Laurence Dixon
‘Why Change a Calendar? - Which year
did Bede think he lived in?’
Article from Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
(Production: Val Pearce)
© Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, UK.
NOTES
Any errors found post-publication of the original article will have been noted in a
subsequent issue of Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW and as far as possible
such errors (and any other errors found) will have been corrected in this PDF
edition.
Original formatting style and layout has been retained.
Page numbers are those in the original article
VJP - 25.6.2012
Why Change a Calendar? - Which year
did Bede think he lived in?
by Laurence Dixon
One of the reasons that chronology is difficult and interesting, is that our forefathers frequently changed the dating system which
they used to record their past and present activities. In this paper I will consider briefly those changes made in the last 1,400 years,
when the changes were made, and provide the possible reason for each. I will work backwards to end with a consideration of the
time of Bede.
As we will see, changes to the calendar system have
occurred frequently. In AD 1800 most regions of the world
had their own calendar and the Gregorian system was only in
use in Europe, America and their colonies. In contrast by
2000 that calendar had been adopted in most countries
throughout the world. Why? Because international trade was
by then global in nature and using a single calendar made
trade accounts simpler. Even so many countries retained their
traditional system for other purposes. In AD 1800 the
Gregorian dates were quoted as Anno Domini (AD),
celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, but as the system is now
used by non-Christians, too, by AD 2000 it was advocated
that this be changed to Common Era (CE). However the AD
symbol is retained in Britain. The Jews still use their Anno
Mundi system in which 2000 CE is AM 5761, and the
Moslems use their Anno Hegirae (AH) calendar in which AH
1 starts on July 16th 622 CE. The Hindus use many different
calendar systems. Dershowitz and Reinbold [1] state that 30
are in active use and that though an attempt has been made
recently to unify and revise them to be similar to the
Gregorian system, it has not been very successful.
Therefore, he claimed to have reigned more than the 23
years normally given him and if he had reigned in earlier
centuries this would have posed a difficult chronological
problem, especially in those periods when only the year of
the king’s reign was quoted. In Charles II’s case it is known
he insisted that his reign started when his father was executed.
This is usually ignored because charters from his reign are
not commonly on display.
Dershowitz and Reinbold also give details of the Maya
and Aztec calendars of South America and the Persian,
Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese calendars from
the Far East but these will not be discussed in this essay.
These three recent examples of changes introduced for
political reasons, illustrate that revolution, regal diktat and
conquest could lead to changes in the calendar. Let us now
consider the last major calendar change made partly for
astronomical reasons.
In this brief glance at the calendar systems in use today we
have already identified one cause for a change in system,
namely the needs of international trade. As we proceed we
will identify three more reasons why calendars have been
changed, namely politics, religion and astronomy.
Recent Changes Made for Political Reasons
In this section we will note three changes made for
political reasons.
In AD 1792 the French people overthrew their monarchy
and created a republic. As they did not wish to retain
anything that reminded them of their kings they completely
changed the calendar. Each year contained twelve months of
30 days, each divided into 3 periods of 10 days, together with
5 or 6 extra days which were added to the end of each year.
The system was abandoned by Napoleon in AD 1806. It was
unusual in that most calendars had weeks of seven days, and
did not disturb the days of the week when making other
changes.
In AD 1660 Charles II of England became king, he is
known to have ruled until AD 1683, a reign of 23 years. My
attention was recently drawn to a Royal Charter from his
reign, it started:
Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
‘Club Indenture Tripartite made the thirteenth day of
April in the three and thirtieth year of the reign of our
sovereign Lord Charles the Second by the grant of
god of England, Scotland, France and Ireland King,
Defender of the Faith, Anno Domini One Thousand
six hundred eighty and one’.
In the sixteenth century the Spanish conquered the Maya,
Aztec and Inca empires in South America, destroyed the
systems that maintained their calendars and imposed their
own calendar. Conquered countries often, but not always,
had to adopt the conquerors’ calendar.
