The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2Browne, Thomas, Sir
Religion
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2
Browne, Thomas, Sir
Christianity; Ethics; Religion and medicine
Nor if we survey the account of _Rome_ it self, may we doubt they were
mistaken; and if they feared Climacterical years, might err in their
numeration. For the civil year whereof the people took notice, did
sometimes come short, and sometimes exceed the natural. For according to
_Varro_, _Suctoninus_ and _Censorinus_, their year consisted first of
ten months; which comprehended but 304 daies, that is, 61 less than ours
containeth; after by _Numa_ or _Tarquine_ from a superstitious conceit
of imparity were added 51 daies, which made 355, one day more then
twelve revolutions of the Moon. And thus a long time it continued, the
civil compute exceeding the natural; the correction whereof, and the
due ordering of the Leap year was referred unto the Pontifices; who
either upon favour or malice, that some might continue their offices a
longer or shorter time; or from the magnitude of the year that men might
be advantaged, or endamaged in their contracts, by arbitrary
intercalations depraved the whole account. Of this abuse _Cicero_
accused _Verres_, which at last proceeded so far, that when _Julius
Cæsar_ came unto that office, before the redress hereof he was fain to
insert two intercalary months unto _November_ and _December_, when he
had already inserted 23 daies unto _February_; so that the year
consisted of 445 daies; a quarter of a year longer then that we observe;
and though at the last the year was reformed, yet in the mean time they
might be out wherein they summed up Climacterical observations.
Lastly, One way more there may be of mistake, and that not unusual among
us, grounded upon a double compute of the year; the one beginning from
the 25 of _March_, the other from the day of our birth, unto the same
again which is the natural account. Now hereupon many men frequently
miscast their daies; for in their age they deduce the account not from
the day of their birth, but the year of our Lord, wherein they were
born. So a man that was born in _January_ 1582, if he live to fall sick
in the latter end of _March_ 1645, will sum up his age, and say I am now
Sixty three, and in my Climacterical and dangerous year; for I was born
in the year 1582, and now it is 1645, whereas indeed he wanteth many
months of that year, considering the true and natural account unto his
birth; and accounteth two months for a year: and though the length of
time and accumulation of years do render the mistake insensible; yet is
it all one, as if one born in _January_ 1644, should be accounted a
year old the 25 of _March_ 1645.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account