The Appeal., 1900-02-24

Roman antiquartans differed as to the
date One opinion, attached to the name
Of Verro, put the foundation of Rome in
the year which we call 753 before Christ:
another, attributed to Cato, placed it in
7o2, others in 751 and $50, while modern
German critics seem agreed in the belief
that Rome was never founded, but simply
grew, and that all dates for its founda-
ton are wrong. They are obliged, how
ever, for convenience, to follow even
wrong ideas held by the Romans as clews
in the labyrinth Of Roman chronology
and the Varro computation Of years is
usually accepted. Then there was, be-
sides, the plan Of counting by the years
OF the emperors' reigns, which was still
less common, though 1t worked pretty
we'll when emperors did not change too
often and when there were not too many
of them at one time.
Both the dating from the foundation Of
Rome and that from the years Of the
emperors were supplanted in a measure
in the fourth century by system of
reckoning from the accession of the EN-
peror Diocletian in 284 A. D. There were
several good reasons for thds. Diocle-
tian is one of the great figures in
history. What he did lasted, and men
remembered him. Much that had been
attributed to Constantine by Christian
writer's is now traced to him. He reunit-
ed the empire, strengthened it against
outside barbarians and marked the divt
sion between east and west that has OF
the whole lasted to this day. He also
perfected a. wonderful bureaucratic civi!
service that helped to crush the empire
as much as Christianity and the barbar.
ians did. He undertook, too, to extirpate
the Christians, who he saw were a dan.
ger to the empire, by the most cruel
and systematic persecution to which
they were ever subjected Nevertheless
they counted years from his accession
like other Romans for more than two
centuries, though they tried to disguise
it by calling the era that Of the mar
tyrs of his persecution. It was a conven-
lent mode Of computation that East and
West could use. ~
When Abbot eDionysius Exiguus, the
Little, came to compute his tables fo1
Easter in the sixth century, he found
that Cyril, whose tables he was ccntinu-
ing, had reckoned in years Of Diocletian,
and thought that an Improvement might
! be made. 1--WE are unwilling" he said,
ito weave into our cycles the memory
of that impious prosecutor, but preferred
to mark the dates Of years from the
incarnation Of our Lord Jesus Christ"
and he numbered the year Of the first
Easter which he added to Cyril's table
531, instead Of PAT after Diocletian's &C.
cession. That was the first time, so far
as is known, that our count in years OF
our Lord was employed. The usage was
soon adopted by other than scientific
men, and when the Venerable Bede in
| the eighth century continued and i'm
proved Dionysius' tables, it spread
throughout the West, and by the end of
the tenth century it had become general
and many phrases were employed to des.
ignate the era; the year Of the incarna-
ton of the Lord, Of the nativity, of grace,
Of salvation. Of the Word incarnate, OF
the redemption Of the world, or simply
the year. Of our Lord, ammo domini, A,
D.
What reasons Dionysius had for max.
ing the year PAT Of Diocletian equivalent
to 531 A. D. or 124s Of the building Of
| Rome we do not know. His calculation
was doubtless as correct as the informa-
| ton possessed by the antiquarians of his
day would allow, and Bede, who was a
calendar reformer and probably the most
| learned man Of his time, found no fault
| with the date and adopted it. Modern
theolog1ans seem to agree that it is
| wrong and that the birth Of Christ must
! be put from four to seven years earlier
! than Dionysius put 1t, so that the nine
| teenth century really was completed
somewhere between 1898 and 1885, The
mistake has lasted too long, however, to
| be remedted now. All we can do is to
admit that the Christian era begins un-
scientifically from four to seven years
| after the nativity. However absurd and
Illogical 1t may be to say that Christ was
born In the year 4 or before Christ, It
Is less evil than would be the incon-
cedvable labor and confusion that an at
| tempt to set straight now all past dates,
even II scholars could agree on somo year
! for a starting point. Mistake and all,
! Dionysius' era was adopted by the
| church: the first Christmas was believed
| to have been Dec. rs Of the year Of Rome
753, and the era started with the follow
ing Jan. l, 754, the beginning Of the off,
cial Roman, Julian year There was no
thought Of year 0. tho year Immediate
| ly preceding the year 1, A. D. was called
| the year before Christ and the notation
! backward from that year was applied to
| all previous time.
Dionysius knew that his date was not
strictly accurate, but preferred to make
with the established state measure of
time with. which al men were familiar.
the Julian year beginning Jan. 1. He
might, of course, have begun a year ear
| lier, with that at whose end Christ was
born, but he did not. The one Church
spread his system throughout the whole
| world, for the Roman world was Chris
| tian then, and the need Of fixing the right
date for the greatest of Christian festi-
| walls, Easter. and the feasts dependent on
| 1t made it essential for the church to keep
the calendar in its control, especially
aIter the council or N1caea decreed that
Easter should be celebrated on the same
/ day by all Christians and decided who
! should fix the day.
/ Countless other scales for numbering
years have been used in different coun-
] tries, concurrently with or in opposition
/ to the Christian era. Their starting point
Is commonly the year Of rulers acces.
4 sion or that Of some striking event, like
the Hegtra or the Declaration Of Inde-
| pendence In England, for instance, this
month falls in 63 Victoria. All historical,
eras have, however, one point In common
they begin with a year i and not with 8
/ year 0. Some system might conceivably
begin with such a year, those of reckon
ing by years from the beginning of the
world, where an infinitely prolonged zero
before the beginning could be used tt
counterbalance the infinite eternitv ecte1
the end, but such systems when used in
history have been finite They are all OF
4 comparatively late origin and have never
come into popular use. There are good
many Of them, which differ according te
/ their authors ideas Of the date Of the
creation, the variance ranging between
Z 69S4 before Christ. This of course does
not include the guesses of modern geol-