THE CALENDAR by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 8, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 26.

THE CALENDAR.

By Editor

THE following article from the Inter-Ocean, on “The Calendar,” will be read with interest by all, especially by those who imagine that in the change from old to new style the true count of the week was lost, so that we cannot now determine which is the seventh day. Of course this idea is most absurd, but persons who entertain it will perhaps find some comfort in the thought that they are no more ignorant than were many in England at the time the change was made. This reference will be understood by a perusal of the article, which runs as follows:—

“When Julius Cæsar, in the year 46 B. C., reformed the calendar, he estimated the length of the year—that is, the period indicated by the apparent return of the sun at mid-day to the same point in the heavens—at 365¼ days. He therefore arranged that there should be three years of 365 days each, and that the fourth year should contain 366 days. The additional day was given to February by calling the fifth day before the calends of March a second sixth, and therefore this fourth year was called bissextile, from bis, twice, and sextus, sixth. This calendar was a great improvement on all that preceded it, but it contained one serious error. The true length of the year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 48 seconds, or a little over 11 minutes less than 365¼ days. In the years that elapsed between the adoption of the Julian calendar and the latter part of the sixteenth century, this error of eleven minutes had amounted to a total of ten days.

“The calendar was then reformed again by Pope Gregory XIII., who ordered that the 5th of October in that year should be called the 15th. This change was well received generally in the Catholic countries of Europe. The common people were at first a little doubtful about it, but when they saw that the miracles which took place on certain days of the year—as the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius on December 16—observed the new style in the most accurate manner, they accepted the change as altogether correct. In England, however, it was not so readily agreed to. The more intelligent people, even, being very conservative, and intensely opposed to obedience to Papal acts of any kind, could not be convinced for some time of the advantages of the Gregorian calendar. At last, in 1752, during the reign of George II., an act was passed providing that after the 3d of September of that year the next ensuing day should be held as the 14th, thus “suppressing,” or dropping eleven days. The days of the week were not affected by this change of date.

“The masses of the people, who did not understand the reason for this change in the calendar, and generally believed that they had been deliberately robbed of eleven days’ work and wages by it, were very indignant. For many months afterward the appearance of any one of the members of Parliament known to have been active in passing the bill for the change of style, was sure to be the signal for the gathering of a mob, which followed the unfortunate person with the cry, ‘Who stole the eleven days? Give us back our eleven days!’ The miracles in Protestant England, too, did not accommodate themselves to the changes of style as carefully as they had done in the Catholic countries. For instance, in Hampshire there was an oak tree which was believed to put forth its first buds every year on Christmas day. But in the year of the change of style it was said the tree did not bud until old Christmas came, or January 5, eleven days later than Christmas day in the new calendar. This was taken as conclusive proof, by the opponents of the new style, that their objections to the change were founded on the highest wisdom. Russia and the other countries of the Greek Church have never accepted the changed calendar, but still follow the old style in the computation of dates.”