What has been said of the divers commencements of the year in charters and chronicles, proves what attention we should bring to the perusal of these ancient monuments. Without it, we shall be continually liable to mistakes -and the more readily, as those who began the year differently did not, like Gervase, advertise us of the fact. They all date from the Incarnation, without saying whether they began it on the 25th of March, 9 months & 7 days before us, or 3 months minus 7 days after us-nor whether they began with January 1 of the year which precedes ours, or with the same month of January as we, or with March, Easter, or Christmas.*

But it is not the years of the incarnation only that we are liable to mistake; we may easily err as to the years of the passion. We find several charters, in which the years of the passion are added to those of the incarnation. Du Cange reports three examples under Annus. To reconcile these two dates, it is not sufficient to know how our ancients counted the years of the incarnation, we must further know how they computed those of the passion, or in what age of our Lord they report his death. Some thought that

ing a new regnal year in Thoth, or the first day of their civil year, so that they reckoned a second year at Thoth, which opened a new year, when the princes had reigned only a few months before. Pagi has observed that, without this method, we cannot explain the date of a second year of Galba, nor the fifth year of Heliogabalus, on Egyptian medals. By the same method, Baron de la Bastie explains the eighth year, H, of the emperor Probus, on medals struck in Egypt.

Cardinal Noris proves that the inhabitants of Antioch and Laodicea, in Syria, counted, in the same way, a new year of a reign at the beginning of their civil year. Such was the practice of the Tyrians and of Selencia.-Ibid.

* Practice in the West.-The commencement of the year at Christmas was long observed in Germany, where we see it established from the 10th century. Wippo, in his Life of Conrad the Salic, says " Inchoato anno Nativitatis Christi Chonradus in ipsa regia civitate Natalem Domini celebravit." The historian Bruno, who wrote towards the end of the 11th century, thus finishes his history of the Saxon war: "Anno MLXXXII (1081) in natali Stephani Protomartyris, Heremannus a Sigefrido Moguntinæ sedis archiepiscopo in regem venerabiliter est unctus." The Saxon annalist, who has brought his history to 1139, begins every year of his annals in this manner-the emperor celebrated his Christmas in this city, then the Epiphany, then the Purification, in such a place. This usage, however, was not universal in Germany. At Cologne, the year began at Easter. It is true that a council in 1310 (can. 23) ordained, that henceforth the year should begin at Christmas, according to the custom of the Roman church; but that regarded only the ecclesiastical style, and they continued to begin the civil year at Easter, which they called the style of the court. The university of Cologne had its own style, and began at March 25, which was in use in 1428. At Mayence, until the 15th century, Christmas Day opened the year, but at length the custom of beginning the year at January 1 was gradually established. We have already remarked that Sigbert, (suprà, fo. 544), in giving March 18 for the first day of 1101, understood the astronomical, and not the civil year. Haltaus is certainly mistaken in saying,

he died aged 32, others 33, and others 34. This is what Gervase of Canterbury expressly says, where he complains of this diversity of opinions as a new source of error. In order not to mistake, we must continually recal these three opinions on the year of the passion, and never forget what has been said according to Gervase. We ought farther to add an important remark, namely, that the year of the passion is sometimes confounded with that of the incarnation, as in a charter of Thibaud 1, count de Champagne: "Data v idus Januarii, indictione VI, anno a passione Domini MLXXXIII, regni autum Philippi XXIII, scripta manu Ingelrani, Carnotensis ecclesiæ decani et chancelleri." We cannot suppose that Ingelran was mistaken in this charter, and wrote, without thinking of it, "passione" instead of incarnatione, because he is not the only one of that time who wrote in this manner. We have an author of the same age, who, in the first book of his Miracles of St. Aile, abbot of Rebais, also takes the word passion for that of the incarnation:

that March 19 began the civil year until towards 1287, and then gave way to Jan. 1. It appears, on the contrary, that the custom of the church of Liege, from the commencement of the 13th century, and even before, to begin the year at Sabbatum Sanctum, after the benediction of the paschal taper: "Attendendum (says Hocsem, canon of Liege in the 14th century, in his Life of Bishop Henry de Gueldre, cap. 1) quod a tempore cujus memoria non existit, annorum Nativitatis Domini cumulatio, sive cujuslibet anni succrescentis initium in cereo consecrato paschali hactenus depingi tabula consuevit, et ab illa hora annus dominicus inchoabat." But that was changed in 1334 by Bishop Adolphus, who substituted Christmas Day for that of Easter. At Treves, March 25 began the year about the same age. After a long time, it began at Jan. 1. Bronver, in the 17th century, says" Our notaries and other public writers, in their acts, always take March 25 for the first of the new year." But this custom was abolished by the elector, Gaspar Wanderleyen, who was made bishop in 1652, and died in 1676. At Strasburg, a kalendar of the 11th century begins the year with the Circumcision. But we cannot infer from it that it was the beginning of the civil year. A proof to the contrary is found in a charter of Bishop Wernarius, granted at the beginning of that century: "Actum anno incarnationis dominicæ, MV°, indictione II, epacta XXVI, concurrente VI." These chronological characters answer only to 1004, begun at January 1, from which the conclusion is, that the charter was made between Christmas Day of that year, which Wernarius began with that day, and Jan. 1 following, and to which he attached the commencement of the indiction, epact & concurrent. We can bring more ancient proofs of the beginning of the year at Christmas in Alsace. A kalendar of the 8th century begins at VIII kal. Januarii, and a ritual nearly as ancient begins, " Ordo in Nativitate Domini." The style of the imperial court, from the beginning of the 16th century, was to open the year with Jan. 1. The proof of this is in the famous treaty of Cambray, between Julius II, the emperor Maximilian, and Louis XII, against the Venetians. It was signed Dec. 10, 1508, and the ratification, Dec. 26, 1508. Therefore Maximilian did not begin it at Christmas.

