h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.h2g2.com/A484102

A short essay on how to write dates in latin -- both the different ways to determine year, and the rather quirky way they used to determine day of the year.

// Mikael Johansson

Hello,

Nicely written, informative entry. But I have a question. Isnt' the middle date (13th or 15th) also known as the Ides? Hence the famous warning to Caesar to "Beware the ides of March". Or is this just something Shakespeare screwed up? (If so, it might still be worthy a mention).

Yours,
Jake

Nice Entry!

I'm not quite sure whether you example 691 = DCI is quite right. I would have said that DCI= 601 (D=500, C=100, I=1). As far as I remember Roman numbers, 691 would be 500+100+(-10+100)+1 = DCXCI, wouldn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

Idus was the name in Latin. Ides was the name in English. The three special days in the month are known as Nones, Ides and Kalends in English.

I agree about the Roman numerals.

It is not entirely accurate to say that the year began in March. It certainly did at the time that September, October, November and December got their names, because they mean 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th month. But January is named after the god of doorways and new beginnings. So at the time it got its name, the Romans must have considered it the first month of the year.

An important misprint: you list the number of days in April, June, September and November as 31. It should of course be 30.

I have heard a story that before Augustus, the pattern of 30's and 31's was different. Augustus didn't like the fact that Julius's month had 31 and his one had only 30, so he changed them to the present form. Is this a complete fiction, or is it what actually happened?

I believe that Julius changed the start of the year to January from March. Presumably it was at this time that the name Ianuarius started to be used.

Oops. My bad. Fixed!

// Mikael Johansson

I see that you have used C (as in Caius) as the initial for Gaius Antonius and for Gaius Julius Caesar, but you have expanded the former's name with a "G". Although I know the name can be written both ways, is there a convention about the initials that I'm not familiar with?

I think you should separate the descriptions of the calendars out into (at least):

pre-Julian
Julian
and then a separate comment about the Senate voting for Augustus to get a month (aren't there some great stories about how he chose which month, etc.. Probably apocryphal.)

I found it very difficult to follow the different versions in the text as currently laid out. It would also enable you to expand on the way that months drifted through the years and you could go into more detail about the leap months.

Weren't there also additional days that weren't part of any month?

The table of month names looks a little sad being that narrow, you could always add an explanation of why it was so-named (e.g. which god and why).

Narrow tables looking sad...
I'll see to it.

As of the initial conventions in ancient Rome (almost deserves an article of it's own), Caius was originally exactly Caius (with the /k/-sound in the beginning), but over the decades, the /k/ softened into a /g/-sound, which is why Caius most often gets transcribed with the _RATHER_ modern Gaius (G as a letter was invented during the very downfall of Rome, or possibly even during the 'dark ages'). The initial stuck though, thus C. Iulius Caesar would be the correct wording -- (or Caius Iulius Caesar, or even -- recognizing that he wouldn't -- Gaius Julius Caesar)

// Mikael Johansson

Excellent. Thank you.

I remeber some debate on how last year was writen (1999)

I cannot remember it in detail can you all?

CH

Slightly unorthodox: MIM
More according to 'classic' tradition: MDCCCCLXXXXIX

// Mikael Johansson

Gallia est omnia divisa in partes tres...

Perhaps it was on purpose, but you start away right into it, like Caesar in 'de bello gallico'. Would you consider some minute introduction?

_______

BTW: Peer Review has made it to the 'five most busy conversations' today. Would you like to see that position as a standard? If so, please have a look at one or more of the other threads around here!

I can see both but I thought the one most settled on, on TV shows anyway, was

MCMXCIX

CH

The purpose of the page is to explain how the roman dates were constructed, isn't it? What should be in an introduction to the page?

(and, yes, I like Caesars literary style...

// Mikael Johansson

How about this:
'This entry is to explain how the roman dates were constructed and how their calendars were made up, using either the foundation of Rome as the starting point, or their emperors, or ...(and so forth). They had years, months, and days as well, but there are differences to what is common nowadays.'

Anything along these lines, I would suggest.

I liked it, but as other posts have alluded an introductory paragraph would be nice.

This is good. I'd suggest 2 little changes -

1. Footnote 2 just says "Rome". It might as well go in brackets next to the word City.

2. The modern dates section has the word roman with a small initial "r". That should be a capital "R".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A484102

Great stuff! As mentioned previously, a brief paragraph by way of an introduction would be a nice idea.

Keep up the good work!

Hello,

I still think this is a great article, although I agree it could use a bit more of an introduction. Exile, I've noticed you haven't logged in since December, but I'm posting this anyway in the hopes that you're still around.

Yours,
Jake

I agree tha tthis one is great article, and I'm please dto announce that it has been recommended for the edited guide. Congratulations. This thread will shortly move out of the peer review and the entry will get sent off to one of the lovely sub editors. You will be contacted by email once it makes it in, but please be patient as there is a bit of a queue.

Congrats again.