TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-03 > 0952199581


From: "Laura A. Wallace" <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: New/Old Style v Gregorian/Julian
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:53:01 -0600


On 4 Mar 00, at 2:22, Hugh Wilding wrote:

> 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.

Mr Wilding, I very much resent your implication. I am a student of
English history, yes; I will be until the day I die. I am not,
however, in the 6th grade, and the scholarly work which I
referenced is hardly childish. I have a very good handle on the
dating problem and have in fact discovered errors in reputable
works, such as biographies of Queen Elizabeth I, which are
obviously based upon a misunderstanding of the dating systems.

The problem here is that the "Old Style/New Style" refers to the
adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582. The papal bull (dated
24 February 1582) which ordered the reformed calendar (correcting
the solar calendar by having 4 October followed immediately by 15
October 1582) ********ALSO included an instruction that future
years would begin with 1 January.******** So when you say
"Gregorian" you are referring to BOTH the date adjustment AND
the New Year adjustment. To say that the New Year adjustment is
"not Gregorian" is simply wrong. Your source which says that
adopting 1st January as the start of the New Year was a *separate*
change from adopting of the Gregorian calendar is wrong.

>From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "When the Gregorian calendar
firmly established January 1 as the beginning of its year, it was
widely referred to as the New Style calendar, with the Julian the
Old Style calendar. In Britain, under the Julian calendar, the year
had first begun on December 25 and then, from the 14th century
onward, on March 25."

So, as others have pointed out, as of 15 October 1582 Catholic
countries were out of sync with non-Catholic countries, and the
problem was further exacerbated by some non-Catholic countries'
continued use of 25 March as the beginning of the New Year. In
England before 1752, when the date adjustment was made, "New
Style" was nonsensical in reference to dates, e.g., 19 Jan 1667 vs. 29
Jan 1667; nobody would have recorded dates that way. The only
part of the "New Style" Gregorian calendar edict which made any
sense in England before 1752 was having the New Year begin on
January 1st. Since the popular starting of the New Year on January
1st happened to coincide with Gregory's 1582 bull dictating the
"New Style," it was labelled "New Style." THAT is why there is
confusion regarding what is included in the definition of "New
Style."

Note however that English recorders of dates prior to 1752 did not
use the term "New Style" wrongly; they simply used it to refer to
the only part of the Gregorian edict which they could rationally
adapt. Notwithstanding their limited use of the term "New Style,"
however, it was not until 1752 that England completely changed to
the "New Style" by fully adopting the Gregorian calendar.

Perhaps it would be most accurate to refer to double dates, i.e., 19
Jan 1666/67 as "Partial New Style" (or "Partial Old Style") rather
than merely "Old Style" or "New Style," because since it is neither
completely Old Style nor New Style, it is improper to refer to them
as if they were exclusively either one, to the exclusion of the other.

Laura Wallace, in Sour Lake, Texas |
The Bar Exam is over! I survived! Have no idea if I passed.
Results expected the 2nd week of May.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: