Gregorian calendar year. Old and new style

Why do we have the October Revolution in November, Christmas is not with everyone, and there is a strange holiday under the no less strange name “Old New Year”? What happened in Russia from the first to the fourteenth of February 1918? Nothing. Because this time did not exist in Russia - neither the first of February, nor the second, nor further until the fourteenth happened that year. According to the “Decree on the introduction of the Western European calendar in the Russian Republic.”

Speaking about dates, we often come across a common misconception related to the conversion of dates from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar (from the “old style” to the “new”). Substantial part people believe that this difference is always 13 days. In fact, everything is much more complicated and the difference between calendars changes from century to century.

First of all, it is necessary to explain why the appearance of different calendars is connected. The fact is that the Earth makes a full revolution around the Sun not in 365 or 366 days, but in 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 45.19 seconds (information for the 2000s).

In the Julian calendar, introduced in 45 AD. and spread throughout Europe, incl. (via Byzantium) - and in Rus', the length of the year is 365 days and 6 hours. The “extra” 6 hours make up 1 day – February 29, which is added once every 4 years.

Thus, the Julian calendar is inaccurate, and over time this inaccuracy became obvious when calculating Christian holidays, especially Easter, which should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox.

The Catholic Church drew attention to this problem, and in 1582 the Gregorian calendar was introduced. Pope Gregory XIII issued a bull on October 5, 1582, ordering October 5 to be counted as 15. Thus, the difference between the calendars in the 16th century was 10 days.

The Gregorian calendar is based on the following principles:

1. Just like in the Julian calendar, every fourth year is a leap year.
2. Years divisible by 400 (for example, 1600 and 2000) are also leap years.
3. The exception is for years that are divisible by 100 and not divisible by 400 (for example, 1700, 1800 and 1900): they are not leap years.

Thus, the discrepancy between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is as follows:

In Russia, the Gregorian calendar was introduced by decree of the Council people's commissars dated January 24, 1918. After January 31, 1918, February 14 came.

Thus, most time by which a genealogy can be compiled (XVII - early XX centuries), the Julian calendar was in effect in Russia, and all dates require recalculation in accordance with the table given above. For example, the 150th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom (manifesto of February 19, 1861) - March 3, 2011.

Currently, the Julian calendar continues to be used by some local Orthodox churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church. A significant part of the Orthodox churches (for example, the Greek) adopted the New Julian calendar, which calculates leap years using a different, slightly more complex model. However, until the 29th century there will be no differences between the Gregorian and New Julian calendars.

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.).

For Orthodox Christians, the new year begins in the fall, on the 1st of the month of September (the 1st of September in the old style is September 14 in 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 calendar, which is used today, was introduced in 1582 by decree of Pope Gregory, and therefore it is called the Gregorian calendar, or 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 say, the 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. For with any change of scientific discoveries, governments, parties, in all centuries, murder remains murder and theft remains 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 Dorpatsky, 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 dates and Easter is not adjusted to the number, but Easter is celebrated according to church rules, according to the tradition of the 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 It is also used in science, when counting Julian days and in recalculating dates of the lunar and lunisolar calendars." 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 (the 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 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. The All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918 in Moscow decided to maintain and preserve the old style for church calculus 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 the 21st of March 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 the strict rhythm of the change of common and leap years. Each period of time 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 of the rules of ecumenical and local councils, for only spiritual and moral commandments are included in the rules. 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. If there was a need to fix the spring equinox to a certain date, wouldn’t it be better to keep the day of the equinox that 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 from Gregorian calendar"("About 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 abolished the old style, the Julian, in 1582, the 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 vernal 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, translation 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 zodiacal 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 subzero temperatures to the positive 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 style), which is closer to the date of the beginning of astronomical spring and to the date of the first day of spring according to the 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 the 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.

When compiling chronological tables of one of the the most important problems is the harmonization of different chronology systems. In many chronology systems, counting was carried out from some historical or legendary event. So, Christian church timed the beginning of the calendar to coincide with the birth of Jesus Christ. This chronology system ( new era- AD) is currently accepted in most countries [sometimes they write: “BC.” or “after AD”, “according to AD”].

Up to modern history There were also two chronology systems: based on the Gregorian calendar, and on the basis of the Julian calendar, which operated in parallel.

Currently, in Russia, chronology is carried out according to the Gregorian calendar (new style), which was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 and replaced the Julian calendar (old style), which had been in use since 45 BC.

