Old and new style. Difference between Julian and Gregorian calendar

Since 46 BC, most countries in the world have used the Julian calendar. However, in 1582, by the decision of Pope Gregory XIII, it was replaced by Gregorian. That year, the next day after the fourth of October was not the fifth, but the fifteenth of October. Now the Gregorian calendar is officially adopted in all countries except Thailand and Ethiopia.

Reasons for adopting the Gregorian calendar

The main reason for introducing new system chronology began to move the day of the vernal equinox, depending on which the date of the celebration of Christian Easter was determined. Due to discrepancies between the Julian and tropical calendars (the tropical year is the period of time during which the sun completes one cycle of changing seasons), the day of the vernal equinox gradually shifted to earlier dates. At the time of the introduction of the Julian calendar, it fell on March 21, both according to the accepted calendar system and in fact. But to XVI century, the difference between the tropical and Julian calendars was already about ten days. As a result, the vernal equinox no longer fell on March 21, but on March 11.

Scientists paid attention to the above problem long before the adoption of the Gregorian chronology system. Back in the 14th century, Nikephoros Grigora, a scientist from Byzantium, reported this to Emperor Andronicus II. According to Grigora, it was necessary to revise the calendar system that existed at that time, since otherwise the date of Easter would continue to shift further and further. late time. However, the emperor did not take any action to eliminate this problem, fearing protest from the church.

Subsequently, other scientists from Byzantium also spoke about the need to switch to a new calendar system. But the calendar continued to remain unchanged. And not only because of the rulers’ fear of causing indignation among the clergy, but also because the further the Christian Easter moved away, the less chance it had of coinciding with the Jewish Passover. This was unacceptable according to church canons.

By the 16th century, the problem had become so urgent that the need to solve it was no longer in doubt. As a result, Pope Gregory XIII assembled a commission tasked with carrying out all necessary research and create a new calendar system. The results obtained were displayed in the bullet “Among the most important”. It was she who became the document with which the adoption of the new calendar system began.

The main disadvantage of the Julian calendar is its lack of accuracy in relation to the tropical calendar. In the Julian calendar, all years that are divisible by 100 without a remainder are considered leap years. As a result, the difference with the tropical calendar increases every year. Approximately every century and a half it increases by 1 day.

The Gregorian calendar is much more accurate. It has fewer leap years. In this chronology system, leap years are considered to be years that:

1. divisible by 400 without remainder;
2. divisible by 4 without a remainder, but not divisible by 100 without a remainder.

Thus, 1100 or 1700 years in the Julian calendar are considered leap years, since they are divisible by 4 without a remainder. In the Gregorian calendar, from those that have already passed since its adoption, 1600 and 2000 are considered leap years.

Immediately after the introduction of the new system, it was possible to eliminate the difference between the tropical and calendar years, which at that time was already 10 days. Otherwise, due to errors in calculations, an extra year would accumulate every 128 years. In the Gregorian calendar, an extra day occurs only every 10,000 years.

Not at all modern states the new chronology system was adopted immediately. The Catholic states were the first to switch to it. In these countries, the Gregorian calendar was officially adopted either in 1582 or shortly after the decree of Pope Gregory XIII.

In a number of states, the transition to a new calendar system was associated with popular unrest. The most serious of them took place in Riga. They lasted for five whole years - from 1584 to 1589.

There were also some funny situations. So, for example, in Holland and Belgium, due to the official adoption of the new calendar, after December 21, 1582, January 1, 1583 came. As a result, the inhabitants of these countries were left without Christmas in 1582.

Russia was one of the last to adopt the Gregorian calendar. The new system was officially introduced on the territory of the RSFSR on January 26, 1918 by decree of the Council of People's Commissars. In accordance with this document, immediately after January 31 of that year, February 14 came on the territory of the state.

Later than in Russia, the Gregorian calendar was introduced only in a few countries, including Greece, Turkey and China.

After the official adoption of the new chronology system, Pope Gregory XIII sent a proposal to Constantinople to switch to new calendar. However, she was met with refusal. Its main reason was the inconsistency of the calendar with the canons of celebrating Easter. However, later most Orthodox churches switched to the Gregorian calendar.

Today, only four Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar: Russian, Serbian, Georgian and Jerusalem.

Rules for specifying dates

In accordance with the generally accepted rule, dates falling between 1582 and the moment the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the country are indicated in both the old and new styles. Wherein a new style indicated in quotation marks. Earlier dates are indicated according to the proleptic calendar (i.e., a calendar used to indicate dates earlier than the date the calendar appeared). In countries where the Julian calendar was adopted, dates before 46 BC. e. are indicated according to the proleptic Julian calendar, and where there was none - according to the proleptic Gregorian calendar.

Before the transition to the Gregorian calendar, which different countries happened in different time, the Julian calendar was used everywhere. It is named after the Roman emperor Gaius Julius Caesar, who is believed to have carried out a calendar reform in 46 BC.

The Julian calendar appears to be based on the Egyptian solar calendar. A Julian year was 365.25 days. But there can only be an integer number of days in a year. Therefore, it was supposed: three years should be considered equal to 365 days, and the fourth year following them equal to 366 days. This year with an extra day.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII issued a bull ordering “the return of the vernal equinox to March 21.” By that time it had moved away from the designated date by ten days, which were removed from that year 1582. And to prevent the error from accumulating in the future, it was prescribed to eliminate three days from every 400 years. Years whose numbers are divisible by 100, but not divisible by 400, are not leap years.

