The year 711 may be set aside at once: nobody has ever argued that it was a Leap Year; and no reason can be given to show that it was.
1. Wilhelm Soltau,[3598] the author of a valuable work on Roman chronology, maintains that 709 was the first Leap Year of the reformed calendar. He argues that Matzat’s theory, according to which an intercalation occurred in 710, must be wrong, because it is inconceivable that Caesar, who was then alive, should have allowed an intercalation to take place in the second year of his calendar, in defiance of his own edict, that the intercalation should be made every fourth year (quarto quoque anno intercalandum esse). The theory that the first intercalation was in 712 is, Soltau continues, based only upon the statements, derived from the same source, of Solinus and Macrobius. If, says Soltau, they are right, the Leap Years, before Augustus rectified the error which had been made in carrying out Caesar’s intentions, would have been 712, 715, 718, 721, 724, 727, 730, 733, 736, 739, 742, and 745. But Dion’s statement, that 713 was an intercalary year, proves that this cannot have been the case. The series must, therefore, have been 709, 713, 716, 719 ... 743. Soltau holds that the twelve years during which intercalation was, by the order of Augustus, suspended, lasted from 745 to 756; that Augustus disapproved of Caesar’s (assumed) anticipatory method of reckoning, that is to say, of his having intercalated a day in the first year of his calendar instead of after the conclusion of the fourth; that accordingly the next intercalation, which would naturally have taken place in 757, was omitted; and that the first intercalation after the reform of Augustus occurred in 761. Thus, like other writers[3599] who differ from him on points of detail, Soltau identifies the Kalends of January, 709, with the 2nd of January, 45 B.C.
It will presently be shown that the statements of Macrobius and Solinus do not necessarily lead to the conclusion which Soltau condemns. Meanwhile I may remark that Soltau’s theory is irreconcilable with the very passage in Dion Cassius to which he refers.[3600] Dion says that a day was intercalated extraordinarily (παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα) in 713, in order to prevent New Year’s Day in 714 from falling on a market-day,[3601] and that subsequently an intercalary day was struck out.[3602] It is therefore obvious that the intercalation of 713 took place earlier than had been contemplated; and consequently that the previous intercalation must have occurred later than 709; for if, as Soltau maintains, the previous intercalation had taken place in 709, the intercalation of 713 took place at the proper time. If, on the other hand, Dion’s words, παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα, mean ‘contrary to the regulations erroneously attributed to Caesar by the pontiffs’, that is to say, contrary to the triennial cycle which they themselves followed, the intercalation, on Soltau’s theory, took place a year too late; for, if the first intercalation had occurred in 709, the object which Dion mentions could have been attained by intercalating in 712.
2. Let us now examine the theory of Matzat,[3603] namely, that the first intercalation took place in 710. This writer believes that Caesar’s reason for intercalating in 710 was to prevent the Kalends of January in the following year from falling on a market-day.[3604] He holds that Dion’s words, παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα, mean ‘contrary to the actual regulations of Caesar’; and accordingly he believes that those regulations were at the time understood. He maintains, however, that, after 713, the pontiffs intercalated every three years,—namely in 716, 719, 722 ... 743; but he insists that they did this simply for the same reason which had prompted the intercalation in 713, namely to prevent the Kalends of January in each following year from falling on a market-day. The statement of Dion, that, in order to compensate for the day extraordinarily intercalated in 713, another intercalary day was omitted, he takes to mean that the next intercalation, which, on his theory, ought to have occurred in 714, was left out. Finally, he believes that the three superfluous days which had accumulated during the twelve triennial cycles were compensated for by the omission of all intercalations in the years 745-756; and that the first intercalation under the reform of Augustus occurred in 757. On this theory the Kalends of January, 709, corresponded with the 1st of January, 45 B. C.
I have already mentioned the objection which Soltau has brought against Matzat’s theory;[3605] but that objection is inconclusive. It is not true that if Caesar had allowed an intercalation to take place in 710, he would have done so ‘in defiance of his own edict, that the intercalation should be made every fourth year (quarto quoque anno intercalaretur)’. If, according to his scheme, the next intercalation was to take place in 714, the next in 718, and so on, the intercalation would still be made every fourth year. Provided it took place every four years, what difference would it make whether it took place first in 709, 710, 711, 712, or 713? Holzapfel[3606] blames Matzat for disregarding the testimony of Solinus and Macrobius. But Matzat does not disregard their testimony: he simply refuses to admit that they make any definite statement as to the year in which the first intercalation of the Julian calendar occurred. The only statement which would appear to support Holzapfel’s criticism is contained in the words of Solinus, that, ‘whereas it had been enjoined that they [the pontiffs] should intercalate one day in the fourth year, and this ordinance ought to have been carried out on the completion of the fourth year ... they intercalated at the beginning of the fourth year, not at the end’ (nam cum praeceptum esset, anno quarto ut intercalarent unum diem, et oporteret confecto quarto anno id observari ... illi incipiente quarto intercalarunt, non desinente). If by ‘the beginning of the fourth year’ Solinus meant the fourth year of the Julian calendar, that is to say, 712, and if he had original authority for his statement, then Holzapfel is right. But observe the looseness with which Solinus expresses himself. Immediately after saying that the intercalation ought to have taken place ‘in the fourth year’, he says that it ought to have taken place ‘on the completion of the fourth year’. To state the facts correctly required extraordinary precision and