In Russia, the Gregorian calendar (new style) was introduced on February 14, 1918.
The differences between the old and new styles are:
in the 18th century - 11 days, in the 19th century. - 12 days and in the 20th century. - 13 days.

When compiling chronological tables for periods before 1918, two different dates are often given.

In what cases should the Julian calendar be used, when the dates of the Julian calendar are translated into the Gregorian calendar, and in what cases is a double date indicated?

In our country, in the practice of dating events, all events and documents relating to the period before February 1, 1918 are dated according to the Julian calendar (old style), from February 1, 1918 - according to the Gregorian calendar (new style).

The main date may be accompanied by a date of a different style placed next to it in parentheses. Before February 1, 1918, the old style date is placed in brackets; after February 1, 1918, the new style date is placed.

Example: December 10 (November 28), 2007 - the 130th anniversary of the decisive battle of Plevna in 1877.

Events and documents are dated with a double date in cases where it is necessary to indicate the old and new styles. For example, for anniversaries, main events in all works of a biographical nature and dates of events and documents on the history of international relations associated with countries where the Gregorian calendar (NS) was introduced earlier than in Russia. In this case, the main date is the date of the Julian calendar (SS), the date of the Gregorian calendar is indicated in brackets.

When dating historical documents civil war in some cases a double date should also be given. But the main date in these datings is the date of the Gregorian calendar (AD). The date of the Julian calendar is placed in brackets, since the White Guard continued to use the Julian calendar (S. Art.).

It is necessary to specify all cases of deviation from these principles and indicate the date style.

The Gregorian calendar, adopted in most countries of the world, was not put into use immediately:

1582 - Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, France, Lorraine, Holland, Luxembourg;
1583 - Austria (part), Bavaria, Tyrol;
1584 - Austria (part), Switzerland, Silesia, Westphalia;
1587 - Hungary;
1610 - Prussia;
1700 - Protestant German states, Denmark;
1752 - Great Britain;
1753 - Sweden, Finland;
1873 - Japan;
1911 - China;
1916 - Bulgaria;
1918 — Soviet Russia;
1919 - Serbia, Rumania;
1927 - Türkiye;
1928 - Egypt;
1929 - Greece.

Increasing difference between the Julian (S. Art.) and Gregorian calendars (N. Art.).

In the Julian calendar, the average length of a year in an interval of 4 years was 365.25 days, which is 11 minutes longer. 14 p. longer than the tropical year. The length of the year in the Gregorian calendar is on average 365.2425 days, which is only 26 seconds longer. exceeds the tropical year. The Gregorian calendar is more accurate, so it has fewer leap years, introduced to eliminate the discrepancy between the calendar and tropical years.

When converting dates from the Julian calendar (S. Art.) to the Gregorian (N. Art.), you should remember that the difference between them is not a constant number. In 1582, when the reform was carried out, the lag of the Julian calendar from the Gregorian calendar was 10 days. Subsequently, every 400 years the difference increased by three days. As a result, in the 20th century. the difference reached 13 days.

The difference increases due to the years that end the centuries. According to the Julian calendar, the years are 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, etc. are considered leap years, and according to the Gregorian calendar, only those whose first two digits are divisible by 4 are considered leap years. Consequently, the year 1600 according to the Julian and Gregorian calendar was a leap year, therefore in the 17th century. the difference remained equal to 10 days. 1700 year according to the Julian calendar - leap year, in Gregorian - simple. As a result, the difference increased by 1 day and amounted to in the 18th century. 11 days. The year 1800 is also a leap year according to the Julian calendar, and a simple year according to the Gregorian calendar. The difference increased again by 1 day and amounted to 12 days. Further, the year 1900 is a leap year according to the Julian calendar, and a simple year according to the Gregorian calendar. The difference increased again by 1 day in the 20th century. has already been 13 days.

In some cases, when converting dates, you should take into account the moment at which 10 days increases to 11, 11 days to 12 and 12 days to 13.

The increase in the difference between the Julian (S. Art.) and Gregorian (N. Art.) calendars occurs due to an additional day in the Julian calendar in the years with which centuries end, i.e. due to February 29, 1700, 1800, 1900 According to the Julian calendar, February of these years has 29 days, and according to the Gregorian calendar - 28 days. Therefore, from March 1, 1700, the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars will be 11 days, from March 1, 1800 - 12 days, from March 1, 1900 - 13 days. The difference to 14 days will increase from March 1, 2100, since 2000 will be a leap year according to the Julian and Gregorian calendar and the difference from March 1, 2000 will not increase, remaining at 13 days.

