SOUTHEY'S CRITICISM UPON ST. MATHIAS' DAY IN LEAP-YEAR.
(Vol. vii., p. 58.)
Mr. Yarrum's exposé of Southey's singular blunder is perfectly just; but it does not include the whole truth, a consideration of which renders the lapsus even more notable and unaccountable than if it arose only from a want of acquaintance with the distribution of Roman Catholic Feriæ.
The allegation of error against the historians, because they had "fixed the appointed day on the eve of Mathias," would seem to imply that they might have fixed upon some other feast-day with more correctness; whereas there is no other in the calendar which could by any possibility be affected by leap-year: but the most extraordinary part of the mistake is, the ignorance it displays (scarcely credible in Southey) of the origin and etymology of the bissextile institution—the very subject he was criticising.
Because the name "bissextile," as every body knows, arose from the repetition in leap-year of the identical day in question: the sixth of the kalends of March; the 24th of February; the feast of the Regifugium amongst the Romans; and of its substitute, that of St. Mathias, amongst the Christians.
It is clear, that since the Regifugium was held upon the sixth day before the 1st of March (both inclusive), that day must, according to our
reckoning, be the 24th of February in common years, and the 25th in leap-years: therefore, the supernumerary or superfluous day, added on account of leap-year, was considered to be the 24th of February, and not the 25th; which latter, in those years, became the true "Sixth before the Kalends." Indeed, it is highly probable, although it cannot be supported by direct evidence, that the first day of the double sextile was distinguished from its name-fellow of the following day by having the word "bis" prefixed to sextum; so that, in leap-years, the 24th of February would be expressed as follows: "Ante diem bis-VI Calend. Martias;" while the following day, or the 25th of February (being considered the real Simon Pure), would retain the usual designation of "A.D. VI Calend. Mar." Such an hypothesis offers a reasonable explanation of the seeming reversal in terms of calling the day which first arrived posterior, and that which succeeded it prior.
Although the Church of England Calendar now places the feast of Saint Mathias invariably on the 24th of February in all years, yet the earlier copies of the Book of Common Prayer allocated it to "The Sixth of the Kalends of March," without any direction as to which of the two days, bearing that name in leap-years, it should be appropriated. The modern Reformed Church Calendar therefore repudiates the usage of the Romans themselves, rather than that of the Roman Catholics.
A. E. B.
Leeds.