus, around Boedromion. And Theophrastus says ^B that the seasonable time for the cutting of the reed is under Arcturus, in Boedromion. And Suidas, that writer of a lexicon, rightly said this much, saying that Metageitnion is the second month for the Athenians; and after Boedromion, next is Maimakterion. It is clear, for Aristotle in the same passage concerning hinds placed this next, saying: "The copulation occurs after Arcturus, around Boedromion and Maimakterion." And he shows that the weaker animals make their migration sooner at the changes of the seasons, saying that quails change their place in Boedromion, and cranes in Maimakterion: just as ^C indeed we see the cranes in the following month after the quails departing from cold places to sunny and warm ones. And at the same time it is clear also from the need to fix the month around which there is the autumn equinox; for it is the fourth after Hecatombaion, around which was the summer solstice. And it is Maimakterion in which the equinox happens. For the equinox is around Arcturus. And Arcturus is around Maimakterion. Of these positions, the authority is Theophrastus, who records the flowering of the ceronian siliqua around Arcturus and the equinox; and furthermore, Galen the physician, writing in his books on health-preserving diet as follows: ^D "The seed of the fir is most seasonable around the rising of Arcturus, which time they call 'September' at Rome." And the authority is Aristotle: "After Arcturus," he says, "around Boedromion and Maimakterion," as has been said. Or he would not mean the "near to" if he were writing in this way. This, however, is absurd, since nature incites animals toward the seasons for copulations and births; and either they use the whole season, or especially the middle of it, especially if it has already occupied the beginning. And a not small argument for this connection is that which is said about cattle: "Cows begin to copulate in the month of Thargelion and Scirophorion." Indeed, some carry on the time of copulating even until autumn. For by contracting the time of the majority to those two months, Thargelion and Scirophorion, he made a distinction from the time of some. In sum, where he interprets in that order, without cutting off or defining, he takes the sequence of time; this is clear as one reviews the individual points. But he also says of weasels that the sterias begin to be mounted in the month of Maimakterion, and twice in the month—

^A a series understands: the fact which is clear to one who follows the individual points. But he also says truly that the star-fish of the weasel kind enters into copulation in Maimacterion, and completes its birth twice in the month. Tarentine fishermen assert that this occurs from the autumnal equinox. Which is also agreeable to reason, since few of the fish bring forth in the autumn, as the same author Aristotle says, such as the salpa, the sargus, and other things of that genus, and the torpedo, and the flatfish, a little before the autumnal equinox. But if the star-fish brings forth in Maimacterion, it is agreeable that this month is not the second from the equinox, but certainly the first; and that it brings forth about the equinox, and the star-fish being one of the cartilaginous, and of the same kind as the turtle and the flatfish. ^B From these, therefore, the equinox is about Maimacterion, and Maimacterion is continuous with Boedromion. And Pyanepsion is immediately after Maimacterion, and let the words of Plutarch provide faith, saying in his Life of Theseus that the Athenians celebrate the festival of the Oschophoria in Pyanepsion, which Theseus established; and that they carry the branches because Theseus returned from Crete with the youths when the fruit was being gathered, on the eighth of Pyanepsion. For it is clear that it was the time of the vintage: which in Attica is by no means later than Arcturus than in the third month. The third for us is from Boedromion, ^C and from Arcturus is Pyanepsion. But indeed also Theophrastus in the same books on plants writes that the arbutus blooms in Pyanepsion. This is seen to happen about Attica, and in regions of similar temperament, in the second month from the autumnal equinox; and in the third, for it to shed its flowers, and then to have the growing arbutus fruit. He says also that in Egypt the plum tree blooms in Pyanepsion: but the Egyptians assert that this happens in the second month from the equinox. And otherwise it might seem to one doubting that Pyanepsion is immediately after Boedromion, of all the other months, if in that month the gathering of the autumn fruit was held, as Plutarch said. But it is not so, for it has been clearly demonstrated that Maimacterion is [the one]. Therefore Pyanepsion is continuous with Maimacterion. The last for us in this list is Anthesterion; ^D for it is necessary to assign to one that is left behind the remaining place. And let this proof for the time being suffice. At the same time, it is clear that about Posideon is the winter solstice, and this by a more exact calculation, which from the beginning we deferred to the latter part. For it is the seventh from Hecatombaeon and the summer solstice. Philostratus, however, held a far different opinion, saying that it was a custom for the Athenians that children three years old should be crowned with flowers in the month of Anthesterion. For he, as it appears, clearly enumerates this month among the spring months. If, therefore, Philostratus's contemporaries, I mean the Athenians, were using the months differently from their ancestors, their order being disturbed, to be sure he might be saying something true. Although it is not our concern to know what the Athenians were doing in Philostratus's time, but what [they did] in the time of Aristotle and Theophrastus. But what if he also fabricates this about the boys, as most other things, he being one of those called sophists? And he believes that month to be vernal, having derived the etymology of the name from the flowers.

^A

Order and series of the Attic months.

VI. The series of the Attic months is therefore to be set forth by us in this manner, for the reasons mentioned above: Hecatombaeon, Metageitnion, Boedromion, Maemacterion, Pyanepsion, Anthesterion, Posideon, Gamelion, Elaphebolion, Munychion, Thargelion, Scirophorion.

The cause of the ignorance concerning the months.

VII. Now, the cause of the ignorance regarding these matters, which in time past has blinded the minds of our ancestors, is this: that the Romans both corrected the year and held sway over the Greek race, just as they did over other nations. For through foreign dominion, having lost the purity and elegance of their speech, the Greeks, as is generally the case, passed over to the language of those who ruled them. Mixing Latin names, as they did in many other things, into their own specific nomenclature for the months, they turned these to their own usage; and having received Roman colonies, they even today call themselves Romans, not Hellenes, and use the Roman names for the months as if they were their own. ^C

Concerning the interpretation of the months.

