the Göje new moon has been shewn to be the second after Epiphany, and therefore the moon following the _disting_-moon, which is identical with the _Tor_ new moon. Herein lies an unexplained difficulty. It is to be presumed, however, that the arrangement of the heathen lunar months must have been different from that of the Christian Easter moons, and that this must have been the cause of the difference in the position of the moons. The heathen _disting_-moon, called _Goe_, did not entirely correspond either to the Christian _þorre_ or to _Goe_: Snorre has made _Goe_ equivalent to it, otherwise it has been made equivalent to _þorre_. The necessity of computing the Christian Easter has very often caused the new moons to fall after the period (Yule, Tor, Goe) from which they are named. On the contrary the _disting_-moon is the very moon in which the _disting_ is held. This is certainly a survival of an older pre-Christian computation, which was later fitted into the Christian computation of the new moons before Easter, and was re-arranged accordingly. In the other Scandinavian countries also the enumeration of the moons between Christmas and Easter was neglected after the Reformation had made the observation of the fast superfluous, or rather it was replaced by another: the New Year’s Day appears as the regulating point instead of Epiphany. The Swedish almanacs of the 16th and 17th centuries give the new moons in words, the practice ceasing in the second half of the 17th century. In accordance with the custom of the ecclesiastical computation the new moon is (nearly always) named after the following month, that in which the moon ceases: _Ny Göijemånat_, the new moon of Göje, therefore falls in _Torsmånad_ (January), and so on. Sometimes, doubtless inadvertently, the new moon is named after the month in which it falls, i. e. _Ny Göijemånat_ falls in February. Now certain years receive 13 new moons, and therefore one intercalary moon, for which the computers give rules. But the almanac-makers never follow these rules. In two or three of the oldest almanacs[1029] the intercalary moon is certainly described as such[1030], but its position in the year does not correspond to the rule of the computers: in 1603 it is simply placed in the Julian month in which two new moons fall. Otherwise the difficulty is got over by leaving uncounted the intercalary moon or some of the new moons. Another way out is chosen by Herlicius, 1630 and 1641, and Thuronius of Åbo, 1660: _Torsmånadsny_, the new moon of January, is contrary to the rule placed in January; in the further enumeration the new moons run over into the month preceding that after which they are named, and the thirteenth and last new moon is again called _Torsmånadsny_, i. e. this is doubled and serves as an intercalary moon. Here, therefore, the insertion of the intercalary moon depends upon the position of the new moon in relation to the beginning of the year, i. e. to the first of January.