The Gregorian Calendar
In AD 1582, Pope Gregory’s advisors decided that the
Julian Calendar then in use was unsatisfactory [2], mainly
due to the fact that the spring equinox was no longer taking
place on March 21st, the date the experts at the Council of
Nicaea in AD 325 had expected it to occur. The date of the
spring equinox was easily determined by the scientific
instruments then available and in AD 1582 it occurred on
March 11th. This change in date was due to the fact that the
length of the year was not precisely the 365.25 days assumed
by the leap year structure which formed part of the Julian
system. In this a leap year, with an extra day, occurred every
four years, including each century year. Throughout history
the number of days in a year has steadily declined. To correct
this drift it was decreed that century years that were not
divisible by 400 would no longer be leap years. So, in 1,200
years, there would be 300 leap years in the Julian calendar
and 300 - 12 + 3 in the Gregorian. This formula is still in use,
but does not reflect the current number of days in a year
exactly. You may wonder whether it is the length of the year
that is changing, or the length of the day. This was an
unanswerable question until recently, when the second was
redefined using the frequency of radiation from a Caesium
35
atom, so that whether the number of such seconds in a day
was constant could then be determined, although I am
unaware that such experiments have been performed.
One reason that the date of the vernal equinox was
important to the Christian community was that it was used to
calculate the date of Easter. The Council of Nicaea in AD
325 agreed that Easter would be celebrated on the first
Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the
vernal equinox [3]. In the tables of the date of Easter
prepared by Dionysius Exiguus in AD 532, it was assumed
that the vernal equinox would always occur on March 21st [4].
When it varied this caused arguments about when Easter
should be celebrated between those Christians who assumed
that the vernal equinox occurred on March 21st and those
who used instruments to observe when it in fact occurred.
As the date of the vernal equinox had already changed in
AD 1582, a second decree stated that Thursday October
4th AD 1582 (Julian) would be followed by Friday October
15th AD 1582 (Gregorian); a change of 11 days.
A third change was also made at that time. The start of a
New Year was changed from 25th March to 1st January. This
restored a previous arrangement, made by the Council of
Tours in AD 567, when they changed the start of the New
Year from 1st January to the vernal equinox; intended at that
time as 25th March [5].
Because the political relationships between the Protestant
countries of Northern Europe and the Papacy were very
strained at this time, the Protestants chose not to implement
the change and England continued to use the Julian system
until AD 1752. As a leap year had not occurred in AD 1700
(Gregorian), a 12 day period then had to be omitted. It is
interesting to note that March 25th, the start of the New Year
on the Julian calendar, became April 6th in the Gregorian
system and that April 6th is still the start of the English
tax year.
The use of the Julian calendar in England, while France
was using the Gregorian calendar, led to some unexpected
complications. For instance Elizabeth Tudor, Queen of
England, died on March 24th AD 1603 (Julian), but in France
this date was April 4th AD 1604 (Gregorian). Most English
history books still use Julian dates when discussing years
before AD 1752.
In AD 1917 the Russians still used the Julian calendar; the
revolution that overthrew the Tsar occurred in October
(Julian) but that date was in November on the Gregorian
Calendar used in Western Europe. So the anniversary of the
October revolution is celebrated in November. The Russians
had adopted the Julian calendar when Tsar Peter, ‘the Great’,
decreed that January 1st AM 7207 would henceforth be
known as January 1st AD 1700. He also changed the date of
the New Year from 1st September to 1st January. The simple
formula for going from AD to AM dates, AM = AD + 5,507
years, is therefore only accurate for part of the year and is
one year out for the rest. The AM calendar was introduced
into Russia by Vladimir of Kiev when he converted to
Christianity and this is usually said by modern scholars to
have occurred in AD 988 (AM 6495). According to a letter in
the publication Current World Archaeology [6], the AM date
reflects the resettling of displaced inhabitants of Southern
Ukraine after the flood of the Black Sea.
36
The Start of the Julian Calendar
Let us consider when the Julian calendar might have come
into use. Presumably when it was introduced the vernal
equinox did occur on March 21st. Assuming that the
Gregorian leap-year system would have been as accurate
before AD 1582 as it has been since, we can apply the
correction in reverse (all datesAD).
