Amos Shapir asked:

>Why rename just the ordinal-numbered months, while keeping the names of
>Roman gods and emperors?  I wonder why these name weren't dropped by pope
>Gregory, or even the emperor Constantine who converted the empire to
>Christianity (they could have used the names of the 12 apostles -- Peter,
>Paul, Luke, etc.).

I had hoped this discussion group would get beyond discussing the merits of
"names". I am interested in the structure of calendars and their history,
from the point of view of the changing state of astronomical knowledge, and
the political and religious ramifications of the evolving astronomy.

I advise all you budding reformers to attack the Gregorian calendar on its
own terms if you ever wish to reform it. It is vulnerable in this respect!

Arguing about names will never acheive anything unless you emulate the French
and institute a complete Revolution of the state first. Calendar reforms occur
from within a state apparatus and are prompted by a crisis in that state's
evolving ideology. At this point the Gregorian calendar has gotten beyond its
origins as a political move in the intellectual battle front of the Counter-
Reformation, and has now become worldwide due to the sucessful imperialism
and colonialism of both the Catholic European powers that adopted it and the
Protestant nations who followed suit. It may seem ironic that the last hold-
out (of the major Protestant powers) was England, while the unparalleled
sucess of England's cultural imperialism has been the greatest aid to the
worldwide adoption of the Catholic Gregorian calendar. There is more to this
mystery than you might think. But enough of politics!  I am just trying to
point out how entrenched the Gregorian calendar is, now that it is worldwide,
and how its adoption (by the very powers that initially resisted it) has given
its core structure an illusion of impregnable reasonableness and consistency.

So in this context I will adress Amos' questions.
1) I advise you to postpone renaming anything if you want calendar reform.
2) Pope Gregory and his jesuit experts understood this, which is why they
   left the old Roman month-names alone. The popes just continued their policy
   of giving the DAYS of the year additional christianised names, by creating
   Catholic saints. They understood that the power of names fades with time,
   so that, while a new saint's day generates fresh interest in a model of
   piety, the old pagan month-names gradually lose any connection to their
   original meanings and take on the local connotations of that season's
   weather and festivals etc. (e.g. April showers, Mayday celebrations and
   November elections).
3) The emperor Constantine had no intention of reforming the Roman state. He
   was merely acknowledging the success of Christianity in converting large
   numbers of citizens away from official cults. He might even have ignored it,
   had not his mother been so converted. This led him to coopt this new cult
   into the state apparatus. Very few people realize that Chrisitianity was
   not THE state religion under Constantine and his successors. It was just one
   of the officially sanctioned religions, for quite a while, before it ousted
   its competitors for state approval. The appertainances of the Roman church
   retain many traces of the compromises made in this climb to power.

So what hope is there for all you budding reformers? And why do I say the
Gregorian calendar is vulnerable on its own terms? "Ask and you shall receive"!
 
Sincerely, Simon Cassidy, 1053 47th.St. Emeryville Ca.94608, USA. ph.510-547-0684.