>>We are all familiar with Dionysius Exiguus, who in the sixth century
>>calculated the year of Christ's birth, and was at least 4 years off.
>>Since then, the "real" Anno Domini is actually 4 BC, or even earlier.
>>When i discussed this with my class this week, I received a question
>>I could not answer:
>>When did people discover the mistake ?
>>My guess is in the Renaissance, but does anyone know for sure ??
>
>i shd know this and don't. but let me point out a couple of things.
>first, contemporaries already knew the DE's AD was two years off from
>eusebius-jerome's date for the incarnation (so whitby in 664 is really 666
>by the world chronicle that prevailed before bede).
RIchard's aside gives me to wonder about the symbolic weight of dates. Now, the
millennium is one thing, but what about 666? 1666? Does anyone know of warnings that
the events of these years might have something to do with the Antichrist?
Completely unscholarly aside, to be deleted or ignored as you wish:
I'm reminded of a bingo game I once attended. (Yes, a bingo game.) Whenever the 'O,
66' was called, a lady of a certain age promptly picked up a little bell -- a lovely
object of gilt porcelain -- and rang it. I asked my friend what was going on, and
apparently the woman felt that '66' was reminiscent of '666', and believed it to be
necessary to ward off the devil by ringing her bell.
This doesn't have much to do with the august discussion at hand, so please ignore it
and forgive me for breaking the 'relevance' and 'scholarly' guidelines I so often
rave about. I guess I've been off list for much too long, and can't exercise
self-control. Until next time!
George
George Ferzoco tel ++ 44 (0)116 252 2654
Director of Italian Studies fax ++ 44 (0)116 252 3633
University of Leicester e-mail [log in to unmask]
School of Modern Languages
LEICESTER LE1 7RH
UNITED KINGDOM
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|