Introduction of the "new style" in the calendar

Reasons for the calendar reform. At the end of the III century.n.e. The vernal equinox was on March 21.Apparently, the "fathers of the church" who participated in the work of the Council of Nicaea, believed that it was in 325 and it will be the same in the future. The average length of the year in the Julian calendar is 0.0078 days or 11 minutes 14 seconds more than the tropical year. As a result, for every 128 years, an error accumulated throughout the whole day: the moment of passage of the Sun through the point of the vernal equinox moved during this time for one day ago - from March to February. In turn, all the holidays associated with certain dates of the calendar, moved "forward": spring - for summer, summer, - for autumn, etc. The calculations show that by the end of the XVI century. The vernal equinox shifted back by 10 days and accounted for on March 11.

Thus, if the full moon in the XVI century.took place between March 11 and 21, according to church rules, it was not considered springtime, and Easter was celebrated only after 30 days, after the next full moon. As a result, this typically spring holiday moved towards summer, which could not remain unnoticed.

It has already been mentioned that because of the inaccuracy of the metonic cycle, the phases of the moon in relation to the dates of the Julian calendar fall one day behind every 310 years. Tables of Easter full moons were compiled in the IV-VI centuries, on their basis and further calculations were carried out. But by the XVI century. The phases of the moon in relation to the calculated shifted already four days ago. Therefore, quite often Easter was celebrated not on the first, but on the second Sunday after the true( astronomical) full moon. In those years the winged phrase "aureus factus est plum-beus" appeared - "the golden number became lead". .. And, as NI Idelson notes, when calculating the true phases of the moon, "the chronology from the date of the eternal calendar retreated back to 4day, counting the syllables: no-va lu-na hie, ie, no-n-lu-nye here, a peculiar way of correcting astronomical tables! "

Thus, both the date of the vernal equinox and the dates of the Easter full moon, taken inas a basis for calculating Easter, no longer corresponded to real astronomical phenomena. Therefore, the problem of calendar reform was discussed by the Catholic Church at Basel( 1437), Lateran( 1512-1517) and Trident( 1545-1563) cathedrals.

The Gregorian Reform. The reform of the calendar was carried out by Pope Gregory XIII on the basis of the project of the Italian doctor and mathematician Luigi Lilio. By the way, the analogous structure of the calendar was proposed in 1560 by the Veronese astronomer Petrus Pitat;But whether Lilio knew about her is not known.

In the special bull "Inter gravissimas"( February 24, 1582), the pope says: "It was our concern not only to restore the equinox at the place assigned to him from time immemorial, from which, from the time of the Council of Nicaea, it receded toten days approximately, and the XIV moon( the church designation of the full moon) to return its place, from which it departs for four or five days, but also to establish the way and rules by which to achieve that in the future the equinox and the XIV moon from their places will nevershifted. "

While threatening to excommunicate anyone who refuses to accept the calendar reform, Pope Gregory XIII in his bull ordered: "So, with the goal of returning the vernal equinox to its former place, which the fathers of the Council of Nicaea set on the 12th day before the April calends( March 21), we prescribe and order concerning the month of October of the current year 1582, that ten days, from the third day before the nons( October 5) to the eve of the eid( October 14) inclusive, were seized. "So the vernal equinox was moved to March 21, "in its place".And that the error in the future did not accumulate, it was decided to throw out every four hundred years three days. It is considered simple that those centuries, the number of hundreds of which is not divided without a remainder of 4. It was brought into line with the phases of the moon and the 19-year lunar cycle, the rules of its regular( in each century) correction.

This calendar system is called Gregorian, or "new style".In contrast to her, the Julian calendar has strengthened the name of the "old style"( denoted respectively "n. St." And "art.").

The controversy surrounding the reform. The calendar reform of 1582 caused a storm of protests and bitter polemics, particularly among scientists. Almost all universities of Western Europe spoke against it, especially the Paris and Vienna ones. Many leading scientists of the time argued that the Gregorian calendar was not astronomically justified, that it was just a "distortion of the Julian calendar", etc. With just as eager a reform of the calendar committee, Christoph Clavius, whose name was later named the largest crater onThe Moon.

In response to the papal bull, a whole stream of pamphlets, anonymous letters, rumors of a near "end of the world" appeared. Protestants especially protested against them, believing that "it is better to disperse with the Sun than to meet with the pope".True, Luther himself was for the reform of the calendar, but other Protestants reasoned otherwise. For example, in 1583 the Protestant Professor Luke Osiander called the reform godless, and the Pope an Antichrist, who wished to command the stars. .. However, the distinguished scientist I. Kepler( 1571-1630), although a Protestant, advocated the reform of the calendar, whichProtestant countries were held with a delay of 50-100 years. Catholic countries in Europe moved to a new style almost immediately.