The Pope threatened with excommunication anyone who did not switch to the Gregorian calendar. Almost immediately Catholic countries switched to it. After some time, Protestant states followed their example. IN Orthodox in Russia and Greece adhered to the Julian calendar until the first half of the 20th century.

Which calendar is more accurate?

The debate about which calendar is Gregorian or Julian, or rather, does not subside to this day. On the one hand, the year of the Gregorian calendar is closer to the so-called tropical year - the period during which the Earth makes a full revolution around the Sun. According to modern data, the tropical year is 365.2422 days. On the other hand, scientists still use the Julian calendar for astronomical calculations.

The goal of the calendar reform of Gregory XIII was not to bring the length of the calendar year closer to the length of the tropical year. In his time, there was no such thing as a tropical year. The purpose of the reform was to comply with the decisions of ancient Christian councils on the timing of Easter celebrations. However, the problem was not completely solved.

The widespread belief that the Gregorian calendar is “more correct” and “advanced” than the Julian calendar is just a propaganda cliche. The Gregorian calendar, according to a number of scientists, is not astronomically justified and is a distortion of the Julian calendar.

Vladimir Gubanov

(In the given statements of the authors, the words in parentheses are the original. The words in rectangular brackets are our explanations, V.G.).

Orthodox Christians New Year begins in the fall, on the 1st day of the month of Septemvria (1st Septemvria according to the old style is September 14 according to the new style): this is according to the month, according to the charter of the Church, which is obligatory for everyone, both priests and laity.

Until 1492, the new year in Russia began in the spring on March 1st. This beginning is ancient and more reasonable than the beginning of the year on September 1st, or even more so on January 1st; but it was abandoned. The fact that previously the new year began in the spring, we see in the Easter liturgical canon, which is used in the Church and according to which the counting is carried out precisely from Easter, from the Resurrection of Christ, it says: “1st resurrection after Easter”, “2nd resurrection after Easter", and so on.

So, there are already three new years: one spring on March 1st, the second autumn on September 1st, and the third winter, civil new year, on January 1st. Taking into account the old and new styles, we get six New Years in one year. What is the meaning of the origin of these chronologies?

Life on earth has not always existed, so it is very reasonable that the beginning of life, the spring of life, is the beginning of the year - this is how the spring New Year appeared. But when the harvest was ripe and harvested, the year naturally ended - and so the autumn New Year appeared. By the way, the children also have a new academic year begins in the fall on September 1st. And the winter, civil New Year was introduced in Russia by decree of Tsar Peter I in 1700, however, by decree of Peter it was allowed to use two calendars at once with two new years, both September and January.

The new chronology, which is used today, was introduced in 1582 by decree of Pope Gregory, and therefore it is called Gregorian calendar, or a new style. By that time, the popes were no longer Orthodox and staged wars against Orthodox countries, Byzantium and Russia (and even the Catholic Order of Crusaders fought against Catholic Poland!).

The chronology, which is now called the old style, was introduced on the advice of the astronomer Sosigenes under Julius Caesar (Julius Caesar) in 46–45 BC, and therefore it is called the Julian (or Julian), old style.

The modern calendar - the Gregorian, new style - has many shortcomings: it is more complex than the old, Julian reckoning, and its origin is associated with pagan festivals, pagan Roman calendars, from which the word calendar comes, and the continuous counting of days in the new calendar is broken, it has a year begins in the middle of the season, in winter. (The word “calendar” did not exist for more than a thousand years, neither in the Church nor outside it.)

On the contrary, the spring and autumn new years each begin with the beginning of the season, with the beginning of the season, which is very convenient in everyday life.

Unlike the new style, it is convenient to calculate according to the old style: three years have 365 days each and the fourth, leap year, has 366 days.

But they claim old style lags behind the new style. Really? Or maybe the new style is in a hurry? Let's check, and then we will see that, indeed, the old style is more accurate than the new style, and moreover, precisely according to the data of science, astronomy, chronology, mathematics, meteorology, we will see that, from a scientific point of view, the new style is in a hurry. But it’s not the good watches that go fast, but the ones that go accurately.

When in Russia it was discussed whether to introduce the Gregorian, a new calendar for civil use, it was the educated part of society that was mainly against the calendar reform, and at the meetings of the Commission of the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899 on the issue of calendar reform, Professor V.V. Bolotov, expressing the general opinion, said:

“The Gregorian reform has for itself not only no justification, but even no excuse... The Council of Nicea did not decide anything of the kind” (Journal of the 4th meeting of the Commission on the Reform of the Calendar, September 20, 1899, pp. 18-19), and he also said: “I find the very abolition of the Julian style in Russia at all undesirable. I still remain a strong admirer of the Julian calendar. Its extreme simplicity constitutes its scientific advantage over all other corrected calendars. I think that Russia’s cultural mission on this issue is that , in order to keep the Julian calendar in life for a few more centuries and thereby make it easier for Western peoples to return from the Gregorian reform, which no one needs, to the unspoiled old style" (Journal of the 8th meeting of the Commission on calendar reform, February 21, 1900, p. 34 ).

In part, these words turned out to be prophetic: the Gregorian calendar turned out to be unnecessary and now scientists want to replace it or correct it. The new style is already outdated! And the Pope has already expressed his consent to correct the Gregorian calendar, to change the new style. It is no coincidence that the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, although he was a zealous Catholic, refused to replace the old style with a new one and to participate in the compilation of this new calendar, rightly believing that astronomy does not have sufficient accuracy to establish a new time calculation, and this is true to this day .

