Rating: 
Summary: Light headed history
Review: This is a so-so account of man's attempt to map time. On the plus side, Calendar gives you a good and broad account of the main developments throughout the last 2500 years. It's a bit cheesy in places and really only deals with events surronding the development of the Julian and Gregorian calendars. But it's not bad as a first attempt at the story. `Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar' by astronomer Duncan Steel is much better though. On the negative side, it's far too long and lacks credibility when dealing with numbers, astronomy and almost anything technical. Imagine a book written by an author who can't work out that if Jesus of Nazarath was born in 4BC, and there is no year zero dividing the BC and AD eras, then the year 2000 is actually 2004 and the new millenium began on 1st January 1997. If he's claiming that 1997 was really 2000, then he's also wrong. That honour went to 1996. Just run an excel spreadsheet. Begin column 1 with -4 and then column 2 with 1 (omitting the zero between-1 and +1 in column 1). Run them side-by-side up to 2004. You'll get the answer in a flash. Why couldn't DED or his editor(s) have done this? It's very easy. In any case, there is still considerable doubt about the actual date of Christ's birth - with estimates ranging from 7BC to 3BC. Also, its explanation of the Easter Computus just doesn't work. Nor does it explain why the calculation doesn't use the actual full moon, but uses ecclesiastical time instead - since this means that Passover and Easter (almost) never coincide. It's account of the failings of the Atomic Clock are sheer nonsense. And there is nothing to show the reader why the Gregorian calendar was designed to reflect the time between successive vernal equinoxes. There are some bits I did like about Calendar. There easy bits on the development of the Julian calendar, placement mathematics in Arabia and India and then the decimal system involving the first use of the concept of zero. These chapters are quite good since it was mathematical developments that proved pivotal in increasing the accuracy of calendars. This was also the first time I read about the confusion that reigned after the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the mid-16th century. Only Catholic countries obeyed the Pope's orders. Protestant states eventually joined in (mostly for economic reasons), but at different times over the next 250 years. The result was total confusion in Europe and it's colonial territories. I also now understand why the United Kingdom's tax year begins on seemingly bizarre date of 6th April - a throw back to the Julian calendar, the old New Year and the usual religious jiggery-pokery. Overall, not bad. ...
Rating:
Summary: Light headed history
Review: This is a so-so account of man's attempt to map time. On the plus side, Calendar gives you a good and broad account of the main developments throughout the last 2500 years. It's a bit cheesy in places and really only deals with events surronding the development of the Julian and Gregorian calendars. But it's not bad as a first attempt at the story. 'Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar' by astronomer Duncan Steel is much better though. On the negative side, it's far too long and lacks credibility when dealing with numbers, astronomy and almost anything technical. Imagine a book written by an author who can't work out that if Jesus of Nazarath was born in 4BC, and there is no year zero dividing the BC and AD eras, then the year 2000 is actually 2004 and the new millenium began on 1st January 1997. If he's claiming that 1997 was really 2000, then he's also wrong. That honour went to 1996. Just run an excel spreadsheet. Begin column 1 with -4 and then column 2 with 1 (omitting the zero between-1 and +1 in column 1). Run them side-by-side up to 2004. You'll get the answer in a flash. Why couldn't DED or his editor(s) have done this? It's very easy. In any case, there is still considerable doubt about the actual date of Christ's birth - with estimates ranging from 7BC to 3BC. Also, its explanation of the Easter Computus just doesn't work. Nor does it explain why the calculation doesn't use the actual full moon, but uses ecclesiastical time instead - since this means that Passover and Easter (almost) never coincide. It's account of the failings of the Atomic Clock are sheer nonsense. And there is nothing to show the reader why the Gregorian calendar was designed to reflect the time between successive vernal equinoxes. There are some bits I did like about Calendar. There easy bits on the development of the Julian calendar, placement mathematics in Arabia and India and then the decimal system involving the first use of the concept of zero. These chapters are quite good since it was mathematical developments that proved pivotal in increasing the accuracy of calendars. This was also the first time I read about the confusion that reigned after the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the mid-16th century. Only Catholic countries obeyed the Pope's orders. Protestant states eventually joined in (mostly for economic reasons), but at different times over the next 250 years. The result was total confusion in Europe and it's colonial territories. I also now understand why the United Kingdom's tax year begins on seemingly bizarre date of 6th April - a throw back to the Julian calendar, the old New Year and the usual religious jiggery-pokery. Overall, not bad. ...
| 
