Nineteenth
or TWENTIETE º
-- - - - - - - - - ---------
By
ORD -O-O LS-


NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 7
THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURES
By
LORD HOBHOUSE
Office of ºublication:
Rooms arºs-29-30-31, Park Row Building



NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH P
THE BATTLE of THE CENTURIES.
The last few weeks have witnessed one of the ever-recur-
ring rebellions of the human mind against authority and re-
ceived tradition which serve to stimulate thought and to re-
mind those in authority that their position is never safe from
attack, and that they must be prepared to defend it by argu-
ment. Such rebellions usually take place in the regions of
religion, of politics, of physical science, of literature, or of
taste. They are successful quite often enough to give hope to
those who desire reaction or further innovation; and, though
they are often vexatious, they provide safeguards against
stagnation. The late rebellion, however (if indeed it is safe
to speak of it as “late,” for we may be walking per ignes
suppositos cineri doloso), is not in any of these departments of
human affairs.
This is a rebellion partly against arithmetic and partly
against the prevailing canons of evidence. Such rebellions
are not very common. In arithmetic extravagant statements
are the commonest things in the world, as when we see that a
meeting in Hyde Park is attended by many thousands of peo-
ple according to one newspaper, and by a few hundreds ac-
cording to another, or as when I open my watch and find that
* Originally printed in the “Contemporary Review,” March, 1900,
3 -

4. NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH >
its maker had many years ago turned out 47,990 other
watches. Plenty of examples will occur to everybody, but
such statements are rather of the nature of fictions pleasant to
the narrator than of revolts against an established rule.
Against received canons of evidence we do sometimes see
what is more like sustained and organized revolt; as when a
murderer, and especially a female murderer, is sentenced to
death. But such revolts are due to opinions held without
reference to the merits of any particular case, and rather re-
semble refusals to believe, or, as the case may be, to dis-
believe, that which is disagreeable. It is quite a different
thing to miscount a hundred or nineteen hundred years, and,
when the miscounting has been exposed, to suggest that, hav-
ing made an error in the initial year, we have been miscalling
our years ever afterwards.
I expected that, when the mistake was once exposed, the
dispute would end, but, finding that fresh combatants were ever
entering the field, I thought the phenomena so marvellous as
to deserve study. So, beginning on the first day of this year,
-
I cut out from the ‘‘ Times '' its columns of letters on this
subject down to the sixth day—when the stream ceased in
that quarter. I wish I had begun earlier, but I judge from
the numerous repetitions of statements in these six days, and
from my inability to remember having read any substantially
different statements on former days, that these letters, sixty
in number, do really cover the whole controversy between the
parties who may, for brevity, be called the Nineteens and the
Twenties. With these materials I am trying to classify and

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 5
partially to examine the considerations on which the Twenties
rest their opinions. I give the dates of the letters according
to their appearance in the “Times.”
The Nineteens may fairly be said to be in possession of the
ground. How far back in history this controversy extends I
do not know. In the year 1800 it seems to have been a mat-
ter of doubt to men of high attainments. On January 1,
P.H.B. records a bet, in which Sheridan maintained what
would then be the side of the Nineteens (the present Twenties)
against the Eighteens (the present Nineteens)—who were
represented by a Mr. Richardson. The bet was decided by
Fox, whose letter is worth quoting. It is addressed to
Richardson:
ST. ANN's HILL, Monday.
DEAR SIR,-I received your letter with its enclosure on my return to this
place on Saturday, and have deferred answering it till to-day only that I
might not appear to give a hasty opinion. Indeed, I had so strong a prepos-
session that you were in the wrong, from the arrogant manner in which you
state the case, that I wanted some time to enable me to believe it possible that
you could be in the right; but, afterwards searching for all possible grounds
or even pretences for deciding against you, Iown I can find none.
Fox’s decision was conveyed in these terms: “I think Mr.
Richardson right.” So that Fox had impressions in favor of
the then Nineteens till he thought over the matter carefully,
when he found that they had not a leg to stand upon.
On January 2, L.E. H. supplies a quotation from the “Gen-
tleman’s Magazine,” of April, 1800, in which the authority
of the French astronomer Lalande is cited. I give it at
length as being not only interesting in itself, but because it
touches what I believe to be the tap-root of the fallacy which
has beguiled the Twenties:

