The choice of a candidate as the Man of the Millennium is fraught with endless difficulties. By comparison, the task before the various Nobel Prize panels pales into a mere shadow. Theoretically, such panels can escape blame. They deal with a limited time frame. Candidate skipped over by mistake, can be installed in the next round. 

But the millennium is a different cup of tea. Each country has its No. 1. Perhaps more. The English therefore were doubly cautious. Even modest. They named Shakespeare only as the English Man of the Millennium. The bard from Statford-upon-Avon is a literary genius who cuts across linguistic divisions. And few would dare question if he is crowned the King Emperor of the literary world this millennium.

But literature is only one frustum of intellectual activity. Excellence in one area won't click in others. In the broad spectrum of 1000 years, recognition depended on the breadth of personality, status, solid contributions and an universal appeal. The short list can indeed be short.

Intellectual activity was intense in the closing centuries of the millennium - both during and after the Renaissance period. There was a flood of discoveries and inventions. Issac Newton laid the foundations of modern science. But he was soon eclipsed by Albert Einstein. The latter's detractors, however, assert that he was anticipated by Prof. Lawrence a little earlier.

Indologists, tracing the ancient roots of modern sciences, insist there is nothing''new" in Einstein. Much of what he said was noted by Upendra Gupta, a scientist who lived in the Sixth Century AD. The unknown pundit from Ujjain, who discovered zero, centuries earlier, is the man of several millennia.

In social sciences, the fermentation was much more. Economists, even before Adam Smith, had begun to see a pattern in the evolution of society and socio - economic organisations. The French and Russian revolutions had their script-writers. Liberation movements that set every continent on fire also produced their heros. The Russian revolution collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union. But not before making the masses learn more of their rights and privileges.

So there is a dense forest of names. But the yardstick is exacting. Over-arching considerations prevail. The crown belongs to one who represents the millennium in both letter and spirit. So the profile of the millennium needs a close look. Intellectual confusion held the field throughout. But the quest for truth (knowledge) was always there as a strong under-current. Even as the centuries wore on, science (and technology), gained in sway. Those who helped forward its cause have a better claim for the title of the man of the millennium.

On that score. Pope Gregory XIII is in clear lead. The most widely used calendar is not his only legacy. The 16th century Pontiff, had a passion for scientific precision and details. The head of the Catholic Church (1572-1585), also showed a wider vision. Before Pope Gregory came along, the Council of Trent authorised the then Pope Paul III to take corrective action on the Calendar. But nothing happened.

Calendars were there earlier too in the Roman Empire. There was one in the 7th century BC. In 45 BC. Julius Caesar had one compiled with the assistance of his astronomers from Greece. Augustus Caesar, during whose reign Jesus Christ was born, fixed the lengths of the months now in use. Five centuries later, Dionysius the Short, a monk and astronomer, also had a critical look at the calendar. Doing a limited brief to fix uniform dates for X-mas and Easter celebrations. 

Pope Gregory's aim was a simple, ready-reckoner, acceptable to, and useful in, all continents. Eliminating once and for all the incongruities that had crept in over the years. A standard format, obviating the need for frequent changes. Crafted probably by his German Jesuit astronomer, Christopher Clavius, it was known as the New Style Calendar. Another astronomer, Luigi Lilio Ghiraldi from Naples, was also there. But he died in 1576, six years before the new calendar was decreed.

The Gregorian calendar shaped in the way the Pontiff wanted it. The hurdles in his way were far too many. The years being a little longer than 12 months, the accumulated discrepancies (amounting to 10 days) had to be disposed of. There was also the need for insuring the system against lapses in the coming centuries.

This he achieved by chopping 10 days between October 4 and October 15, in 1582. And made the vernal equinox occur on March 21 or thereabout as it did in 325 AD. Lest no complication should arise in future be made the 'century year' a leap year divisible by 400. Others are common years. That way, AD 1600 was a leap year. And 2000 is going to be.

If he so desired. Pope Gregory could have taken an easy way out. By the time he came to head the Church. the controversy over the year of nativity was partly lifted. Disputes raged for centuries since the gospels were written, St.Luke created the confusion with his disclosure that Christ was born while Quirinius was the Syrian Governor. But Quirinius was not in office before AD 6.

St. Mathew placed it during King Herod's time. King Herod, who executed John the Baptist (who is believed to have baptised Jesus), died in BC 4, It was proved that St. Luke was having in mind the Syrian Governor of 6 BC. Whose name also began with Q as its first letter. Putting two and two together, it was held that Jesus Christ was born, if at all, between 4 BC and around 6 BC. The exact time and date of His birth are still shrouded in mystery.

Further corroboration came from a group of Chinese astronomers. In about BC 5, they had on record the sighting of a comet. Which tallied with the Biblical claim that a celestial occurrence marked the arrival of Christ on earth.

In the light of such revelations the door was open to Pope Gregory to rejig the dates. Adjusting surplus days, making the era to start a little earlier. Pope Gregory's greatness is in that the scientific sanctity of 1-1-1 was uppermost on his mind. As it now turns out, it was an index of planets occupying vantage positions on the firmament. Though the era was named after Christ, X-rnas and Easter were retained on the calendar as just two religious days.

In the orient, the astronomers never faced the Gregorian dilemma. For, though they accepted Zodiac signs derived by Greek (yavana) astronomers, they stuck to the 27 stars as basis for their calculations. The star positions were specified by the waxing and waning phases of the moon - the lunar days. When the year had to be compartmentalised, they resolved the excess days by making some months 32 days.

By and large, they followed the text set forth 20,000 years ago by Sage Parasara. (Parasara Samhita. Research findings by the late Prof. Krishnamurthy, who headed the Department of Mathematics of Madras University). The system was made fool-proof by Sage Viswamitra, the greatest of the Vedic astronomers. He defined the star positions leaving no room for ambiguity. Astronomy by then was a fully developed science.

But the almanacs cast in terms of stars and moon have serious limitations though they are precise to the last fraction of a second. Too clumsy, complicated and cumbersome, to be handled. Especially by the lay-man. A sort of hard nut. So their visibility was nil beyond a certain range.

What Pope Gregory had in mind was a clear, no-nonsense reference material. An at-a-glance stuff. For day and dates are easily understood by all. Across the regional and linguistic barriers. And he succeeded

Clarity being its hall-mark, the Gregorian calendar was adopted even by the break-away churches. Protestant Britain accepted it in 1752, Soviet Union, after the revolution, in 1918, and China a little earlier. Greece, with a heavy concentration of astronomers from the times of yore, waited till 1923. Now it is the official calendar for the world.

The Gregorian calculations were also precise as they used a long tested measure of time. The latest solar calendar claims a difference of a bare 26 seconds with it. However, precision is an indeterminate concept. The later-day astronomers never let Pope Gregory rest in peace. They picked loopholes in his system - which he himself would have welcomed.

Critics (no detractors, but) point out that Gregorian calendar comes with months of unequal length. Its dates and days of the week vary through time. There were proposals before United Nations and US congress to revise the calendar. All of them were dropped (not even considered) because of the changes involving national and religious holidays and festivals. A calendar based on lunar days would have no such problem. But it won't 'sell', being not so intelligible to you and me. Hence the durability of the Gregorian calendar.

I am dedicating this article to my father Late N Kesavapanicker, whom I heard mentioning the name of Pope Gregory XIII and about his calendar for the first time when I was a child

Sarat Chandran Nair

Top