Page 7 - BV1

discrepancy supposedly accrued from the time of the First Ecumenical Synod. We see, however,
that not one of the Holy Fathers ever saw a need to 'correct' the Church Calendar; in general, their
attitude was, 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it'" (Liturgical Havoc Wreaked By the "New Julian"
Calendar).

The article Genesis of the Gregorian Calendar points out that "its [the Gregorian Calen-
dar's] disadvantages are the fact that AN APPOINTED DAY IS NOT ALWAYS ON THE SAME
WEEK DAY. Besides, the month lengths are not equal and the holidays, which have relations to the
feast of Easter are moved within the calendar from one year to another."

The Julian Calendar

Prior to its change in 1582, the calendar was known as the Julian calendar because it origi-
nated at the time of Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. Following his conquest of Egypt in 48 B.C., Julius
Caesar consulted the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes about calendar reform since the "ab urbe
condita" (i.e., "from the founding of the city (Rome)") calendar then used by the Romans was in to-
tal confusion and completely inadequate to the needs of the emerging empire, which Caesar was
poised to command. The calendar which Julius Caesar adopted in the year 709 a.u.c. (what we
now call 46 B.C.) was almost identical to the Alexandrian Aristarchus' calendar of 239 B.C., and
consisted of a solar year of twelve months and of 365 days with an extra day every fourth year. It
is unclear why or how Aristarchus arrived at this calendar, but one may speculate that BABYLO-
NIAN data or theory was involved.

Sosigenes decided that the year known in modern times as 46 B.C. should have two inter-
calations. The first was the customary intercalation of 23 days following February 23, the second,
"to bring the calendar in step with the equinoxes, was achieved by inserting two additional months
between the end of November and the beginning of December. This insertion amounted to an addi-
tion of 67 days, making a year of no less than 445 days and causing the beginning of March, 45
B.C. in the Roman republican calendar, to fall on what is still called January 1 of the Julian Calen-
dar" (Encyclopedia Britannica, article "The Western Calendar and Calendar Reforms").

Evidently, Julius Caesar wanted to start the year on the Spring Equinox or the Winter Sol-
stice, but the Roman Senate, which traditionally took office on January 1st (the start of the Roman
civil calendar year), wanted to keep January 1st as the start of the year, and Caesar yielded to a
political compromise.

According to Macrobius (Roman grammarian and philosopher who flourished during the
reigns of Honorius and Arcadius (395-423)) the Roman date-keepers initially misunderstood Cae-
sar's instructions concerning the new calendar, and erroneously held every third year, rather than
every fourth year, to be a leap year. There is actually some dispute as to exactly which years from
43 B.C. through to 8 A.D. were actually leap years, but a reconstruction which is consistent with
the available evidence is that every third year following 43 B.C. (i.e, 40 B.C., 37 B.C., etc.) was a
leap year. This was true until 10 B.C., after which Augustus Caesar (Julius Caesar's successor)
suspended leap years altogether -- reinstating them with the leap year of 4 A.D.!

7