Re: Act of 1752
May I recommend David Ewart Duncan's 'The Calendar' recently published by 4th Estate for an interesting insight into the calculation of the year etc. Paul Murphy I'll second that; it was a very good read. The full title is Calendar : Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year by David Ewing Duncan Here's an Amazon.com link if you want to learn more about it... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380793245/qid=942943896/sr=1-3/002-3183584-8100040 Jim 40N45, 111W53 --- -- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric| Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | --- -- Repartee is something we think of twenty-four hours too late. -- Mark Twain
Re: Act of 1752
May I recommend David Ewart Duncan's 'The Calendar' recently published by 4th Estate for an interesting insight into the calculation of the year etc. Paul Murphy
Act of 1752
One of the things about the Act of 1752 which bothered me for a long time was Why did we only lose 11 days The Julian calendar started in 45BC, so there were 1752+45=1797 years (there is no year 0) The Julian calendar is 11mins 14 seconds out = 1 day every 128 years 1797/128=14.03 days So why did we only lose 11 days? I can reveal the answer, for all those out there who, like me, have spent time worrying about this. The spring equinox was not on 21st March in 45 BC, but it had moved to 21st March by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. This was when Emperor Constantine - the first Christian Emperor of Rome - established, among other things, the rules for Easter (and there's another story). By the time that the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582 - and the driving force was to keep the date of Easter correct - the calendar had shifted by:- 1582-325=1257 1257/128=9.82 years So there was a 10 day adjustment. In 1752, we (UK and America) altered our calendar to keep us in line with the rest of Europe, a phrase that still seems to have a certain ring of familiarity. So now you can sleeep easy in your beds. Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] 53.37N 3.02W Chester, UK
Re: Act of 1752
Thibaud Taudin-Chabot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The year 1800 wouldn't be a leap year under the Gregorian calendar because 18 is not a mutliple of 4. Yes, this agrees with what I said about 1800 being treated as a normal year in England as a result of her adoption the Gregorian reform. Would England have adopted the Gregorian calendar right from the start in 1582 then 1600 would have been the first centennial leap year. Regardless of adoption of the Gregorian change 1600 would have been a leap year--under both the Julian and Gregorian rules 1600 is a leap year (as is 2000, which is what began this thread of discussion). The first century non-leap year for early adopters of the reform was 1700. However, 1700 was treated as a leap year in England and other late adopters. That is the reason England had one more day of adjustment when the reform was finally adopted. Did you know that by the same act of Parliament in 1751 the start of the year was changed from 25 March to 1 Januari, commencing in 1752 ? Yes. Jim 40N45, 111W53 --- -- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric| Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | --- -- You can't have everything. Where would you put it? -- Steven Wright
Re: Act of 1752
The year 1800 wouldn't be a leap year under the Gregorian calendar because 18 is not a mutliple of 4. Would England have adopted the Gregorian calendar right from the start in 1582 then 1600 would have been the first centennial leap year. Did you know that by the same act of Parliament in 1751 the start of the year was changed from 25 March to 1 Januari, commencing in 1752 ? At 16:03 15-11-99 -0700, you wrote: -Original Message/Oorspronkelijk bericht-- Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the treatment of 1800 as a normal year was a result of the Gregorian reform in England and her colonies, but not the treatment of year 2000 as a leap year? Under both Julian and Gregorian systems 2000 would be a leap year. Furthermore, the treatment of 1800 as a normal year was not the first effect of the legislation. September 1752 was very interesting, as demonstrated by the UNIX cal program % cal 9 1752 September 1752 S M Tu W Th F S 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Jim40N45, 111W53 =-= Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis Frank Evans wrote: Greetings fellow dialists and calendrists, A note about the millennium leap year that I recently came across in the journal History Today: When the next leap day arrives, on 29 February 2000, it will be, for Britain, the result of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752. By then most other European countries had already embraced the new calendar. The Act of Parliament which causes this first centenial leap year since then to take place was passed 248 years and 3 months ago. Is this the longest delayed action legislation ever? By the way, the 1752 Act also applied to the UK Colonies including America (no offence intended). Frank 55N 1W -- Frank Evans - Thibaud Taudin-Chabot 52°18'19.85 North 04°51'09.45 East home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (attachments max. 500kB; for larger attachments contact me first)
Act of 1752
Greetings fellow dialists and calendrists, A note about the millennium leap year that I recently came across in the journal History Today: When the next leap day arrives, on 29 February 2000, it will be, for Britain, the result of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752. By then most other European countries had already embraced the new calendar. The Act of Parliament which causes this first centenial leap year since then to take place was passed 248 years and 3 months ago. Is this the longest delayed action legislation ever? By the way, the 1752 Act also applied to the UK Colonies including America (no offence intended). Frank 55N 1W -- Frank Evans
RE: Act of 1752
No offence taken. Another result of the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar is the loss of 10 days. People's birthdays were recomputed, which is why Washington's Birthday is celebrated on 22 February, despite the fact that he was actually born on 11 February. Brad 39N 77W -Original Message- From: Frank Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 3:51 PM To: sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Subject: Act of 1752 Greetings fellow dialists and calendrists, A note about the millennium leap year that I recently came across in the journal History Today: When the next leap day arrives, on 29 February 2000, it will be, for Britain, the result of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752. By then most other European countries had already embraced the new calendar. The Act of Parliament which causes this first centenial leap year since then to take place was passed 248 years and 3 months ago. Is this the longest delayed action legislation ever? By the way, the 1752 Act also applied to the UK Colonies including America (no offence intended). Frank 55N 1W -- Frank Evans
RE: Act of 1752
At 05:14 PM 11/15/99 -0500, you wrote: No offence taken. Another result of the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar is the loss of 10 days. People's birthdays were recomputed, which is why Washington's Birthday is celebrated on 22 February, despite the fact that he was actually born on 11 February. And the Great October Socialist Revolution started on the 7th of November 1917... Mike Koblic, Quesnel BC