Among the peoples who profess Islam, the calendar dates back to 622 AD (from the date of the resettlement of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, to Medina).

A number of Muslim countries use a lunar calendar, in which the beginning of the calendar months corresponds to the moments of the new moon. The lunar month (synodic) is 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 2.9 seconds. 12 such months give a lunar year of 354 days, which is 11 days shorter than the tropical year. In a number of countries South-East Asia, Iran, Israel, there are varieties of the lunisolar calendar, in which the change in the phases of the Moon is consistent with the beginning of the astronomical year. In such calendars important role plays a period of 19 solar years, equal to 235 lunar months (the so-called Metonic cycle).

Since by this time the difference between the old and new styles was 13 days, the decree ordered that after January 31, 1918, not February 1, but February 14. The same decree prescribed, until July 1, 1918, after the date of each day according to the new style, to write in brackets the number according to the old style: February 14 (1), February 15 (2), etc.

From the history of chronology in Russia.

The ancient Slavs, like many other peoples, initially based their calendar on the period of changing lunar phases. But already by the time of the adoption of Christianity, i.e. by the end of the 10th century. n. e., Ancient Rus' I used the lunisolar calendar.

Calendar of the ancient Slavs. It was not possible to definitively establish what the calendar of the ancient Slavs was. It is only known that initially time was counted by seasons. Probably, the 12-month period was also used at the same time moon calendar. In more late times the Slavs moved to lunisolar calendar, in which an additional 13th month was inserted seven times every 19 years.

The most ancient monuments of Russian writing show that the months had purely Slavic names, the origin of which was closely related to natural phenomena. Moreover, the same months, depending on the climate of the places in which different tribes lived, received different names. So, January was called where sechen (the time of deforestation), where prosinets (after winter clouds appeared blue sky), where is the jelly (since it was becoming icy, cold), etc.; February—cut, snowy or severe (severe frosts); March - birch zol (there are several interpretations here: the birch tree begins to bloom; they took sap from birch trees; they burned the birch for coal), dry (the poorest in precipitation in ancient Kievan Rus, in some places the earth was already dry, sap (a reminder of birch sap); April) - pollen (gardens bloom), birch (beginning of birch flowering), duben, kviten, etc.; May - grass (grass turns green), summer, pollen; June - cherver (cherries turn red), isok (grasshoppers chirp - "izoks" "), milking; July - lipets (linden blossoms), cherven (in the north, where phenological phenomena are delayed), serpen (from the word "sickle", indicating the time of harvest); August - serpen, stubble, roar (from the verb "to roar " - the roar of deer, or from the word "glow" - cold dawns, and possibly from "pasori" - aurora); September - veresen (blooming heather); ruen (from the Slavic root of the word meaning tree, giving yellow paint); October - leaf fall, “pazdernik” or “kastrychnik” (pazdernik - hemp buds, the name for the south of Russia); November - gruden (from the word “heap” - frozen rut on the road), leaf fall (in the south of Russia); December - jelly, chest, prosinets.

The year began on March 1, and around this time agricultural work began.

Many ancient names of months later passed into a number of Slavic languages ​​and were largely retained in some modern languages, in particular in Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish.

At the end of the 10th century. Ancient Rus' adopted Christianity. At the same time, the chronology used by the Romans came to us - the Julian calendar (based on the solar year), with Roman names for the months and a seven-day week. It counted years from the “creation of the world,” which allegedly occurred 5508 years before our chronology. This date - one of the many variants of eras from the “creation of the world” - was adopted in the 7th century. in Greece and has been used by the Orthodox Church for a long time.

For many centuries, the beginning of the year was considered March 1, but in 1492, in accordance with church tradition, the beginning of the year was officially moved to September 1 and was celebrated this way for more than two hundred years. However, a few months after Muscovites celebrated their next New Year on September 1, 7208, they had to repeat the celebration. This happened because on December 19, 7208, a personal decree of Peter I was signed and promulgated on the reform of the calendar in Russia, according to which a new beginning of the year was introduced - from January 1 and a new era - the Christian chronology (from the “Nativity of Christ”).

Peter's decree was called: "On the writing henceforth of Genvar from the 1st day of 1700 in all papers of the year from the Nativity of Christ, and not from the creation of the world." Therefore, the decree prescribed that the day after December 31, 7208 from the “creation of the world” should be considered January 1, 1700 from the “Nativity of Christ.” In order for the reform to be adopted without complications, the decree ended with a prudent clause: “And if anyone wants to write both those years, from the creation of the world and from the Nativity of Christ, freely in a row.”

