Abstract
I CANNOT allow the article signed by “W. T. L.” in NATURE of February 2 to pass without a protest. The proposal to make “New Year's Day” a dies non, named “New Year's Day,” and not a day of the week or of the month, emanated, I believe, from Mr. Alexander Philip, of Brechin. Supposing that January 1 were a Sunday, and supposing that March, June, September, and December were given 31 days, the other months 30 each, February 1 would always fall on a Tuesday, March 1 on a Thursday, and so on. This would save much trouble in arranging, dates for meetings. But, more important still, the four “quarters” of the year would be equal, instead of, as at present, consisting of 90, 91, 92, and 92 days. From testimony by railway companies, insurance offices, chambers of commerce, and business men, an alteration, which would equalise terms would meet with universal approval. It is difficult to see where the trouble mentioned by your contributor would come in. It may be stated that authorities in the leading churches have been consulted, and that apparently no objection would be raised by them. I am informed that the Belgian Foreign Office has addressed a diplomatic inquiry at the Vatican, and that the Holy See is not opposed to the reform of the calendar. Surely the organ of English science is not going to oppose a useful innovation, acceptable to all practical men, which would save an enormous amount of labour in accounting and would simplify all business arrangements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
RAMSAY, W. A Perpetual Calendar. Nature 85, 540 (1911). https://doi.org/10.1038/085540d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/085540d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.