A deliciously scholarly book on the history and difficulties of creating accurate calendars across the centuries. If you think this sounds boring as hell, let me quote from the cover, "David Duncan takes his place in the ranks of the best explainers in print" (Hugh Downs).I had a dim notion that politics likely had a bearing on the adoption of our current calendar (which it did and does), what I did not realize was how much religion was a factor. Duncan emphasizes the conceptual differences between the religious and the secular tensions of calendrical thought. For most of the centuries of Christianity's domination of Western religion, the church felt that 'God's time' was eternal and not only different from "man's time", but that it was sacrilegious to try to divide time into days, months, and years. Duncan writes about the various geniuses (and dolts) that endeavored to formulate a calendar, the struggle of Christianity to stick to their guns, but also correctly set the date of Easter. This became a huge conundrum for them, across both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, and also the various calendars that different countries favored.It's quite a well-written book, very engrossing. I give it 5 stars. And I'll leave you with my favorite quote from it (each chapter begins with a quote, a nice touch)."Try as they may to savor the taste of eternity, their thoughts still twist and turn upon the ebb and flow of things in past and future time. But if only their minds could be seized and held steady, they would be still for a while and; for that short moment, they would glimpse the splendor of eternity, which is forever still." -- Augustine of Hippo, CE 400
This is a 5-star book up through about the year 1100. That's when most of the groundwork was done on our calendar. You get the story behind the naming of the months and the days and why and to whom having a calendar was important. Who would have guessed how complicated Easter would make things? There's even bonus coverage on how Europeans moved from Roman numerals to Arabic numerals and the positional notation that can come with such a system. It becomes a 2-star book for the next 500 years (about the last third of the book) . I don't blame the author, however. What he had to work with was a bunch of people gnashing their teeth and rending their garments while rehashing the same arguments over and over and over again. Think of the committees you've been involved in that ultimately led to no action. Imagine those committees not just feeling like they lasted five centuries but actually lasting five centuries. I don't think any author could have made it compelling reading. But the first 2/3 truly was fascinating!
What do You think about The Calendar (2011)?
One gets the sense that the author felt the material on the actual calendar wasn't quite long enough for a book, and had to bulk the text out. Half of the book doesn't deal with the calendar at all, but rather digresses into lengthy exposition on how barbaric and benighted the middle ages were. There are also digressions into the history of our number system and into various other sorta-kinda related topics. I would have much preferred the author stuck to the topic. Also, minor errors that were not caught in revision or editing make the credibility of the whole book suspect. One travels EAST on the Thames from London to reach Oxford? Quite a feat. The year 2000 is actually the year 1997, because Jesus was born in 4 BC? How does that math work? A work of popular scientific history should not have such obvious mistakes. So, although there is definitely interesting material on the history of our calendar, this book suffers from serious flaws. I was disappointed.
—Frank Roberts
A appealing fact-jammed book about something we use everyday - the calendar. I never thought there were so many events and people involved in its story dating back to time immemorial. Facts at times amusing, others outright dramatic. It's fascinating the interplay between time and who dictates it. Control over time and its deployment gives boundless power to the beholder that usually one can't even ponder. Last one on the list is the Roman Catholic Church, who's reform on the calendar is the one we're still using today. A reform that started, not for any scientific endeavour but for the down to earth task of celebrating Easter on the appropriate day!
—Acquafortis
There are things we take for granted either because of sheer ignorance of the history of development involved in their genesis or either they have been condemed to suffer a lackluster disposition compared to modern conveniences that have definitely occupied our questionable preferences. The calender suffers in both aspects, which is giddily overturned courtesy of this book. It is an objective post-modern work, which I may add, is relative to the author's background. The book does not contain authorial inputs that are not unsubstantiated or well thought out. Most important however is that the book does not extend in a arc too wide in discussing a facet of the topic and yet it remained fantastically substantial, coherent and relative in its discussions.
—Jareed