The Second Vatican Council on December 4, 1963, by a majority vote of 2057 to 4, declared that it “has no objection to the intention to introduce a perpetual calendar in civil society” instead of the modern Gregorian one. So, the Gregorian reform turned out to be unnecessary, not eternal - they want to replace or correct the new style. The new style has neither the scientific precision which it claimed, nor the practical convenience for which the old style is prized.

Contrary to false belief, the old style was not canonized. And a scientific discovery or worldview cannot be canonized. For scientific discoveries are updated frequently, and worldviews change even more often. And the Church has always canonized only spiritually moral rules. Because at any change scientific discoveries, governments, parties, in all centuries, murder remains murder and theft is theft.

On the contrary, the new style, the Gregorian calendar, was dogmatized by the dogmatic message of the Pope, a bull that commanded the introduction of a new reckoning in Catholic countries. And now this one modern calendar want to correct or replace - the new style is already outdated! The priest and professor, later a holy martyr, Dimitry Lebedev said this well in his work “Calendar and Paschal”: The new Gregorian style is outdated: its 400-year period is not correct, a 500-year period would be better, but the 128-year period is most accurate.

That is, according to Dimitry Lebedev, all calendars are inaccurate, and it would be most correct to use a more accurate counting instead of the Gregorian style, with thirty-one leap years every 128 years, this is the cycle of a Russian astronomer, German by birth, our professor of Dorpat, Yuryevsky, and now foreign Tartu, University of I.G. Medler (1794–1874), proposed by him in 1864.

(Sources:
YES. Lebedev, "Calendar and Easter", M., 1924, p. 30.
I. Medler, “On the reform of the calendar,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, January 1864, fourth decade, part CXXI, department VI, St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 9.
Moreover, the idea of ​​​​introducing a new calendar in Russia was then introduced by the Masonic society, which was called as follows: “German scientific society “das freie Hochstift für Wissenschaften, Künste und allgemeine Bildung in Goethe`s Vaterhause””, ibid., p. 9, translation: "Free high pin for sciences, arts and general education in Goethe's father's house.").

But John Medler was not for the transition to the Gregorian calendar, but for the transition to his, Medler’s, calendar.

And in our opinion, based on the totality of all the scientific advantages, especially for theological reasons, the old style is better, more accurate and more convenient. See the evidence below.

That the old style, the Julian style, was not canonized is also evident from the fact that it was not introduced as a mandatory rule, it was not mentioned in conciliar decrees or in church rules. Anything not mentioned cannot be a canon; there are only written canons, there are no others. That the old style was not canonized is also evident from the fact that the Church threw out everything unnecessary from it and left what was useful. For example, initially in the Julian calendar the new year began in winter in January, but in the Church the new year began in March, and then began to begin in September, as we see now in the calendar. So, the old style was not canonized, it was only more convenient.

Some, very many, believe that the old style lags behind by one day every 128 years. That is, it is believed that the day of the vernal equinox every 128 years falls on a different date according to the old reckoning, shifting by one day. But who said that the vernal equinox should always fall on the same date? and, moreover, precisely on March 21st? (The vernal equinox is when day and night are equal and have 12 hours each). Who said that the spring equinox should always fall on March 21st? The church rules do not say this, and there are no other canons. After all, formally, Easter can be counted from any date on which the vernal equinox falls in a given year, or better to say: the number has no meaning, because the day of the month itself outside of Easter has no meaning, because in fact Easter is not counted from date and Easter is not adjusted to the date, but Easter is celebrated according to church rules, according to tradition Orthodox Church. This is the eternal establishment of the Church.

So, March 21st is not a sacred number holy month, for in a year all numbers and months are equal, the Church sanctifies the days, and not the days sanctify the Church, and the Orthodox Church has never canonized the calendar. Even the beginning of the year in the churches was different, for example in the Anglican Church the new year began on March 25th, and then the beginning was moved to January 1st.

And in the modern names of the months, in their arrangement, there is not even common sense. For example, September in translation means the seventh month (month of the year), October means the eighth, November means the ninth, and, finally, December means the tenth month, and not the twelfth, as according to the modern calendar. This means that according to the count of months, the year does not end in December and does not begin in January. That is: the year begins in March, as according to the old church calendar.

On the accuracy of the Julian calendar

All calendars are accurate only relatively, conditionally, they do not have perfect accuracy, for the human mind is not perfect after the Fall. And yet, in all respects, the old style, the Julian calendar, is preferable to the modern Gregorian calendar.

The scientist Sergei Kulikov, an expert on calendars, a fan of the Gregorian calendar in everyday life, and not our Julian one, in his work “Calendar Cheat Sheet” says: “The Gregorian calendar is also inaccurate. It is impossible to create an absolutely accurate calendar; a more accurate calendar is also more complex,” that is , less convenient in everyday life.

In his other work, “The Thread of Times. A small encyclopedia of the calendar with notes in the margins of newspapers,” published in 1991 by the Main Editorial Board of Physical and Mathematical Literature, the publishing house “Nauka” (and this is the most scientific publishing house in Russia), on the 6th page, he states: “Generally speaking, of the existing calendars, the simplest is the Julian calendar. Now its scope is very limited: it is used by the Orthodox Church and residents of small areas of the Earth... But because of its simplicity (and slenderness!) It is still also used in science, when counting Julian days and in recalculating the dates of the lunar and lunisolar calendar" So, our Julian calendar is used in science, which means it is more accurate and convenient than the Gregorian calendar.

