174 



A. M. W. DOWNING, M.A., D.SC, F.R.S., ON 



Sultan of Egypt last year. Doubtless the choice was intentional, a 

 happy augury for the new reign ! 



Page 157, line 7. — I think we are all inclined to agree now with 

 Simon Newcomb. The Julian calendar is the only calendar that has 

 ever been in use throughout all Christendom, and it was so in use 

 for more than a thousand years. Tt is a great pity that any change 

 was ever made. As a matter of practical convenience the Julian 

 calendar is better than the Gregorian ; and if slightly further from 

 the tropical year, it is nearer to the sidereal year. Let us hope 

 the orthodox Russians will maintain it ! 



Page 158, line 5 (Jan. 1, a.d. 1). — There was confusion in the 

 working of the calendar for some years. The Romans reckoned the 

 fourth year (a leap year) inclusively, and thus made an average year 

 of 365J days. Too many leap-year days having thus been acciden- 

 tally inserted in the calendar, the Emperor Augustus discontinued 

 the observance of leap year altogether for some time in order to 

 restore the calendar to Julius Csesar's intention. The result is that 

 just over the period of the Christian era there is some discrepancy 

 between the actual dates in use and the theoretical calendar dates. 



There was an omission of two days in the fourth century, corre- 

 sponding to the eleven days of 1752. 



Page 166, line 14. — The Jews had a very simple precaution, and it 

 worked very easily and satisfactorily. The average length of a 

 lunation being a little more than 29 J days, the rule was that no 

 month could have less than 29 days, nor more than 30. Twenty- 

 nines and thirties would come in approximate alternation, the 

 thirties being a little more frequent. But two months of twenty- 

 nine were not allowed to come together, nor more than two of thirty. 



In practice it was only necessary to look for the crescent on one 

 evening. If the crescent were seen then, the month would begin 

 at once. If not, it would begin the next evening. 



Page 168, line 32. — I think Dr. Downing is unquestionably right 

 in rejecting the year 29. The weight of astronomical testimony 

 seems to be as decisive against it as (in all the complexity of the 

 circumstances) such testimony can possibly be made. 



When it is added that the supporters of this date not only go 

 against the available astronomical evidence, but are driven further 

 to suppose an Easter before the Vernal Equinox, it would seem that 

 the date must be abandoned. - 