This gives:
March 22 (Gregorian) = March 11 (Julian) from 1500-1699
= March 12
1400-1499
= March 13
1300-1399
= March 14
1100-1299
= March 15
1000-1099
= March 16
900- 999
= March 17
700- 899
= March 18
600- 699
= March 19
500- 599
= March 20
300- 499
= March 21
200- 299
Therefore, we would expect that the equinox was on
March 21st at some date between AD 200 and AD 299; two
to three hundred years after the start of the Julian calendar.
However, I have found two references to a calendar reform in
this century, when the equinox was reset to March 21st. If
days had to be omitted, as in AD 1582, we cannot retrocalculate Julian dates before AD 285.
‘[AD 285] Indiction 4 year 1, the second consulship
of Diocletian Augustus and that of Aristobulus. The
regnal years of Diocletian in the Easter Tables are
determined from these consuls. (An important step
was taken in the mid 3rd C by the Egyptian Anatolius,
Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who exploited a 19 year
lunar cycle for the computation of Easter and
probably produced a 95-year table (5 cycles) whose
notional beginning was in 258. In order to place the
equinox correctly on 21 March, a reform was
undertaken at Alexandria in the early 4th C and the
revised cycle was notionally begun either in 303 or
one cycle earlier in 284; the latter coincided with the
regnal years of Diocletian which were used for dating
purposes especially in Egypt, where the new cycle
was adopted).’ [7]
The above era is known as the Diocletian era.
In AD 1852, Greswell [8] asserted that he had proof that
a calendar reform occurred in AD 225. It would have been
feasible for the reform to have been introduced in different
years in different parts of the Empire, which was in chaos for
much of that century.
If the year was the same length as the Gregorian year for
the period we are considering, then March 21st (Gregorian),
supposedly the vernal equinox, could not have occurred on
March 21st (Julian) in AD 532, when Dionysius supposedly
compiled his Easter tables. Dionysius’ date is incompatible
with the calendar reform of AD 225. Possibly Dionysius did
not observe the equinox himself and simply continued
Anatolius’ Easter cycles. Now we will look at the calendar
change immediately before Gregory’s.
Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
The Reform of Nicephorus Gregares AD 1333. A
Political Reform.
Leaving aside the last sentence, we note that from AM
6248-6232 is 16 years.
After the recovery of Constantinople by the Byzantines,
in AD 1261 efforts were made to reconcile the Greek and
Roman-Christian religions, chronologies etc. In these
negotiations, Nicephorus took a leading role on the Greek
side. He was born in AD 1283 and rose to be the archivist in
the court at Constantinople; leading the negotiations in AD
1333. He died in AD 1360. Alexander del Mar [9] claims that
one point at issue was that the Romans claimed Christ was
born 15 years before the Greeks had determined it. At this
time the Romans used an AD calendar and the Greeks used
an Anno Mundi calendar, but of course they ‘knew’ the AM
date of the birth of Christ in their system. The year AD 1333
after the birth of Christ on the Roman calendar, was only
1,318 years after the birth of Christ according to the Greek
system. Del Mar claimed that Nicephorus made the dates
agree by adding 15 years in the Greek system, by arbitrarily
changing the reign lengths of certain emperors before Justin
II to achieve this. Del Mar claimed that the Latins had
already added 15 years centuries before.
The Chronicle of Theophanes is our main source for
eastern history from AD 603 – 813, but Turtledove, the
translator, commented that Theophanes mainly used AM
dates and that he, Turtledove, had added the corresponding
AD dates by subtracting 5492/3 from the AM dates. However,
where Theophanes himself gave AD dates they differed and
should be ignored [13]. To get to Theophanes’ AD dates you
need to subtract 5,500, so Theophanes’ own system is AM =
AD + 5,500. An example is AM 6095 (Theophanes) = AD
603 (Turtledove) = AD 595 (Theophanes). Victorian
historians, like Turtledove, who assumed they could correct
AM dates, may have misled generations.