Celebrating the first civil New Year in Moscow. The day after the announcement of Peter I’s decree on calendar reform on Red Square in Moscow, i.e. December 20, 7208, a new decree of the tsar was announced - “On the celebration of the New Year.” Considering that January 1, 1700 is not only the beginning of a new year, but also the beginning of a new century (Here a significant mistake was made in the decree: 1700 is last year XVII century, and not the first year of the XVIII century. New Age occurred on January 1, 1701. An error that is sometimes repeated today.), the decree ordered that this event be celebrated with especially solemnity. It gave detailed instructions on how to organize a holiday in Moscow. On New Year's Eve, Peter I himself lit the first rocket on Red Square, giving the signal for the opening of the holiday. The streets were illuminated. The ringing of bells and cannon fire began, and the sounds of trumpets and timpani were heard. The Tsar congratulated the population of the capital on the New Year, and the festivities continued all night. Multi-colored rockets took off from the courtyards into the dark winter sky, and “along the large streets, where there is space,” lights burned—bonfires and tar barrels attached to poles.

The houses of the residents of the wooden capital were decorated with needles “from trees and branches of pine, spruce and juniper.” For a whole week the houses were decorated, and as night fell the lights were lit. Shooting “from small cannons and from muskets or other small weapons,” as well as launching “missiles,” were entrusted to people “who do not count gold.” And “poor people” were asked to “put at least a tree or branch on each of their gates or over their temple.” Since that time, our country has established the custom of celebrating New Year's Day on January 1 every year.

After 1918, there were still calendar reforms in the USSR. In the period from 1929 to 1940, calendar reforms were carried out in our country three times, caused by production needs. Thus, on August 26, 1929, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution “On the transition to continuous production in enterprises and institutions of the USSR,” which recognized the need to begin a systematic and consistent transfer of enterprises and institutions to continuous production starting from the 1929-1930 business year. In the fall of 1929, a gradual transition to “continuity” began, which ended in the spring of 1930 after the publication of a resolution of a special government commission under the Council of Labor and Defense. This decree introduced a unified production timesheet and calendar. The calendar year had 360 days, i.e. 72 five-day periods. It was decided to consider the remaining 5 days as holidays. Unlike the ancient Egyptian calendar, they were not located all together at the end of the year, but were timed to coincide with Soviet memorial days and revolutionary holidays: January 22, May 1 and 2, and November 7 and 8.

The workers of each enterprise and institution were divided into 5 groups, and each group was given a day of rest on every five-day week for the whole year. This meant that after four working days there was a day of rest. After the introduction of the “uninterrupted” period, there was no longer a need for a seven-day week, since weekends could fall not only on different numbers month, but also on different days of the week.

However, this calendar did not last long. Already on November 21, 1931, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution “On the intermittent production week in institutions,” which allowed the People's Commissariats and other institutions to switch to a six-day intermittent production week. For them, permanent days off were established on the following dates of the month: 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30. At the end of February, the day off fell on the last day of the month or was postponed to March 1. In those months that contained 31 days, the last day of the month was considered the same month and was paid specially. The decree on the transition to an intermittent six-day week came into force on December 1, 1931.

Both the five-day and six-day periods completely disrupted the traditional seven-day week with a general day off on Sunday. The six-day week was used for about nine years. Only on June 26, 1940, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree “On the transition to an eight-hour working day, to a seven-day working week and on the prohibition of unauthorized departure of workers and employees from enterprises and institutions,” In development of this decree, on June 27, 1940, the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution in which it established that “in excess Sundays non-working days are also:

January 22, May 1 and 2, November 7 and 8, December 5. The same decree abolished the six special days rest and non-working days on March 12 (Day of the Overthrow of the Autocracy) and March 18 (Paris Commune Day).

On March 7, 1967, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions adopted a resolution “On the transfer of workers and employees of enterprises, institutions and organizations to a five-day work week with two days off,” but this reform did not in any way affect the structure of the modern calendar."

But the most interesting thing is that passions do not subside. The next revolution is happening in our new time. Sergei Baburin, Victor Alksnis, Irina Savelyeva and Alexander Fomenko introduced a bill to the State Duma in 2007 on the transition of Russia to the Julian calendar from January 1, 2008. In the explanatory note, the deputies noted that “there is no world calendar” and proposed establishing a transition period from December 31, 2007, when, for 13 days, chronology would be carried out simultaneously according to two calendars at once. Only four deputies took part in the voting. Three are against, one is for. There were no abstentions. The rest of the elected representatives ignored the vote.