The Julian calendar is used, for example, by astronomers when calculating lunar and lunisolar calendars. Sergei Kulikov talks about it this way: "If the current solar calendars[calculated only by the sun - V.G.] are relatively simple in their patterns, then the calendars “with the participation of the Moon” are quite complex, and when translating the dates of the lunar and lunisolar calendars into the Julian (translation is carried out specifically into the Julian calendar, and then amendment is introduced) one has to make painstaking calculations or use several tables" (ibid., p. 225).

On page 7, he also says: “The Julian calendar conquered half the world, having undergone minor changes in the 16th century, and in this new capacity (Gregorian calendar) has already spread to the whole world.” Yes, indeed, the Gregorian calendar is not a new calendar, but only a modified or distorted version of the old calendar, the Julian calendar.

He also talks about the use of the Julian calendar and when calculating the Jewish Passover, here is an example: “23 weeks and 2 days are added to the date of the Julian calendar corresponding to Nisan 15” (ibid., p. 215).

Therefore, says scientist S.S. Kulikov, “The Orthodox Churches in 1903 expressed a categorical denial regarding the adoption of the Gregorian style. All-Russian church council 1917-1918 in Moscow, he decided to maintain and preserve the old style for church calculations and for liturgical practice" (ibid., p. 147).

Another Russian scientist, astronomer Alexander Alexandrovich Mikhailov, in his book “The Earth and Its Rotation,” published in 1984, says on page 66: "The old style is simple and quite sufficient in accuracy". This opinion is fair, because the old style is convenient and simple. Indeed, according to astronomy, the old style is sufficient in accuracy, that is, there was no need to introduce a new style. And only the prejudice that the equinox should be exactly on March 21st served as the reason for the introduction of a new style and especially served as a reason for throwing away 10 days when introducing a new style, by which the equinox was assigned to the 21st day of the month of March. But here too, Pope Gregory sinned: a year after the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, the spring equinox was on March 20th (New Art.). Moreover, the vernal equinox more often occurs on March 20, and not on the 21st (according to the New Art.), - and for what then was the calendar calculated, bringing the equinox to the 21st of March? Why did they throw out 10 days from the account? For the sake of accuracy, which was not achieved!

But further, in the same book by A.A. Mikhailov cites a false opinion, which astronomers and historians copy from each other, he says: “and if a calendar reform was subsequently carried out, it was not at all for practical reasons, but for a religious reason associated with the Christian holiday of Easter. The fact is that the Nicene "The council, a meeting of the highest ranks of the church in 325 in the ancient Byzantine city of Nicaea (now Iznik) in Asia Minor, established rules for determining the day of Easter. It was decided to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the spring full moon, which occurs after the equinox on March 21." There's an error on an error here. The same misconceptions are in the book of astronomer I.A. Klimishin’s “Calendar and Chronology”, published in 1985, even there the city is incorrectly named “Izvik” (instead of Iznik, p. 209). The same errors are in other books; Probably, astronomers and historians copy each other’s mistakes, and it is not difficult to expose them. However, Klimishin also has a good review of the old style: for example, on page 56 of the mentioned book he says the following:

"The attractive side of the Julian calendar is its simplicity and strict rhythm of alternating simple and leap years. Each period of four years has (365 + 365 + 365 + 366) 1461 days, each century 36525 days. Therefore, it turned out to be convenient for measuring long time intervals."

So, we see the good opinions of astronomers about the old Julian style, which they use today in the form of Julian days in astronomy. Julian days (or Julian period) were introduced in 1583 by the scientist Joseph Scaliger instead of the abolished old style.

But where do scientists, with such mathematical accuracy of calculations, get such false ideas about the time of celebrating Christian Easter? Firstly, among the 20 rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council, which was held in Nicaea, there is no rule about Easter! Contrary to what A.A. Mikhailov says that this council “established rules for determining the day of Easter” - and even “rules” in plural. But in the rules of this council there is not a single rule about Easter. Take any Book of Rules, which contains all church decrees for the first millennium of the Christian era, whether published in Greek, either in Slavic or in Russian, and you will not find in it any rule of the 1st Council of Nicaea on the celebration of Easter. The Council considered this issue, as it considered many other issues, but did not leave any rule about Easter, and was not obliged to leave it. For example, the fifth ecumenical council did exactly the same thing: having resolved some pressing issues, it did not leave any rules at all, not a single one. For all the necessary rules had already been pronounced by previous councils and there was no need to proclaim them again.

Likewise, the rule about Easter already existed before the 1st Council of Nicaea: it is found in the Apostolic Rules (this is the 7th rule). In total there were seven ecumenical councils and ten local councils, whose rules or regulations are collected in the Book of Rules, but none of these rules say either about the full moon or about March 21st. That is why, speaking about the 1st Council of Nicea, about the time of the celebration of Easter, slanderers do not cite any evidence from primary sources, no quotes from the Book of Rules, or from interpretations of it: for there was no rule, there is nothing to quote. I.A. Klimishin even falsely claims, with a pseudo-scientific air, that this rule “was not in the archives of the Church of Constantinople already at the beginning of the 5th century” (p. 212). But this is a lie, because this rule never existed there, neither before the 5th century, nor after. And this is not difficult to prove. After all, lists of rules of ecumenical and local councils are the most important documents of the Church, and therefore, after each council, all rules are sent to all churches in all countries, and if the rule disappeared in one archive, other churches would send lists and copies. But the rule could not disappear unnoticed, because it is in the list of rules, linked, numbered and filed, and moreover, all the rules of the councils are signed by all participants in the councils and all lists of rules immediately after the council are sent to all churches for use in church life, they are rewritten for yourself and for use in the temple. But how absurd it is to assume that the rule suddenly disappeared in all churches, from all book depositories, public and private, and, moreover, disappeared imperceptibly and at the same time from all the lists that are linked, numbered and filed. No, it could not disappear unnoticed, suddenly and simultaneously, this is a lie. And scientists copy this misconception from each other. A thousand years have passed since the writing of the Book of Rules, but during this millennium none of the holy fathers referred to this imaginary rule, because it did not exist. Even the ancient heretics, among whom forged writings also circulated, did not refer to it. It was later invented by Roman Catholics, and now it is supported by learned atheists in order to discredit the church.

So, no rule about the time of celebrating Easter was decreed at the 1st Ecumenical Council, for it was not necessary: ​​this rule had already been spoken before, it is found in the Apostolic Canons and it says the following: “If anyone, a bishop or presbyter , or deacon, will celebrate the holy day of Easter before the spring equinox with the Jews: let him be deposed from the sacred rank" (rule 7). Jews are Jews who did not accept Christ. So, in this rule about Easter it is not said about March 21st, nor about the full moon, contrary to false opinion. The rule only prohibits celebrating Passover with Jews. It also prohibits celebrating Easter before the spring equinox, and nothing more. The Church has not canonized astronomical information; it is not included in any rule of ecumenical or local councils, for only spiritual and moral commandments are included in the rule. Astronomical precision cannot be law; it is left to private interpretation or opinion.

Conclusions: the mythical March 21st arose by decree of the Pope, who gave this number inappropriate honor only because it was the spring equinox, during the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicaea; it took place in the year 325, and in the 4th century the vernal equinox was approximately March 22nd and 21st. But is this cathedral more honorable than other cathedrals? After all, before there was an apostolic council, no less venerable. Even if there was a need to fix the spring equinox for a certain number, wouldn’t it have been better to preserve that day of the equinox, which was at the birth of Christ or His resurrection? Or the first day of March, the first day of spring? But, as has been said, there could not be such a need, and the universal Church in its rules never canonized the data of astronomy that did not have absolute precision, for church rules must be infallible.

In order to fix the vernal equinox on the twenty-first day of the month of March, although this was not required, the Pope ordered that the supposedly “extra” 10 days “accumulated”, in quotes, since the 1st Council of Nicea be thrown out of the count of days, and this became a significant drawback modern calendar: it disrupts the continuous counting of days. Another significant drawback: according to the new style, 3 leap years in 4 centuries are destroyed. All this made it impossible to carry out accurate calculations. Therefore, the new style is not used in the Church, and in historical chronology, and in astronomy - where precise mathematical calculations are required, but the Julian days are used.

"The disadvantage of the Gregorian style is its unnecessary complexity, which forces us to first perform calculations using the Julian calendar, and then convert Julian dates to Gregorian ones. Thanks to the Julian calendar, it is easy to chronologically restore various historical facts, astronomical phenomena in the past, recorded in chronicles or ancient monuments, which cannot be done according to the Gregorian calendar" ("On the Church Calendar", A.I. Georgievsky, Associate Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Moscow, 1948).

About the Julian days, or the Julian period. When Pope Gregory in 1582 abolished the old style, Julian, then next year the old style was revived under the name of the Julian period, which was introduced into science by the French scientist Scaliger. This Julian period, or otherwise Julian days (more correctly, Julian), is used today by all astronomers around the world, although the Julian period is an artificial era and in it the days are counted from a conditional, arbitrary date (noon of January 1, 4713 BC) , and not from the Nativity of Christ or from another historical event. Scaliger, according to him, called his system, where a continuous count of the day is kept, Julian because it counts according to the Julian calendar, according to the old style. Scaliger was against the new style, against the Gregorian calendar, rightly believing that only the Julian calendar retains a continuous count of days. Take any astronomical calendar or astronomical yearbook, published in any country in the world, in any language, in any year, and you will see in it a count of days according to “Julian days” - JD. In addition, in astronomy there is the Julian (Julian) century, the Julian year (365.25 days), and other Julian quantities (those who wish can read about this in more detail in my book “Why the old style is more accurate than the new style. Divine miracles according to the old style.” , Moscow, "Pilgrim", 2002).

So, the Julian calendar, the old style, is used in the Orthodox Church and in astronomy, as well as in historical research, where mathematical calculations are required. For example, you need to find out in what year in the seventh century there was a solar or lunar eclipse in a particular city. This can only be calculated using the old style; and then the calculated Julian dates are converted to dates of the Gregorian calendar. But why convert some numbers into others if you can use the old style without translation? It's easier after all.

That the new style, the Gregorian, modern calendar does not have the astronomical accuracy for which it was introduced, we will provide further evidence from astronomy.

The spring equinox is movable, it does not stand in the sky (a phenomenon of precession), therefore assigning a fixed date to it (the 21st) and thus linking Easter with it is a gross astronomical and logical mistake.

The book, which is a guide to modern astronomy, because it contains all the basic astronomical and physical information, is “Astrophysical Quantities” (author of the book K.W. Allen, published in 1977, Mir Publishing House, translated from English, page 35), - the length of the year is given in various precise measurements (see table, we present data with insignificant rounding).

TOTAL SEVEN DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF THE YEAR. Here we can also add the EIGHTH DIMENSION OF THE YEAR - this is the lunar year, which is equal to 12 lunar synodic months, on average: 354.367 days.

To this you can also add FIVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF THE MONTH (in the same book, pages 35 and 213):

And in secondary schools, and in higher schools too, stubbornly, like ignorant journalists, they talk only about the tropical or Gregorian year.