The Orthodox Church refused to accept the Gregorian calendar system, although in 1583 at the Council of Constantinople recognized the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar. The fact is that in the Gregorian calendar quite often the Christian Easter falls with the Jewish or even earlier( so from 1851 to 1951 the Catholic Easter was formerly Jewish 15 times), which is allegedly forbidden by the "Apostolic Rules".But "adhering to" these rules, the Orthodox Church in 1986, 1989, 1994, and in general - in every 5 th, 8 th, 11 th, 16 th and 19 th years of the 19-year cycle celebrates Easternot after the first spring full moon, but after the second, and due to the discrepancy metonoza cycle Julian calendar - every 19 years, only five times in the first after full moon Sunday! Thus, it clearly violates the same decrees, for which implementation it still continues to struggle.

Introduction of the Gregorian calendar in Russia. The issue of calendar reform in Russia has been raised many times. In particular, this proposal was made by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1830. However, the then-Minister of Public Education, Prince A. A. Lieven, presented in his report to Tsar Nicholas I the reform of the calendar as a matter "untimely, undue, capable of producing undesirable disturbances and embarrassmentsminds ".He also reported that "the benefits of changing the calendar are unimportant, almost insignificant, and inconveniences and difficulties are inevitable and great."The king wrote on this report: "Prince Lieven's remarks are absolutely fair" - and the question was buried.

In 1864 IG Medler returned to it. In his article "On the reform of the calendar," he wrote: "Our current calendar is similar to such watches, which are not only constantly late, but also go wrong."IG Medler suggested that after correcting the backlog of the calendar, one more day be excluded from the account every 128 years. However, no reform measures were taken.

Moreover, many educated people of Russia Julian calendar seemed almost the pinnacle of perfection. Thus, at the meetings of the Commission on the reform of the calendar( 1899), V. Bolotov stated: "The Gregorian reform does not have for itself not only an excuse, but even an apology. ..".And more: "I myself find the abolition of the Julian style in Russia is undesirable. I still remain a determined admirer of the Julian calendar. His extreme simplicity constitutes his scientific advantage over all other calendar corrections. I think that the cultural mission of Russia on this issue is to keep the Julian calendar in life for a few more centuries and thereby to facilitate for the Western peoples the return from unnecessary Gregorian reform to an unspoiled old style. "

Of course, this was a delusion. Here we will repeat again: the Julian calendar can be considered convenient only within a few centuries. It is difficult to imagine that mankind, continuously increasing the level of its technological development, refused to develop and use for its needs such a unit of time that was adequate to its astronomical prototype. And from this point of view, the Gregorian calendar, as the American astronomer G. Moyer said, "is a very satisfactory compromise between the necessary accuracy and the extremely desirable simplicity."

Century	Periods, years of the Julian calendar	Difference in the days	Century	Periods, years of the Julian calendar	Difference in the days of
from 1. III	to 29. II	from 1. III	to 29. II
I	1	100	-2	XII	1100	1200	7
II	1100	1200	7
II	1100	1200	7
II	II	XII	1200	1300	7
III	200	300	0	XIV	1200	1300	7
IV	300	400	1	XV	IV.	1500	1600	10
VI	400	500	1	XVI	1500	1600	10
VI	500	600	2	XVII	1600	1700	10
VII	600	700	3	XVIII	1700	1800	11
VIII	700	800	4	XIX	1800	1900	12
IX	800	900	4	XX	1900	2000	13
X	900	1000	5	XXI	2000	2100	13
XI	1000	1100	6	XXII	2100	2200	14

The issue of calendar reform in Russia was resolved right after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Already on November 16, 1917, he was put to the discussion of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, which on January 24 adopted the Decree on the Introduction of the Western European Calendar in the Russian Republic. The decree stated: "In order to establish the calculation of time in Russia, which is the same with almost all cultural peoples, the Council of People's Commissars decides to introduce a new calendar after the end of January of this year into civilian life."To do this: "The first day after January 31 this year is not February 1, but February 14, the second day - consider 15, etc."

Amendment for style. In the XVI century. The difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars was 10 days.1600 in both calendars was a leap year. By 1700, in the Julian calendar, it was a leap year, and in the Gregorian calendar simple, since the number of hundreds( 17) is not divisible by a remainder of 4. Therefore, in the 18th century, The difference between the old and new styles has increased to 11 days.1800 and 1900 are also non-leaved, therefore in our time the Julian calendar lags behind the Gregorian calendar for 13 days. And so it will be until 2100.

To mark the anniversary of an event that took place before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, do a recalculation of the date. In doing so, we use the data in Table.