VIII. But in order that we may interpret [them] according to the system of the Roman months, if we have taken a certain and indubitable principle—having rightly designated some one of the months according to the Attic custom, and the same [month] as the Romans have been accustomed to call it—it will certainly have been established not inappropriately how each one must be translated, and in what manner the names of the same ought to be used at any time of the year. For concerning the order of the Romans ^D no one is in doubt: that the first is January, then February, then March, and so on for the others in the order in which they are named. One must therefore be taken from the solstices. Let it be, if you like, Hecatombaeon. If, therefore, the solstice for the Athenians is in the month of Hecatombaeon, it is certain that whatever Roman month the same solstice occurs in, that month is Hecatombaeon among the Athenians. I speak, however, according to analogy, just as [with] a cuttlefish, and bone, and spine. For not only must months correspond to one another by proportion, but all other things also must simply be interpreted, if we hope that any fruit will come to us from the interpretation. Now, indeed, it is the case in the month of June that the summer solstice occurs, as is known to all. Therefore, June is Hecatombaeon. But to one who posits June as being Hecatombaeon, there is no work to translate each of the others. For the one always coming after of the Attic [months] according to the assumed

order will agree with the one always following of the Roman, and the same consonance will exist regarding the parts of the year. ^A But perhaps one might doubt: since the Athenians reckoned the times according to the course of the moon, while the Romans reckon according to the sun, by what reason could it happen that the months of each nation should so correspond with one another, such that the sum of days always makes a quarter, and nothing should depart from either side, and that Hecatombaeon is rightly translated as June, and Metageitnion as July, and so also for the others? For neither is the speed of the moon the same as that of the sun; nor do they stop and start together, so to speak, regarding the division of the Zodiac. It is necessary, therefore, that the months of the Athenians should be ambivalent. But if each, being ambivalent, partakes of both, it will lay hold of the earlier month, as the Romans observe, and of the later month. Why then should it be correctly named from the earlier one when translated, rather than from the later? In the same way as Galen did, writing regarding the seed of the fir: "Whatever time," he says, "in Rome is the month called September, among us in Pergamon is Hyperberetaeus, and at Athens, the Mysteries." For the Mysteries were in Boedromion. For around the twentieth day of Boedromion the mystical Iacchus was led forth, as Plutarch also records. ^B And the Roman Pliny, a writer of every kind of history, seems likewise to translate that passage of Aristotle regarding the birth of fish, in that the majority beget in three months, Munychion, Thargelion, and Scirophorion, to say that they beget in three, April, May, and June. Furthermore, there are three hundred and sixty-five days in the Roman year; for it is not necessary to be more subtle about this for the present. The Athenian year, however, according to the opinion of Aristotle, is three hundred and sixty days. "A part," he says, "of dogs carries the young for a fifth part of the year, that is, seventy-two days"; but according to Herodotus and others, three hundred and fifty-four. Since there are so many, then, if some months be full and of thirty days, and others be hollow ^C and lack one day in comparison with the others, alternating one by one, however the matter may stand, the following year will always anticipate, and gradually, by accumulation, the months will fall into opposite seasons, and wander from their fixed place and days. Likewise, if Ilium was captured while spring was passing away, on the eighth day before the end of the month of Thargelion, seventeen days before the summer solstice, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus says when recording the ancient history of the Romans, how then is Hecatombaeon the summer solstice month? For this argument shows that Scirophorion is the summer solstice month. Also inconsistent is that of Theophrastus, when he speaks of the peak of spring at the beginning of the month of Thargelion. For if Thargelion is the peak of spring, Hecatombaeon could by no means be the month of the solstice; and much less could Munychion be the spring and equinoctial [month]. That also of Plutarch seems to disagree, saying: "While fruits are gathered and the vintage is brought in, on the eighth day of the beginning of Pyanepsion." For by these words Pyanepsion ^D appears to contain within itself the autumn equinox rather than Maimakterion, insofar as it was the vintage harvest.

^A These knots of doubt must therefore be untied, so that this our commentary may be rightly conducted and our statements receive greater credence. Wherefore it is possible to learn, both from others and especially from Plutarch, a man most learned in every respect, that those most ancient men used the months without reason and without order, and divided the year itself in different ways; for some of the barbarians had a three-month year, and among the Greeks the Arcadians had a four-month year, and the Acarnanians a six-month year. But to the Egyptians the year was one month, then four months, as they say. Hence they also appear to be most ancient, numbering an immense multitude of years to themselves, inasmuch as they defined the year by a month. The Romans indeed previously observed a ten-month year, and some of their months had not even twenty days, others thirty-five, and some even more; and they considered only this, that their year should be of three hundred and sixty days, nor did they hold in any regard the inequality that exists between the sun and the moon. But later it is said that King Numa Pompilius added two months, and, calculating the difference of this inequality to be eleven days—inasmuch as the lunar year had three hundred and fifty-four days, while the solar had three hundred and sixty-five—having doubled these eleven days, he introduced the intercalary month, which was of twenty-two days, into February on alternate years: and it is likely that he did these things out of some imitation of the Greeks. For they say that it was Solon at Athens who first detected this vague and still uncertain inconstancy of the months; and he ordained that the day on which the moon overtakes and passes the sun, ^B that is, the old and new moon, or the last and first, that is, the interlunium, be called the *henē kai nea* (the "old and new"); and that the day following be called the *noumēnia* (new moon); and he numbered the month up to the thirtieth day; and, in general, he disposed the affairs of the year into a more harmonious order. And that the use of an intercalary month was anciently among the Greeks, Herodotus declares, saying: "The Greeks, for the sake of the seasons, insert an intercalary month every third year; but the Egyptians, counting the twelve months of the year as thirty days each, make an addition to that number and add five days every year, and by these the cycle of the seasons returns to the same point." Now if Numa ordered an intercalation of twenty-two days, and Herodotus recounts one of thirty days, this has nothing to do with the present discussion. But from these things it is given to be understood that the Athenians, using an intercalary month, supplied the defect of their year so that the system of the seasons might more easily harmonize with the course of the sun. ^{C D}

Concerning the year.