6 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2.
In France as in England there have been disputes about the commencement
of the nineteenth century. The astronomer Lalande thus determines the
question, which, he says, was equally agitated at the end of the last century,
he having in his library a pamphlet published on the subject. “Many persons
imagine that, because, after having counted 17, they commence 18, the cen-
tury must be changed; but this is a mistake, for, when 100 years are counted,
we must pass from 99, and we arrive at 100. We have changed the ten be-
fore we have finished the 100. Whatever calculation is to be made, we com-
mence by one and finish by 100. Nobody has ever thought of commencing at
0 and finishing by 99.” Thus, he concludes, the year 1800 incontestably be-
longs to the eighteenth or old century.
On January 5 Sir Courtenay Boyle supplies an article from
the “Times” of December 26, 1799, which is as emphatic as
befits an authority from which there is no appeal. It notes
the controversy, and decides it contemptuously in favor of the
then Eighteens—the now Nineteens. - More weighty than
this utterance from on high are the instances in which, without
reference to any controversy at all, it has been assumed by
responsible persons, who must have known perfectly well that
there was in fact a dispute, that the nineteenth century began
on January 1, 1801. Such is the case in the Annual Register
for 1801, and in the rejoicings over the Act of Union with
Ireland, which was celebrated as coming into force on the first
day of the nineteenth century—i.e., January 1, 1801. (See
letter of H.P.B., January 1.)
After this the controversy abated, and there was no great
disturbance of the peace till there came the fatal change of
eighteen into nineteen, which caused the same amount of bewil-
derment as the change from seventeen into eighteen. I have a
firm belief, founded on conversations with many persons, that
with the majority of doubters it is simply the change of figures

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 7
which occasions the doubt. How the doubt can survive the
simple process of counting is to me not easily intelligible; but
it does so, and then recondite reasons are sought after in order
to justify it. I have found my personal experiences as to the
genesis of the dispute confirmed by the correspondence under
review. Lalande, as above quoted, puts his finger on it.
On January 1, J. F. Hogan states the point in its naked sim-
plicity:
Surely the first two figures constitute the index to the century. When we
part on Monday with the familiar 18, and begin to write 19 at the head of our
letters, we cannot help being practically conscious of a change of century,
whatever academic arguments to the contrary may be.
That is his whole argument on the chronology of the case,
though he goes on to argue it on grounds of general con-
venience and expediency, and thinks that everybody will agree
with him.
To use one of the commonest illustrations in this matter,
what would happen if somebody owing Mr. Hogan two cen-
turies of sovereigns were to tell them out of a bag—1, 2,
and so forth to 99–and then say: “That is one century; now
let us begin another ‘’P Would not Mr. Hogan say: “But
you have not finished the first yet, there’s a sovereign want-
ing,” and would he be satisfied by the debtor telling him that
he must have a practical consciousness that the second century
began when the one hundredth sovereign was produced out of
the bag, and then went on to argue about general expediency
and so forth? Surely he would say that it was a pure matter
of counting; that the first century was not completed till the
one hundredth sovereign had been added to the previous

8 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
ninety-nine; and that practical consciousness and general
expediency were nothing to the purpose.
I possess a drawing by a lady who at one time betook her-
self to comic illustrations of the titles of novels. She had
selected one called “He knew he was right,” and she de-
picted a schoolboy sitting before a black-board. He had just
added two to two, and, having brought out the sum as five,
had turned round with a look of assured triumph to receive
the plaudits of the world. The artist did not disclose the
sequel. Probably it would have shown that practical con-
sciousness in matters of arithmetic, however complete, did not
compensate for lack of attention to rules.
On the same day E. J. Reed writes rather more elaborately.
He says, rightly enough, that in the first place we should be
clear what we mean by a century. He then admits that
arithmetic favors the Nineteens, and that “ for astronomical
and other purposes requiring the exact measurement of long
periods of time we must remember that the nineteenth century
does not end till the 31st of December, 1900.” But then he
says that, as a matter of “nomenclature and usage,” it is no
less certain that the nineteenth century ends on 31st December,
1899, and that “for the practical purpose of fixing dates and
records” the new century begins this year. we rub our eyes
and ask Why? For no other reason than this, -that in dating
his letters he will begin with the figures 19 instead of the fig-
ures 18. This is the “practical consciousness” of Mr.
Hogan, only preceded by the candid admission that it won’t
suit long periods of time. For astronomers and people of that