nicety of expression; and this requirement he failed to satisfy. His meaning may have been that, in whatever year of the Julian calendar the first intercalation took place, the next ought, by Caesar’s ordinance, to have taken place four years later, and so on. If it be objected that I have suggested an arbitrary interpretation of his meaning, I reply that this interpretation is dictated by the passage in which Dion Cassius states that the intercalation of 713 was ‘contrary to the regulations’ (παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα). Holzapfel[3607] says that these words, taken by themselves, may mean one of two things. They may mean that the intercalation of 713 was contrary to the actual regulations of Caesar; or they may mean that it was contrary to the regulations adopted by the pontiffs in misunderstanding or in contravention of Caesar’s regulations. The question, says Holzapfel, can only be settled by other evidence; and the only other evidence is that of Solinus and Macrobius, which shows that the pontiffs misunderstood Caesar’s regulations. As a matter of fact, their evidence does not show this, unless misunderstanding is connoted by the words vitium and error. Matzat[3608] contends that such a misunderstanding would have been impossible, for Caesar must have made his intentions clear. Holzapfel replies that Caesar would no doubt have done so if he had foreseen his own imminent death; but, as he certainly intended, in his capacity as Pontifex Maximus, to superintend the execution of his own arrangements, and thus establish the rule of intercalation which he contemplated, the regulation ut quarto quoque anno intercalaretur might seem sufficient. But Dion Cassius, if his testimony may be accepted, settles the question. Immediately after saying that a day was extraordinarily intercalated in 713, he adds that ‘of course an intercalary day was in turn omitted, in order that the calendar might be brought into harmony with Caesar’s intentions’ (καὶ δῆλον ὅτι [ἡμέρα ἐμβόλιμος] ἀνθυφῃρέθη αὖθις, ὅπως ὁ χρόνος κατὰ τὰ τῷ Καίσαρι τῷ προτέρῳ δόξαντα συμβῇ). Now these words, as Matzat[3609] unanswerably argues, prove that by παρὰ τὰ καθεστηκότα, Dion meant ‘contrary to the regulations’ actually made by Caesar.[3610] Holzapfel,[3611] however, tries to explain away Dion’s remark by the argument that the authority whom he followed may have been a contemporary who shared the misconception of the pontiffs; and this I cannot gainsay. Moreover, although I have argued that the words of Solinus may be interpreted in a sense different from that which Holzapfel ascribes to them, I admit that the conclusion which they suggest is that Caesar intended to make his first intercalation in 713, and that the pontiffs made it in 712.
Secondly, it is expressly stated by Macrobius[3612] that the Kalends of January in the year of the Lepidianus tumultus fell on a market-day; and if, as Holzapfel maintains, this statement refers to the Lepidus who, as one of the Triumvirs, revived Sulla’s policy of proscription in 711, it proves that no intercalation occurred either in 710 or in 709.[3613] Matzat, however, maintains that the words Lepidianus tumultus designate the outburst of Lepidus in 676 (78 B. C.).[3614] Unger,[3615] who agrees with Holzapfel, maintains that the official recognition of the superstitious dread with which the Roman populace contemplated the coincidence of the Kalends of January with a market-day, was due to the acts of Lepidus in 711. But, replies Matzat,[3616] for this ‘official recognition’ the approbation of the Pontifex Maximus was necessary. Now in 713, as in 711, the Pontifex Maximus was Lepidus himself; and, according to Macrobius, it was the Lepidianus tumultus which strengthened the popular belief that whenever the Kalends of January fell upon a market-day, the whole year would be darkened by ill-omened events. If, then, says Matzat, we are to believe Unger, Lepidus described the deeds which he had himself done in 711, and by which the joint supremacy of himself and the other two Triumvirs had been established, as a tumultus,—the most horrible events of a year full of horrors! This argument is clever, but I think that it is hardly fair. Lepidus was not obliged to describe anything. Assuming that the Kalends of January, 711, had fallen on a market-day, it is surely intelligible that he should have recognized the wisdom of allaying superstitious fears, even though they had been roused by his own acts, when he could do so by the simple expedient of intercalating a day in 713. I agree with Unger that there does not appear to have been anything very alarming in the affair of 677, even though Lucan[3617] describes it as truces Lepidi motus; and, judging the question without bias on its own merits, I can only conclude that the tumultus Lepidianus was most probably the outbreak of 711. If so, the first intercalary year of the Julian calendar cannot have been either 709 or 710, but must have been 712.
Thirdly, Holzapfel[3618] points out that, if Matzat is right, the intercalary cycle introduced by Augustus did not correspond with that of Caesar. For after the reform of Augustus the intercalary years were odd years, 761, 765, 769, and so on; while Caesar’s first intercalary year is supposed by Matzat to have been 710. Or, if we reckon the quadriennial cycles contemplated by Caesar from the year 709, the intercalations, according to his regulation, would, on Matzat’s theory, occur in the second, those made by Augustus in the first year of each successive cycle.
All this is perfectly true: but what does it matter? The one really important point, namely, that the intercalation should take place every four years, was duly secured by Augustus. Whether it took place in the first, the second, the third, or the fourth year of the cycle, mattered not a jot. Holzapfel’s objection is purely academic.
Fourthly, says Holzapfel, if, as Matzat maintains, Caesar’s only reason for intercalating in 710 was to prevent the Kalends of January in the following year from falling on a market-day, it is difficult to believe that Caesar should not have foreseen that for the same reason it would be necessary to intercalate in 713, 716, and so on, that is to say, every three years; in other words, that it would be impossible to carry out the arrangement which he had himself made.[3619]
This is certainly a reasonable objection, and Matzat has not, so far as I know, attempted to remove it: but it is perhaps conceivable that a man so busy as Caesar should have failed to look far ahead.