March 26, 190SJ 



NA TURE 



489 



in Scotland, chalk at Stonehengc, earth in Corn- 

 wall. 



Now while " cist^ " are common to Scotland, Dart- 

 moor and Cornwall, the " chambered cairn " or crom- 

 lech is in Scotland special to the west coast. 1 do 

 Tiot Unow at present whether there is any representa- 

 tive of it nearer to .Aberdeen than Callernish or Sten- 

 ness. The difference between the east and west coast 

 of Scotland is thus strongly emphasised, and the view 

 of a difference of time in the building operations 

 is strengthened. 



I now return for .a moment from the side-lights to 

 the clock-star conditions, in order to give a table of 

 the measurenL-nts, from which the declinations of 

 the stars were determined by means of a curve con- 

 necting azimuth and declination, for different eleva- 

 tions of the horizon, for the general latitude of 57° N. ; 

 consequently the measurements are not final, but are 

 sufficiently accurate for a preliminary discussion. 



Between 2000 b.c. and i B.c .Arcturus and Capella 

 were the only first-magnitude stars to come within 

 the declination range shown in the table, and, as 

 my results show that they were used as clock-stars 

 ill Cornwall and Devon, I consider that the evi- 

 dence in their favour warrants the assumption that 

 one of them was used as a clock-star by the circle- 

 builders of Aberdeenshire. I give the dates for both. 



Braehead Leslie... 



Leylodge 



Loudon Wood ... 

 Tomnagorn 

 Wanton Wells ... . 



Ok! Keig 



South Fornet 

 Nether Boddam... . 



Aikey Brae 



Castle Kraser 



New Craig 



Loanhead of Daviot 

 Kitkton of Bourtie . 

 Cothie Muir ... . 

 Eslie the Greater 



In future notes, after referring to some more " side- 

 lights," I shall give the measurements of the May- 

 year and solstitial circles. 



Norman Lockyer. 



PROPOSED Al.TERATION IS 'I HE 

 CALENDAR. 



'T'HE last great alteration in the calendar was that 

 -*• which was known as the Gregorian Reforma- 

 tion. It was promulgated in 1582, and at once ac- 

 cepted in all countries which were under the Roman 

 obedience in ecclesiastical matters, but only gradually 

 adopted by those belonging to the Reformed Western 

 Church (which are all usually called Protestant, though 

 that term strictly pertains to the Lutherans only), 

 whilst the Eastern Church adheres still to the old 

 Julian style. 



Now it is often forgotten that the change then 

 made was two-fold, the two parts having really no 

 reference to each other, and the assertion frequently 



NO. 2004, ^'OI' 77] 



made that the Gregorian calendar was constructed, or 

 nearly so, to agree with the astronomical length of the 

 year, applies to only one of these changes, the other, 

 which made a violent hiatus in the succession of davs, 

 being efTected with a totally different object. For if the 

 year were to be assigned its true length and not the 

 365^ days decreed by Julius Caesar, it would at first 

 sight have seemed most natural to choose a convenient 

 epoch, such as the end of a century, and simply ar- 

 range the omission of a leap-year "at certain stated 

 times from that. (Here we may parenthetically remark 

 that a regulation to drop a 'leap-year at the end of 

 each 132nd year would have been more accurate, and 

 quite as simple as that actually adopted.) But it 

 was also thought necessary to bring back the vernal 

 equino.x to the date it occupied, not at the Christian 

 era, but at the time of the Council of Nicaea in the 

 fourth century. Hence ten days were omitted from 

 the current sequence, and when England came into 

 line with other western countries, eleven days were 

 omitted in 1752. This, of course, makes great care 

 necessary in comparing events as given in English 

 and Continental narratives between 15S2 and 1752. 



The change now proposed, and recently brought 

 before the House of Commons by Mr. Pearce, is of a 

 much more drastic kind It is not a reformation of 

 the Gregorian calendar as regards the length of the 

 year (and a small change of the rule, as alreadv men- 

 tioned, would improve its accuracv at long intervals), 

 but a proposal to alter the succession of the days of 

 the vieek and of the month to secure a degree of 

 symmetry in their correspondence, and an equalitv 

 in the four quarters of the year. Thus the first of 

 January and the leap-year day, which, however, is 

 to be, not in February, but in June, have each to b? 

 considered in everv respect a dies non ; if either falls 

 on a Sunday, not that day, but the next is to be 

 reckoned as Sunday, which, of course, would occa- 

 sionally throw Sunday one day, or even two davs, 

 ahead of its place in the sequence of seven days. 



.\ow it may safely be aflirmed that, not only' for its 

 piactical inconvenience and disturbance of the uni- 

 formity and continuity which are so desirable in a 

 calendar, but for other reasons also, even more 

 weighty, this alteration can never be accepted in 

 Christian countries, nor could it commend itself if we 

 began de novo. 



.\s regards the days of the month, the case is dif- 

 ferent. The existing arrangement was a perversion of 

 that decreed by Julius Caesar. He ordained that the 

 year should begin with January, the 1st being the day 

 of new moon nearest the winter solstice when the 

 change was made, and that that month should have 

 thirty-one days and each alternate month afterwards, 

 the rest to have thirty, excepting February, which 

 should have twenty-nine days in common years and 

 thirty days in leap-years, to fall every fourth year. In 

 the reign of .Augustus, who looked ujion August as his 

 special month, though it was not that of his birth, 

 the convenient and easily to be remembered arrange- 

 ment of Julius was altered in order that .August might 

 have as many days as July. By the earlier arrange- 

 ment the days of the successive months were 31, 29 

 (or 30), 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 30; by the 

 later (now followed), 31, 28 (or 2g), 31, 30, 31, 30, ^1, 

 31, 30, 31, 30, 31. 



No doubt Ca?sar placed the leap-day in Februarv 

 because that had been the last month of the year in 

 the old Roman calendar. There would be no harm, if 

 we were starting afresh, in placing it in June as pro- 

 posed by Mr. Pearce; but it would injure continuity 

 (always a desirable thing in itself) and not attain his 

 object unless the day, as well as New Year's Dav. 

 were made a dies non, both in the week and in tlie 