In Hungary, they began the year either at Christmas or Jan. 1.

In Denmark, according to Ol. Wormius, they began sometimes at Christ

"Roberto apud Merovingiam, quæ alio nomine dicitur Francia, tenente jus regium, post mille a passione Domini volumina annorum, ipso millenarii impleti anno," &c. (Acta SS. Bened., s. 11, p. 326). This deed expressly says, that Robert reigned the year 1000 after the passion; but King Robert did not reign in the year 1000 of the passion properly so called, since he died in 1031, and the 1000th year of the passion, properly so called, does not answer to any year of Robert, in whatever manner we reckon it, but only to the years 1032, 1033 & 1034. Thus the year of the passion, in this charter, is taken for that of the incarnation.

Another name given to the incarnation is Annus Gratia. The first example which we have remarked of this name, so common in later times, is in the year 1132. It is met with in a charter of Hugues, seigneur of Chateau Neuf, in the Spicil., t. IV, p. 261. Gervase of Canterbury, who lived at the beginning of the 13th century, follows this usage in his Chronicle,

mas, sometimes Jan. 1, and sometimes Aug. 12, the day of St. Tiburtius. An ancient Runic kalendar in Strasburg begins at the Circumcision.

In Switzerland, they began Jan. 1 in the 14th & 15th centuries, except at Lausanne and the Pays du Vaud, where, since the Council of Basil, they begin March 25.

At Milan, in the 13th, 14th & 15th centuries, they began at Christmas. Rome, and the greater part of the Italian States, followed the same style; but at Florence, from the 10th century, the beginning of the year was March 25, 3 months minus 7 days after us: this was called the Calculation, or Era, of Florence. Some cities adopted this style, which several popes, up to Clement XIII inclusively, have followed in their bulls. The Florentines abandoned this usage in virtue of a decree of the emperor Francis, Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1749, which ordered that the year 1750 should begin Jan. 1 in all cities. The Pisan era which precedes that of Florence an entire year, was in use not only in Pisan, but Lucca, Sienna & Lodi. Several popes have conformed to it in their bulls, and several emperors of the West, from the 9th century, in their diplomas. At Venice, the civil and common year began Jan. 1, yet, from time immemorial, the legal year, which was followed in acts and deeds, began March 1. This custom still continues. At Benevento, they began March 1 in the 12th century; and Falcono, who wrote his chronicle about 1141, always takes February to be the last month in the year.-Ibid.

* There are two styles in a letter of Charles V, or the Wise, to Edward III, respecting the surrender of Belleville. The date is Jan. 20, 1366, according to the style of Rome and ours, and of our reign the second. The French style was to begin the year at Easter. This was, therefore, the French 1366 begun at Easter, April 13, 1365, and the Roman 1366 begun at Christmas, 1365, which, in England, was considered by diplomatists as finished till the following March 25. A date in the body of the letter, promising to deliver Belleville within Easter, beginning the year of grace 1368, must be referred to our April 18, 1367: "Nous le baillerons et deliverons a nostre dit frere, a ses hoirs, ou deputez, dedens le jour de Pasques commencanz l'an de Grace mill ccclxviii." -Rymer, Fœder., t. III, p. i, p. 782.

which begins thus: "Anno igitur gratiæ secundum Dionysium MC, secundum Evangelium vero MCXXII, suscepit Henricus primus monarchiam totius Angliæ," &c. Here the year of grace is clearly marked for that of the incarnation. But what is more remarkable, is the distinction between the years of the incarnation according to Dionysius Parvus, and the same years according to the Gospel. He supposes, then, that Dionysius was deceived in reckoning the years of the incarnation, and that, according to the Gospel, we must add 22 complete years to his calculation, in order to find the true year of the incarnation. Marianus Scotus, who died at the end of the 11th century, and other writers of chronicles, though small in number, have made the same supposition. We find it so in a rescript of Urban II: "Data Laterani, vII kal. April. anno ab incarnatione Domini, secundum Dionysinm MXCVIII, secundum vero certiorem Evangelii probationem, MCXXI, indictione VI, epacta Iv." Pope Urban & Gervase agree in what they say

In 1350 it was ruled in Arragon, by an ordinance of Peter, dated Perpignan, Dec. 16, that the year should begin at Christmas, and that the kalends, nones & ides, should be omitted in the date of the day (Du Cange, t. I, col. 468). Previously the year began March 25, later than ours by 3 months minus 7 days. The same law was published at Castille, 1383, to the Cortes at Segovia; and in Portugal, King John I gave a similar ordinance in 1420. This usage subsisted in the 16th century, as appears by the date of the treaty between the emperor, Charles V, and King Francis I: "Ainsy faict traicte et conclu en la ville de Madrid, &c. le Dimanche 14 du mois de Janvier, 1526, pris a la Nativite de N. Seigneur selon le style d'Espagne." A similar ordinance was issued in the same age by Charles IX, in France.

