were only secondarily evolved from the general time-indications. He adds:--“This observation can often be made in the sources, viz. that alongside of the month-name which exactly circumscribes a lunar period (_sic!_, must be ‘a Julian month’) a simple conception of time also appears. These simple terms, such as ‘autumn’ for September, also appear as general time-indications, especially in the old laws. They originally have this character, and they shew it even to-day. Little by little they become stereotyped into fixed names of months, and enter into association with the conception ‘month’. In this sense as definite names of months the simple terms live for a long time in the sources alongside of the full terms (those with ‘month’), but in the end lose their force as definite names of months; to-day they are in dialects general time-indications”[997]. There is therefore an attempt to render popular the unfamiliar Julian divisions of the year by giving them popularly intelligible names; Charlemagne by his series of months had already tried to systematise the process. The same phenomenon shews itself in the single fragment of a Gothic calendar which has come down to us, where November is equated to _fruma jiuleis_. The fact that the people regarded the months as seasons, and did not clearly distinguish them from the latter as divisions of time with a definite number of days, has sympathetically affected those Latin names which became really popular. When we hear of a ‘first’ and a ‘second’ May, the name is evidently loosely regarded as a general term for the early summer. _Augst_ comes to mean simply ‘harvest’[998]; hence July is called ‘the first _Augst_’ and August ‘the second _Augst_’, or the latter is named _Augst_ and September is called _Ander Augst_, _Augstin_, or _Haberaugst_ (oat-harvest).