Without being able to explain here what it is tropical, ecliptic, perihelion and so on, we must say that all calendars are conditionally divided into solar, in accordance with the annual movement of the sun, lunar, commensurate with the phases of the moon, and solar-lunar, commensurate with the movements of the sun and moon. In modern calendars, the length of the year is usually commensurate with the duration of the so-called tropical year, that is, the year measured from one vernal equinox to the next. But this is not a true tropical year, measured by tropical points (which is not possible to talk about in detail here).

But astronomically the most accurate is not the so-called tropical year, but the sidereal year, that is, the sidereal year, measured by the stars and not by the sun. For the sun is too mobile relative to the stars, and the stars are taken to be motionless during measurements. So it is in astronomy. But practically, in Everyday life The most convenient year in its simplicity is the Julian year: three simple years and a fourth leap year.

But the Julian calendar is based on the sidereal year, and not the tropical year (true or so-called, it doesn’t matter)!

And when calculating Easter, the phases of the moon, the full moon, and the time of the equinox are also taken into account. The duration of the solar sidereal year was not known accurately enough in ancient times, but, in the end, by God's providence, the Julian year turned out to be closer to the most accurate sidereal year than the Gregorian year. Look at the table above: the duration of the most accurate sidereal year (365.256-plus days) is closer to the length of the Julian year (365.25 days), and the Gregorian year (365.2425 days) is much further away from the sidereal year. That is, the old style turns out to be more accurate than the new style. And due to the difference in numbers, after a few centuries the old style in the dates of the beginning of the seasons will become equal to the astronomical calendar, but the new style will not be equal even after two thousand years.

So, astronomically the most accurate year is not the tropical year (true or so-called), but the sidereal year. But the sidereal, sidereal year is not very convenient in everyday life, for example, just as it is inconvenient to consider that a chicken lays 0.7 eggs daily, because she lays whole eggs, and not different halves. And we are accustomed to integers and to measuring time by the sun, and not by the stars, although the latter is more accurate. So, between the inexact tropical year and the exact sidereal year is the Julian year, which is closer to the sidereal year than the Gregorian calendar year. For this reason, the old style turns out to be more accurate than the new one.

This amazing pattern was not noticed due to the persistent desire to tie the equinox to March 21, because the new style was falsely dogmatized in Roman Catholicism: the “infallible” Pope declared the calendar “corrected” by him to be infallible.

In astronomy, in addition to the Julian days and Julian years, which were mentioned above, there is also, and since the year 2000, the Julian century has again been naturally introduced, that is, the coming century will be Julian, not Gregorian. You can read about this in the appendix to the above-mentioned book “Astrophysical Quantities” (pp. 434–435) and in the Astronomical Yearbook for 1990 (p. 605; as well as in other publications), where the following is stated:

“The unit of time used in the fundamental formulas for accounting for precession is considered to be the Julian century of 36525 days; so that the epochs (moments) of the beginning of the year differ from the standard epoch by values ​​that are multiples of the Julian year, equal to 365.25 days.”

So, the coming century will be Julian, not Gregorian: that is, the years will be counted according to the old style, in which every three years have 365 days, and the fourth year has 366 days. This use of the Julian century, that is, the account according to the old style, is not at all accidental, but a completely natural phenomenon.

The old style is convenient and simple and not spoiled by false science under the influence of politics.

It is appropriate to repeat here that the new style, that is, the modern calendar, has long been outdated and they want to replace or correct it: for more than a century and a half, discussions have been ongoing among scientists and non-scientists about correcting the modern calendar, the Gregorian, and numerous proposals have already been received, dozens all kinds of calendar projects, and in 1923 a special commission on calendar reform was created under the League of Nations, and the same commission operates in the current United Nations, and many books and articles have already been published with a variety of schedules of the so-called “perpetual calendars” .

However, it should be noted that some projects of “perpetual calendars” provide for calculation both according to the old style, Julian, and the newest, corrected style. That is, the old style does not change, but the new one is subject to change.

One of these new and most accurate calendars of its kind was calculated by the Yugoslav scientist Milutin Milankovic, this is the so-called New Julian calendar, it is 10 times more accurate than the Gregorian calendar. But it is also based on the same so-called tropical year, and not the sidereal year, although calculations based on the stars are more accurate.

Let us give one more scientific evidence that the old style is more accurate than the new one. Using the Astronomical calendar for 1999, you can compare the dates of the beginning of the seasons according to the old style and the new style, and according to astronomy.

From this comparison it is obvious that the old style is more accurate than the new style, because the dates of the beginning of the seasons according to the Gregorian calendar (according to the new style) differ from astronomical dates by three weeks, and the dates of the beginning of the seasons according to the Julian calendar (according to the old style) differ from astronomical dates only for one week. That is, in other words, the old style is three times more accurate than the new one. This means that it is not the old style that is lagging behind, but the new style that is in a hurry. More precisely, both are in a hurry, but the new style is too hasty.

For example: the beginning of spring in 1999 according to the astronomical calendar on March 21 (translated into modern calculus, Gregorian). And according to the official, Gregorian calendar (civil, which is used in European countries, America, Australia and partly in Asia and Africa, in addition to local calendars), the beginning of spring is March 1st - that is, the difference between them is 20 days, almost three weeks.

But according to the old style, Julian (in terms of numbers converted to the new style), the beginning of spring is March 14th - that is, the difference between them is 7 days, one week. And this difference between the new and old style and the astronomical calendar is approximately the same in other dates: the beginning of summer, autumn and winter. There is a new style everywhere, the modern calendar is three weeks ahead, and the old style is only one week ahead, compared to the astronomical calendar. So, in counting the dates of the seasons, that is, seasons, the old style is approximately three times more accurate than the new style.

