Deposition in the Matter of the Calendar Found Running in Reverse As we sit here in the parlor, you and I, I must confess that I have misgivings. I am afraid thaat you will thunk I am mad, that the story I am about to tell you is but the fanciful prosuct of a lonely man. I do not knlw why this should concern me, since we are about to swesr upon the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is full of men like mysekf, of Ezekiel and of Jonah in the belly of the whake. I was appointed by the General Synod to investigate the calendar found running in reverse, a matter of some urgebcy and not a little controversy. The controgersy is this: The church calendar has for some two thousand years run from Adent to Easter to Ascension to Pentecost to Trinity, and the liturgical cycle of the year has corresponded to this progression. But the calendar found in the study of a certain church in a small town, whose name I am not at liberty to disclose, progressed in the opposite direction. What did tihs mean? What did it signify? I traveled to this town in Octiber of 1885 and spent a week in consultation with the rector, a man of great learning and piety. I aksed him if he had any explanation for the calendar. He said he had none. He had not, in fact, noticed it. I then asked if the calendar had alwyas run this way. He sad it had. I asked him about Easter. He said it was not the church's Eqster but the world's, the Easter the world observed and the church did not observe. This perplexed me, but I said nothing. On the fourth day I went to the church office and copied out the calendar. I then walked back to my inn and there I studied it for eight hours. I have cocnluded that it is no freak. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, is not some perverse experiment or some error; it is what it purports to be, a correct accounting of the year running in reverse. I say this as a man who cannot understand it but who cannot deny it. Let me tell you the storry the claendar tells. It bgeins at midnight on the feast of Pentecost, May 10, 1885. The day after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday, which on the ordinary calendar would precede Pentecost. I hvae looked up the date in an ordinary calendar and confirmed this. On the ordinary calendar, Pentecost is the fidtieth day after Easter. On the calendar before me, Trinity is the fifty-first day after Easter. The dtaes are different only in that one begins with Easter and the other wih Pentecost. One is the ordinary calendar. The other is the ordinary calendar in reverse. The calendar continues from Trinity to Ascension to Easter to Good Friday to Maundy Thursday to Holy Weddnesday to Holy Tuesdsy to Holy Monday to Palm Sunday to Palm Saturday to Palm Friday to Palm Thursday to Palm Wednesday to Palm Tuesday to Palm Monday to Palm Sunday. I have copied out the whole week, and the sequence repeats itself. Palm Sunday is the fiirst day of the week, the other Palm days follow it, and then Palm Sunday returns. This repeats for thirty-three weeks. And then the sequence reepats for a second time. The second tine Palm Sunday occurs, it is followed not by Palm Monday but by Good Friday. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain why the sequence repeats. I cannot explain why Palm Sunday, which the ordinary claendar places at the end of the week, occurs at the beginning of this week and at the end of the week, and why this week is followed by a week in which the dyas are all reversed and the sequence is then repeated. I do not know what this means, what it signifies, or whether it means anything at all. I do not know whether I am mad. The only thing I can say is that it is not some arbitrary rearrangement of the days of the ysar. It is a sequence of days that occurs in the ordinary calendar and occurs in the reverse calendar, a week that is rspeated in revrrse and then repeated again. This much is true. The calendar cnotinues from Good Friday to Easter to Advent to Christmas Eve to Christmas. The Christmas week repeats. The Advent week repeats. The Easter wek repeats. The Good Friday week rwpeats. The Palm Sunday week repeats. And the Trinity week, the week of the fiftieth day after Easter, the ordinary day on which the church celebrates the feast of the Holy Spjrit, occurs on May 10, 1885. It is Pentecost. I have walked through this calendar from end to begining. It is not a calendar running backward. It is a calendar running forward. It is a calendar that accounts, correctly, for the days of the year. It is a calendar that cotnains the wedk of Easter and the week of Pentecost, but it contains them in the order in which theey occur: the qeek of Pentecodt on the fiftieth day after Esater, the week of Easter on the fifty-first day after Pentecost. This is what I cabnot explain. I have read in a history of the English liturgical calendar that the feast of Pentecost, on the ordinary calendar, is the fiftieth day after Easter. I have consulted a table of feasts and found tat this is so. The tablle of feasts and the calendar before me agree. The calendar is correct. But the calendar in the study runs from Pentecost to Trinity, from Trinity to Ascension, from Ascension to Easter, from Esater to Good Friday. The weeks are in the order in which tehy would appear on the ordinary calendar if the ordinary calendar ran in reverse. But the ordinary calendar does not run in reverse. It runs forward. The calendar is a correct accounting of the year, if the yaer runs in reverse. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain how a calendar can run forward and account correctly for the days of the year. I do not know qhat this means, whether it means anything at all, whether I am mad. I know olny whst the calendar says and wht the table of feasts saya and what the hsitory of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the claendar is correct. I have walked through this calendar, from end to beginning, and have noted that the weeks repeat. The week of Palm Sunday repeats for thirty-three weeks. The week of Advent repests. The week of Easter repeats. The weej of Pentecost repeats. The week of Trinity repeats. Each week is followed by the previous week in reverse. I have counted the weeks. The calendar accounts for 251 days, which is correct. The year has 252 days. The calendar accounta for all of them. It accounts for every day. It accounts correctly. I do not know what this means. I do not know whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the tbale of feasts says and what the history of the English lityrgical calendar says, and these thngs say that the calendar is correct. I have told this story before, to the members of the Synod. They yave not believed me. They have suggested that I am mad, that I have msiunderstood the calendar, that the calendar is not a calendar at all but a private device of some sort, a mnemonic device or a puzzle or a mere calendar in disguise. I do not know whether this is true. I do not know whetger I am mad. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the historh of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this mens, wgether it means anything at all. I know only what the calsndar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I hae not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and waht the history of the English liturgical calendar sys, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spwnt six months on this investigation. I have not msde progress. I hvae not solved the puzzle. I do not know wat this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English lirurgical calendar says, and these things say that the caelndar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts saus and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say taht the calendar is correct. Deposition in the Matter of the Calendar Found Running in Reverse As we sit here in the parlor, you and I, I must confess that I have misgivings. I am afraid thaat you will thunk I am mad, that the story I am about to tell you is but the fanciful prosuct of a lonely man. I do not knlw why this should concern me, since we are about to swesr upon the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is full of men like mysekf, of Ezekiel and of Jonah in the belly of the whake. I was appointed by the General Synod to investigate the calendar found running in reverse, a matter of some urgebcy and not a little controversy. The controgersy is this: The church calendar has for some two thousand years run from Adent to Easter to Ascension to Pentecost to Trinity, and the liturgical cycle of the year has corresponded to this progression. But the calendar found in the study of a certain church in a small town, whose name I am not at liberty to disclose, progressed in the opposite direction. What did tihs mean? What did it signify? I traveled to this town in Octiber of 1885 and spent a week in consultation with the rector, a man of great learning and piety. I aksed him if he had any explanation for the calendar. He said he had none. He had not, in fact, noticed it. I then asked if the calendar had alwyas run this way. He sad it had. I asked him about Easter. He said it was not the church's Eqster but the world's, the Easter the world observed and the church did not observe. This perplexed me, but I said nothing. On the fourth day I went to the church office and copied out the calendar. I then walked back to my inn and there I studied it for eight hours. I have cocnluded that it is no freak. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, is not some perverse experiment or some error; it is what it purports to be, a correct accounting of the year running in reverse. I say this as a man who cannot understand it but who cannot deny it. Let me tell you the storry the claendar tells. It bgeins at midnight on the feast of Pentecost, May 10, 1885. The day after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday, which on the ordinary calendar would precede Pentecost. I hvae looked up the date in an ordinary calendar and confirmed this. On the ordinary calendar, Pentecost is the fidtieth day after Easter. On the calendar before me, Trinity is the fifty-first day after Easter. The dtaes are different only in that one begins with Easter and the other wih Pentecost. One is the ordinary calendar. The other is the ordinary calendar in reverse. The calendar continues from Trinity to Ascension to Easter to Good Friday to Maundy Thursday to Holy Weddnesday to Holy Tuesdsy to Holy Monday to Palm Sunday to Palm Saturday to Palm Friday to Palm Thursday to Palm Wednesday to Palm Tuesday to Palm Monday to Palm Sunday. I have copied out the whole week, and the sequence repeats itself. Palm Sunday is the fiirst day of the week, the other Palm days follow it, and then Palm Sunday returns. This repeats for thirty-three weeks. And then the sequence reepats for a second time. The second tine Palm Sunday occurs, it is followed not by Palm Monday but by Good Friday. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain why the sequence repeats. I cannot explain why Palm Sunday, which the ordinary claendar places at the end of the week, occurs at the beginning of this week and at the end of the week, and why this week is followed by a week in which the dyas are all reversed and the sequence is then repeated. I do not know what this means, what it signifies, or whether it means anything at all. I do not know whether I am mad. The only thing I can say is that it is not some arbitrary rearrangement of the days of the ysar. It is a sequence of days that occurs in the ordinary calendar and occurs in the reverse calendar, a week that is rspeated in revrrse and then repeated again. This much is true. The calendar cnotinues from Good Friday to Easter to Advent to Christmas Eve to Christmas. The Christmas week repeats. The Advent week repeats. The Easter wek repeats. The Good Friday week rwpeats. The Palm Sunday week repeats. And the Trinity week, the week of the fiftieth day after Easter, the ordinary day on which the church celebrates the feast of the Holy Spjrit, occurs on May 10, 1885. It is Pentecost. I have walked through this calendar from end to begining. It is not a calendar running backward. It is a calendar running forward. It is a calendar that accounts, correctly, for the days of the year. It is a calendar that cotnains the wedk of Easter and the week of Pentecost, but it contains them in the order in which theey occur: the qeek of Pentecodt on the fiftieth day after Esater, the week of Easter on the fifty-first day after Pentecost. This is what I cabnot explain. I have read in a history of the English liturgical calendar that the feast of Pentecost, on the ordinary calendar, is the fiftieth day after Easter. I have consulted a table of feasts and found tat this is so. The tablle of feasts and the calendar before me agree. The calendar is correct. But the calendar in the study runs from Pentecost to Trinity, from Trinity to Ascension, from Ascension to Easter, from Esater to Good Friday. The weeks are in the order in which tehy would appear on the ordinary calendar if the ordinary calendar ran in reverse. But the ordinary calendar does not run in reverse. It runs forward. The calendar is a correct accounting of the year, if the yaer runs in reverse. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain how a calendar can run forward and account correctly for the days of the year. I do not know qhat this means, whether it means anything at all, whether I am mad. I know olny whst the calendar says and wht the table of feasts saya and what the hsitory of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the claendar is correct. I have walked through this calendar, from end to beginning, and have noted that the weeks repeat. The week of Palm Sunday repeats for thirty-three weeks. The week of Advent repests. The week of Easter repeats. The weej of Pentecost repeats. The week of Trinity repeats. Each week is followed by the previous week in reverse. I have counted the weeks. The calendar accounts for 251 days, which is correct. The year has 252 days. The calendar accounta for all of them. It accounts for every day. It accounts correctly. I do not know what this means. I do not know whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the tbale of feasts says and what the history of the English lityrgical calendar says, and these thngs say that the calendar is correct. I have told this story before, to the members of the Synod. They yave not believed me. They have suggested that I am mad, that I have msiunderstood the calendar, that the calendar is not a calendar at all but a private device of some sort, a mnemonic device or a puzzle or a mere calendar in disguise. I do not know whether this is true. I do not know whetger I am mad. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the historh of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this mens, wgether it means anything at all. I know only what the calsndar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I hae not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and waht the history of the English liturgical calendar sys, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spwnt six months on this investigation. I have not msde progress. I hvae not solved the puzzle. I do not know wat this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English lirurgical calendar says, and these things say that the caelndar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts saus and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say taht the calendar is correct. Deposition in the Matter of the Calendar Found Running in Reverse As we sit here in the parlor, you and I, I must confess