TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-03 > 0952136531


From: "Hugh Wilding" <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: New/Old Style v Gregorian/Julian
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:22:11 -0000


> >>>> From the many messages on this thread, there is still confusion about
> Julian/Gregorian and New Style/Old Style. The first relates to the
> calendar: the second to the start of the year. The two are not
> synonymous<<<<<<<

> This is just plain wrong - although I say this with trepidation <g>. I am
> afraid that we cannot set ourselves up to decide what words mean, unless
we
> live in Alice's Wonderland. If we wish to be considered as 'scientific' in
> our research we must stick by strict definitions to our terminology. (I
can
> call a robin an eagle if I wish, but needn't expect people to take much
> notice of me). Learned bodies of specialists are the academic way of
> reaching a generally recognised nomenclature - hence that is a robin, and
> this is an eagle! I believe that the R. Historical Society's view should
be
> noted. Here are some other reasons for believing that New Style =
> Gregorian...

John, I accept that you may not like the use of the terminology -
Julian/Gregorian for the calendar and Old Style/New Style for the year
ends - but others, not just me, use it in this way. How about Mark Herber,
author of _Ancesral Trails_ or Jean Cole and John Titford of _Tracing Your
Family Tree_? If you review the many messages in this recent thread, you
will see that there is much confusion about English dates pre-1752. To my
eye, this misunderstanding arises out of the assumption that Gregorian = New
Style. When we divorce the two, it becomes clear. Others have also seen it
this way. I may be guilty of a cheap jibe at the RHS's expense but it
seemed to me that if the lister using its *student* handbook was floundering
slightly (and I think this was the case), then that was a poor comment on
the book's efficacy. I should add that I have not read the title (and
perhaps I should <g>). Is this the same mob who want to do away with AD and
BC?

> SOURCES:
> Encyclopedia Britannica, Webster's Dictionary (USA) and Chamber's & Oxford
> Dictionaries (UK) both equate New Style with Gregorian calendar and Old
> Style with Julian. ie Old/New style have nothing to do with New Year's day

But these are general sources not necessarily well known for their
genealogical insights. Since you won't acknowledge Mike Spathky's article,
how about - Terrick V H Fitzhugh, _A Dictionary of Genealogy_, 4th Edition
[Revised by the Society of Genealogists] (London: A & C Black, 1994), p 60.

"Calendar ...In 1752 two changes were made in the English calendar. The
first was from the Julian to the more accurate Gregorian system...To bring
that about the day following 2 September 1752 was renumbered 14. The
second change, of far greater significance to genealogists, was that the
commencement of that year was brought forward to from 25 March to the
preceeding 1 January. This changed January, February and most of March from
being the last months of the Old Year to the first of the New. As the new
system had already been put into use by some people in advance of its
official introduction, care has to be taken when transcribing documents of
the pre-1752 period dated between 1 January and 24 March. The correct
transcription procedure is to use both Old and New Style for example, by
copying "5th February 1626" as "5th February 1626/7"."

Looks to me that the Society of Genealogists thinks it's got everything to
do with New Year's Day!

> CONTEMPORY RECORD:
> James Clegg's diary (Derbyshire, England) for September 1752:
>
> 2nd At home all afternoon then took a ride out .....
>
> 14th This day the use of the new Stile in numbring the days of the month
> commenceth ...

Hmmm, I think anybody writing about such an important change might use these
words in an entirely factual and accurate way. A better source would be the
text of the Chesterfield Act 1751 - anyone got a copy? But I also think I
have seen reference to "New Style" (or similar) in a pre-1752 Parish
Register - but I can't remember which. Is it not the case that many
registers were double-dated between 1 January and 24 March in the late C17
and early C18?

> PRACTICALITY:
> 4-Aug-1660 is an ambiguous date - even if you are told which country the
> date refers to you have still got to find out when that country changed
its
> calendar.
>
> 4-Aug-1660 New Style - is definitive, we don't have to worry where we are.
> It might even be Samuel Pepys writing in his diary, but refering to a date
> in Holland.
>
> 4-Feb-1659/60 is precise (being pedantic you might want to write Old Style
> after it!)
>
> In other words double year numbers define dates precisely as does OS and
NS
> when correctly used.

I certainly endorse your last statements but, with the greatest respect,
your choice of dates does not support your argument. In an English
genealogical context, I have never seen anyone suggest that a date between
25 March and 31 December is ambiguous nor have I ever seen a date written as
4 Aug 1660 NS. 4 Feb 1659/60 is fine but 4 Feb 1659/60 OS? I think I would
write it as 4 Feb 1659 OS. The only dates that I have seen associated with
double year numbers or OS/NS are those that are English, pre-1752 and fall
between 1 January and 25 March. Such dates have nothing to do with the
Gregorian calendar and everything to do with the confusion over the start of
the year. And that confusion was as much then as it is now - why else did
Norb's ancestor feel it necessary to date the letter 19 January 1666/7?
What is more, this was 85 years _before_ the big change! Surely if the
confusion was Gregorian in nature, the date would have been written 19/29
January 1667? Methinks the RHS has come along, picked up an existing
terminology and is now trying to run with it in a new direction...

I liked the bit about the robin and the eagle. When I hear of strict
scientific methodolgy, I also have a little story. I believe it was one of
our many Royal Something-or-other Societies that first put a bumblebee into
a wind tunnel and concluded from the scientific readings obtained that such
a design was incapbale of flight. The bumblebee, not knowing of this
determination, flew away and lived happily ever after.

Forgive me, it's the start of the weekend <g> and I guess what I'm saying is
that there may be a theoretical model but, as usual, it is easier to
understand what is practice.

Hugh Wilding
Berkshire, England
<>

PS. A sudden afterthought <g>. Does any other European country have
similar problems - why am I thinking of Sweden? Is OS/NS (or equivalent) in
use there? Or is it just us quaint English again with our warm beer and bed
socks...

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: