Centennial Precedents
So what happened in centuries and millennia past?
If we are looking forward to the 3rd millennium, one wonders how our forebears celebrated the millennial change in the year 1000 AD at (almost) the end of the first millennium when Ethelred II ruled England. Actually, there was little to celebrate in Europe a thousand years ago. It was the middle of the Dark Ages and most people weren't in a party mood! Besides, they didn't use Arabic numerals as we do. So, to them, they just observed the year 'M' become 'MI'. Like wow! There certainly was no computer Y2K bug to worry about! It just wasn't the same.
However, from what was written at the time, fear mongering about the end of the world even then was rife fanned by the superstitious nature of medieval Christian (and other denominations) culture. A year earlier the calendar had turned over from DCCCCLXXXXIX to M, which probably would have made a bigger impression on people. However, maybe no bigger than the change from 1999 to 2000 for us more 'sophisticated' 20th Century people.
" Into the seventeenth century, even well educated people lacked elementary calculating skills. Arabic numerals were hardly known in Europe before the thirteenth century and took a long time to supplant Roman numerals. Mathematics gained ground by the sixteenth century, but those who could handle complicated calculations remained rare. Numerical operations called for special wisdom, and numbers mattered more for what they could reveal than for the quantity or chronology they might represent. Still, by the mid-eighteenth century, numbers had become familiar and people got used to dates. "
(From 'Apocalypses: Eugen Weber, 1999, Hutchinson, London p13)
There's actually very little to go on as far as centuries' ends or fin de siècles are concerned. Time and its divisions are merely social constructs. In the Christian West, the times that were counted most were those of the Church. The liturgical year began with Advent: the Sunday following the feast of St Andrew on November 30. Into the sixteenth century and sometimes beyond, the public year might have begun on 1 January, but more often at Christmas, Annunciation or especially Easter (see section 2.7) Up to the late eighteenth century there were few references made to the 'end of the century' or the 'beginning of a new one'. Christian history up to this point developed in the concurrence of prophecy and interpretation within a destiny that had been foretold, especially by that in the book of Revelation - the final book in the New Testament. Apolcalypse and the thousand-year millennium that would precede Christ's Second coming were major parts of this process, and loomed incommensurably larger than calendric dates. Indeed, the measuring of worldly time was mainly irrelevant insofar as it served divine timing.
The sixteenth century is important, because after 1560 the French year began on 1 January and after 1582 most Catholic countries adopted the Gregorian calendar which Protestants accepted only two centuries later. In England, where legal documents and statutes were dated by reign - not year - the calendar year began at the spring equinox, until England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 and the beginning of the year shifted from 25 March to 1 January. The chronology used most commonly today, based on years before and after Christ, came into general use only in the seventeenth century.
The use of the word 'century' up to this time signified ' a generation', 'a period' or 'an epoch of variable length'. However, by the late 1600's, the label 'century' as we understand it today came into its own. In December 1699 the popular French periodical Mercure Galant stated that the century to come raises hotly debated questions: " Some claim that it's about to begin, others contend that it will only begin in 1701".
Later on in the 1700's the London Times wrote on 26 December 1799:
" We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon the question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd that can engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has been the subject of so much dispute, since it appears plain.
The present century will not terminate till January 1, 1801.... We shall not pursue this question further.... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we have stated."
Those afflicted with a "want of brains" included Goethe, Schiller, and Victor Hugo, all of whom made the error of coming to the defense of 1800 as the beginning of the nineteenth century, and were summarily censured by the press. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Scientific American, and The Nation put their editorial might behind 1901 as the first year of the twentieth century. The New York Times endorsed 2001 for the twenty-first.
Before each turn of the century, there were some intense confrontations between differing majorities. 100 years ago, nearly all official fixings were made for 1st January 1901 except in Germany, where 1900 was adopted by the desires of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Ultimately, there was soon a redefinition of the term 'century' which standardised the meaning with the rest of the globe.
In a Report by Rich Wallace entitled 'The Century' a recent short article in the November issue of American Heritage magazine looked at the issue at the close of the nineteenth century. There was a significant amount of discussion in 1899 about when the twentieth century would actually begin. The article cites a poll of fourteen college presidents which resulted in twelve favouring January 1, 1901. The '1900 camp' based its position on the fact that the current calendar was not formulated until many centuries after the unknown birth of Christ, so January 1, 1900 was as good a date as any other.
However, an editorial that appeared in the New York Times during December 1899 rejected such inexactness, arguing "...facts and reason, the authority of all dictionaries, and the support of every chronologer and historian who ever lived, to say nothing of the invariable understanding and custom of all lands and ages supported the use of 1901." When Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm and his Imperial Council adopted January 1, 1900 as the date to begin the century, intellectuals and newspaper editors around the world were aghast. One American editor acidly remarked: "Now let it be decreed that black is white." Another said the Kaiser was "the only man of any prominence who cannot count to one hundred."
Although the debate was pretty much one-sided, it continued. There was no doubt about when the century would begin in at one least small US town. Three Sidney papers were published in December 1899. The Sidney Daily News, and two weeklies, the Sidney Journal and the Shelby County Democrat all reported the end of 1899 in a matter-of-fact fashion. There was no effort by retailers to have an 'end of the century' sale, no listing of the great achievements of the nineteenth century, and no forecasting about what the next 100 years would bring. No local editor decreed the nineteenth century had ended.