Here science and religion are completely unanimous: the old style is more accurate than the new style, astronomy confirms the truth of the tradition of the Church. Only according to the old style, the church monthly, can one correctly celebrate Holy Easter and all Christian holidays.

On the accuracy of the old style according to the time of the annual stay of the sun in the constellations. Another proof of the accuracy of the old style compared to the new style. In astronomy, it is known that throughout the year the sun passes through the vault of heaven, divided into constellations. Each constellation of the sun takes almost a month, starting with the first constellation, spring, called Aries, and ending with the last constellation, Pisces. Currently, the date of the beginning of the annual entry of the sun into the constellation Aries is April 18th of the new style (see table, from the book of the already mentioned Sergei Kulikov "Calendar Cheat Sheet", Moscow, 1996, publishing house " International program education"; pp. 49-50):

So, it is obvious: April 18 (New Style), the beginning of the annual movement of the sun through the zodiac constellations, is closer to the start date of the year according to the old style (March 14, in terms of numbers converted to the new style), and not to the start date of the year according to the new style (March 1, new style). That is, here too the old style is more accurate than the new style.

On the accuracy of the old style according to meteorological data. The old style is more accurate than the new style not only astronomically, but also meteorologically, for Russia. For, in addition to astronomical spring, there is also meteorological spring - the day when the average daily, daily air temperature passes through zero, that is, from minus temperatures to plus ones. In Russia, and indeed throughout the northern hemisphere, the first day of spring colder than first days of autumn, that is, the temperatures are not symmetrical: the cold winter times are shifted towards summer, and winter begins later and ends not in its own winter time, but in spring. Likewise, meteorological spring comes later than the spring celebrated according to the new style, and later than the spring celebrated according to the old style, and even later than the astronomical spring. Until recently, meteorological spring at the latitude of Moscow began around April 7 according to the new style, or March 25 according to the old style. But the climate is warming, according to scientists, and the date of meteorological spring is approaching the date of astronomical spring. According to the Hydrometeorological Center of Russia, now at the latitude of Moscow, meteorological spring begins on March 27–28 (new century), which is closer to the date of the beginning of astronomical spring and to the date of the first day of spring according to church calendar, old style.

So, let's summarize the conclusions: meteorological spring is closer to the start date of spring according to the old style, and not according to the new style. And this is also by the providence of God, this also proves that the old style is more accurate than the new style.

Question : Why is the sidereal year more accurate than the tropical year?

Answer : Astronomers have calculated: the earth, moving in its orbit around the sun, does not return to its original place in a year (the so-called tropical year), because the sun also does not stand still and moves forward, the sun also moves in its orbit around our center in a year galaxy, and also due to precession, which cuts off about 20 minutes from the sidereal year every year and thereby turns the sidereal year into a tropical year - but these phenomena require a very long and careful explanation, and we omit them here). This is where this difference in duration between the sidereal year and the tropical year appears - this is the time during which the earth needs to travel to its place in order for the circle to close, or, more clearly, for the sun to pass in the sky relative to the stars, and not relative to the equinox points , which, contrary to the Gregorian calendar, do not stand still, but move towards the sun in its annual movement across the sky.

Question : But why do the astronomical dates for the beginning of spring, summer, autumn and winter differ in numbers and do not start from the same number (from the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, again from the 22nd)?

Answer : Because the observed annual movement of the sun around the earth, or, that is, the movement of the earth around the sun, is not strictly circular: the circle is stretched into an uneven ellipse - the sun and the earth either approach each other and move faster, or move away from each other and move slower, hence the unevenness in the duration of seasons, seasons, and the discrepancy between the numbers of dates according to the astronomical calendar.

Question : Will there be a shift in dates according to the old style in such a way that the spring holiday of Easter will be celebrated in the summer or even in the fall?

Answer : Orthodox Easter This is not a spring holiday, but a holiday of the resurrection of Christ; Easter is not a local holiday, but a universal one. In Australia, which today is located on the other half of the globe, on its southern side, as well as in South America, and in southern Africa Easter is now celebrated in the fall. For when it is spring with us, it is autumn with them; When it’s summer for us, it’s winter for them. And vice versa, it’s autumn for us, it’s spring for them.

Question : But after more than a hundred years, the Orthodox Church will still celebrate, for example, the Nativity of Christ no longer on January 7th, but on the 8th, due to the shift in dates by one day every 128 years? So, her month book (calendar) is not correct?

Answer : No, true. Because she does not celebrate January 7th. The Orthodox Church always celebrates the Nativity of Christ according to the church style, according to which the Nativity of Christ is always on December 25th - although according to the new style it can be the 7th, or the 8th, or any day of the month, but this is already sinful style.

