as forward. Some ambiguity is also occasioned by the want of uniformity in the method of numbering the preceding years. Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era by 0, and the year previous to that by 1 B.C.; but chronologers, in conformity with common notions, call the year preceding the era 1 B.C., the previous year 2 B.C., and so on. By reckoning in this manner, there is an interruption in the regular succession of the numbers; and in the years preceding the era, the leap years, instead of falling on the fourth, eighth, twelfth, &c., fall, or ought to fall, on the first, fifth, ninth, &c.
In the chronicles of the Middle Ages much uncertainty
frequently arises respecting dates on account of the
different epochs assumed for the commencement of the
Christian year. Dionysius, the author of the era, adopted
the day of the Annunciation, or the 25th of March, which
preceded the birth of Christ by nine months, as the commencement of the first year of the era. This epoch therefore precedes that of the vulgar era by nine months and seven days. This manner of dating was followed in some
of the Italian states, and continued to be used at Pisa even
down to the year 1745. It was also adopted in some of
the Papal bulls; and there are proofs of its having been
employed in France about the middle of the 11th century.
Some chroniclers, who adhere to the day of the Annunciation as the commencement of the year, reckon from the
25th of March following our epoch, as the Florentines in
the 10th century. Gregory of Tours, and some writers of
the 6th and 7th centuries, make the year commence some
times with the 1st of March, and sometimes with the 1st
of January. In France, under the third race of kings, it
was usual to begin the year with Easter; and this practice
continued at least till the middle of the 16th century, for
an edict was issued by Charles IX. in the month of
January 1663, ordaining that the commencement of the
year should thenceforth be considered as taking place on
the 1st of January. An instance is given, in L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, of a date in which the year is reckoned
from the 18th of March; but it is probable that this refers
to the astronomical year, and that the 18th of March was
taken for the day of the vernal equinox. In Germany,
about the 11th century, it was usual to commence the year
at Christmas; and this practice also prevailed at Milan,
Rome, and other Italian cities, in the 13th, 14th, and 15th
centuries.
In England, the practice of placing the beginning of the
year at Christmas was introduced in the 7th century, and
traces of it are found even in the 13th. Gervase of
Canterbury, who lived in the 13th century, mentions that
almost all writers of his country agreed in regarding
Christmas day as the first of the year, because it forms, as
it were, the term at which the sun finishes and recommences
his annual course. In the 12th century, however, the
custom of beginning the civil year with the day of the
Annunciation, or the 25th of March, began to prevail, and
continued to be generally followed from that time till the
reformation of the calendar in 1752. The historical year
has always been reckoned by English authors to begin with
the 1st of January. The liturgic year of the Church of
England commences with the first Sunday of Advent.
A knowledge of the different epochs which have been
chosen for the commencement of the year in different
countries is indispensably necessary to the right interpretation of ancient chronicles, charters, and other documents in
which the dates often appear contradictory. We may cite an
example or two. It is well known that Charles the Great
was crowned emperor at Rome on Christmas day in the
year 800, and that he died in the year 814, according to
our present manner of reckoning. But in the annals of
Metz and Moissac, the coronation is stated to have taken
place in the year 801, and his death in 813. In the first
case the annalist supposes the year to begin with Christmas,
and accordingly reckons the 25th of December and all the
following days of that month to belong to 801, whereas in
the common reckoning they would be referred to the year
800. In the second case the year has been supposed to
begin with the 25th of March, or perhaps with Easter;
consequently the first three months of the year 814,
reckoning from the 1st of January, would be referred to
the end of the year 813. The English Revolution is
popularly called the Revolution of 1688. Had the year
then begun, as it now does, with the 1st of January, it
would have been the revolution of 1689, William and Mary
being received as king and queen in February in the year
1689; but at that time the year was considered in England
as beginning on the 25th of March. Another circumstance
to which it is often necessary to pay attention in the comparison of dates, is the alteration of style which took
place on the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar (see vol. iv. pp. 671 sqq.)
Era of the Creation of the World.
As the Greek and Roman methods of computing time
were connected with certain pagan rites and observances,
which the Christians held in abhorrence, the latter began
at an early period to imitate the Jews in reckoning their
years from the supposed period of the creation of the world.
The chronological elements on which both Jews and
Christians founded their computations for determining this
period were derived from the Old Testament narratives,
which have been transmitted to us through three distinct
channels. These are the Hebrew text of the Scriptures,
the Samaritan text, and the Greek version known as the
Septuagint. In respect of chronology, the three accounts
are totally irreconcilable with each other; and no conclusive
reason can be given for preferring any one of them to
another. We have no concurrent testimony with which to
compare them; nor is it even known which of them was
regarded as the most probable by the Jews themselves,
when the books of the Old Testament were revised and
transcribed by Ezra. The ordinary rules of probability
cannot be applied to a state of things in which the duration
of human life is represented as extending to nearly a
thousand years.
From computations founded on loose and conflicting
data it would be vain to look for knowledge or even
for concord of opinion. From the very nature of the case
discussion is hopeless labour. The subject is one to which
the saying Quot homines tot sententiæ applies with almost
literal truth. Des Vignoles, in the preface to his Chronology of Sacred History, asserts that he collected upwards
of two hundred different calculations, the shortest of which
reckons only 3483 years between the creation of the world
and the commencement of the vulgar era, and the longest
6984. The difference amounts to thirty-five centuries.
It suffices, therefore, to point out that the so-called era of
the creation of the world is a purely conventional and
arbitrary epoch; that, practically, it means the year 4004 B.C., this being the date which, under the sanction of Archbishop Ussher's opinion, has won its way, among its
hundreds of competitors, into most general acceptance.
The reader who is desirous of more detailed information on
this subject may consult the first volume of the Universal History, or L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, avant J. C., p. 9.
Jewish Year and Eras.
