The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1904-02-05

slighted because they did not have the
privilege of popping the question. In
those days celibacy, though approved
by the church as the proper life of a
rel;g,euse and binding by private vow,
was not an absolute rule for the rel;g-
ieuse. St. Patrick decided that it
might be not bad idea to allow the
fair ones the initiative one year in
seven. According to tradition, Bridg-
ct demurred, exclaiming: "Arrah!
Pathrick, l daurn't 60 back to the
gurls wild such proposal. Mex it
wan year in four"
To this, it is said, St. Patrick con-
sented, and St. Bridget, bethinking
herself of her own husbandless condi-
ton, popped the question on the spot,
but St. Patrick had taken the VOW of
celibacy. And ever since them" con-
cludes the legend, which is not found
in any of the lives of the saints, "if a
man refuses leap year proposal, be
must pay the penalty Of silk gown
and kiss" But why call the kiss a
penalty?
So much for the legend. History,
perhaps, may be relied upon. In the
year 1888 the following law is said to
have been passed in Scotland:
LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE.
ut is statute and ordaint that dur
ing the reign of hir blissit Megeste, for
ilk yeare knowe as lepe yeare, ilk
maiden ladye of bottle highe and lowe
estait shall hae liberte to bespoke ye
man she likes, albeit be refuses to talk
hir to be his lawful wyfe, be shall be
mulcted in ye sum ane pundis or less,
as bis estait may be; except and avis
git be can make it appeare that he is
betrothit ane ither woman be then
shall be Free
A few years later similar privilege
was granted to the maldens OF France,
and before Columbus sailed for Amer
ica the ladies of Genoa and Florence
were entitled to pop the question.
There is no record of any fines imposed
under the Scotch law, nor any trace
of record Of the number of spinsters
who took advantage Of it or of the
French enactment.
HISTORY OF LEAP YEAR
Leap year seems to be a misnomer,
since on leap year, February, the
chang able month, does not leap day ,
but takes on one. However, the most
plausible tradition as to the origin of
the name is to the effect that the law
knew but 365 days to the year, and
that when, every four years, the 29th
of February appeared on the calendar.
it was not counted as day in the
eyes of the law, but was "leapt" over.
The history OF leap year, however,
is clear, and, moreover, very interest
ing.
As year is the time OF the earth s
revolution around the sun it should
contain 365 days and fraction of a
day. The ancients, having great re-
spect for the moon, wanted the year
to be subdivided into parts correspond
ing with her revolution round the
earth. The difficulties of adjusting
the moons revolutions, or months, 80
as to be together equal to the earth's
revolutions round the sun, gave rise
to February itself, and to many CT the
changes which the month has under
gone before it stood with its present
number of days.
Romulus' division Of the year is the
first European one known, and the one
upon which our own division is based.
He had 10 months, whose total length
was 3O4 days. How he patched up
the year with the odd days so as to
make it anything like correct is not
known. To remedy this mistake,
which left 81 days unaccounted for,
Numa Pompil;us, second king of Rome,
added two months, January and Feb
ruary.
ERRORS OF THE CALENDAR.
II the dictionary were consulted for
the meaning of leap year it would
probably read "every fourth year."
That answer-though it would have
done we'll in C;esar's timc-is not cor
rect now, because the arrangements
which had then been arrived at made
the year of the proper length except
only the fraction of an hour. The
year was, on the average, 1861 days
long, whereas the suns revolution is
IL minutes 10 seconds less than that.
This slight error might have been cor
rected at once by reduction in the
number of leap years. But the error
was allowed to grow, so that by A. D.