The Russians, in the 11th century, began the year at Spring, but at length they adopted the Greek kalendar.

In Sicily, from the invasion of the Normans, they began March 25—but in the 15th century, July 1; yet the notaries in the middle of the 17th century continued to take March 25, though the people and the magistrates used Jan. 1. In Cyprus, the year began at Christmas.

In England, we find vestiges of this usage from the 7th century, and it continued to the 13th century. Gervase of Canterbury testifies that all preceding writers began at Christmas, because that day served for the term at which the sun ended his course: "Hac ut æstimo ratione inducti sunt omnes fere qui ante me scripserunt, ut a Natali Domini anni subsequentis sumerent initium." However, it appears that, from the 12th century, the custom of the English church was to commence the year on March 25; and it is no doubt for this reason that Eadmer, who wrote towards the middle of this century, styles the ember week of Pentecost, the fast of the fourth month. This style passed into the civil in the 14th century. A diploma of Edward III, by which he pledged his crown to Baldwin, archbishop of Treves, is dated-" Datum anno Domini MCCCXXXVIII secundum stylum & consuetudinem ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et provinciæ Trevirensis, die penultima mensis Septembris” (Rymer, t. V, p. 101.) We have seen that, at Treves, the year began March 25. This custom was preserved in England until the reception of the reformed kalendar, when the beginning of the year was fixed to be Jan. 1. For the rest, we must distin

A

respecting the calculation of Dionysius, which is not distinguished from ours; but there is one year of difference in their manner of reckoning the years, which they say are according to Gospel proof. According to Gervase, in order to find the true year of the incarnation, we must add 22 years to our Christian era, or to the calculation of Dionysius. According to Urban, we must add 23. Marianus Scotus, with Gervase, says we must add 22. Florent. (Bravonius) Worcest. adopts the same opinion in his chronicle, composed at the beginning of the 12th century. He arranges his facts under two eras of the Gospel, which he expresses by S. E., and the era of Dionysius, which he designates by S. D. For instance, he places a voyage of William II, duke of Normandy, into England, under the year 1051 of the era introduced by Dionysius, and under the year 1073 of the evangelic era— whence we see that he places the first era 22 years before the other. Others, such as Helinand, the monk of Froimont, who wrote at the end of the 12th

guish three sorts of years-the historical, legal & liturgic. The historical for a long time began Jan. 1; the legal at Christmas, which was followed in the public acts up to the end of the 13th century, and the liturgic year, the first Sunday of Advent.

The Low Countries, Gueldres & Friesland, began the year at Christmas; the same custom was observed at Utrecht after 1333-but before, they began March 25. Good Friday began the year at Delft, Dordrecht & Brabant. In Holland, Flanders & Hainault, it was Easter Day, and this is the style of the notaries in their public acts; but to avoid confusion, they added to their dates, when they preceded Easter-according to the court style, or before Easter, or more Gallicano.

This last style is that of Savoy.

With regard to France, the custom, from the time of Charlemagne, was to begin the year at Christmas, and it was almost universal in the 9th centurywe say almost, because there are some exceptions. In several places they began at Easter. A charter of Aire, in Artois, is dated" Actum Aria monasterio vi kal. April. anno incarn. DCCCLVI, et bissextili, ascensu I, indictione IV, ac embolismo, Sabbato ante Mediam Quadragesimam anno XVII regnante Karolo cum fratre Hludovico ac nepote Hlothario." This date belongs to 856 in our reckoning, and is full of contradictions. Easter, in 856, fell on March 29, and consequently March 27 was Friday. The year 856, the 17th of Charles the Bald, did not begin till June 20, his father dying this day in 840: Easter was not yet finished. But all this is reconciled by referring this date to 857. In fact, Easter fell April 18-March 27 was Saturday of the third week of Lent, and the morrow, the fourth Sunday of Lent, was exactly the middle of Lent, properly so called. The 17th year of Charles runs then to June 20, and indiction 4, begun at Easter, was not yet finished. It is true that 857 was not leapyear, but 856 was, and, consequently, the portion of the following year to which it was extended was thought so too. There is a fault in saying so much of the lunar embolismal year, which was really this year 856, having II for the Golden Number, but which was not thought finished like the solar till Easter. Lastly, the expression ascensu I appears to mark the regular, which was I. We are, therefore, sure that there were places where the year began at Easter in the VOL. II. 3 &