lunariatext thatlunaIII was considered unpropitious for childbirth:Luna
III...infans si fuerit natus, mediocrus[sic]et non eritvitalis(‘on the 3rd lunar
day, if a child is born he will be weak and not viable’). It has therefore been
argued that the authors of inscription no. 13 (presumably the parents) speci-
fied that Samsacius had been born onluna IIIin order to provide an astrolog-
ical explanation for his untimely, infant death.^76
This interpretation, however, is untenable in view of the inconsistency of
thelunariatexts. Although some of the Latinlunariastate, as cited above, that
the third lunar day is unpropitious for childbirth,^77 others state on the
contrary that it is propitious.^78 There is no way of knowing which of these
lunariaSamsacius’parents used, if indeed they used any astrological text or
tradition at all.We cannot confirm, therefore, thatlunaIII in this inscription
was invested with any astrological significance, more than simply representing
a date.
An important reason for questioning the astrological interpretation ofluna
dates is that the earliest inscription with this dating formula (from Ferentium,
67 BCE—cited above) is completely devoid of any astrological content, i.e. not
only zodiac sign but also planetary weekday. Even if, in later Antiquity, the
lunadates may have become invested with astrological meaning—a theory
which remains possible, although not clearly substantiated—the earlier, origi-
nallunadates were certainly nothing but a way of dating. There is no reason to
expect that they ceased being used in this way in the later period. This leads us
to consider, therefore, a calendrical interpretation of thelunadates.
Lunadates as a way of datingAccording to the astrological interpretation which I have just discussed, the
meaning of thelunaformula was primarily astrological: what it conveyed, for
astrological purposes, was theage of the moon—a purely astronomical fact—at
the time of the event recorded in the inscription. I shall now propose, however,
that the meaning of thelunaformula was rather calendrical: what it conveyed,
alongside the Julian date and the weekday, was alunar date, i.e. the day of a
lunar month, and was thus a way ofdatingthe event in the inscription.
This interpretation implies atfirst sight the existence of a lunar calendar,
from which thelunadates were derived and to which, in turn, they referred. In
the context of the Ferentium inscription of 67BCE, it is entirely possible that
(^76) Eriksson (1956) 34, citing thelunariatext in MS Gothoburg. 25.
(^77) To the text cited by Eriksson loc. cit. we may add MS Vat. Lat. 642, fos. 91a–94b (in
Svenberg 1963: 31):Luna III.. .qui nascitur in ea non eritvitalis.This manuscript dates from the
12th c.
(^78) MS. Paris nouv. acq. lat. 1616, fos. 10a–12b (Svenberg 1963: 23):Luna III.. .qui natus
fuerit,vitalis est.This manuscript is earlier, from the 9th c.
322 Calendars in Antiquity