Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1906-12-15

the first year of the Christian era, &C
cording to Dionysius, began on March
| %. A. u. c.. which made the year 1
a. ID. almost coincide with the year
of Rome 754. As this mode of reckon
ing was instituted in 1913 A. U. c.,
the first Christian year that was act
ually reckoned, as such, was 525 A. ID.
In other words. it was not until the
525th year of the Christian era that
time began to be reckoned Ammo DOM
mi. It is important to distinguish the
first Christian year 1925 A. d. from
the first year of the Christian era
C754 A. U. c.
While 754 A. U. c. has been gener-
ally accepted as the year of Christ's
incarnation. yet more recent historical
research has shown. beyond all ques-
ton, that this reckoning is incorrect
by at least four years. Accordingly,
if we should reckon the Christian era
to have begun with the real date of
Christ's birth. the present New Year
would be 1911 instead of 1907. The
Dionysian method of reckoning time
Ammo Domini was rapidly adopted by
almost all Christian countries. BY the
tenth century it was almost universal.
Spain, however. did not adopt it until
late in the fourteenth century. and in
Russia it was not adopted until 100.
1t is interesting to note, in this connec-
ton, that in different countries the
year began with different days-De-
cember %, January l and March %.
In Scotland. January 1 was not fixed
upon as the New Year until 1899. and
in England not until 1852 1t is quite
unfortunate that Christmas and New
Year were placed on different dates.
They both represent the birth of
Christ. and hence should have been
placed on the\ same date. and that
should have been January 1. If the
Christian era is reckOned to have be.
gun with the birth of Christ, then each
year should begin with the day of his
birth. This would make January 1
both Christmas and New Year. The
present custom of celebrating the
same event on two different dates is
certainly inconsistent. Let us now
consider:
(4) The Origin of the Christian Cal
endar.
This matter. though closely rated to
the preceding. is yet quite distinct. In
the preceding. nothing was considered
but the origin of the Christian era and
the fixing of the Christian year; in
this we shall consider rather the con-
tents of the Christian year. In other
words, we shall consider the number
of months and days which at different |
times constituted the year, and the
and arrangement of the days |
given to each month.
Inc oman calendar of WI A
we ha any account gave to the year
3O4 days. which were grouped into ten
The first of these months
was March. and the last was Deem
Der. This arrangement made the legal
year so much shorter than the solar
year that January and February were
soon added, giving the year 354 days.
These 354 days were so distributed
among the twelve months as to give
each of them % and 80 days alternate
". This still left the civil year
shorter than the solar year, so that
by the year AZ b. c. the legal vernal
equinox differed from the astronomical
equinox by three months. This led
julius Caesar to employ Sosigenes. a
famous astronomer, to reform the cal
sndar; and as a result of his work,
he following arrangement was given
% the common year:
/. Januarius, 81 days.
2. Februarius. 20 days.
>. Martius, 81 days.
4. Aprilis, 80 days.
.. Maius, 81 days.
6. Junius, 30 days.
Z. Quintilis, 81 days.
s. Sextilis. 80 days.
Q. September. 81 days.
10. October. 80 days.
II. November. 81 days.
u. December. 80 days.
Every fourth year there was given
o February 80 days. This excellent
alendar gave 365 days to the common
ear, and 500 days to leap year. 1t
will be noted that this Julian year
vas exactly like the modern Christian
ear. except in the number of days
fven to February and to each of the
lst five months. Now we shall find
interesting to note the changes that
'ere made in this calendar. from time