^A greater need arose every fourth year. Yet these were aids that, while they did not extend very far, were sufficient to restore the months to themselves and to keep them within roughly the same boundaries; and such a cure for the inequality, as Plutarch also says, was destined to require greater remedies in the past. Caesar, therefore, the first to govern the Romans as a monarch, having proposed the problem concerning this to the best of the mathematicians, combined a unique and more refined correction from the methods already available. The Egyptians seem to have been the first to use months according to the sun, twelve in number of thirty days each, and to append five days in each year, and having taken the fractional part of the day left over, they combined it into one whole day over the course of many years to complete the entire year. The Greeks, from them, received both many other heavenly theories and this one in particular, partly by having the commentaries translated into the Greek language, and partly by spending time with the priests there, who were preeminent in the science of heavenly bodies. They say, at least, that Plato and Eudoxus, traveling to Egypt, associated with the priests for thirteen years. For since they were mysterious and hard to share, it was necessary to supplicate them with time and services, so as to learn some of their theories. It is perhaps no worse to distinguish these things in this way; and the intercalary month, by appearing, solves ^B the difficulty. And if anything still varies over a longer period of time, it is likely that those of old, discerning it, also corrected this in some way, making the intercalary month sometimes longer and sometimes shorter. But one should not seek for the most exact precision, even one that does not err by even a little; since even now, although astrology has received such great advancement, nevertheless the irregularity of the motion escapes the theory, proving superior to the expertise of the mathematicians. Indeed, the intercalary month, added always every third year, makes the periods of the months agree with the seasons. But the state of affairs before the intercalation, and the confusion and displacement of the months in the year of the intercalation itself, require explanation as to how they might be interpreted sufficiently. For it is clear that the intercalary month will often have the months inconsistent with the seasons every other time or so. Wherefore also Theophrastus says, "At the very beginning of spring, that is, of Thargelion," as though it were the winter season of Munychion; and the intercalary month were the summer solstice, or one that brought the solstice around to the beginning of Hecatombaeon; that this, however, should not happen is not possible. For it is for this reason that the intercalary month is brought in, to make up the deficiency and to restore the solstices to Hecatombaeon. One must make the interpretation for those who reckon time in this way, using the currently present tropical month as the element, and the rest of the months according to the established order. For instance, since Theophrastus says, "At the arrival of spring, at the very beginning of Thargelion," this must be interpreted as March, and not April. Again, since Thucydides says that Anthesterion ^C is the last of the winter months, this must be interpreted as February; and the following month, Munychion, must be set as the beginning of spring, and shifted to March for the Latins. And so it happens that two ^D

equinoctial months are spring, Munychion and Thargelion; and two are autumn, Boedromion and Mæmacterion; and likewise two are summer solstitial, Hecatombaeon and the intercalary; and winter, Poseideon and Gamelion. ^B Therefore Aristotle says: "The hen, he says, does not lay the whole year round, except during the two winter solstitial months." And in the *Meteorology* he writes that a comet appeared near the Bear in the month of Gamelion, with the sun at the winter solstice. And sometimes the latter part of Anthesterion can even reach the winter solstice. But those which they call winter solstitial months are indeed the two explained before. However, one must assume simply that Hecatombaeon is the beginning of summer, and the summer solstitial month, and the others in a similar manner. For concerning accidental matters, no rule should be established, but rather concerning those that are observed and customary. For it has been said in the *Physics* of these arguments that one must speak of each thing as being what nature demands it to be, and what it is; and not what it is by force and contrary to nature. ^C

Dionysius, having borrowed from Ephorus, says that Ilium was captured in Thargelion. Indeed, Plutarch, in the *Life of Furius Camillus*, reports that Ephorus wrote this; and he does not say "seventeen days before the summer solstice," but he does say it occurred in Thargelion. If Ephorus, therefore, when not in his right mind—for he would otherwise have said Scirophorion—wrote Thargelion; just as, similarly, in other passages he calls Iberia, which is a city, not a region of Europe having a significant size; let him be excused, since he should not be blamed by one who has provided the occasion for his own blame, and that a very great one. But if perhaps some foolish writer has erroneously written "Thargelion" instead of "Scirophorion," as often happens in other cases, and especially in those which are written by booksellers for the sake of profit (for they employ unskilled, casual, and commonplace writers for such tasks); Ephorus would thus be guiltless, and those who did not correct the copies, but inconsiderately stated, "in Thargelion, seventeen days before the summer solstice," would be justly blamed. ^D But the same man also says that the days (which completed that year) superabounding after the solstice were twenty in number: which is utterly inconsistent and contradictory if he is speaking according to the established Athenian reckoning. For if twenty days remained after the solstice, it is certain that the solstice occurred at the ending of the year, on the last day of Thargelion, as he indeed wishes; but as we hold, of Scirophorion. For the present, however, it makes no difference. But let it be, according to his opinion, Thargelion; then in the following year the solstice will be on the new moon of Scirophorion, which was, for him, the ninth day of the month beginning. For if Ilium was captured on the twenty-eighth of Thargelion, seventeen days before the summer solstice, it is clear that the solstice was on the ninth day of the following month.