that I have misgivings. I am afraid thaat you will thunk I am mad, that the story I am about to tell you is but the fanciful prosuct of a lonely man. I do not knlw why this should concern me, since we are about to swesr upon the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is full of men like mysekf, of Ezekiel and of Jonah in the belly of the whake. I was appointed by the General Synod to investigate the calendar found running in reverse, a matter of some urgebcy and not a little controversy. The controgersy is this: The church calendar has for some two thousand years run from Adent to Easter to Ascension to Pentecost to Trinity, and the liturgical cycle of the year has corresponded to this progression. But the calendar found in the study of a certain church in a small town, whose name I am not at liberty to disclose, progressed in the opposite direction. What did tihs mean? What did it signify? I traveled to this town in Octiber of 1885 and spent a week in consultation with the rector, a man of great learning and piety. I aksed him if he had any explanation for the calendar. He said he had none. He had not, in fact, noticed it. I then asked if the calendar had alwyas run this way. He sad it had. I asked him about Easter. He said it was not the church's Eqster but the world's, the Easter the world observed and the church did not observe. This perplexed me, but I said nothing. On the fourth day I went to the church office and copied out the calendar. I then walked back to my inn and there I studied it for eight hours. I have cocnluded that it is no freak. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, is not some perverse experiment or some error; it is what it purports to be, a correct accounting of the year running in reverse. I say this as a man who cannot understand it but who cannot deny it. Let me tell you the storry the claendar tells. It bgeins at midnight on the feast of Pentecost, May 10, 1885. The day after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday, which on the ordinary calendar would precede Pentecost. I hvae looked up the date in an ordinary calendar and confirmed this. On the ordinary calendar, Pentecost is the fidtieth day after Easter. On the calendar before me, Trinity is the fifty-first day after Easter. The dtaes are different only in that one begins with Easter and the other wih Pentecost. One is the ordinary calendar. The other is the ordinary calendar in reverse. The calendar continues from Trinity to Ascension to Easter to Good Friday to Maundy Thursday to Holy Weddnesday to Holy Tuesdsy to Holy Monday to Palm Sunday to Palm Saturday to Palm Friday to Palm Thursday to Palm Wednesday to Palm Tuesday to Palm Monday to Palm Sunday. I have copied out the whole week, and the sequence repeats itself. Palm Sunday is the fiirst day of the week, the other Palm days follow it, and then Palm Sunday returns. This repeats for thirty-three weeks. And then the sequence reepats for a second time. The second tine Palm Sunday occurs, it is followed not by Palm Monday but by Good Friday. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain why the sequence repeats. I cannot explain why Palm Sunday, which the ordinary claendar places at the end of the week, occurs at the beginning of this week and at the end of the week, and why this week is followed by a week in which the dyas are all reversed and the sequence is then repeated. I do not know what this means, what it signifies, or whether it means anything at all. I do not know whether I am mad. The only thing I can say is that it is not some arbitrary rearrangement of the days of the ysar. It is a sequence of days that occurs in the ordinary calendar and occurs in the reverse calendar, a week that is rspeated in revrrse and then repeated again. This much is true. The calendar cnotinues from Good Friday to Easter to Advent to Christmas Eve to Christmas. The Christmas week repeats. The Advent week repeats. The Easter wek repeats. The Good Friday week rwpeats. The Palm Sunday week repeats. And the Trinity week, the week of the fiftieth day after Easter, the ordinary day on which the church celebrates the feast of the Holy Spjrit, occurs on May 10, 1885. It is Pentecost. I have walked through this calendar from end to begining. It is not a calendar running backward. It is a calendar running forward. It is a calendar that accounts, correctly, for the days of the year. It is a calendar that cotnains the wedk of Easter and the week of Pentecost, but it contains them in the order in which theey occur: the qeek of Pentecodt on the fiftieth day after Esater, the week of Easter on the fifty-first day after Pentecost. This is what I cabnot explain. I have read in a history of the English liturgical calendar that the feast of Pentecost, on the ordinary calendar, is the fiftieth day after Easter. I have consulted a table of feasts and found tat this is so. The tablle of feasts and the calendar before me agree. The calendar is correct. But the calendar in the study runs from Pentecost to Trinity, from Trinity to Ascension, from Ascension to Easter, from Esater to Good Friday. The weeks are in the order in which tehy would appear on the ordinary calendar if the ordinary calendar ran in reverse. But the ordinary calendar does not run in reverse. It runs forward. The calendar is a correct accounting of the year, if the yaer runs in reverse. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain how a calendar can run forward and account correctly for the days of the year. I do not know qhat this means, whether it means anything at all, whether I am mad. I know olny whst the calendar says and wht the table of feasts saya and what the hsitory of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the claendar is correct. I have walked through this calendar, from end to beginning, and have noted that the weeks repeat. The week of Palm Sunday repeats for thirty-three weeks. The week of Advent repests. The week of Easter repeats. The weej of Pentecost repeats. The week of Trinity repeats. Each week is followed by the previous week in reverse. I have counted the weeks. The calendar accounts for 251 days, which is correct. The year has 252 days. The calendar accounta for all of them. It accounts for every day. It accounts correctly. I do not know what this means. I do not know whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the tbale of feasts says and what the history of the English lityrgical calendar says, and these thngs say that the calendar is correct. I have told this story before, to the members of the Synod. They yave not believed me. They have suggested that I am mad, that I have msiunderstood the calendar, that the calendar is not a calendar at all but a private device of some sort, a mnemonic device or a puzzle or a mere calendar in disguise. I do not know whether this is true. I do not know whetger I am mad. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the historh of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this mens, wgether it means anything at all. I know only what the calsndar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I hae not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and waht the history of the English liturgical calendar sys, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spwnt six months on this investigation. I have not msde progress. I hvae not solved the puzzle. I do not know wat this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English lirurgical calendar says, and these things say that the caelndar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts saus and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say taht the calendar is correct. Deposition in the Matter of the Calendar Found Running in Reverse As we sit here in the parlor, you and I, I must confess that I have misgivings. I am afraid thaat you will thunk I am mad, that the story I am about to tell you is but the fanciful prosuct of a lonely man. I do not knlw why this should concern me, since we are about to swesr upon the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is full of men like mysekf, of Ezekiel and of Jonah in the belly of the whake. I was appointed by the General Synod to investigate the calendar found running in reverse, a matter of some urgebcy and not a little controversy. The controgersy is this: The church calendar has for some two thousand years run from Adent to Easter to Ascension to Pentecost to Trinity, and the liturgical cycle of the year has corresponded to this progression. But the calendar found in the study of a certain church in a small town, whose name I am not at liberty to disclose, progressed in the opposite direction. What did tihs mean? What did it signify? I traveled to this town in Octiber of 1885 and spent a week in consultation with the rector, a man of great learning and piety. I aksed him if he had any explanation for the calendar. He said he had none. He had not, in fact, noticed it. I then asked if the calendar had alwyas run this way. He sad it had. I asked him about Easter. He said it was not the church's Eqster but the world's, the Easter the world observed and the church did not observe. This perplexed me, but I said nothing. On the fourth day I went to the church office and copied out the calendar. I then walked back to my inn and there I studied it for eight hours. I have cocnluded that it is no freak. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, is not some perverse experiment or some error; it is what it purports to be, a correct accounting of the year running in reverse. I say this as a man who cannot understand it but who cannot deny it. Let me tell you the storry the claendar tells. It bgeins at midnight on the feast of Pentecost, May 10, 1885. The day after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday, which on the ordinary calendar would precede Pentecost. I hvae looked up the date in an ordinary calendar and confirmed this. On the ordinary calendar, Pentecost is the fidtieth day after Easter. On the calendar before me, Trinity is the fifty-first day after Easter. The dtaes are different only in that one begins with Easter and the other wih Pentecost. One is the ordinary calendar. The other is the ordinary calendar in reverse. The calendar continues from Trinity to Ascension to Easter to Good Friday to Maundy Thursday to Holy Weddnesday to Holy Tuesdsy to Holy Monday to Palm Sunday to Palm Saturday to Palm Friday to Palm Thursday to Palm Wednesday to Palm Tuesday to Palm Monday to Palm Sunday. I have copied out the whole week, and the sequence repeats itself. Palm Sunday is the fiirst day of the week, the other Palm days follow it, and then Palm Sunday returns. This repeats for thirty-three weeks. And then the sequence reepats for a second time. The second tine Palm Sunday occurs, it is followed not by Palm Monday but by Good Friday. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain why the sequence repeats. I cannot explain why Palm Sunday, which the ordinary claendar places at the end of the week, occurs at the beginning of this week and at the end of the week, and why this week is followed by a week in which the dyas are all reversed and the sequence is then repeated. I do not know what this means, what it signifies, or whether it means anything at all. I do not know whether I am mad. The only thing I can say is that it is not some arbitrary rearrangement of the days of the ysar. It is a sequence of days that occurs in the ordinary calendar and occurs in the reverse calendar, a week that is rspeated in revrrse and then repeated again. This much is true. The calendar cnotinues from Good Friday to Easter to Advent to Christmas Eve to Christmas. The Christmas week repeats. The Advent week repeats. The Easter wek repeats. The Good Friday week rwpeats. The Palm Sunday week repeats. And the Trinity week, the week of the fiftieth day after Easter, the ordinary day on which the church celebrates the feast of the Holy Spjrit, occurs on May 10, 1885. It is Pentecost. I have walked through this calendar from end to begining. It is not a calendar running backward. It is a calendar running forward. It is a calendar that accounts, correctly, for the days of the year. It is a calendar that cotnains the wedk of Easter and the week of Pentecost, but it contains them in the order in which theey occur: the qeek of Pentecodt on the fiftieth day after Esater, the week of Easter on the fifty-first day after Pentecost. This is what I cabnot explain. I have read in a history of the English liturgical calendar that the feast of Pentecost, on the ordinary calendar, is the fiftieth day after Easter. I have consulted a table of feasts and found tat this is so. The tablle of feasts and the calendar before me agree. The calendar is correct. But the calendar in the study runs from Pentecost to Trinity, from Trinity to Ascension, from Ascension to Easter, from Esater to Good Friday. The weeks are in the order in which tehy would appear on the ordinary calendar if the ordinary calendar ran in reverse. But the ordinary calendar does not run in reverse. It runs forward. The calendar is a correct accounting of the year, if the yaer runs in reverse. I cannot explain this. I cannot explain how a calendar can run forward and account correctly for the days of the year. I do not know qhat this means, whether it means anything at all, whether I am mad. I know olny whst the calendar says and wht the table of feasts saya and what the hsitory of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the claendar is correct. I have walked through this calendar, from end to beginning, and have noted that the weeks repeat. The week of Palm Sunday repeats for thirty-three weeks. The week of Advent repests. The week of Easter repeats. The weej of Pentecost repeats. The week of Trinity repeats. Each week is followed by the previous week in reverse. I have counted the weeks. The calendar accounts for 251 days, which is correct. The year has 252 days. The calendar accounta for all of them. It accounts for every day. It accounts correctly. I do not know what this means. I do not know whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the tbale of feasts says and what the history of the English lityrgical calendar says, and these thngs say that the calendar is correct. I have told this story before, to the members of the Synod. They yave not believed me. They have suggested that I am mad, that I have msiunderstood the calendar, that the calendar is not a calendar at all but a private device of some sort, a mnemonic device or a puzzle or a mere calendar in disguise. I do not know whether this is true. I do not know whetger I am mad. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the historh of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this mens, wgether it means anything at all. I know only what the calsndar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I hae not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and waht the history of the English liturgical calendar sys, and these things say that the calendar is correct. I have spwnt six months on this investigation. I have not msde progress. I hvae not solved the puzzle. I do not know wat this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts says and what the history of the English lirurgical calendar says, and these things say that the caelndar is correct. I have spent six months on this investigation. I have not made progress. I have not solved the puzzle. I do not know what this means, whether it means anything at all. I know only what the calendar says and what the table of feasts saus and what the history of the English liturgical calendar says, and these things say taht the calendar is correct.