Caesar's Calendar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caesar's Calendar:
Ancient Time and the
Beginnings of History
 

This book about ancient time and the beginnings of history is written by Denis Feeney who is a professor of Latin at Princeton University. The main text is divided into six chapters. At the end of the book there are notes with additional comments and references to ancient sources and modern publications, a bibliography, a general index, and an index locorum, i.e. an index of the ancient sources discussed in the text.

If you want to count the years, you will need not only a calendar, but also an event that can serve as a point of departure from which you can count the years. As Feeney explains, there are two such events in the world of ancient Greece. One is the fall of Troy; the other is the first Olympiad. According to the tradition, which was only established much later, the fall of Troy took place in 1184 BC, while the first Olympiad took place in 776 BC.

[For this see pp. 81, 84, 85, and 142.]

In the world of ancient Rome there was only one such event: the founding of the city. According to the tradition, which was only established much later, Rome was founded in 753 BC. We even have the (official) date: 21 April.

[For this see pp. 91-97.]

The Romans have two ways to mark a particular year. The first way is to give the names of the two consuls who serve during the year in question. Obviously, this system can only work for the republic, which was established in 509 BC. It cannot work for the period with the seven kings, who ruled from 753 to 510 BC. The second way is to count the number of years from the founding of the city. This system is known as AUC or AB URBE CONDITA.

From 153 BC the consuls served from the first day of January until the last day of December. Since the city was founded on 21 April, the AUC system runs from 21 April in one year to 20 April in the following year. The two systems are not identical. Feeney seems to think this is a big problem (pp. 174-175). I disagree. I think we should be happy to have some evidence to work with, and not complain that the evidence is not perfect.

It is common knowledge that the Christian (or western) calendar uses the birth of Jesus as its point of departure. According to the tradition, which was only established much later, Jesus was born on 24 December in 1 BC. As Feeney explains, there is no year zero between the BC and the AD.

[For this see page 275 note 46.]

Feeney got some good reviews. On the back cover of the paperback edition there is an excerpt from a review of the hardcover version. The online magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review says:

“A tremendously important as well as a terribly well-written book.”

The excerpt from the review (written by Christopher Smith) is accurate.

[Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2007.09.17.]

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the positive reviews. Let me explain why. The title of the book is Caesar’s Calendar. The subtitle is Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. The subtitle is much more accurate than the title. Caesar’s calendar is only discussed in chapters 5 and 6 (the last two chapters of the book). The catchy title is misleading.

In chapters 1-4 the author discusses the concept of time in ancient Greece and ancient Rome before Caesar’s calendar was introduced in 45 BC. When I read these chapters, I have the impression that the author is not quite sure where he wants to go.

The Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Praenestini are presented in chapter 6, but in my opinion the presentation is too brief. Why not give a more thorough and more comprehensive presentation of these important inscriptions?

The so-called Horologium of Augustus is mentioned two times (pp. 197 & 206), but each time the presentation is very brief. Why not give a more thorough and more comprehensive presentation of this interesting monument?

In the notes Feeney provides a reference to the German scholar E. Buchner (1982) and to the criticism of Buchner by M. Schütz (1990). Here is a reference which Feeney could not give, because it appeared in the same year as his book:
 

Peter Heslin, “Augustus, Domitian and the so-called Horologium Augusti,” Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 97, 2007, pp. 1-20.

Ancient Egypt is mentioned a couple of times, but only in passing. The Egyptian astronomer Sosigenes, who worked out the details of Caesar’s calendar, is mentioned on page 197. But Feeney never mentions the temple in Kom Ombo and the festival calendar, which is inscribed on one of the walls of this Egyptian temple.

I understand the author has to provide some background before he can focus on Caesar’s calendar. But in this case the background gets four chapters, while the main topic gets only two. The proportions are wrong. The background should have only one or two chapters, while Caesar’s calendar should have four or five chapters. In this case the main topic gets only one third of the book. I would love to read a book about Caesar’s calendar, but this is not it.

Feeney is a classical scholar. He knows the ancient sources very well; he also knows the modern publications which are relevant for his topic very well. But he does not know how to present this knowledge to his readers in a clear and concise way.

Only one third of the book fits the title of the book, and even this part has some shortcomings. Therefore I cannot give this book four or five stars. On the other hand it would be unfair to give it only one or two stars. Therefore I believe it deserves a rating of three stars.

* * *

 

Denis Feeney

Caesar's Calendar:

Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History,

hardcover 2007, paperback 2009, 372 pages

 

* * *