On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
> My first and last post on this (off-) topic.
The same by me :-)
> Alain LaBonté <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > This document says: "If 16 centuries had passed since Caesar's
> > introduction of his calendar, the Julian calendar in Gregory's
> > time would have been out of sync with the astronomical situation
> > by 13 days, not 10."
> >
> > It is perhaps just a miscalculation and not a proof that 300 years
> > were created out of nothing...
>
> In fact, the 10 days dropped from the calendar as part of the Gregorian
> reform in 1582 were intended to bring it back in line with the Council
> of Nicaea in 325,
when it was decided
1. the date of the vernal equinox has always to be March 21st
(which is flawed because the solar year is not exactly
365.25 days as in Julian calendar)
2. Easter is to fall on the first Sunday after the first full moon
after/on the vernal equinox
as most people on this list know.
> not with its introduction by Julius Caesar in 45 BC.
I was about to point out the same thing, but you got here first :-)
Instead, I'm gonna introduce a little book 'Tibaldo and the hole in the
calendar' (by Abner Shimony) about an *imaginary* boy 'Tibaldo Bondi'
living in Bologna. His 12th birthday, October 10th, 1582 was about to be
removed from the calendar along with 9 other days in the month. What did
he do to 'get it back'? He pleaded to Pope Gregory XIII who's also from
Bologna and saved his birthday and other anniversaries, birthdays falling
thru the hole as well. How ? Read this charming book and you'll see :-)
> There are disputes about whether 9 or 11 days would have been more
> appropriate to achieve this goal, but in general there is no serious
> scholarship to show it has anything to do with falsifying history.
What would be Niemitz's reaction to this?
Jungshik Shin