Table. The discrepancy between the Julian and Gregorian calendars

For example, the outstanding Polish scientist N. Copernicus was born on February 19, 1473, according to the Julian calendar. In the XV century.the difference between the two calendar systems was 9 days. Therefore, the birthday of N. Copernicus should be marked 19 + 9 = February 28 on the Gregorian calendar. Conversely, in order to switch from the Gregorian calendar to the Julian calendar, the number of the calendar date must be reduced from October 15, 1582 to March 11, 1700, to 10, from March 12, 1700 to March 12, 1800 to 11, from March 13, 1800to March 13, 1900, to 12, from March 14, 1900 to March 14, 2100, to 13.

In fact, on March 13,st.-This( 13-12) = March 1 st. Art. In turn, on March 13, 1900, this is another 28( as many days in February of this century) + 13 - 12 = February 29, according to art. Art. The correction sign is explained in Fig.

Fig. To an explanation of the sign of the discrepancy Δ between the G Gregorian date and the Julian calendar date: T = 10 + D. The origins of both systems coincided in the III c. AD, at a more distant time the beginning of the year of the Julian calendar, which has an average longer duration, is removed in the past farther than the beginning of the year of the Gregorian calendar

. In conclusion, we note that without looking at the calendar( apparently, there were still "eternalcalendars "...), the English writer Daniel Defoe( 1660-1731) made a mistake in his book" Robinson Crusoe ".Thus, the hero of the work, which falls on a deserted island and bravely overcomes all difficulties, writes in his diary that "November 11( 1659) was Sunday."In fact, and this can be seen with the help of Appendix I, November 11, 1659 was Friday. The reader, however, can say that since the event occurs 77 years after the introduction of a new style, it is possible that the account of the days is given by Robinson Crusoe according to the Gregorian calendar. But, as can be seen from Appendix I, according to the new style, the mentioned date is not Sunday, but Tuesday. To fully clarify the matter, let us recall that in Protestant England the Gregorian calendar was introduced only in 1752, 21 years after the death of Defoe. Consequently, the writer described the events of the Julian calendar and had to write "November 11 was Friday". ..

And more about the mistakes. Earlier on the basis of calculation it was shown that when the Julian calendar was introduced, the spring equinox was on March 23rd. It was also described in detail which calendar, or rather the Paschalistic problems were solved at the Council of Nicaea. It is noted that as a result of the reform of 1582, 10 days were excluded from the Julian calendar to return the vernal equinox to that place( March 21) that it occupied during the time of the Council of Nicaea. As if everything is quite clear and simple.

Nevertheless, both in the XIX and XX centuries.many fans of the calendar problem and serious scientists expressed the most implausible judgments about what decisions on the calendar were taken at the Council of Nicaea and "what was not taken into account" in the reform of 1582. Here are some of the most "authoritative"( and very contagious for "just lovers") Examples.

Until now, there is some opinion that the Council of Nicaea conducted a "reform" of the Julian calendar, excluding three days from the account. Here is how IG Medler wrote about this: "According to the order of Julius Caesar, the day of the spring equinox should be March 21. .. When in the fourth century of our calendar this calendar was adopted, then at the Nicaea Council it was decided: 1. Soas the vernal equinox was moved back to the 18th of March at that time, then to discard 3 days. .. ".

The same erroneous opinion was held by BM Khljustin: "In 325. .. the calendar was adopted at the Nicaea Cathedral by the Orthodox Church, and that year( for 325 + 46 = 371) the error accumulated in 3 days... The cathedral corrected the error by prescribing to discard 3 days and count 18. III - 21 as a number, but did not eliminate its cause, and over time this error reappeared and began to grow. ..

Of course, everything said here is nothing but speculation. The Nicaea Cathedral did not displace the spring equinox anywhere, since it did not move by March 18.The proof is that the outstanding astronomer Ptolemy( II century AD) in his "Almagest" considered the date of the spring equinox on March 22!

The followers of DI Mendeleyev( 1834-1907), whom he expressed when discussing the issue of calendar reform in Russia in 1899, mislead fans of the calendar problem: "But when this Gregorian style was introduced( in 1582), it was madethere was an error in the counting of the beginning( defined as the insufficient accuracy of information about the true length of the year, and the amendment only from the time of the Council of Nicaea), namely: in 1582 the error of the Julian( formerly Western European) style from the true account of years was 0,00781 * 1582 = -12.355 days, and Pope Gregoryth XIII introduced the amendment for only 10 days, i.e., multiplied misunderstandings of a different kind, and the questions of the calendar became more complicated, and not simplified, if in the count of years come from the Nativity of Christ. "

As you can see, DI Mendeleev did not understand the essence of the reform of 1582, whose task was( we will repeat this once again) to return the spring equinox not to the era era, but by the time the rules for calculating the Easter date were being developed.