^A It is necessary, therefore, that these three days be over and above. These matters will be elucidated more clearly later, when we discuss the use of the intercalary month. Whether, then, this is an error of Ephorus or of the copyist, I leave in the middle to be considered. It is now certain that the Attic months cannot always be equal to the Roman ones in their number of days, and in their ending. Thus it happens that each month of the Greeks always wavers between two Roman ones. For example, Hecatombaeon touches part of June and part of July; Metageitnion, July and August; Boedromion, August and September. Similarly, all the rest not infrequently present themselves as ambiguous, sometimes even equal, as happened this year, when the new moon occurred at the same time as the solar Kalends of April. It is worth the effort, however, to interpret them simply by the preceding month. For example, denote Boedromion as August rather than September, so that it may be summer; for it is the third from Hecatombaeon, ^B in which, as has been demonstrated, the summer solstice is completed. Furthermore, it did not matter to Galen, regarding the seed of the fir tree and the composition of the acopus, whether that month of the mysteries was interpreted from the following September or from the preceding August; especially since the solstices and equinoxes were marked by the men of that age around the twenty-fourth day of the Roman month; and furthermore, the equinox sometimes occurred in Boedromion, when there were more odd days remaining after the solstice. ^C Whence also Aristotle says, "about Boedromion, after Arcturus," just as conversely, the solstice happening about the end of Hecatombaeon, it comes about that the grape harvest occurs about the beginning of Pyanepsion; as Plutarch indicates it happened when Theseus returned from Crete. The equinox, however, had begun about the end of Maemacterion. And Plinius is to be considered as speaking not as one interpreting the words of Aristotle, but as one expressing his own opinion regarding the birth of fish. It is not at all wonderful if there is a difference concerning births in different regions. But it is clear that places cause a great difference, ^D not only in the animals, as in the plants, regarding size and robust habit, but also in the births, so that some creatures bring forth later, and some earlier. Thus, therefore, by interpreting simply and in part, we shall in no way stray from an appropriate explanation.

On the use of the months.

X. But since we can use months either according to the motion of the sun, as the Romans do, or according to the moon, as the Athenians used to do—shall we follow the Attic use, or the Roman, naming them after the manner of the Athenians, but establishing the division of the year into months in the same way as the Romans? Plethon indeed says that the year is naturally determined by the sun, but the month by the moon; but he does not say why. Others, however, offering a reason for this statement also, assert that all things here on earth are ordered by those celestial bodies, and that the works of the moon are great.

^A For it is clearly asserted that all terrestrial things are changed by it. This is well said. Yet there is no proof that we are obliged to reckon months by the moon and not by the sun. For we ourselves grant that earthly things are in a way continuous with the movements above, and that their entire power is governed from there; and that all beauty, as much as is beautiful here, and order, arise naturally from above, while what is disordered and wandering exists from the material here. And let it be that many things change the moon when it is full, or dichotomous, or gibbous, or crescent, and that the surrounding air is judged and changed here according to diameters, squares, and in general certain phases of it; yet it is not reasonable on this account to stop dividing the solar year into months, and to use these [lunar months], deviating towards the moon and voluntarily diverging. Nor is it in accordance with nature for the whole to belong to the sun, but for the parts to belong more to some other body than to the sun. For the so-called months are parts of the whole year, or whatever one may choose to call the division of the sun's revolution into twelve spaces. That which is the efficient cause of the whole is necessarily also the efficient cause of the parts, since the whole arises from the parts, and the parts are in generation prior to the whole. Furthermore, it is more unequal and more irregular to lead the year by the course of the moon; for those who do so frequently insert a month, and have trouble, rendering some years of twelve months and others of thirteen. And so this is rather contrary to nature. For nature is a kind of order, and everything that is faulty and disordered is contrary to nature. To charge the sun with uselessness because of the moon's power and the phenomena is a very great demand, and one that seems to belong to someone who applies himself more to sense than to reason. For the works of the moon are, so to speak, all because of the sun; and the sun is that which most adorns, regulates, and arranges these things here. Indeed, that the sun is the cause of the tempering ^B of the other stars is the opinion of many illustrious men, and most of all of Strabo the geographer. However, the occurrences around the moon, which happen according to its various phases by reason of its distances from the sun, are more evident to us. Wherefore these must also be observed, whether by weeks or by some other lunar month. Yet using these does not mean we should abandon solar months, which are far more uniform, and are parts of the divinely constituted seasons, and proper and native to the whole year. For this is simply in accordance with nature, since it is from the cause, and from the prior and more necessary source. But the lunar method, being more known and clear to us, provides a path to those things which are by nature more known and perfect. For this reason, those around Caesar, who was surnamed Divine among the Romans, having entered upon this path, arrived at a more accurate ordering of months and the year. But those who persist to the end in the things that are close at hand and more clear to us appear not to judge correctly ^C what is to be chosen for its own sake and what for the sake of something else. In general, one must believe that matters regarding astrology which have been refined over a long period of time ^D are not far from the ancients.

^A However, it is not seemly out of stubbornness to prefer the more imperfect to the more perfect, as if, in old age, one still chose to hold onto the follies of childhood. Since even Galen, in his books *On Critical Days*, says that the year consists of three hundred and sixty-five days, and possesses a portion of a day greater than a quarter. Yet it has been stated by later observations that it is not greater, but less. And if, perhaps, the exact theory of the sun's motion is not entirely understood by us, it is at any rate much more accurate than that of the moon, and its error is more easily corrected; if one were to make one day intercalary every four years, and one day omitted approximately every two hundred years—or whatever amount those who are most experienced in astronomy at any given time, according to the passing of time, might judge. For it stands in no way against the present argument if some dispute the number of years. For the correction will undoubtedly be made, after a long interval, however the matter stands.

