which the Romans call thebissextus," literally "the twice sixth," the day they inserted after
Book II 209 that are measured by the whole34 circuit of the sun from the east and back again to the east, while years, at least these familiar ones, are marked by the sun's shifts of orbit, not from east to west which happens every day, but when it goes round to the same places in the constellations of the zodiac, which it only does by completing three hundred and sixty-five days and six hours, which is a quarter of a whole day; it is this part multiplied by four that obliges us to add a whole day every leap year,35 to keep the calendar straight. Such shifts of orbit also mark greater, less noticeable "years," which are said to be completed by the sun's passage through other constellations. So if that is the way we are to understand "times, days, years," nobody doubts their being produced by the constellations and the lamps. It is in fact put in such a way as to leave it uncertain whether the words, "Let them be for signs and for times and for days and for years," apply to all the heavenly bodies, or whether signs and times refer to the rest, while days and years are the business of the sun alone.
Question of the phase in which the moon was made
15, 30. Many people also inquire, with endless chatter, in what phase the moon was made—and if only they would chatter away in a merely inquisitive spirit, and not in an attempt, as in fact is the case, to teach others ! They aver, you see, that the moon was made at the full on the grounds that it would not have been fitting for God to make anything imperfect among the heavenly bodies on that day on which it is written that these were made. Those who object to this, on the other hand, say, "So that should be called the first day of the month, not the four teenth. Who, after all, ever begins to count like that?"36 As for me, l stand in the middle between these two opinions, asserting neither of them, but definitely saying that whether God made the moon at its first phase or at the full, he made it perfect.
God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its
34. Reading totus with one manuscript instead of the totos of the text, which would give, at the beginning of the sentence, "all days" instead of "the whole circuit." 1n rendering "from the east and back again to the east" 1 am following the Maurists, and what they claim are the better manuscripts, instead of the CSEL text which has "from the east as far as the west" with other manuscripts. 35. What he actually writes, translated literally, is: "which requires the insertion of a whole day which the Romans call thebissextus," literally "the twice sixth," the day they inserted after what we call 24 February, but they called the sixth day before the kalends of March. 36. Just possibly the ancient Hebrews ! We have, after all, the words of Ps 8 1 :3: Blow the trumpet at the new moon, when the moon isfull, on ourfeast. This does at least suggest that at one time it was the moon at the full that was regarded as new, not what we now call the new moon. But of course that was not in the mind of the advocates of the moon being created at the full.