On p. 203, del Mar quotes Nicephorus as stating that
Justin II died in AD 578 on the Roman Fasti system; and in
AM 6098, which equalled AD 593 in Nicephorus’ own
system, after he had added 15 years. However, modern
scholarship states that Justin II did indeed die in AD 578!
So it appears that Nicephorus’ reforms were only
temporary. Nicephorus’ new relationship was AM = AD +
5505/6. If he added 15 years to both the AM and AD dates
then the formula linking them would have been unaltered, but
there would have been a gap of 15 years in Byzantine history
around AM 6839. Nicephorus did write a history of the
Romans [10] covering the period AD 1222-1351 and whether
or not he had made the modification that del Mar claimed, he
wrote it as a seamless history with no gap. Unfortunately, his
history does not appear to have been translated into English.
A search on the web located online Greek and Latin versions,
as well as references to early 19th century translations into
French and German.
Probably the only place where we might find verifying
evidence that Nicephorus’ made reforms would be in a
contemporary chronicle relating the details of the Crusaders’
occupation of Constantinople.
The Chronicle of Theophanes, AD 813. Politics
Again
Before the time of Nicephorus, Theophanes wrote a
chronicle. Harry Turtledove translated the Chronicle of
Theophanes into English in 1982 [11] and used an AM
system. The Chronicle ended in AM 6305 with the start of
the reign of Leo V, which Turtledove and other modern
scholars date to AD 813. Subtracting the dates gives AM =
AD + 5,492, which is known as the Alexandrian AM system.
Under year AM 6232 Theophanes states:
‘According to the Romans, [that is Constantinople]
this year was 6248 years after the creation of the
world [from the time of Adam]; according to the
Egyptians [that is the Alexandrians] 6232. It was 1063
years after Philip of Macedon.’ [12]
Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
Two examples of Theophanes’ headings (below) illustrate
the details he quoted.
Annus Mundi 6095 (602-603)
AD 595
Annus Mundi 6268 (775-776)
AD 768
Roman Emperor Phokas (7 yrs: yr 1)
Persian King Khosroes (39 yrs: yr 15)
Bishop of Constantinople Kyriakos
(11 yrs: yr 9)
Bishop of Jerusalem Isaac (8 yrs: yr 3)
Roman Emperor Leo (5 yrs: yr 1)
Arab ruler Mahdi (9 yrs: yr 1)
Bishop of Rome Hadrian:
(27 yrs: yr 7)
Bishop of Constantinople
Niketas (14 yrs: yr 11)
Bishop of Alexandria Eulogios (27 yrs:
yr 24)
Bishop of Antioch Anastasios (9 yrs: yr 3)
Under AM 6255, (Turtledove AD 763), Theophanes states
that it was so cold in October that the north shore of the
Black Sea froze to a depth of 30 cubits 100 miles out and, as
the snow kept falling, the depth increased another 20 cubits,
so that the sea became dry land. When it began to melt in
February icebergs formed and damaged the gates of the
harbour of Constantinople. It must have been an
exceptionally cold spell.
Two reforms occurred about AD 1079
Del Mar [14] reported that Omar Kayyam reformed the
Persian calendar in AD 1079. At about the same time the
Armenians, who had used the Buddhist Divine Cycle of 552
years, changed to the Dionysian 532 year cycle, bringing the
end of the cycle forward from AD 1104 to AD 1084.
The Venerable Bede AD 672-735? A Mystery
Bede was a monk at the Northumberland monastery of St
Peter at Monkwearmouth, now within Sunderland. He was a
theologian, historian and chronologist and wrote over 60
books. His most famous book is his Historia Ecclesiastica
Gentis Anglorium, (Ecclesial History of the English People)
[15]. When he attempted to date past events he was faced
with a difficult situation, as traders came to Jarrow from both
the eastern empire and from western rulers, bringing their
chronological systems with them (including conflicting Anno
Mundi systems and conflicting records of past emperors’
reigns). In AD 703 he wrote De Temporibus [16], a short
work containing 15 pages, and included in it his own
independent Anno Mundi system. Anno Mundi systems were
meant to start at the biblical creation of the world and many
chroniclers attempted the task of adding up the years given in
the Old Testament, but then switched to the chronologies of
the Persian and following Ptolemaic dynasties in Egypt to
37
determine the number of years that had passed between the
creation and their own time. Unfortunately, they all obtained
different answers. Confused, Bede did the sum for himself
and obtained yet another value.