That it also seems better to wise men to regulate the year by the sun

^B XI. Plutarch, a man of excellent judgment, also praises Caesar's correction in a distinguished manner, saying as follows: "The disposition of the calendar and the correction of its irregular and imprecise movement through time, being philosophically explained by him and having reached its end, provided a most graceful use." Herodotus also thinks the Egyptians are wiser than the Greeks, insofar as the Greeks intercalate a month every third year, whereas they, having thirty-day months, add five days to every year. It is not worse to quote his own words again: "They regulate their affairs, so it seems to me, more wisely than the Greeks, in that the Greeks intercalate a month every third year for the sake of the seasons; but the Egyptians, having twelve thirty-day months, add five days to every year beyond the count." ^C That regulating the months with thirty days means regulating according to the sun, Strabo shows by saying: "It is characteristic of the Egyptians not to regulate the days according to the moon, but according to the sun, adding five days every year to the twelve thirty-day months." Plethon, however, differs significantly from them, saying that it is more according to nature to regulate the months according to the moon, assigning the year to the sun as a matter of preference, but the months to the moon.

How one must use the months and year

^D XII. We, for our part, shall use the names and order of the months as explained, but in practice [we shall use] the correction of Caesar, which the Romans have used up to the present day, and who appear to be less mistaken in this confusion than others—for this is now nearly the one thousand five hundredth year. Nor, indeed, if something has been devised by some,

and it is contributed to the common utility of life; whether Latins or barbarians be the inventors of such things, we do not disdain to accept the use of this invention from them, but consider everyone to be our household and kin, as they are men and participants in the same nature as we are, and we feel gratitude toward those who have made discoveries, rather than contending in envy and deliberately choosing worse things. Therefore, our year shall be distributed according to the course of the sun into three hundred and sixty-five days, ^A with a small fraction of a day added to this number, less than a fourth part. And as for the months which fill up the number of days, some will have thirty days, and others will exceed this by one day; but one of them, throughout three consecutive years, will fall short of thirty by two days, and in the fourth year by one day only. For these seven—Posideon, Gamelion, Munychion, Scirophorion, Metagitnion, Boedromion, and Pyanepsion—will exceed the thirty-day months by one day; the rest will consist of thirty days, except for Elaphebolion. For this month ^B will be reckoned at twenty-eight days for three years, and at twenty-nine in the fourth year, because of the intercalated day. But why the days are thus divided by those around Caesar, so that this month is of thirty days and that one is not, why this one has an excess and that one a deficiency, is a matter for another inquiry.

Concerning the intercalary day.

XIII. We shall never intercalate any month, but for every four-year period, we shall intercalate one single day into the month of Elaphebolion, just as the Romans do for February, ^C calling it "bissextile" because they write the same day twice as the sixth day before the Kalends of March. For so it seemed good to Caesar Augustus. We, however, cannot make use of such a term; for we can properly call it only an "intercalary" and "excess" day. Moreover, one must consider the day to be removed, and the Latins must be admonished to adopt the same, so that they may correct their year, and that everything may be in harmony between us. For, since for a long time now no account has been taken of the day to be removed, in our age the solstices fall much earlier than the day of the month originally established as the solsticial day. Thus, therefore, let the months be conducted by us, using the names that have been handed down.

Concerning the beginning of the year.

XIV. Now the Athenians constituted Hecatombaeon as the beginning of the year, starting from the summer solstice, as has been shown previously; but the Romans, with January, starting from the winter solstice, which ^D indeed seems to be a more fitting beginning. And Plethon rightly praises this. For while through law and custom different peoples observe different beginnings for the year, nature somehow seems to persuade us that this is the same beginning: when the sun, the author of generation, ceases to advance further and begins to turn back toward us, both increasing the time of light and decreasing that of darkness. Rightly, therefore, did Numa ordain such a beginning for the Romans, whereas Romulus had previously made the month of March the beginning of the year. Therefore let this be our beginning of the year, and the new month of the year be Gamelion, so that we may be in harmony with the Romans, just as in the months, so also in the beginning of the year, which is January. For this January

^A should be set as the beginning of the year.

How the days of the month are to be numbered.

XV. It pleases Plethon to number the days of each month by dividing the month into four parts: the "beginning," the "middle," the "precipitous," and the "receding." He seems to borrow this partly from Pollux and partly to invent it himself in a certain way. For I think it was easier for him in this way to arrange his festivals, as he was establishing certain new sacred rites. But let nothing prevent us from calculating as the Athenians did, dividing the month into three parts, calling one part "the beginning" (or the "entering"), another "the after-ten," and the last the "precipitous" (or "desinent"). Since this division of ours will also, I know not how, result in being more consonant with the Roman practice. For they also, dividing the month into three ^B parts, call them Kalends, Nones, and Ides. It should therefore be numbered thus: the first day of the month is the *neomenia* (which signifies new moon), then the second of the "beginning," the third of the "beginning," and so on in order up to the tenth; after which comes the first after-ten, then the second after-ten, and so on up to the twentieth, which is also called the *eikas*, as if one dared to call it the "twentieth." After which comes the eleventh of the "precipitous," or the tenth, or the ninth, or the eighth, as it happens that the month has, and so on in reverse order down to the second. For in this way the Athenians used to count, not adding, but subtracting, and resolving down to the thirtieth, with Solon having prescribed this in accordance with the light of the moon, which thus gradually wanes. And Aristophanes the comic poet also calculates in this way: ^C

Fifth, fourth, third; after these the second, Thence the one that I most of all days Fear, is immediately the old and new.

