annos domini eorumque continentias supputatione veraci enarrare, ipsos domini annos diversis modis et terminis numerant, sicque in ecclesiam Dei multam mendaciorum confusionem inducunt. Quidam enim annos domini incipiunt computare ab Annuntiatione, alii a Nativitate, quidam a Circumcisione, quidam vero a Passione." Let us add to this enumeration of Gervase what we have proved above: Quidam a Martio, quidam tandem a Paschate. The following are the reflections which he makes on these different commencements of the year of the incarnation: "Cui ergo istorum magis credendum est? Annus solaris secundum Romanorum traditionem et ecclesiæ Dei consuetudinem, a kalendis Januarit sumit initium: in diebus natalis Domini, hoc est in fine Decembris sortitur finem. Quomodo ergo utriusque vera potest esse computatio, cum alter in principio, alter in fine anni solaris annos incipiat incarnationis? Uterque etiam annis Domini unum eundemque titulum apponit, cum dicit, anno ab incarnatione tanto vel tanto facta sunt illa et illa. His aliis similibus ex causis in ecclesia Dei orta est non modica dissentio."

After a testimony of an eye-witness so clear and precise, we may regard as sufficiently proved the confusion which the different usages of beginning the year had cast into chronicles. But Gervase's text says still more than it appears to express. On examining it more closely, we think that we find another commencement, of which we speak without proving it. This is founded on these words: "Annus solaris secundum Romanorum," &c.— annos incipiat incarnationis." It does not appear that we must understand these words of those who began the year with Dec. 25, and those who began seven days later, with January. A difference of seven days was not capable of causing the confusion of which this monk complains, when he says"Quomodo ergo," &c. Does not this manner of speaking clearly mark two things: 1st, that there were authors who began with January, and that 1 year minus 7 days before those who began on Dec. 25; and, 2ndly, that both, notwithstanding the difference of a year, marked these two years in their chronicles by the same year of the Incarnation? If such is a true sense of these words (as it appears to us we cannot doubt it), we are in a condition to answer a difficulty proposed by Mabillon (Diplom., l. II, c. 25, n. 9). This difficulty turns on two bulls of Paschal II, who was consecrated 14th Aug. 1099. The first is dated 5th February, 1103, and the second, 23rd March of the same year, both before March 25. The other dates of these bulls are, indiction 10 and 3rd year of the pontificate of Paschal II. These two last dates mark the year 1102, while those of the bulls announce 1103, and that before March 25. How are we to resolve these difficulties? By saying that the chancellor who prepared these bulls began the year of the Incarnation a full year before us, and that he counted 1103 where we say 1102. This reply is founded on the words of Gervase, and the interpretation which we have given of them is confirmed by these bulls.*

An instance of this occurs in the Saxon chronicles, under the year 806. A crucifix, the writer says, was seen in the moon on Wednesday morning, 2 non. Junii. Here he has reckoned 806 where we have 805, in which 2 non. Junii was Wednesday.

For the rest, these commencements of the year of the Incarnation a twelvemonth anterior to ours ought not to excite astonishment, when every author was at liberty to begin the year when he chose. We have seen above, that there were some who began the year on the 25th March, 9 months and 7 days before us. This manner did not prevent those who followed it from regarding Jan. 1 as the first day of the solar year, according to the Romans, which usage was well known in the West. Thence it very naturally happened that, not to estrange themselves from this usage, they began to date their facts by such or such a year of the Incarnation, though they well knew that this such or such a year ought not to commence till March 25 following. There are authors of this kind among those who dated by the years of our kings, and who, without paying attention either to the month or the precise day of the beginning of a reign, dated from the month of the following January, the second year of these princes, though they were not ignorant that their reign began only a certain number of months after that January.t

* Letters of grace granted in 1455, in the Trésor des Chartres, are dated "le premier jour de janvier, qu'on appelle communement le premier jour de l'an." It was the custom at this time to give new year's gifts on Jan. 1.—Ib. + Practice of different Countries.-Fredegarins and his continuator began March 1. This custom was not peculiar to the French: we observe it in several diplomas of the German emperors. La Mire reports one of the emperor Otho, dated 22nd Jan., 966, the 31st of his reign. This prince came to the throne in the beginning of July, 936; on the 22nd Jan., 966, he was only in the 30th, and not the 31st year of his reign. But Otho or his chancellor counted the incomplete years like the complete, and regarded the year 936 as if it had begun on the first day of this year, and consequently reckoned the last seven months as a complete year of this prince's reign. A number of examples of this kind are found in other diplomas of this monarch, of Henry his father, of Otho II his son, Henry II, Conrad II, Henry III, and Lotharius III, as may be seen in the first column of Gotwick's chronicle. Cardinal Noris, in his letter on a medal of Herod Antipas, remarks from Kepler & Petavius, that the Jews reckoned the years of their kings from the month Nisan, which preceded their ascent to the throne. In this manner, they counted a second year on the 1st of Nisan following, however short a time they had reigned before. He proves it by a passage from Josephus, which bears no difficulty. The Talmud is equally formal with the above: "Primus dies Nisan est novus annus regum. Annus est a quo numerare et supputare incipiebant annos regum suorum in contractibus, chirographis et publicis omnibus instrumentis et diplomatibus, qui ad annos et menses regis regnantis componebatur." But we also see by the same book, and by other monuments, as Samuel Petit proves, that the Jews counted the reigns of the emperors and other foreign princes from the month Tisri, which had preceded their ascent to the throne, when it had passed only a few months, and even a single day. On these principles we may explain the dates of the Jewish princes on the medals of Philip the tetrarch, Herod, king of Chalcidia, Herod Antipas, Agrippa I, and Agrippa, jun.

The Egyptians, says the Abbé Bellei, followed the peculiar usage of reckon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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