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 9
sort, who require exact measurements of long periods (I should
say that of all people chronologers require exactitude in the
highest degree), arithmetic may be very good, but it won’t do
for “practical purposes”; which seems to mean for the pur-
pose of deciding the present controversy. On the separate
topic of “usage'' I will presently make some remarks. I
will only add here that E. J. Reed’s proposal to measure some
periods of time by arithmetical rules and other periods by
some other unspecified rule is about as damaging a practical
comment on Mr. Hogan's general rule of convenience and ex-
pediency as an opponent could wish for.
Mr. Grimley, the rector of Norton, has been puzzled by fig-
ures in the same way. He writes on January 2nd:
If a bride in her 100th year were to pass from the altar of my church to the
vestry, she would give me as her age to be entered in the register 99. Her
100th year would be labelled 99 to its very close. When that year ended, she
would be 100 years old, and the year she would then enter upon would be la-
belled 100, and be the first year of her second century. The same bride,
when in her first year, would have that first year labelled 0. If she were at
that tender age preternaturally gifted with speech, she would say all through
that first year she was 0 at her last and only birthday.
I hope that the Norton registers are not kept on this system
of enumeration by labels of each parishioner. A woman in
her 100th year is called 99 years old with sufficient accuracy,
because she has completed her 99th year, and has not com-
pleted another year. But the year is not labelled 99: if la-
belled at all with reference to her, it is called her 100th
year, and so, when she is 100, she enters her 101st year.
Let the same rule be applied to the century. All last year it

10 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH >
was 98 years old and a fraction. The year was called 99,
because that year of its age was current the whole time. At
the end of the year the century became 99 years old, and en-
tered its 100th year, which is now current. Mr. Grimley
concludes: “ May I add, with all reverence, that the age of
the Christian era is, after all, the age of a living person; as
every one who lives into a second century has his first year
labelled 100, so should it be with the Christian era.” It is
quite true that the age of a man and of the world fall under
the same law of arithmetic. That is all that the Nineteens
contend for. But, as I have never seen any of Mr. Grimley's
labels, and doubt their existence, seeing to what erroneous
conclusions they lead him, I wish for the production of one be-
fore further discussing its effect. At present it looks like a
confusion between a current year and a completed one, which
has not deceived him when calculating the years of a bride,
but has deceived him in calculating the years of a century.
So much for the genesis of the difficulty. Now for the po-
sitions which the parties take up.
That of the “Nineteens” is very simple, and it is so sim-
ply and tersely stated in a letter of January 5th by R. M.
Minton-Senhouse that I transcribe it, and have nothing to add
to it or to take away:
The first year and the first century commenced at, and not before, the be-
ginning of the first year. The second year commenced at the determination
of the first year. The second century commenced at the determination of the
first century. The 1901st year will not commence till the determination of the
1900th year, and the twentieth century will not commence till the determina-
tion of the nineteenth century. For the purpose of deciding when a period
of time commences or determines, it matters not what that period may be

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 11
called, or by what numeral it is described. We may describe the first year or
century of our era as 0.1.50 5-8, or in any way we please, without affecting
the question. I affirm however that, if we describe them by cipher, or any
numeral but 1, we shall be going contrary to the universal practice of man-
kind, and shall not be speaking the English language. In enumerating the
human race, would Adam be described as person 0 and Eve as person 12
The first of anything is No. 1, and the first year is No. 1, or the year 1. To
one who is not a savant that statement appears to be indisputable. Let us
therefore continue to call the first year the year l; and restate my original
proposition. Year 1 and century 1 commenced at the beginning of year 1.
Year 2 did not commence till year 1 had determined. Century 2 did not com-
mence till century 1 had determined. Year 1901 will not commence till year
1900 has determined. Century 20 will not commence till century 19 has
determined.
How do the Twenties attack these elementary propositions?
I will try to marshal their arguments according to the best of
my understanding, though I am conscious that, owing to my
inability to follow some and to my strong dissent from others,
I may fail to represent them in the way which the disputants
intend.
Let it be constantly borne in mind that the question is one
of pure arithmetic; how we shall count, and from what point.
On this question I find a large part of the letters to be wholly
irrelevant.
Some allege that the feelings of people are engaged on the
side of the Twenties. Sir C. Boyle did so in a letter which
appeared just before my series. On January 2, K. B. Fergu-
son writes to say, not quite accurately, that the sentimental
point of view has been overlooked, and he insists wholly upon
it. “I defy the most bigoted precisian to work up any en-
thusiasm over 1901, when we will already have had twelve
months’ experience of the 1900’s. The transition from 1899
to 1900, on the other hand, strikes the eye and strikes the

