A HISTORY OF SCIENCE 



ed, though even this does not make it absolutely 

 exact. 



Such a rectification as this was obviously desirable, 

 but there was really no necessity for the omission of the 

 ten days from the calendar. The equinoctial day had 

 shifted so that in the year 1582 it fell on the zoth of 

 March and September. There was no reason why it 

 should not have remained there. It would greatly 

 have simplified the task of future historians had 

 Gregory contented himself with providing for the 

 future stability of the calendar without making the 

 needless shift in question. We are so accustomed to 

 think of the 2ist of March and 2ist of September as 

 the natural periods of the equinox, that we are likely 

 to forget that these are purely arbitrary dates for 

 which the loth might have been substituted without 

 any inconvenience or inconsistency. 



But the opposition to the new calendar, to which 

 reference has been made, was not based on any such 

 considerations as these. It was due, largely at any 

 rate, to the fact that Germany at this time was under 

 sway of the Lutheran revolt against the papacy. So 

 effective was the opposition that the Gregorian calendar 

 did not come into vogue in Germany until the year 

 1699. It may be added that England, under stress 

 of the same manner of prejudice, held out against the 

 new reckoning until the year 1751, while Russia does 

 not accept it even now. 



As the Protestant leaders thus opposed the papal 

 attitude in a matter of so practical a character as the 

 calendar, it might perhaps have been expected that 

 the Lutherans would have had a leaning towards the 



72 