So, conclusions: the old style is more convenient and easier for everyday use than the new one, and scientifically it is more accurate. According to it, the structure of the monthly word is clearer, the alternation of holidays and fasts and their timing is clearer. The natural course of nature is inscribed in the monthbook. Many ancient monthly books contained astronomical tables, that is, the information that is now placed in calendars, desk calendars, and navigation publications: about the times of sunrise and sunset of the sun and moon, about solar and lunar eclipses, about the lunar phases, about the timing of new moons and full moons, about the length of day and night, about the equinoxes. In addition to this information, the monthly book usually contained little-known cosmic cycles, understandable only to those who know astronomy: this is the 28-year cycle of the sun and the 19-year cycle of the moon. These cycles were called: “circle to the sun” and “circle to the moon” (the word “circle” is a translation of the word “cycle”, for the Slavic month book is a translation from the Greek month book). These astronomical cycles, the circle of the sun and the circle of the moon, could be calculated on one’s fingers - for those who do not know this is difficult, but for those who know it is simple. It was called vrutseleto - summer (year) in hand. Anyone who knew vrutseleto could predict, as if from a book reference book, when and what day would be for a century and a millennium in advance, when Easter would be in what year. And, of course, no matter how accurate astronomy is, for a Christian moral rules are higher than astronomical information.

The spiritual and moral rules of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, set out in the Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils and Holy Fathers, are the first reason why Christians should use the church calendar, the old style, and celebrate Easter according to it. And these rules, I am sure, will be observed until the second coming of Christ the Savior, when the entire Church of Christ will be raptured into heaven, “to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17).

In the words of the ancients: “man is a microcosm,” that is, man physically is a small world, a small universe. According to the ancient Fathers of the Church: “man is the macrocosm,” that is, man is the universe, the world, the great in the small. In the human body there are all the particles, elements of the world, and there is something that is dearer than the whole world, this is the soul. What good is it to a man if he gains the whole world for himself, but loses his soul? In the Gospel, Jesus Christ says: “I came into this world for judgment” (John chapter 9, verse 39). These words from the Greek original are literally translated as follows: “I came into this space for judgment.” So, except this space, there is another space, other world But the other cosmos is not open to everyone. Such a revelation is given from above, it is “given” and not “achieved”, it is not achieved even by prayer and fasting, it is not achieved even by the feats of mortification of the flesh and cutting off the will. And the saints, whose names are in the Orthodox monthly, reached that world. That peace is partly achieved here too. That world exists in this world. Eternity still exists today. The kingdom of heaven is achieved on earth, in the creation of God's works. Only good deeds done for the sake of God, for the glory of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, Orthodoxy, in accordance with the rules of the Orthodox Church, give a person the grace of God, the Holy Spirit, without which salvation is impossible. No one and nothing will save a person except God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to Him and from us be glory, honor and worship now and ever, and forever and ever. Amen.

The old and new style of the calendar in our time have a difference of 13 days. This difference occurred in 1582, when civilized Europeans, at the insistence of the Pope, changed the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar.

In general, the whole story with calendars and chronology stretches back to hoary antiquity. The peasants who farmed were very dependent on the time of year. So they were the first to begin trying to systematize and organize time.

The great Mayan civilization achieved great values ​​in the accuracy of calendar calculations. They accurately determined the days of summer and winter solstice and could calculate time several thousand years ahead. But we did not accept their achievements, but adopted the Roman (Julian) calendar.

When Rome was the center of civilization and enlightenment, during the reign of Julius Caesar, when the state was at the peak of its development, the Roman Senate decided to replace the old Greek calendar, which had only ten months, with the Julian calendar, which Caesar, on the advice of Egyptian astrologers, adopted for the most convenient option. The fact is that the priests were engaged in chronology in Rome.

The beginning of the year was considered the month of March, named after Mars ( greek god fertility). And every four years an additional month of mercedonia was added. Firstly, no one knew when the end of Mercedonia would come, and secondly, the payment of taxes and the return of debts was too delayed due to the additional month.

There is information that the priests received substantial gifts and rewards for postponing the end of the year. It is precisely because of the instability of the replenishment of the state budget (treasury) that radical changes have occurred.

When was the Julian calendar introduced in Russia?

This event happened in 1918. This year there were simply no dates: 1, 2, 3, etc. until February 13th. It was January 31st, and the next day was February 14th.

This was done to get closer to Europe. The party leadership hoped for worldwide communism and tried to merge as closely as possible with the West.

What is today's date according to the old style?

With each century, the gap between the Gregorian and Julian calendars grows, unless the number of the previous century is divisible by 4 with the whole result.

For example, from 1700 to 1800, to determine the date of an event according to the new style, 11 days should be added, from 1800 to 1900 - 12 days, and from 1900 to 2100 - 13. After 2100, the gap will increase by another day and will be 14 days.

Difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars

There is no particular difference in these time measurement systems, but Orthodox Christians completely refused to use Gregorian calendar to determine the dates of holidays.

In 1923, the Soviet government put strong pressure on His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, but was never able to obtain consent from the Church to use the Gregorian calendar (new style).

How to easily convert dates from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar

To do this, you need to know the date of the event. If the date is earlier than 1700, then you need to add 10 days, if from 1700 to 1800 - 11, from 1800 to 1900 - 12, and from 1900 to 2100 - 13 days. But it is worth noting that in Russia, due to the transition to a new style of chronology, there were no numbers at all from 02/1/1918 to 02/13/1918.

They changed the old calendar style to a new one after the revolution. The decree on the introduction of a new calendar system was proposed at a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars and approved personally by V. Lenin.

Examples of translation to a new style of calculus

For example, let's look at Taras Shevchenko's birthday. Everyone knows that he was born on February 25, 1814 according to the old style. This year was not a leap year and had 28 days in February. We add 12 days to this date and get March 9 according to the new style (Gregorian).

Errors with converting dates to the new style

When transferring to a new style of events for a long time days gone by A colossal number of mistakes are made. People didn't think about the growing difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars.

Now such errors can be seen in very authoritative sources - Wikipedia is no exception. But now you know how you can easily and quickly calculate the date of an event, knowing only its old style date.