No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Astronomical Comments on Dr. Holmes's Note on the Julian Calendar
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
While reserving my judgment on the wider questions connected with the Roman calendar, I think it may not be out of place to attempt a firmer handling of the astronomical dates discussed in Dr. Rice Holmes's ‘Supplementary Note on the Julian Calendar’ which appeared in the Classical Quarterly, XIV. (1920), pp. 46, 47. That note is concerned with two new moons discussed by Dr. Groebe in his edition of Drumann's Geschichte Roms, III. (1906), pp. 774–9.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1920
References
page 97 note 1 Caesar, B.G. I. 50, 5, and Tacitus, Germ. II.
page 97 note 2 Caesar im Orient (1885), pp. 107 note, 108.
page 97 note 3 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, LXX. (1910), pp. 527–31Google Scholar. The result of this investigation is also to be found in Ginzel, , Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, II. (1911), p. 318Google Scholar.
page 98 note 1 On p. 47, line 2, of Dr. Holmes's paper, ‘26th’ is clearly a misprint for ‘25th.’
page 98 note 2 See Lucan, X. 185, etc.; Appian, , Bell. Ciu. II. 154Google Scholar; Cassius Dio, XLIII. 26; , Macrobius, Sat. I. 14, 3, and 16,39Google Scholar.
page 98 note 3 This is the date in Pliny, II. 123, XVIII. 269 (reading postridie), 270. Varro, R.R. I. 28, makes it twenty-seven days after the solstice, i.e. July 21, also an Egyptian date. Some, but not all, of the various Egyptian dates for this phenomenon will be found in Ginzel, , Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie (1906), pp. 188, 189Google Scholar.