12 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH >
fancy at once.” Alas, I fear that the bigoted precisian will
not feel much enthusiasm over the numbering of any year or
century. But Mr. Ferguson adds to the number of those who
have convinced me that the change of the two first figures is
the true and shallow source of the Twenty fallacy.
I have before quoted Mr. Hogan's letter, in which he takes
the ground of general convenience and expediency, —a ground
more solid than that of sentiment, but not more relevant to
the question whether, in fact, our mode of counting is on this
wise or on that. He thinks that ‘‘ a short bill’’ should be
‘‘ run through parliament” to settle the question for ever, and
this, he thinks, would get rid of all difficulties. On which I
would venture to remark: first, that a bill, however short and
however run through parliament, which is founded on the the-
ory that we have miscounted our years for many centuries, and
which would dislocate our dates, would find in some stage of
its existence many difficulties to encounter; secondly, that no
plan is so likely to serve “general convenience and expe-
-
diency’’ in matters of usage as the simple homely plan of fol-
lowing established usage not shown to be injurious to mankind.
Indeed, if we are going to depart from usage for fear that
anybody may be betrayed into a mistake, we had better re-
number our centuries altogether. From the momentary mis-
takes I have myself made, and have seen others make, I am
sure that when (say) the sixteenth century is mentioned,
large numbers of persons think at first of the years that begin
with the figures 16, and require an instant of reflection before
remembering that the sixteenth century years, all except the

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 13
last, begin with the figures 15. Yet I do not think that any
advantage would be got by altering our accurate numbering for
some artificial and inaccurate method.
Other irrelevancies occur. One asks at what point of the
earth’s surface the year begins. Several attach importance
to the precise ascertainment of the day or year to which the
nativity of Jesus Christ is to be ascribed; and they assert that
Dionysius Exiguus, who fixed our era for us, has fallen into
error on this point. That is an alleged error, not of one
year, but of several. But it cannot signify what point of time
was fixed on, unless we are going to make much greater altera-
tions than the Twenties ask for, −in fact, a total upset of
previous computations and the substitution of new ones.
There being some fixed starting-point, have we counted right
from it? That is the question. One writer indeed, F. J. B.
Carulla, argues (January 6) that, though the custom has been
to count as the Nineteens do, it would be better to count with
the Twenties, because “the nearer we get to the actual truth
the better it must be.”
In some other instances the champions of the Twenties miss
the mark by failing to understand what it is that the Nine-
teens contend for. I take as a specimen Edward Steward
(January 1). He argues with unimpeachable force and with
apt illustrations against the supposition that a man is not 100
years old until he has completed his 101st year. And so, he
says, with the century. To be sure, he adds at the end of his
letter that in some way, which he does not explain, the year
1 of our era was really the year 2. This, however, belongs

