4 ms·

The author just doesn't understand the history of these concepts. The months really used to coincide with the begging of the seasons for traditional western cal

The author just doesn't understand the history of these concepts. The months really used to coincide with the begging of the seasons for traditional western calendars such as the Julian calendar, when it was introduced (it later became incorrect because seasonal drifts were not readjusted). It was the introduction of the Gregorian calendar that shifted dates, resulting in the beginning of seasons at the "wrong" date (the Gregorian calendar skipped dates on purpose). Since the Gregorian calendar autocorrects, this drift is not going away and we are stuck with seasons that start at around the 21st of the month. Defining the seasons according to the equinoxes is not only logical, it is the definition used for thousands of years it just turns out that our modern calendars don't respect these dates.

famous 11y ago
Author here. That's an interesting claim -- that the solstices and equinoxes used to fall on the first days of the month. (At least, I think that's what you're implying.) But I'm not sure that checks out: The Julian and Gregorian calendar diverge by 3 days every 400 hundred years. When the Gregorian calendar was adopted at various times in various countries, it skipped forward between 10 and 13 days (http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch....). That's not enough days to explain why the equinoxes and solstices fall 20 or 21 days after the first of the month. Do you have a source for this? Moreover, I argue that if you want to use astronomical seasons, it doesn't make much sense to begin them on the solstices and equinoxes -- they should begin near the "cross-quarter" days halfway in between (around the 7th of March, May, August, and November). And that is indeed how the seasons used to be defined in many cultures, such that Midsummer and Yule, the midwinter holiday, each came near the solstice.
- coliveira 11y ago
  This is not something that can be "proven" in the sense that all early calendars had drifts that had to be "manually" fixed over time. But we know that the Roman year started officially at the Spring equinox, so that was a calibration point [1]. The first serious attempt to fix the calendar was done by Julio Cesar, but by then he was stuck with the Winter Equinox at Dec 25th (our traditional date for Xmas). When the church introduced the Gregorian calendar their goal was to go back to the dates established for Easter around the year 300 CE, that's why they decided to jump ~10 days in the calendar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Calendar_of_Romulus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Calendar_of_Rom...
  - famous 11y ago
    OK, the piece really isn't about how pre-Julian calendars defined the seasons or how and when they may have gone off the rails. It's an argument for why [1] meteorological seasons, starting a few weeks before the solstices/equinoxes, is the way to go, and [2] even if you are adamant about strictly astronomical seasons, beginning them on cross-quarter days makes more sense than the system we use now. One system used over 2,000 years ago doesn't figure into it.

famous 11y ago

Author here. That's an interesting claim -- that the solstices and equinoxes used to fall on the first days of the month. (At least, I think that's what you're implying.) But I'm not sure that checks out: The Julian and Gregorian calendar diverge by 3 days every 400 hundred years. When the Gregorian calendar was adopted at various times in various countries, it skipped forward between 10 and 13 days (http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch....). That's not enough days to explain why the equinoxes and solstices fall 20 or 21 days after the first of the month. Do you have a source for this? Moreover, I argue that if you want to use astronomical seasons, it doesn't make much sense to begin them on the solstices and equinoxes -- they should begin near the "cross-quarter" days halfway in between (around the 7th of March, May, August, and November). And that is indeed how the seasons used to be defined in many cultures, such that Midsummer and Yule, the midwinter holiday, each came near the solstice.

coliveira 11y ago
This is not something that can be "proven" in the sense that all early calendars had drifts that had to be "manually" fixed over time. But we know that the Roman year started officially at the Spring equinox, so that was a calibration point [1]. The first serious attempt to fix the calendar was done by Julio Cesar, but by then he was stuck with the Winter Equinox at Dec 25th (our traditional date for Xmas). When the church introduced the Gregorian calendar their goal was to go back to the dates established for Easter around the year 300 CE, that's why they decided to jump ~10 days in the calendar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Calendar_of_Romulus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Calendar_of_Rom...
- famous 11y ago
  OK, the piece really isn't about how pre-Julian calendars defined the seasons or how and when they may have gone off the rails. It's an argument for why [1] meteorological seasons, starting a few weeks before the solstices/equinoxes, is the way to go, and [2] even if you are adamant about strictly astronomical seasons, beginning them on cross-quarter days makes more sense than the system we use now. One system used over 2,000 years ago doesn't figure into it.