H. Matzat, Römische Chronologie I (Berlin, 1883), 13—18. His argument rested on Dio Cassius 48.33.4. Архивная копия от 29 мая 2020 на Wayback Machine which mentions a leap day inserted in 41 BC, «contrary to the (i.e., Caesar’s) rule», in order to avoid having a market day on the first day of 40 BC. Dio stated that this leap day was compensated for «later». Matzat proposed this was done by omitting a scheduled leap day in 40 BC, rather than by omitting a day from an ordinary year.
W. Soltau, Römische Chronologie. Архивная копия от 26 января 2021 на Wayback Machine (Freiburg, 1889) 170—173. He accepted Matzat’s phase of the triennial cycle but argued that it was absurd to suppose that Caesar would have made the second Julian year a leap year and that the 36 years had to be accounted from 45 BC.
Mitropolia Banatului(рум.). Secretariatul de Stat pentru Culte. Дата обращения: 26 августа 2017. Архивировано из оригинала 26 августа 2017 года.
hermetic.ch
For the list of triennial leap years proposed by Bünting, Christmann and Harriot, see Harriot’s comparative table reproduced by Simon Cassidy. Архивная копия от 28 августа 2020 на Wayback Machine (Fig. 6). The table numbers years as Julian years, where Julian year 1 = 45 BC. Thus, Scaliger and Clavius (col. 7) resume intercalation in Julian year 53 = AD 8, while Bünting (col. 8) and Harriot (col. 3) resume it in Julian year 49 = AD 4 and Christmann (col. 9) in year 52 = AD 7.
C. J. Bennett, «The Early Augustan Calendars in Rome and Egypt», Zeitschrift fűr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142 (2003) 221—240 and «The Early Augustan Calendars in Rome and Egypt: Addenda et Corrigenda», Zeitschrift fűr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 147 (2004) 165—168; see also Chris Bennett, A.U.C. 730 = 24 B.C. (Egyptian papyrus). Архивная копия от 2 августа 2012 на Wayback Machine.
H. Matzat, Römische Chronologie I (Berlin, 1883), 13—18. His argument rested on Dio Cassius 48.33.4. Архивная копия от 29 мая 2020 на Wayback Machine which mentions a leap day inserted in 41 BC, «contrary to the (i.e., Caesar’s) rule», in order to avoid having a market day on the first day of 40 BC. Dio stated that this leap day was compensated for «later». Matzat proposed this was done by omitting a scheduled leap day in 40 BC, rather than by omitting a day from an ordinary year.
C. J. Bennett, «The Early Augustan Calendars in Rome and Egypt», Zeitschrift fűr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142 (2003) 221—240 and «The Early Augustan Calendars in Rome and Egypt: Addenda et Corrigenda», Zeitschrift fűr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 147 (2004) 165—168; see also Chris Bennett, A.U.C. 730 = 24 B.C. (Egyptian papyrus). Архивная копия от 2 августа 2012 на Wayback Machine.
W. Soltau, Römische Chronologie. Архивная копия от 26 января 2021 на Wayback Machine (Freiburg, 1889) 170—173. He accepted Matzat’s phase of the triennial cycle but argued that it was absurd to suppose that Caesar would have made the second Julian year a leap year and that the 36 years had to be accounted from 45 BC.
H. Matzat, Römische Chronologie I (Berlin, 1883), 13—18. His argument rested on Dio Cassius 48.33.4. Архивная копия от 29 мая 2020 на Wayback Machine which mentions a leap day inserted in 41 BC, «contrary to the (i.e., Caesar’s) rule», in order to avoid having a market day on the first day of 40 BC. Dio stated that this leap day was compensated for «later». Matzat proposed this was done by omitting a scheduled leap day in 40 BC, rather than by omitting a day from an ordinary year.
For the list of triennial leap years proposed by Bünting, Christmann and Harriot, see Harriot’s comparative table reproduced by Simon Cassidy. Архивная копия от 28 августа 2020 на Wayback Machine (Fig. 6). The table numbers years as Julian years, where Julian year 1 = 45 BC. Thus, Scaliger and Clavius (col. 7) resume intercalation in Julian year 53 = AD 8, while Bünting (col. 8) and Harriot (col. 3) resume it in Julian year 49 = AD 4 and Christmann (col. 9) in year 52 = AD 7.
