(05-01-2025, 04:49 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, it is of course possible that traditions are not based on facts, but also on (legendary) stories or people. Of course, this also applies to Numa Pompilius, the (alleged) reformer of the calendar.
As said, a written tradition can also make legends “true” to a certain extent (especially in the Middle Ages with limited or no access to comparative material).
A lot of early Roman (regal/pre-regal) history would seem to be the product of those speaking or writing after the fact, aiming to provide explanations, and sometimes seemingly projecting the culture at the time they were writing back onto those periods. Since so much of the Roman origin story has been made up or distorted, we don't know for sure that the 10 month calendar existed, or if it was something else that got distorted or confused over the years, and then the calendar reform story arose to explain it.
Anyway, back to the question of whether the Voynich scribe could have been following it...it's possible they knew of it, since I think Ovid's work on the calendar was available in the medieval era before the Renaissance. But it just seems a really odd choice to follow a calendar that at best hadn't been used for over two thousand years. It would seem more likely to me that the two months were removed.
(05-01-2025, 06:03 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since so much of the Roman origin story has been made up or distorted, we don't know for sure that the 10 month calendar existed
No, we don't know that for sure, but the narrative is in the world. The important thing is that it is not a modern invention. It is a real pity that none of the descriptions of the calendar on the net provide a source reference.
(05-01-2025, 06:03 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But it just seems a really odd choice to follow a calendar that at best hadn't been used for over two thousand years.
Yes, at first glance that does seem a bit strange. On the other hand, if you wanted to concentrate on the “fertile” months in your presentation, a calendar like this could come in handy. In the Middle Ages, the use of old sources in a treatise always gave it the appearance of authenticity and truthfulness. So if such a source was available, why not incorporate it ?
Isn't it codicalogically likely that the two missing months were removed later though? We know that many folios of the MS are missing.
(Excitingly, this would mean that there could be a Voynich aquarius in some archive).
The question about the calendar is really why it starts with March.
Or why the whatever-it-is starts with Pisces.
(05-01-2025, 06:52 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't it codicalogically likely that the two missing months were removed later though? We know that many folios of the MS are missing.
That is of course also possible. Then the whole speculation would be invalid. But ( of all things ) the missing of the first two months would be a big coincidence.
Here is a reference to the 10-month calendar ( see under 19, page 371 ):
Plutarch, Live of Numa
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Quote:That the Romans had at first only ten months in their year, and not twelve, is proved by the name of their last month; for they still call it December, or the tenth month. And that March used to be their first month,....
Macrobius is also said to have discussed the calendar in the Saturnalia. However, I cannot find a specific passage (so far).
Isn't it correct, that the liturgical calendar would start the year with January 1? And that Pisces was in February, not March?
Hold on, here it is:
Macrobius, Saturnalia, Book 1, Chapter 12, page 84 [3]
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Quote:[3] With these variations it is not surprising that of old Rome too had its own year, arranged—on the authority of Romulus—in a series of ten months. The year used to begin in March and to consist of three hundred and four days: ....
Plutarch wrote in the first century AD about a mythical calendar reform that happened between two mythical figures in the 8th century BCE. That is because he was trying to explain why months like December don't match up with their expected number. In fact, this was simply because the Roman senate had changed the start of the year to January in 153 BCE, information Plutarch apparently didn't know or trust.
The number of website presenting the Romulus story as truth is shocking though.
Edit: Macrobius wrote even later, in the 5th century AD. This was 600 years after the Roman senate had caused month etymology confusion by changing when the new year started.
As I said, Koen, it doesn't matter if the narrative is correct or not, just that it was passed down. I imagine the author of the VMS holding his Plutarch or Macrobius in his hands. He would hardly question them.
This does not mean that I am convinced that the 10-month calendar is actually a basis of the VMS. It's just fun for me to temporarily take that position
At least it's a possibility.
It's possible indeed, but it feels weird to me that they should dedicate such an amount of space to illustrate an author's imagined calendar. It's not too high up on my list
(05-01-2025, 07:18 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is a reference to the 10-month calendar ( see under 19, page 371 ):
Plutarch, Live of Numa
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Macrobius is also said to have discussed the calendar in the Saturnalia. However, I cannot find a specific passage (so far).
Book 1, Chapter 12. But Macrobius would have been using earlier sources, as likely was Plutarch. The earliest I can see is in a work by Varro (116-27 BCE), which is a bit ambiguous but does seem to imply that there were 10 months originally, and then 2 added on. Livy also mentions Numa's calendar reform but I don't think he refers to Romulus's 10 month system. I think the best is Ovid, who literally tries to provide excuses for Romulus's choice (including that 10 months was the gestation period for a child...), and Ovid was probably easier for a writer in the early 1400s to get hold of than Plutarch. At least assuming the writer was in Europe.
If the 10 month system is a folk explanation of something confusing with the calendar, I would think the origin of the confusion dates a lot further back from 153 BCE.
In any case, I'm struggling to see how it would have been seen as authoritative, including because it was old. I think generally the 12 month reform by "Numa" is presented as progress, more efficient, with the implication that Romulus's system was not.
It also seems out of step with medieval astrology. Perilous days were still calculated for Jan and Feb. If the VM had an agricultural focus, then a 10 month calendar could be explained by the VM author wanting to incorporate only relevant months for agriculture. But that seems to me to be more likely stemming from their own choice, rather than being inspired by Romulus via Ovid.