After the second, the "old" (henê) must be reckoned. We shall have no need for the "old and new" (henê kai nea), because we do not regulate our time according to the moon. And nothing prevents us from calling the last day of the month the "old," since the first is the "new," although there are more days of the "precipitous" part, and sometimes fewer, than the Attic ones, because our months consist of thirty days, while some exceed this by one day, and some lack two from the thirty-day count for three consecutive years, and one in the fourth, as has been said before. Some, therefore, have eleven days of the "precipitous," others have ten, and one has eight and another nine; for there are seven of these: Poseideon, Gamelion, Munychion, Skirophorion, Met— ^D

Metagitnion, Boedromion, Pyanepsion, which will have eleven days of the "precipitous"; but the ^A rest ten only, except for Elaphebolion. For this one will have eight for three years in a row, and nine in the fourth year. But if anyone says that "to be precipitous" (phthinein), and "to be standing" (istasthai), are peculiar to the moon, let him reflect that in many other cases as well, usage borrowed from other contexts has prevailed in a sense that is technically inaccurate; for example, "to forge" (chalkeuein), and "to furnish" (choregein), and "to create" (demiourgein). For once, "books" (byblia) were called only those made from the papyrus plant growing in Egypt. But now, even those flattened, glued-together sheets of macerated linen rags, upon which we write, have taken this name. And "rope" (schoinion) was formerly that which was made from the reed (schoinos), a plant of the marshes; but now, even that which is spun from flax and wool for the same purpose is called "rope." And "author" (authentes) was also called in former times only the "murderer," or one who acts with his own hand. But now, anyone who is a cause, a creator, or if you will, the principal doer and supervisor of any matter whatsoever, is called an "author"—a meaning that has prevailed for over a thousand years. Since the Greeks, frequently associating with the Romans, could see that their own language ^B still required a term more precisely suited to the needs of the situation than the Latin word *auctor*. Thus under constraint, as is likely, to set a more specific name for a matter frequently in use, they have transferred the term *authentes* to this meaning, imitating a foreign rule. Therefore, Basil, one of our high priests, a man in the time of the Emperor Julian endowed with no less eloquence than keen intellect, says that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not bestowed through ministry, but "authoritatively" (authenticos)—that is, not given by a minister, but by an Author. And Synesius, a philosopher of great learning, who lived a little later under the Emperor Theodosius, inquiring of Patriarch Theophilus whether one ought to consider a certain Alexander a bishop, who had been admitted into the order of bishops by John, who was later revered as a saint and surnamed Chrysostom, but at that time had been excluded from the Churches by a conciliar decision due to a certain dispute and sedition that had arisen, thus infers: "For which it is necessary to present the 'authority' (authentian)—that is, the 'authority' of apostolic succession—simply and clearly." Furthermore, the Romans, as Plutarch records, had previously made that tripartite ^C division of the month according to the three greatest differences of the moon; calling the new moon the Calends, because the moon, being then in conjunction, is as it were hidden, being entirely obscured of its light; for *clam* signifies "secretly" in Roman, whence he says they are called Calends. The Nones, when it first becomes visible at sunset as a new moon; and the Ides, when, being full, it is fairest in appearance. But although they later, while regulating the months by the sun and likewise determining time, still call them Calends, Nones, and Ides, they are using terms that were once applied strictly according to the moon. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for us, if we speak of "standing" (istasthai) and "waning" (phthinon), not according to the moon, but regulating by the sun. Therefore, the new moon will have a correspondence for us with the Calends, the "standing" with the day before the Nones, the "tenth" with the day before the Ides, and the "waning" with the day before the Calends.

^A Since the "empty and full" 1 is no longer useful to us, neither is the Intercalary day to the Romans; for the day which, according to the moon, belongs partly to the ending month and partly to the beginning month, the Romans call by this name. These things, being taken thus, would be well. However, this account does not deprive even the unlearned of the knowledge of the lunar days, how many there are in each case. For knowledge of the days of the solar month contributes much to this; and it is easy for one who adds to the epacts to find the number. But extreme precision is not to be demanded in these matters. ^B Let A be the number of intercalary days of the solar month; let B be the number of intercalated months of the year, starting from Mounychion; let C be the number resulting from A, B, and C taken together; let D be the remainder above thirty; let E be the excess; let F be the number of future lunar days. Then D will be equal to G, unless E is D. But if it is, F will be equal to D. And A must be taken for what it is. For as regards the many, that which it is is sufficient. It is, therefore, twenty-eight for this present Era year. Let it be increased for each Era year by the addition of eleven. And whenever it exceeds thirty, let the excess A be taken. And so, for one who is always increasing and taking, A must be taken. Let addition be H. Let the other excess be I, by the addition of H, taken together with A—that is, with the twenty-eight epacts of the present year A—the resulting sum will be the days of the nine of the following year starting from spring; and having made the addition again, there will be twenty epacts of the following year; then one for the year after that. For I is indeed like one. And so always; ^C but more scientifically as follows.

Discovery of the epacts.

XVI. Let the years from the birth of Christ be divided by nineteen, with one other year added to them. Let the days that remain from that division (which is done by nineteen) be taken and multiplied by eleven, then let them be divided by thirty. The days that remain above those thirty are the A epacts. For example, there are now one thousand four hundred and seventy years from the birth of Christ. Let one be added to these. ^D When these are divided by nineteen, it is clear that eight remain. Taking these eight and multiplying them by eleven, the number that is produced from this is eighty-eight. This being again divided by thirty, the resulting sum is twenty-eight. And this was A of this present year; the discovery of A will always be by a similar method for the remainder as well. Again, having thus taken A, one must add to it B and C, and the total D...