14 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2.
to the question of starting-point, on which others have been
more explicit, and which will be discussed presently.
On January 4, Lord Medway writes under the same erro-
neous impression of the same point, “I cannot understand
how people can be found to maintain that a century does not
begin until the end of its first year,” upon which the only re-
mark to be made is that the people who do maintain that
proposition have never been found, and probably they cannot
be found.
On the same day A. K. S. writes, on the assumption that
there is common ground between himself and his opponents
which does not exist, “Will any of your correspondents
help a stupid man and tell him what he meant when he dated
a letter say December 3, 1899, if he did not mean the third
day of the 12th month 18 centuries and ninety-nine years,
and so many days in another year, or in figures 1800 years
plus 99 years plus 338 days after the accepted birth of
Christ.” I think he is the only one of the sixty letter-writers
who puts so clearly on the face of his statement the error
which in all probability affects other minds. But many of the
fifty-nine others would tell him that he has confused between a
current year and a complete year, and that his date signifies,
not 99, but 98 completed years plus so many days. His dis-
charge, therefore, is one of blank cartridge.
Closely akin to these specimens of ignoratio elemchi are the
numerous cases in which the disputant states his premises
rightly, and then suddenly jumps to the conclusion opposite to
that which they prove. Take E. M., January 1 : “I take it

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 15
nobody denies that the birth of Christ and the commencement
of the Christian era were simultaneous. Therefore, when
Christ was a day, or a week, or a month, or a year old, the
Christian era was equally and respectively a day, a week, a
month, or a year old.” Passing over as irrelevant the mar-
vellous statement in the first sentence that nobody denies what
everybody disputes, I have to express entire agreement with
the principle of his second sentence. And, if I had been
writing the letter, I should have gone on to say that, when our
Lord completed 1900 years, the Christian era would equally
then, and not before, have completed 1900 years. But what
E. M. does go on to say is this: “If our Saviouſ had re-
mained on earth till now, He would have commenced His
twentieth century on January 1, 1900. Consequently the
Christian era does the same.” That is one of the sudden
surprises which add zest to the reading of this correspondence.
There are several others like it. I have cited Mr. Grim-
ley’s letter for another purpose. He is quite conscious that a
bride in her 100th year is only 99 complete; but he will not
go on to apply the same principle to the century. That, he
says, is 99 complete in its 99th year, and 100 complete in
its 100th, all owing to some mysterious label of which he
does not explain the contents or the mode of its attachment to
the year. On January 4, M. L. Craven writes. He takes
one of the numerous illustrations, a very good one,—that of
100 consecutive mile-posts, suggested by a previous writer
calling himself Secretary. It supposes a starting-point at
zero, and posts marked 1, 2, 3, and so on up to 100, each

16 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
marking the end of 1 mile. When the racer comes opposite
to post 100, he has completed his 100 miles. M. L. Craven
states the illustration correctly, and then quietly draws the
conclusion that our era completed 19 centuries on January 1,
1900; not when, as required in the case of the mile-posts, the
100th stage is completed, but when it is begun. He assigns
no reason, but takes his assertion for granted. On the same
day Dionysius Minimus, writes. Dionysius Maximus had
asked: “Will some firm adherent of the faith that the nine-
teenth century is completed oblige us by writing out the dates
of the years that composed the first century, A.D. P.” Minimus,
calling himself a firm adherent of that faith, answers thus:
“A.D. 1, 2, 3, etc., to 99.” That is all he says. Having
written down 99 years, he simply calls them, or leaves us to
call them, 100 years.
Even Sir C. Boyle, who writes under a sense that the case
of the Twenties needs argument to support it, falls into the
same snare. He imagines a mother speaking of her boy
Alfred and the events of his life. “If parents fix events by
the birth of a child, they say, so and so happened the year
Alfred was born, and so and so happened when Alfred was
1.’” This language is perfectly correct; it is the ordinary
language of mankind,-parents and others. But, when Sir C.
Boyle comes to draw his conclusion, he adds, “thus making
the sequence 0, 1, 2, not 1, 2, 3.” Why so? My expe-
rience of mothers is that they count their children’s years
quite right, and of Alfred’s mother I say, as of Mr. Grimley’s
label, that she must be produced and examined before we im-

