TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-03 > 0952235098


From: "Hugh Wilding" <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: New/Old Style v Gregorian/Julian
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:44:58 -0000


Laura Wallace 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.

Oh, dear! I am very sorry. I did not wish to cause offence but I could not
rebut one of John Kent's points without the reference. I still do not wish
to cause offence but, with the greatest respect to your good self, if you
look again at what you originally posted, you will see that you concluded
that 19 Jan 1666/7 (Julian/Old Style) was the same as 30 Jan 1667
(Gregorian/New Style). I was surprised at this because in your very
carefully laid out workings, you stated 19 Jan 1666/7 to be a _Saturday_ and
30 Jan 1667 N.S. to be a _Sunday_. Whatever else was going on, I didn't
think that the names of the days of the week were also being changed <g>.

In part, this error arose because you used an offset of 11 days (itself
correct for the period 29 Feb 1699/1700 O.S. to 2 Sep 1752 O.S.) instead of
one of 10 days (correct for the period 5 Oct 1584 O.S. to 28 Feb 1699/1700
O.S.). You also said that you had arrived at this by the use of the
"Handbook of Dates for Students of English History". It struck me that a
book so obviously aimed at a better understanding of such matters but which
does not draw sufficient attention to this pitfall is defective. I think
that is fair comment. By the way, an offset of 10 days gives us 29 Jan 1667
N.S., a Saturday, which was what Norb Bankert wanted to know.

In fact, all Norb originally wanted to know was whether 19 Jan 1666/7 fell
on a Saturday but was confused as to what was going on. By dealing with the
issue as a two-stage process (calendar and new year as separates), Norb now
understands what is going on. The confusion seemed to derive from tackling
everything at the same time.

> 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.

I don't accept your contention. Under the Julian calendar, the year also
starts on 1 January. All Gregory did was restate the exisitng rule - it was
not a new rule or some other radical realignment. Many European countries
had already reverted to 1 January before 1583 (e.g. Spain 1556, France
1564). In Britain, there already existed the notion that there were two new
years - the Julian or *historic* one and an official or *legal* one.
Scotland resolved the issue very quickly by reverting to 1 January in 1600
but kept with the Julian calendar - given the religious upheavals of the
time, I would find any suggestion that this was a tacit acknowledgment of
the Gregorian system ludicrous. England did not. In part, and this is just
my surmise, this was because those who needed a dating system were largely
connected with running government and an alternative system (regnal years)
already existed which was more than adequate for those needs.

> >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.

There is an alternative view on this. The Scots and English monarchies were
united in 1603 with political union achieved a century later. To begin
with, there are the courtiers, advisors and political appointees but later
there is much evidence of the important and leading role that Scottish
merchants and financiers played in the establishment of London as the
financial centre firstly of the Kingdom and then of the Empire. The Scots,
in reporting back to head office in Edinburgh or working out discounted cash
flows, have to be precise with their dates. "19 Jan 1666 or 19 Jan 1667"
suddenly has a very direct importance if we are looking at 5% compound <g>.
The Scots are the yuppies of the day - their different start to the year is
the "new style", ours the "old style". What's more, there are no religous
problems because Scotland is _not_ Catholic - the Church of England doesn't
have to conduct any "witchfinder" type hunts looking for evidence of
"romanish" subversion in the parish registers. Do not forget that at
repeated times during this period there is intense Catholic persecution and
a constant battle between the respective Churches.

What is simply not convincing to me is the idea that the educated elite
adopted the _Gregorian_ year on its own. If they had, then I would expect
to see far more use of day-month double-dating especially after 1700 (when
Protestant Germany, Holland and Denmark converted). Far more plausible to
me is that the historic year was never fully supplanted by the move to Lady
Day and the Scottish connection provided the practical rationale to the year
double-dating that we see from early in the C17.

But even if they did (adopt the year), the term "Old Style/New Style" then
refers to the use made of the year component during the period 1 January to
24 March not the whole calendar. We already have perfectly adequate
definitions for the old and new calendars - Julian and Gregorian (and I
think these are probably used as such in Sweden and elsewhere). My point in
quoting from 4 English genealogical references was to show how the
terminology is now used in current English genealogical practice. I
appreciate that if the RHS has developed a dating methodology and wants to
use OS/NS as descriptors, it has as much right as anyone but does it speak
for Genealogy? I must look at this Handbook - unfortunately, your edition,
Laura, is one for the American market and my local library has the UK
edition on back order (i.e. it's not yet in print or out of print). If I'm
to look at a birdie, I'd like to know which way round the binoculars go
before stating it's a robin!

> 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.

No, don't be silly. If you must put something then *19 Jan 1666/7 OS* will
do (as pointed out by John Kent). The rest of us say 19 Jan 1666/7 is as
precise as you can get.

Hugh Wilding
Berkshire, England
<>

I'd like to acknowledge the use of John Kent's dating utility, Calisto, for
the dates of calendar changes.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: