CALENDAR. 



343 



of March, where it belonged. The Pope, accord- 

 ingly, gave orders that ten days should be struck 

 out in October, 1582 ; that the next day after the 

 4th, should be not the 5th, but the 15th, a change 

 which was immediately made in all Roman Catho- 

 lic countries, though not without sore misgivings 

 on the part of some of them, at seeing the head of 

 the church cutting off so many days from the term 

 of their natural lives. In Protestant countries, 

 the new style, as it was called, was not readily 

 adopted ; it seemed like a simple and necessary re- 

 form : still, they thought that since it proceeded 

 from the Catholics, it was a suspicious movement, 

 and the less they had to do with it the better ; 

 they accordingly stood out against it in rejoicing 

 ignorance, and with so much perseverance, that it 

 was not till the middle of the last century, that 

 Protestant countries generally adopted the Gregor- 

 ian calendar. 



In England, the new style was not adopted till 

 1752. As it was introduced by a pope for the ex- 

 press purpose of regulating the ecclesiastical year, 

 and ascertaining the time for keeping the festivals 

 celebrated in the Roman church, it was looked on 

 with great suspicion by protestants. In Russia, 

 and other countries where the Greek church 

 prevails, the new style was not adopted till 1830. 

 Dr Johnson gives an account of the sensation pro- 

 duced by the act of parliament for effecting the 

 change. The young people were all delighted at 

 the thought of killing so much time as eleven 

 days, for it was necessary to strike out one day 

 more than in 1582 ; they also thought that it 

 would be a beautiful thing to have a year, which 

 public authority ordained should be a year of con- 

 fusion. But older people did not like the idea 

 of having a year with such an ominous name : 

 moreover, they did not see what right parliament 

 had to strike out eleven days, as if Providence 

 could not regulate that matter without their help- 

 ing hand. The greatest outcry was made by 

 certain ancient women, who said that their lives 

 were full short enough without having eleven 

 days struck off, and that to strike out a Sabbath 

 from the year, seemed to them the most unrighte- 

 ous thing that ever was done in a Christian coun- 

 try. The alteration was proposed in parliament 

 by the earl of Chesterfield ; but the earl of Mac- 

 clesfield, then president of the Royal Society, a 

 nobleman of much talent and science, was the real 

 author of the measure, and bore a great part in the 

 details of its execution. 



The Pope, or rather the men of science whom, 

 like Caesar, he relied on in the whole movement, 

 not only restored the seasons to their place, but 

 provided against a recurrence of the difficulty. 

 The method was ingenious and effectual. The 

 excess was a day in one hundred and thirty years. 

 He therefore ordained that in three centuries out 

 of four, the last year should be a common year, and 

 not a leap year. Thus, 1600 was a leap year, hav- 

 ing three hundred and sixty-six days; but 1700, 

 1800, and 1900 are common years, having but three 

 hundred and sixty-five. This arrangement disposes 

 of one day in about one hundred and thirty years, 

 and brings the calendar nearly to perfection. We 

 say nearly, for though there is a slight variation, 

 it will only amount to a day in three thousand 

 years, and that need not give us much concern: 

 it can be attended to as well in the year 4835. 

 According to the Gregorian or new style, the year 

 begins on the 1st of January. This was the time 



fixed by Caesar for new year's day, because it is the 

 time when the earth is nearest to the sun. But it 

 was not generally regarded. Some have com- 

 menced the year on the 25th of December, the 

 supposed anniversary of our Saviour's birth ; others 

 have commenced it on the 25th of March, and this 

 was the time established by law in the reign of 

 Henry VIII. and generally observed afterwards as 

 new year's day, till the change of style in 1752. 

 In the dates of events in history, there is some per- 

 plexity, unless we remember this fact. When the 

 old style was in use, January was one of the last 

 months of the old year, instead of being, as it is 

 now, the first month of the new. 



But we must not dismiss the subject, till we 

 have said something of the still larger divisions of 

 time, called epochs or eras, of which the Christian 

 era, which computes the years from the birth of 

 our Lord, is one. This is the only one with which 

 we have much concern ; but in speaking of this, 

 we are obliged to say a few words of the cycles, 

 or circles of years, which were in use before the 

 years were reckoned from our Saviour's birth. 



The first was the solar cycle, and it was formed 

 in this way. Suppose the sun entered the sign 

 Aquarius in January, on Wednesday the 21st, at 

 one o'clock in the day. It will not again enter the 

 same sign on the same day of the month, the same 

 day of the week, and at the same hour of the day, 

 in less than twenty-eight years; twenty-eight 

 years, therefore, was called the cycle or ciicle, 

 through which the sun must pass before be comes 

 back to the place whence he started. In using 

 this they said that such a year was the first, 

 second, third, of the solar cycle ; and so on to the 

 twenty-eighth, when they began again. There 

 was also a lunar cycle, which was thus formed. 

 Suppose that the moon should be at the full on 

 Wednesday, the 28th of January, at one o'clock in 

 the day. It would not be full again on the same 

 day of the month, the same day of the week, and 

 at the same hour of the day, under nineteen years : 

 this, therefore, was called the lunar cycle, which 

 brings back the moon to the place whence she 

 started. This was called the golden number, be- 

 cause it was found so valuable in ancient times, 

 for regulating festivals which depended on the 

 moon. There was another smaller cycle, called 

 the Roman Indiction, a period of fifteen years, 

 which was in use only to determine the time for 

 paying certain periodical taxes. 



But these cycles were so short as to be incon- 

 venient; in order to get a larger period, which 

 might save the trouble of counting the years over 

 and over again, these cycles were multiplied toge- 

 ther, and the product was a cycle of 7980 years, 

 which was called the Julian period. This is assumed 

 to have had its commencement before the crea- 

 tion of the world, since there has been no time since, 

 when the three cycles could have begun together. 



There was no attempt made to reckon the years 

 from the time of our Saviour's birth, till the year 

 j 527, when Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman abbot, 

 suggested that this reverence ought to be paid to 

 the Saviour of the world. He therefore began so 

 to date the years, and assumed that the first year 

 of the Christian era was the 4714th of the Julian 

 period. There is no historical record by which 

 the nativity can be precisely ascertained ; he there- 

 fore decided what year it was by such indications 

 as he could gather from comparing the sacred history 

 with that of profane historians. But those were 