The Anno Mundi system in use in western Europe was the
system proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea [17] in his
Chronicon, published in about AD 325. Bede states that
Eusebius did not include dates in the Chronicon, but added
up the years of the lives of fathers before their eldest child
was born, as recorded in the Septuagint Bible. He obtained
the figure 5,199 years from the creation of the world to the
birth of Christ. His system was used by a series of western
Christian chroniclers for over 1,000 years.
The Anno Mundi system, popular in the eastern empire,
was based on the belief that the phrase ‘one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day’
meant that, since it is said in Genesis that the world had been
created in six days, it would end 6,000 years after it was
created. Again, it was assumed that the Messiah would be
born in the last hour and, since an hour was one twelth part of
the day, it was decided the Messiah would be born 5,500
years after the creation, giving AM = AD + 5,500. This
system is often credited to Hippolytus (c. AD 235). In this
system the 16th year of Tiberius was dated AM 5531. As we
have seen, this system was still used by Theophanes. It had,
however, been revised first by Annianus, a monk in
Alexandria, working under their Arch Bishop, Theoplitius,
who introduced the formula AM = AD + 5,493 in Alexandria
in about AD 412. This was the system Turtledove used in
altering the AD dates in Theophanes. The system was revised
again at the Quinisext Council called by Justinian II in about
AD 692, who ruled that henceforth AM = AD +5,509 should
be used in Constantinople.
Bede had to decide which system to use and decided to do
the arithmetic himself. In contrast to Eusebius’ use of the
Septuagint Old Testament, Bede used the Latin Old
Testament as translated by Jerome and obtained 3,952 years
for the time between Adam and Christ. When this appeared
in De Temporibus he was accused of heresy, but wrote a
letter [18] to Plegwin explaining how both Eusebius’ and his
own figures were reached. It was essentially a difference in
the length of the second ‘age’ from Noah to Abraham. The
reason for the change in system was purely religious. As both
the Septuagint and the Latin Bible are extant, anyone can do
the sums and check their arithmetic. Bede defeated the
charge of heresy and his AM system was used to date church
buildings in England for at least 600 years.
It surprised me to learn that the Jewish rabbis got a
slightly different total to Bede (in AD 2000 they were in AM
5760) implying a difference of 192 years from Bede. Part of
the difference occurs because the Jews allocate a mere 52
years for the Persian period of their history, despite the fact
that Cyrus II is separated from Alexander by 206 years,
according to modern historians.
In De Temporibus, which modern scholars claim was
published in AD 703, Bede included his Chronica Minora, a
list of Emperors and the length of their reigns continuing to
the end of Leo I, and simple summation within the text gives
712 years from the birth of Christ. So, when Bede published
this book, he obviously must have thought he was living after
38
AD 712 and not in AD 703. Then, according to modern
scholars, 22 years later in AD 725 he wrote De Temporus
Ratione and included his Chronica Majora in chapter 66,
which also lists the lengths of the reigns of the Roman
Emperors. It should be stressed that the Chronica Minora
contains no AD or AM dates; it simply lists the length of
reigns of recognised Roman and eastern emperors. In
contrast, the Majora also gives the AM (Bede) date for the
end of each reign and a short description of the major events
that occurred. Victorian editors, Mommsen and Migne,
added summary tables which often do not agree with the
numbers in the Latin scripts; I have chosen to ignore their
modifications.
