Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1900-01-25
The New Century.


long-swsited twentieth century, many
Of those who may never live to see 1t
are vexing themselves with the ques.
tton: When will 1t begin? In the
daily and weekly press We find fierce
epistolary battle raging between those
who believe that the year 1899 marks
the close of the nineteenth century and
those who hold that not until 1901 shall
we cross the threshold that divides us
from new era. Our own mail brings
US many an inquiry from anxious read
ers who have not yet decided whether
they be living in the nineteenth or
twentieth century.
Trivial as these disputes may appear,
they are not without certain value.
Without sharply defined divisions OF
time we could hardly grasp the worlds
history or place the leading events IN
our own lives.
1t seems so difficult to understand
that 1900, 1900, 1000, designate not the
beg inning, but the end of a century,
that one naturally enquiries the origin
of the error. 1t may be that the mis-.
take is due to a kind of optical illusion.
The year 1900 marks the beginning OF
q new series of numbers; and nothing
seems more natural than that it should
therefore be considered IS the first
year of new cycle. But though our
reason may tell us that the new num-
bsr with its two ciphers stands for the
end and not for the beginning of q
century, our eys still betray us. 1t is
q triumph of sense over intellect-an
error, surely, but one into which many
famous men have fallen.
When in 1900 A. ID. Charlemagne
introduced the calendar which COM
mences with the birth of Christ, he too
thought he was beginning new cen.
tnry. When Peter tile Great decreed
that our chronology should he used in
his dOminiOns after the year 100, he
m 4de similar mistake Throughout
the worlds history those two ciphers
have deceived men. And the error has
been handed down to our own day
The Paris Exposition will be inaugur.
ated. surely not to celebrate the death,
but the birth of a century; and still ii
will be held in 1900 The Emperor
William has decided lex cathedrs) that
the new century begins January /,
1900, but this delusion is hereditary, as
ne shares 1t with his grandfather, the
late Prince Consort, who was of the
game opinion. Lord Kelvin, great
mathematician and physicist as he is,
also holds the same view. The Roman
Church, which has always paid great
attention to the calander, and has done
much to preserve it, has decided that
the year 1900 should be year of jubi-
Ice as being the last of the century.
The problem is not so easily solved
a. may I've imagined. tits evident that
there never was year 0, that the CEN
fury must begin with 1; it is equally
evident that even as q dollar contains
100 cents, so century is composed OF
100 years. But then there arises the
infusion of numbers and their values,
the contradiction between ordinal and
cardinal. When an Italian speaks Of
his cinqnecento (mllle cinqnecento in
other words), he refers not to the fif.
teenth but to the sixteenth century;
and thus he writes all his centuries
with cardinal number in his mind.
when We write 1889, the number IS
designates not the nineteenth century
and we are constantly compelled to
correct seeming error in our chron
ology. 1t is here that our eyes deceive
~. So accustomed are we to the in !.
territorial misreading of our centuries.
that we naturally consider the first
two numbers in 1900 to stand for the
twentieth century.
A hundred years ago the same word.
war was waged: hundred years
hence IT. Will he renewed; and thus II
will 60 on as century after century
cones rolling along. 1t is venerabl.
error, long lived aud perhaps immor
tst.-scientinc American.