let it be ^A ten—if it does not exceed thirty. ^B Indeed, it does not stand as an obstacle to the holy days either. For with the whole year being divided into fifty-two weeks, each month would be established by us from four weeks, and besides that, the number will have four most holy days, one for each week: unless by chance some, anticipating, begin from the Lord’s day, or proceeding more slowly, fall within the middle of the week. But a month of Plethon containing six festival days takes away more than is right of the necessary works for the city. For it is necessary that those who celebrate festivals be idle and inactive. And at the same time, it happens that three festival days are held in succession by Plethon’s institution: the last of the month (which he calls the old) for Pluto: the old and the new, that is, the interlunary day for the recognition of one’s own conduct: and the new moon for Jupiter. But it would be tedious for this to happen in such a way. Therefore, it is better to celebrate them by intervals (for of things that happen at intervals, if they are pleasant, the sense is more pleasant; if they are burdensome, it is more tolerable), and to celebrate as few festivals as possible; for it is a mark of poor states to celebrate many, and it is a sign not of piety, but of luxury. As for which days should be celebrated and holidays, it was not improper for Plethon to enumerate them, as he is establishing different days than those accepted by us. But for us there is no need for this at all, especially since the discussion is not currently about this. For it is clear that each month will have the four accepted days for the same Christ who rose again. For it is better to contract things concerning the divine into fewer [days] as much as possible. We do not agree, as Plethon believes, with fixing a festival day for our own self-examination every month, and performing an inspection of our deeds once a month. But it is pious and holy to act this way daily, not to mention on holidays, namely at night with sufficient sleep and after the first digestion of food, reflecting with ourselves what is the piacular sin committed the day before, which ought to be expiated the next day: then, immediately from dawn, having corrected this, to listen to purificatory and piacular oracles, and having become beholders of the most holy rites, and, with the birds being sometimes favorable, after that sacrifice and the tasting of the sanctified host, to depart from such a beginning to our works. ^C But about these things elsewhere.

How the days of the week are to be numbered. XVII. ^D It is permitted to count the days of the week, either as the Greeks of this age do, calling the first day the Lord’s day: and the second, what in truth it is, the second: then third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh: or as the Romans today do, in accordance with the wandering stars, placing after the Lord’s day the day of the moon, then of Mars, to these Mercury, furthermore Jupiter, afterwards Venus, finally Saturn. To call the sixth day Preparation, and the seventh Sabbath, has, as it seems, no reason for us; but perhaps for the Jews it does: for it is necessary for them to make preparation before the Sabbath, as those who, bound by a certain superstitious religion, must touch no business on the following day. For us there is no need. For we are not idle on the seventh day

which is called Sabbath by the Jews; but rather on the first, which is the Lord’s Day for us, and the day of the new beginning ^A in Christ who rose again. And we do not keep the feast so idly that it is considered unlawful even to cook something or set a table; rather, it is fitting that everything should be prepared the day before. Therefore, it is neither useful nor otherwise honorable for us to adopt these Jewish names for the calculation of our week. Nor does the Sabbath stand in the same category as Hosanna and Sabaoth; for though these too are foreign, they are nevertheless still used by the ministers of sacred things in their rituals to this day, out of necessity. For those things which have been established ^B by the highest pontiffs for the sake of some mystery, it would be sinful to change. But to act superstitiously and anxiously, where there is no use and no compelling necessity, smells of Judaism. We, therefore, think it most fitting to use the months, days, and year in this manner.

How the times ought to be kept according to the Athenians

XVIII. But if it should interest anyone to observe time according to the Athenians, he will use the order already demonstrated, if we have attained to any order in the present discourse. But after he has assigned the beginning of the year from the summer solstice, he shall define the months, some as thirty days and full, and others as lacking one day by turns, as if it were a matter of half a day, so that the monthly term of the moon is thirty ^C days. The count of the days shall be made up to the twentieth in the manner already spoken of; after this, if the month is full, one shall say the tenth of the waning, then the ninth, and so on in reverse order until the second; after which the last one is the old and new. If the month is hollow, he shall say the ninth of the waning, and so on in a similar manner, just as Pollux enumerates, though not sufficiently, as he only lists the days of the hollow month. Plethon, calling the twenty-ninth the old, and the thirtieth the old and new, says nothing dissonant from us as far as the matter is concerned. For the day which we call the second of the waning, he calls the old, perhaps as being a day sacred to Pluto. For from such an appellation, he brings with it I know not what gravity, ^D haughtiness, and tragedy; which is a thing of the first importance for those who are more intensely occupied with the handling of sacred matters. But one must attempt to count the days according to the moon. Since the practice of taking some months as full and some as hollow also intends this. But this is not enough; rather, one must often consider other things too, if he wishes to maintain consistency and equality, which is difficult because of the great irregularity of the moon. For which reason the Athenians also do not appear to have succeeded; which may be inferred from that which the comic poet makes the moon say, being angry that the Athenians did not correctly direct their times according to the proper course of the moon, but kept them in confusion, up and down; for that is how he uses the expression. Nevertheless, one must attempt to correct it as much as possible, using as counselors those who are always most experienced in astronomical theories.

Of the intercalary month.

XIX. Intercalary months are also required in the Attic years, as we have explained previously, so that the months may remain in agreement with the seasons. Therefore, thirty days must be inserted into the month of Scirophorion, which corresponds to May. Witnesses to this fact are the Roman author Macrobius and Herodotus. The former, in his *Saturnalia*, while interpreting Glaucippus in his commentaries on the sacred rites of the Athenians, says that the Athenians add the extra days to the last month of the year; and the last is Scirophorion. Herodotus also sufficiently demonstrates that the intercalation consists of thirty days with these words: “But if one should wish one year to be larger than another by one month, so that the seasons may return at the same convenient time, thirty-five intercalary months occur throughout seventy years, and the days from these months are one thousand and fifty.”

But in which year the intercalation should take place, if one thinks that credit should be given to Herodotus, one can gather what is sought from what has just been set forth. For he declares that the intercalation happens alternately, while he says that one of two years becomes longer than the other, and while he enumerates thirty-five intercalary months over seventy years. This, perhaps, still requires consideration: in what manner, by intercalating thirty days every other year, it happens that the months agree with the seasons. Since, indeed, it would be done rashly through more frequent intervals, what could be done through fewer; and it would be done through fewer if it were done every fourth year with equal right. Having taken the months, as we have reported, and having intercalated thirty days after every third year—that is, the intercalation occurring at an interval of two years—unless the year happens to begin from some initial solstice day. ^B There are, however, initial solstices: the first, second, and third of the entire perfect period. The first is of the first eleven-year sequence and imperfect period; the second is of the second eleven-year sequence and imperfect period; the third is of the following eight-year sequence which completes the entire and perfect period. For the logic desires the triad also in these cases; but it happens that nothing is left over in the last year, but rather it is deficient, as in the first and second eleven-year sequences, or it is equal, as in the following eight-year sequence. For this reason, it is necessary to add the extra days to the year immediately following the initial one. However, another addition is also required on account of the running fraction, since every fourth year one day falls short. Let it therefore be filled up systematically in this way.