One of the few references to the question was in the January 5, 1900 issue of the 'Democrat'. The author of the short article asserted: "It is plain that time must pass through one hundred years to make a century, so time must go on through 1900 to complete the 19th century; hence we will not be in the 20th century until January 1, 1901." He concluded his piece with the tantalizing question: "Do you believe it?" Most local people apparently did. The arrival of New Year, 1900 was reported without fanfare.
As the next year drew to a close, much local attention was paid to the ending of the century. The remarks of President McKinley, about man's achievements during the 19th century, were reported in the December 3, 1900, edition of the Sidney (US) Journal. Sidney businessmen took advantage of the marketing opportunity presented at Christmas time. Fred Salm advertised in December 1900 that this was "The Last Christmas of the Nineteenth Century".
Local Sidney papers reviewed the highlights of the past 100 years. One article looked back to the beginning of the eighteenth century in 1801 and contrasted the state of mankind then to 1901. The recent American Heritage article referenced the beginning of that century by quoting from the 1 January 11801, edition of the 'Connecticut Courant'. The author mocked those who contended the century had begun in 1800 by saying: "Go on, ye scientific sages, collect you light a few more ages, Perhaps as swells the vast amount, A century hence you'll learn to count."
The first Sidney newspapers to be published in the new century reported on the celebrations that were held. The editor of the Democrat observed in the January 4, 1901, edition: "Sidney fittingly bid farewell to the old century and becomingly welcomed the new century... The fire bell and the church bells were rung at midnight and the factory whistles blown." Many parties were reported held around the city to watch the new century arrive.
The correct timing of the event was even sanctioned by the Pope in Rome. The Pope had issued a special decree, and ordered the same high mass performed in all Catholic churches throughout the world. The Democrat also reported on the solemn high mass that was held on 1 January 1901, at the Holy Angels Church pursuant to the Pope's decree. The author noted that "Promptly at the hour of twelve, Father Quatman stepped into the pulpit and in a few chosen words bid all a happy New Year, spoke of the great works accomplished during the past century and what would be done in the future."
In recent years, few publications have broken ranks, though Science News went astray briefly in 1986 when it stated in an obituary that Admiral Hyman Rickover, whose birth date was 27 January 27 1900, had been born in the first year of the century. The magazine quickly ran a letter to the editor pointing out its mistake.
Bringing us more up to date yet, a recent report by a Clyde Haberman who researched articles in the New York Times archives for a millennial story stated:
"One of the first things you learn from examining the world of a century ago is that people knew how to count. They understood that 99 years do not a century make, which is more than you can say for us today.
Since 1900 was sensibly considered to be the last year of the old century and the NOT the first year of the new, January 1900 was welcomed with ample appreciation but without dawn-of-an-era fanfare. It was, after all, still the 19th century. Rhetorical ruffle and flourishes would not be sounded until a year later, on January 1, 1901, when a headline on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed "Twentieth Century's Triumphant Entry."
(To compliment this, on the WABC-TV newscast in NYC a projection screen showed the headline in the January 1, 1901 New York Herald Tribune also announcing the arrival of the 20th century.)
Simple maths - use your fingers, if you wish - suggests that the hoopla now over the new millennium should have been delayed for another year. But the very fact that you are reading this underlines how irrelevant the logical point is to billions of earthlings convinced that they entered the 21st century on 1st January 2000"
It would appear from the above that in 1800 people were indeed waiting for 1801 to call it the 19th century; in 1900 people realized the 20th century did not begin until 1901; and today we must accept that the 21st century will not begin until January 1, 2001.
Incidentally, the Pope, as spokesman for the Catholic Church, which was responsible for the Gregorian calendar and our system of counting years, has declared year 2000 "a Jubilee Year to prepare for the new millennium." In his New Year Speech on 1 January 2000 he didn't greet the world with New Millennium tributes, he said quite collectedly "A Happy New Year ".
But what about countries that don't use the same calendar as we do?
Of course we are talking here of countries that use the Gregorian calendar system for measuring time. There are about 40 other calendars apart from the Gregorian in use at the present time throughout the world. These include (with their dates as at 1 January 2000): Byzantine (year 7508), Chinese (year 4636), Indian (year 1921), Islamic (year 1420), Jewish (year 5760). However, the date at which the year changes is different for each calendar.
For a lot of the world's population, 31 December 2000, like 31 December 2001 will be just normal days (see Appendix 6). They will be seen as nothing special and therefore will not be celebrated as anything out of the ordinary.
Out of all of this, I guess I'm a little embarrassed for us so-called Christians. Among others, the Muslims have their calendar, and the Chinese have theirs. Do you suppose they're watching us now in mild amusement, wondering why we can't count to 1,000? I probably think so!
Why was there a convergence of calendars in the first place?
The United States has no official calendar, and no legally prescribed method for numbering years. In general though, it is the Gregorian calendar that is in use as by the rest of the Christian West and has been so since 1751 when the American colonies were bound to the Gregorian calendar by an Act of Parliament in England. However, that obligation was cancelled by the Revolutionary War. In the US there is an inalienable right to number days and years as are pleased. One could run a company, for example, according to the Mayan 584-day Venerean calendar (based on Venus years) without fear of prosecution, though not without practical difficulties. Or one could choose from among the forty or so extant calendars worldwide (see also 'Zero by Dick Teresi')
Practically speaking though, a convergence of calendars came about because of business and its interests in trading between one country and another.
 Up to Top
|