power to adjust the calendar as they sawfit.^145 Although these theories rest on
substantial arguments (which cannot be reviewed in detail here), the evidence
they depend on is extremely scant. The law of the Decemviri of 450BCEhas
commonly been identified as the actual institution of the Republican calendar;
but the evidence, again, is extremely scant.^146 More recently, it has been
argued that the Republican calendar was instituted in the late fourth century
BCEby the scribe Cn. Flavius, who is mentioned at least in several sources as
having‘published the calendar’orfasti.^147 In the absence of better evidence,
however, the question of the origins of the Republican calendar and of its
possible, subsequent evolution cannot be satisfactorily resolved.
Although the precise activities of the Decemviri, Flavius, and Acilius in
relation to the calendar or the intercalation remain unclear, something can be
said of the socio-political contexts in which they were operating, and which
may have led to the emergence of afixed, non-lunar calendar. The Decemviri
are thought to have been involved with the process of codification and
publication of Roman law in the form of the Twelve Tables; the institution
of a (partially)fixed calendar, to be publicly displayed in the form of inscribed
(^145) Rüpke (1995) 319–30, with a detailed explanation of the political agenda and interests that
supposedly motivated the appointment of the pontiffs to this privileged position. Rüpke assumes
that prior to thelex Acilia, the intercalation was not controlled by any political body, but
regulated by the simple,fixed rule of a 22-day intercalation every alternate year. This scheme,
which yielded an average year-length of 366 days, would have been discrepant from the solar
year by about one excessive day per annum; because of this discrepancy, the rule was eventually
neglected and fell into disruption (by the early 2nd c.BCE), which called for thelex Aciliaand a
new system of intercalation which no longer followed afixed rule, but was now at the entire
discretion of the pontiffs (Rüpke 1995: 292–319, esp. 294–5; see also Bickerman 1968: 44–5, with
a similar theory that the intercalation was originallyfixed to alternate years, but because of its
discrepancy from the solar year, it was later abandoned‘at some unknown time’). However, if the
original intercalation of 22 days had been found excessive, it is difficult to understand why the
option of 23-day intercalations would have been introduced; if anything, thelex Aciliashould
have introduced a shorter intercalation of 21 days. Moreover, even if we concede to Rüpke that
thelex Aciliaplaced the intercalation under pontifical control, this does not necessitate the
assumption that prior to that, the Roman calendar wasfixed. For a critique of Rüpke’s theory
on the grounds of insufficient evidence, see Van Haeperen (2002) 218.
(^146) Michels (1967) 121–30, Samuel (1972) 166, Bickerman (1968) 45, Brind’Amour (1983)
186 – 7, 225–7, Rüpke (1995) 204–7, and Hannah (2005) 106. The evidence that has been drawn
from a solar eclipse of around 400BCE(based on a manuscript reading of Cicero,DeRePublica1.
25) is disputed by Humm (2000) 106–9, but not convincingly according to Oakley (2005) 612
n. 3. 147
Humm (2000), now favoured by Rüpke (2006) 26–7. The sources for Cn. Flavius are
Cicero,Pro Murena25,Ad Atticum6. 1. 8, Livy 9. 46. 5, Valerius Maximus 2. 5. 2, and Pliny,
NaturalHistory33. 17; they claim that the calendar had existed before Flavius’time, but had
been kept secret by the powerful few until Flavius publicly revealed it. Humm’s main argument—
in my view simplistic and not compelling—is that the Republican calendar scheme could hardly
have been kept secret, and therefore, that there would have been no need for Flavius to publish it,
unless he really was its institutor. Humm also cites Macrobius 1. 15. 9, which (vaguely) implies
that before Flavius the calendar was lunar, and (very tenuous) evidence from a possible solar
eclipse in 344BCE(in Livy 7. 28. 6–8). For a succinct summary of the evidence andstatus
quaestionis, see Oakley (2005) 610–13.
210 Calendars in Antiquity