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 17
pute to her that, having used right—i.e., ordinary—language
about the events in Alfred’s life, she has counted his years in
so abnormal a way. One cannot help thinking that she does
not really exist on this earth, but has been invented for the
present dispute. -
If it were not for these hiatus valde defendi between premises
and conclusions, it would be consolatory to read the letter of
G., who writes on January 4. “The reason why this dis-
pute is interminable is that both sides are demonstrably right
on their own premises.” He says: “If by 1900 we mean
the 1900th year, then clearly the century does not close till
the year closes.” We ask, who ever meant anything else by
A.D. 1900 but the 1900th year, whether speaking of it as
coming, or present, or past? But he says further that
“ 1900 years” means something different, because the cardi-
nal number is used; and, “if by 1900 is meant 1900 years,
then the century has closed and a new one is coming.” That
is a very hard and dark saying. Clearly the figures “ 1900’’
--
applied to the subject “years” mean 1900 years. But how
that bears on the question whether a year begun or a year
current can be taken as a year completed is not easy to see.
Nor do I understand in what collocation of words G. proposes
to use the cardinal number, in which such virtue resides. He
adds that this latter interpretation of the figures 1900 “ has
the advantage of falling in with our method of reckoning in all
other scales of time and distance.” He gives several anal-
ogies or illustrations; the 10th hour of a clock is that which
lies between 9 and 10, and so with the 60th minute of an hour

18 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
and the 60th second of a minute; and the 100th mile of a cy-
clometer is 99-100, not 100-101. Well, all those things go
to show that the last year of a century is that which lies be-
tween the end of 99 and the end of 100. They are the pre-
mises of the Nineteens, but from them it appears to G. that
the conclusion of the Twenties is demonstrably right. I am
afraid that we need go no further than G.'s own letter to show
how little his first sentence corresponds with facts. -
I now pass to the arguments drawn from authority and
usage, which are hardly separable from one another. In one
sense it seems absurd to rely on authority or usage in a mat-
ter of dry counting. But, if it were shown, either by learned
men, or by reference to common parlance, that expressions
even of figures had acquired a conventional meaning, that
would be to the point. To a great extent this topic has been
anticipated in the previous discussions, but it will be clearer
to present it separately.
I cannot find any specific authority cited for the Twenties
except a sentence in the calendar enacted in the year 1752
(when our style was changed from the Julian to the Gregorian)
and prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer. It occurs in the
directions for finding Sunday letters, which are given up to
the end of the year 1799. Then it is added, “ For the next
century, that is, from the year 1800 till the year 1899 in-
-
clusive,” and then follows a different direction. It is obvious
that the enumeration of the centuries of the era was not the
point present to the framers of the calendar. The point was,
how to find the Sunday letter. The word “century” may

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 19
correctly mean any period of 100 years, and it may be that
the plan of calculation, which consists of dividing numbers
and then adding to the quotient, and then dividing again, may
require that one method should be followed in all the years
whose number begins with 17, and another method in those
which begin with 18. Of that I am too ignorant to speak,
and I leave it to the mathematicians. It is sufficient to say
here that the quoted sentence was never addressed to such a
controversy as the present.
I have seen it stated that Lord Kelvin is among the Twen-
ties. If so, he must have some reason which will command
respectful attention; but I have not seen any statement emanat-
ing from himself, and I do not find that he is cited in this cor-
respondence which is the subject of my analysis.
The only other authority cited for the Twenties is the
emperor of Germany, and I do not find either his reasons or
the terms of his opinion given. Germany is an independent
country, and its rulers have a right to call the nineteenth cen-
tury the twentieth century, or, for the matter of that, the
eighteenth or the twenty-first century, if they deem it ex-
pedient for the nation. Moreover, Germany is apt to have
very independent emperors. We know of the Emperor Sigis-
mund that he was superior to grammar, because he has told us
so himself, at least, if his sayings are rightly reported. It
may be that another emperor is superior to arithmetic. How-
ever that may be, I have seen no statement to show that any-
thing has taken place in Germany, unless it be a positive de-
cision for the regulation of the future, such as F. J. R.