Adding the reign lengths in both Chronica agree that from
the start of Tiberius to the end of Justin II is 563 years, to
which Christians would add 15 years in order to reach the
date of the birth of Christ, giving AD 578. According to del
Mar, Nicephorus also had AD 578 before he made his
modification and changed it to 593 AD (because he inserted
his modifications before the reign of Justin II. His date
should be ignored). The agreement between the first three
figures inspires confidence, until it is noticed that earlier
individual reigns are as much as 5 years different, when it
then looks contrived. Justin II is the last reign detailed by del
Mar from Nicephorus. The Chronica Majora continues past
the end of the Minora (which ends with Leo III, whose reign
ends in AD 712 in the Minora and AD 700 in the Majora),
up to the end of the reign of Leo ‘IIII’ [IV] which, by simple
arithmetic, makes AD 728. Bede obviously changed his mind
about the date in which he was living after publishing the
first book. His two dates for Leo I are 12 years apart, the
difference being mainly located in the reigns of Heraclius,
which he quotes as 36 and 25 years long respectively.
Obviously De Temporibus must have been published after
the last event mentioned in it. On a straight summation of the
years since the birth of Christ that Bede lists within it, the last
event occurred 712 years later than Christ’s birth, yet modern
scholars date the publication to AD 703. In De Temporus
Ratione dated by modern scholars to AD 721, Bede included
his own retro-calculated AD dates, which differ from the sum
in De Temporibus. Possibly, a Pope commissioned Bede to
write his second history and provided him with papal
correspondence in order to improve his dates, but while AD
dates in this paper after about AD 750 can be used to
calculate the number of years before today, no AD date
quoted earlier than AD 750 should be assumed to be precise.
As we have seen, the time of Bede’s life was also covered
by Theophanes. However, he states that Herakleios reigned
for 31 years, his son Constantine III reigned for 4 months,
and another son Heraklonas reigned for 6 months, before
Constantine IV son of Constantine III came to the throne and
reigned for 27 years. Theophanes dates the end of the reign
of Leo III to AM 6232 (and subtracting 5,500 this is AD732,
not AD 728 as given by Bede, nor AD 741 as implied by
Turtledove). Herakleios’ father had ruled the African
provinces before being summoned to Constantinople to expel
the emperor Phokas, when he sent his son in response. In the
younger Herakleios’ first 12 years, the Persians took more
and more of the Asian empire. Then, in years 12 to 18,
Herakleios succeeded in recovering the provinces, but the
wars reduced both armies and in his 23rd year the Arab
armies began to sweep over the Asian provinces, Persia and
Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
Africa. Herakleios died of dropsy in year 31 and Umar began
to build the mosque in Jerusalem in year 2 of Constans. This
was obviously a disastrous period for the eastern Empire and
the chronology is in a mess at this time. The reign of
Herakleios is given 3 different lengths (36 yrs, 31 yrs and 25
yrs in the three chronicles we have considered). Turtledove
dates the end of Leo II in AD 698, in agreement with the
Chronica Majora, while Theophanes dated it at AD 691 and
the Minora to AD 712.
Speculating, it appears at first glance that Bede made a
mistake in his first book, but it cannot be that simple, because
when he wrote it he must have believed he was living after
AD 712, so that must have been the AD date in use in Jarrow.
Accepting that his information and his AD date had been
wrong, he was commissioned to write his new history and
did so using his new calendar, but he must have known how
many years he had lived between writing his two histories.
Was it 22 years or 13, or was Theophanes correct and it was
somewhere in between? Theophanes, of course, lived about
100 years after the events he was recording, but Turtledove
[19] suggests that Theophanes probably used the chronicle of
the earlier Nikephorus, whose Historia Syntomos covers the
period AD 602-769. A brief glance at the translation shows
that Nikephorus includes no AD or AM dates. Cyril Mango
[20], the translator, in his ‘Introduction’, draws attention to a
curious hiatus in both Theophanes’ and Nikephorus’
discussion of events in Constantinople after AD 720
(Mango’s date for the coronation of Constantine V,
Theophanes gives as AD 733). Theophanes also mentions
events in Constantinople in AD 727 (Turtledove) when there
was a volcanic eruption in the sea near Thera.
