282 



NATURE 



[April 27, 191 1 



ticulur sytitem, however imDortant that system may 

 be. Whatever happens, it is certain that the Grego- 

 rian calendar in its main features will survive. For 

 this reason alone its reform is not to be lightly under- 

 taken. A universal appe.il can only be bas«d on fixity 

 of tenure as a necessary condition. The l-'rench Re- 

 publican calendar should at least be useful as an 

 awful example. Even the Chinese are considering 

 the advisability of eliminaliniJ the lunar element from 

 their calendar and following European practice. 

 Hence chanj^es in our adendar can only be admitted 

 after their necessity has been absolutely proved, and 

 then only with the utmost deliberation. It is not 

 A matter in which a false step can be easily retraced. 



It is an unfortunate fact that a calendar of ideal 

 simplicity is precluded by the nature of things. Much 

 dilhculty would have been avoided had the tropical 

 year, the synodic month, and the mean solar day 

 been commensurate periods of time, and if, moreover, 

 the number of days in a year had contained certain 

 simple factors. VVith the Julian calendar, it is true, 

 the lunar month has been placed out of consideration. 

 But the week remains as a fundamental unit of time 

 in human affairs. If only the year had contained 336 

 days, absolute simplicity would then have been attain- 

 able. We should then have had four equal quarters 

 of three months each, each month containing exactly 

 four weeks. As things are, we must be content with 

 something less simple, and, even so, commensur- 

 ability between the year and the week can only be 

 obtained by placing one day (or two days in the case 

 of leap year) outside the ordinary run of the calendar. 

 This is the suggestion of Mr. Philip, of Brechin, who 

 has proposed that the first day of the year should be 

 thus set aside under the name of New Year's Day, 

 while in leap years a second day of the same kind 

 should be intercalated between the months of June 

 and July. The idea is not, of course, original in 

 principle, for it was used by Auguste Comte in a 

 slightly different way, and has been attributed to 

 Littr6. It offers the only means of avoiding a change 

 in the calendar from year to year, and is to this 

 extent attractive. But it has the great disadvantage 

 of introducing discontinuity at the very point where 

 continuity has been preserved in the face of many 

 other changes. The week can boast a most ancient 

 lineage, uninterrupted by the slightest break. Pre- 

 judice in its favour must be anticipated, and weighty 

 reasons must be adduced if this feeling is to be over- 

 come. 



It has already been pointed out that nature is 

 greatly to blame for not having given us a year of 

 exactly 336 days. Even when the one or two in- 

 convenient extra days have been specially provided 

 for, there remain over just 28 days, and it is in the 

 disposal of these that the calendar reformers have 

 expended their ingenuity. Comte's plan was siniplv 

 to form them into a thirteenth month, with the extra 

 days at the end of the year. Apart from the peculiar 

 nomenclature in which his philosophy found expres- 

 sion, it is far from clear that this plan has been 

 improved upon by contemporary reformers. The 

 only drawback seems to lie in the introduction of 

 an extra month, and in the fact that a quarter must 

 contain three months and an additional week. 



Another proposal is that of Mr. T. C. Chamberlin, 

 which was fully described in these columns (Febru- 

 ary 2). This consists in dividing the 28 davs into four 

 special weeks placed at the end of each quarter. That 

 this scheme should appear rather crude is not un- 

 natural, and to this extent stronger support may be 

 ixpected for a plan proposed bv Mr. John C. Robert- 

 son at the fourth International Congress of Chambers 

 of Commerce held in London in June of last vear. 

 NO. 2165, VOL. 86] 



This would incorporate the extra weeks in each third 

 month, so that each quarter would consists of ihr. . 

 months, containing rc>pectively 28, 28, and 35 < 

 In this way each month would begin with a .Sui 

 but it is far from certain that the advantage 

 gained would be generally regarded as a fair eij' 

 lent for the patent disadvantage involved in the dis- 

 parity between the months. It would appear that 

 approximate equality was more imporUint in 

 months than in the quarters. 



This consideration seems to have had weight with 

 those responsible for the Calendar Reform Bill pre- 

 sented to Parliament by Mr. Robert Pearce. Th« 

 Swiss Government, at the instance of the London 

 Congress of Chambers of Conmierce already men- 

 tioned, has invited an international conference on the 

 subject of the calendar, a proposal now receiving 

 the attention of the British Government, and the Bill 

 is intended as a basis for imperial conference. It is 

 proposed to divide the reduced year of 364 days into 

 four similar quarters, each containing three mr-nthv 

 of 30, 30, and 31 days respectively. With tv 

 months no better approach to equality is pos^iLr, 

 Moreover, the calendar becomes fixed, in the sense 

 that any given date will fall on a particular day of 

 the week, e.g. Christmas Day will always be on a 

 Monday. But there will not be that simple corre- 

 spondence between the day of the month and the day 

 of the week provided by the other schemes. In prac- 

 tice it will be just as necessary to consult an almanac 

 as at present, and the only difference will be that the 

 almanac will be the same for every year. Is this an 

 appreciable benefit? Almanacs are so common, and 

 so often distributed gratuitously, that few people 

 would probably feel the change from year to year, 

 were it not for a circumstance which has purposely 

 been left for separate consideration. .As a matter of 

 curiosity, it may be noted that the Royal Academy 

 of Sciences at Stockholm receives a considerable in- 

 come from a monopoly in the sale of almanacs. 



The circumstance just alluded to is the var}-ing 

 incidence of Easter. Owing to the public holidays 

 associated with this festival, and for other reasons, 

 the desire for a fixed date has been very generally 

 felt and often expressed. The Western Church has 

 followed the ecclesiastical moon as defined by the 

 Council of Nice, and the time seems ripe for remov- 

 ing this last remaining vestige of a lunar cycle from 

 our calendar. It is understood that the Pc^e has 

 raised no objection to this being done, and it is not 

 to be supposed that the other churches concerned will 

 prove " katholischer als der Papst " in this matter. 

 The German Reichstag will be asked to pass a reso- 

 lution in favour of the appointment of a definite 

 Sunday on which Easter shall be celebrated. The 

 Bill before Parliament proposes that .April 14 shall 

 be Easter Sunday. The fixing of this festival is an 

 integral part of the schemes described above for 

 reforming the calendar, and will engage the attention 

 of the diplomatic conference proposed by the Swiss 

 Gov-ernment. The precise date must be fixed by 

 international agreement, and the mere verbal defini- 

 tion of the date will naturally be facilitated if a fixed 

 calendar has been previously adopted. But the two 

 questions are essentially independent, and Easter can 

 be fixed with all the precision required for practical 

 purposes without any change in the present calendar. 

 Thus if Easter were defined as the Sunday fol- 

 lowing .April 10, it would never be more than three 

 days from April 14, and would fall automatically on 

 the latter date if the scheme now before Parliament 

 were afterwards adopted. But other dates will prob- 

 ablv be suggested for consideration. 



The internal arrangement of our calendar is in the 