Let the solstice be at the new moon of Hecatombaeon in the first year; in the following year, then, it will be on the twelfth day of Hecatombaeon. With the intercalary month added to this, the supplement is completed; and in the following year, the third, the solstice exists on the twenty-second day of the intercalary month, and there are eight days left over; but there ought to be eleven. Therefore, in the fourth of the current Hecatombaeon, the solstice returns in the fourth year; then in the fifteenth, in the following year, into

^A which the intercalary month is inserted—that is, the sixth year—the solstice is placed, and there are five days remaining. Wherefore the seventh year following reaches the solstice on the seventh of the incoming Hecatombaeon, and the eighth year on the eighteenth. This intercalary month being made again, the solstice will be on the twenty-ninth day of the intercalary month in the year following, and there will be two days remaining. But in the tenth year, the solstice is brought round to the tenth of Hecatombaeon; and in the next, to the twenty-first, which, having become the final intercalary month of the first eleven-year period, restores the solstice to the second of Hecatombaeon, leaving nothing over, but still requiring one day. This, therefore, is the first eleven-year period—a partial and incomplete cycle—beginning from the new moon of Hecatombaeon and ending on the second of the following month, aided by the four-year cycle of intercalary years. Furthermore, a second eleven-year period likewise casts the solstice back to the third day of Hecatombaeon, and a third, consisting of an eight-year cycle, pursuing its course in similar fashion, completes the restoration of the whole and perfect period, restoring the solstice to the new moon of Hecatombaeon. And thus the solstices are always brought round and agree with the months, with the addition of the extra days as they may appear most convenient to add. These ^B matters should be examined by looking at the set-out diagram. These things should be considered from what has been said, by whoever takes care to do so; if anyone chooses to divide and count according to Plethon, nothing prevents him from using both the order and the naming of the months already set forth. And if Plethon, when writing about the months, had used such names, provided he had correctly obtained the arrangement of the months relative to one another from another source, it would have harmed neither his holy days nor his counting of the days—not even the naming of the months, as the Athenians used them. I pass over the fact that it would have greatly graced and adorned the writing itself. But as things stand, he avoids the absurdity to us of using Roman names—January and February and such—and does not name them; yet, being at a loss regarding the arrangement of the Greek ones, and shunning the laborious task of inquiry, he turns to the easier method of counting.

Concerning the Beginning of the Day

XX. Now, the beginning of the day (since this, too, is relevant to our discourse on the months) the Athenians ^D observed from the setting of the sun, assigning the night to the day that followed, and accounting the whole interval until the next setting as one day, as the Latin author Aulus Gellius records that Marcus Varro has written. But the Romans in ancient times began from the middle of the night—a beginning which Plethon follows. Now, however, they begin from the rising sun, and so do the Greeks. Although, on the contrary, all Christians ought to do so, showing such deference to their Leader. For thus alone will it be established that He rose from the dead on the third day, if the beginning of the day is taken either from the deep of night, as the Athenians used to do, or from the middle, as the Romans did. Which, however, is preferable, it is not easy to say. For the theologians around Athos [explain that the resurrection] happened exactly at midnight, and they begin the rites of the resurrection...

from midnight. Their reasoning is that it happened that the women who arrived at the tomb at deep dawn, in order to perform the funeral rites according to custom, did not find the deceased, as Luke wrote in his Gospel. For they suppose that the "deep dawn" indicates the time nearest to midnight. At the same time, this also allows for a bit more of the third day to be included. And that "more" is a more evident sign of the three-day period itself. But among the Italians, those around Rome say it was after midnight, and by "deep," they mean ^B to be a considerable distance from the middle of the night. Therefore, since none of the Gospel writers clarifies at what part of the night God rose, it seems safer to set the beginning of the day from the very end of the night. For what follows midnight is added to it as a surplus. Those, however, who rely solely on this reasoning have no greater assurance that they are attaining the truth than they have the risk of erring from it. For the converse of this inconvenience will follow for them: since they posit the first part of the night as the beginning of the day, when it is permitted to eat meat on the following day, it would—by that account—be permitted from the very end of the preceding night; yet conversely, when it is forbidden to ^C partake of a meal of meat on that same day, it would not be allowed on that same night. Concerning this matter, therefore, it is better to consider it more diligently and again; and it will be appropriate to ask and consult those who are experts in these things. For it is necessary to consider and observe these matters in such a way that nothing contrary to sacred things occurs from our reasoning, and that we may begin the day piously and holily by the grace of God.

Whence the times are to be numbered.

XXI. Moreover, it is also right to calculate the times from the birth of Christ, and not, as the Greeks do now, from the creation of the world, counting ^D this as the six thousand nine hundred and seventy-eighth year. Perhaps this was permissible for the prophets; but it is better for the worshippers of Christ to begin from Him. This is also what the Romans do, calculating this present year as the one thousand four hundred and seventy-second, although those of old counted from the founding of the city, just as the Athenians did from the first Olympiad, and others from the Trojan War.

Therefore, let these things be written down concerning the months, for the sake of those men who are learned—if indeed there is any hope that the Greek language and its study will continue into posterity, and that the end of the Greek race and language—as was the case for other nations of old—is not now fated to have arrived.

Witnesses cited in this book: Basil. Pletho. Aulus Romanus. Aristotle. Galen. Macrobius Romanus. Theophrastus. Demosthenes.