20 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
Carulla proposes for our country, in order to alter what he ad-
mits to be the existing practice. From the letter of A. G.,
January 6, it would appear that the same practice prevailed in
Berlin at the beginning of this century. Whether the Ger-
man decision is convenient, wise, or the contrary, it has no
bearing on the question of correct counting.
Opposed to this very meagre show of authority and usage is
a strong muster on the side of the Nineteens. For the be-
ginning of this century the opinion of Lalande, the story of
the bet made by Sheridan and decided by Fox, and the ex-
tracts from the Annual Register, must, in the absence of coun-
tervailing evidence, satisfy everybody that those who paid
attention to the matter considered that the century began in
1801. J. W. Sharpe (January 1) cites a passage from Pro-
fessor De Morgan’s “Treatise on the Use of the Globes.”
He is explaining the adjustment of leap years at the end of
each century according to the Julian and Gregorian calendars,
and he gives a warning to (I suppose careless) readers when
speaking of the last year of each century: “Remember that
A.D. 100 ends the first century, A.D. 1900 ends the nineteenth
century, and so on.”
H. W. S.-W. (January 6) writes that he had thought of
consulting the present astronomer royal, from whom he elicited
the following letter: “It has been agreed in chronology to call
the first year of the Christian era A.D. 1, the previous year
being B.c. 1. There is no A.D. 0. Consequently, the second
century begins with A.D. 101, a hundred years after the be-
ginning of the first year, and so on for succeeding centuries.

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 21
The question was fully discussed at the Century Dinner in
Glasgow on April 15, 1870, when the lord dean of guild, after
quoting various authorities, gave his decision as arbiter that
the nineteenth century did not commence till 1801, January 1,
and that, similarly, the twentieth century would not com-
mence until 1901, January 1.” C. Brinsley Marley (January
6) communicates a formal opinion of the Paris Bureau des
Longitudes to the same effect.
The writers to the “Times” give numerous instances of
the ordinary way in which ordinary people reckon every kind
of numerical series in ordinary life, -the counting of coins,
the measurement of miles, the numbering of pages in a book,
the hours of a day, the numbering of current months, and the
reckoning of years in a human life. On the last point, I
should add to the instances given by the Nineteens those of
Alfred's mother and of the evergreen bride of 99; though it
is true that their creators, Sir C. Boyle and Mr. Grimley,
have drawn hostile inferences from the correct language put
into the mouths of those mythical creatures.
I will only quote further on this point a very curious letter
from Zeno (January 6). He admits that arithmetic and
usage are with the Nineteens, but that, he says, is all the
-
fault of the “clumsy chronologers.” Mathematically we
are still in the nineteenth century, and we ought to call this
year 1899. We ought to have marked the first year of our
series 0, “like every carpenter’s rule does.” Zeno is quite
logical on his own premises, which will prove to be the last
topic of this analysis. But I write with a carpenter’s rule

22 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH >
before my eyes. Dim enough they are, but still they seem to
tell me that carpenters reckon just as other people do, even
chronologers. They do not mark an inch till one has been
actually measured off, nor 100 inches till the full 100th has
been measured.
I cannot find that the champions of the Twenties offer any
explanation why we call this century—the late century they
would say—the nineteenth century. Certainly those who con-
sider that the question turns on the two first figures in the
number of the year, the real origin of the error, are specially
bound to give that explanation. According to them the nine-
teenth century does not contain a single year whose number
begins with the figure 19. The explanation that we call it the
nineteenth century because its last year is 1900 would not
suit them, and so they leave the point in silence.
The evidence of accepted usage being palpably overwhelm-
ing in favor of the Nineteens, the Twenties are driven to what
I may, without disrespect, call their last ditch. Some of
them courageously take their stand on the assertion that chro-
nologers actually did the thing which Zeno so roundly takes
them to task for not doing, -viz., that they did not count the
first year of the era, but, making it zero, used No. 1 to de-
note the second year, and so on consecutively. If that were
established, the controversy would be placed on a different
footing. But the supposition presents insuperable difficulties.
When first it sprang into existence does not appear from the
correspondence, and I have not tried to investigate it. It is
for those who introduce it to show that it has a respectable

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 23
parentage. The first person to mention it here is Sir C.
Boyle. He does not allege that there is any evidence for it.
His opinion is thus given: “To my mind it is slightly more
probable that the sequence was Anno Domini, Anno Domini
1,” than that it was Anno Domini 1, Anno Domini 2,’ ”
Why, then, does he think it more probable? He assigns no
reason except the sayings and doings of Alfred’s mother, on
which I have before remarked. His conclusion is that no con-
clusive evidence exists either way, and that the problem is
insoluble.
If there really be no evidence, the case of the “Twenties”
is ruined; for it is shown that, in every other instance in
which human beings set themselves to number a series of ac-
cruing items, they do not leave a blank for the first and count
the second as No. 1, but count the first as No. 1 and add one
for each item as it accrues. We ought to require the clearest
evidence before imputing to chronologers, the most careful
measurers of historic time, that they have departed in so
fundamental a matter from the ordinary practice of mankind.
Indeed, according to the theory now suggested, we have mis-
called every year from the beginning until now, and we are
now really in the year 1901, though everybody has been
misled into calling it the year 1900.
Moreover, if the chronologers counted the years in so ec-
centric a manner, why did they not do the same with the cen-
turies? Why did they not arrange that the first 99 years
should be unnumbered, and the first century begin with the
year 100? There would be some advantage in that, because

24 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
it would make the first figures in each year of the century cor-
respond with the numbers of the centuries themselves. They
however preferred to count by the ordinary accurate method.
In the case of the centuries their method has hitherto been un-
disturbed, while in that of the years it seems to be thought
right to attack it once in every hundred years.
It is pointed out by A. C. (January 2nd) that, when the
French National Convention ordered a new era, they did not
think of postponing their year 1 till after an unnumbered year
had elapsed. I believe that the Mahomedans count the year
in which Mahomed fled from Mecca to Medina, the Hejira,
as No. 1 of their era, and have so continued to count. At
every point at which we can test human modes of counting we
find the same result. The first is 1, and the following items
are numbered consecutively after the first. To say with Sir
C. Boyle that there is no conclusive evidence either way is, to
say the least, a very inadequate statement. The evidence
may not be conclusive. It is difficult to find conclusive evi-
dence for anything that does not admit of mathematical dem-
onstration, and to hot disputants no evidence is conclusive.
But anybody who reads the letters of H. E. Malden (January
1st), John Sargeaunt (January 2nd), C. A. Vince (January
3rd), and Alan Cole (January 6th) will learn that the Roman
Annals show an unbroken series of numbered years from long
before to long after our date for the Christian era, and that
these have been duly collated with the numbers of the Chris-
tian chronologers, which pass directly from B.C. 1 to A.D. 1.
There is no room for a year 0. Those statements stand on the

THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURIES 25
correspondence wholly uncontradicted by the Twenties. Of
this evidence on the beginning of our series I should prefer to
say that for the existence of a chronological year 0 there is
not one tittle; that there is the very strongest presumption
against a unique departure from universal methods of numera-
tion; and that there is strong evidence that an unnumbered
year cannot find a place in any recorded chronology. It is
stated that astronomers have an unnumbered year B.C.; and
doubtless they have their reasons; but it has never found its
way into chronology, nor does it apply to the era A.D.
I have now done my best to exhibit what has been actually
said in this dispute, not pretending to any research of my
own. I confess to having felt much surprise when I first found
that a truth, which I had thought to be as rudimentary as the
truth that 2 plus 2 make 4, was questioned, not only in the
superficial way in which the unreflecting may question any-
thing, but seriously and by educated men. But my surprise
has been increased by trying to understand what reason exists
for this questioning, and by finding that many of the reasons
assigned are irrelevant, many are destructive of the gºnclusion
in support of which they are advanced, and that such as would
be relevant and logical have no basis whatever to maintain
them in point of fact. We read of primitive communities,
who are wholly unable to count beyond their fingers or even
beyond the number 3. I do not insinuate that the Twenties
as a whole are more backward than the Nineteens as a whole.
But it is consistent with observation that in all of us there
lingers something of ancestral and primitive character, show-

26 NINETEENTH OR TWENTIETH 2
ing itself in different ways among different individuals, and
requiring correction from the majority who in that particular
matter have been better trained. The inability to deal cor-
rectly with large numbers may be one of these survivals from
our ancestors. If it be, it will help, with the other reasons
which I have given, to account for the fact that certainly on
two recurrences of the turn of the century, and probably
earlier, there have arisen disputes involving the rudimentary
art of counting. I suppose that this dispute will die away
for the present, but perhaps in the year 2000 our great-grand-
children will revive it, and will consult the files of the
-
‘‘Times” or those (who knows?) of the “Contemporary
Review,” for arguments to show that 1999 years make up 20
centuries.