As the Arab advance through France was only halted at
Tours by Charles Martel in AD 731, Northumberland may
well have seemed to the Pope to be the most secure and
prosperous Christian land at that time and the safest place in
which to write the official chronicle.
that he was, this history is seamless and gives no hint that he
ever had any doubts. Modern historians also write seamless
histories and ignore these difficult changes.
Conclusion
In this paper I have looked at calendar changes since the
time of Bede. Calendar changes due to considerations of
commerce, religion, politics and astronomy have occurred in
the centuries since Bede and I have attempted to explain
them. However, at this point in time, the calendar changes
reflected in the early 700s (AD) by the differences between
Bede’s two histories and Theophanes’ chronicle remain a
mystery, which I hope to solve in another paper.
Notes and references
1. N. Dershowitz and E. Reingold, Calendrical Calculations. CUP, 2008, p.
275.
2. Ibid p. 47.
3. Ibid p. 113.
4. Ibid p. 114.
5. J. Wilson, ‘It’s Another
/holidays/newyear/1997.
New
Year’.
http://www.wilstar.com.
6. I. Nasaduke, ‘Counting Time’. Current World Archaeology, 36, August
2009, pp. 6-7.
7. M. Whitby & M Whitby, translators of Chronicon Paschale. Liverpool
University Press, 1990, pp. 284-628.
8. E. Greswel, Origines Kalendariae Hellenicae, Vol. 6. 1862, p. 443.
9. A. del Mar, The Worship of Augustus Caesar. California, 1899. Reprinted
1976, p. 68.
10. Nicephorus (c. 1333), History of the Romans.
11. Theophanes (c. 815), Chronographia. Translated by H. Turtledove. 1982;
The Chronicle of Theophanes Anni Mundi 6095-6305. Pennsylvania
University Press.
12. Ibid, p. 103-105.
13. Ibid, p. xvi.
Under the heading AM 6247, Theophanes states:
‘The Emperor Constantine resettled in Thrace the
Syrians and Armenians …. . In the same way he
brought men and their families from the islands,
Greece and the southerly regions because there were
few property owners in the city. He had them settle
there, thickly studding it with them.’
The times had obviously been devastating.
So, when precisely did Bede think he was living in the
interval between writing his two books?
After Bede had written De Temporus Ratione (AD 725),
he wrote his famous Ecclesiastical History of the English
People (AD 731). This is famous as the first history written
using the AD system. After dating Julius Caesar and
Augustus using the calendar dating from the foundation of
Rome (AUC), he listed the events in the Emperors’ reigns
using AD dates from Marcus Antonius Verus in AD 156 until
the reign of Mauricius in AD 582, at which point he ceased
to refer to Roman Emperors and switched to Pope Gregory,
who sent Augustine to Kent. With the Roman Church
established in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms he related their
history using AD dates until AD 725. As the skilled narrator
Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 2010
14. Del Mar, op. cit., p. 269.
15. Bede (c. 731), Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Translated
by B. Colngrove and R.A.B. Mynors. OUP, 1969.
16. Bede (c. 703), De Temporibus. A Latin version of the full book is
available in Giles’ Complete works of Bede. The Chronica Minora is
available on the MGH website http://www.mgh.de/dmgh.
17. Eusebius (c. 325). The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilius,
translated by C. F. Cruse. Bell and Daldy, London, 1868.
18. F. Wallis, Bede, The Reckoning of Time. Liverpool University Press.
1999, pp. 405-416, which includes translations of: Bede (c. 725), De
Temporus Ratione and Bede (c. 704), Letter to Plegwin.
19. H. Turtedove op. cit. p. xvi
20. Nikephorus (c. 769), Historia Syntomos; Nikephorus’ Short History.
Washington. Translated by C. Mango, 1990.
_____________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements - This essay could not have been
written without considerable help from Trevor Palmer and
Steve Mitchell, but the views reflected in this paper are my
own views and are quite different from theirs.
39