Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-7, JPD wrote:
> Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.

There are two different double datings in play here. One is the conversion between Julian and Gregorian, but that is almost never reported/corrected in British historiography. It is presented using the date used at the time and place in question, so 12 February remains 12 February, independent of whether other countries assigned a different number to that day of the year - the only exception might be if you are knowingly dealing with a detailed chronology that involves dates in both systems that are being compared in the same narrative. Then conversion or double-reporting is necessary for clarity. What is sometimes used - scholarly practice goes back and forth on it - is double-dating for different year-starts. Your audience needs to be your gauge here - which style is likely to confuse them more (or require/avoid repetitive explanations).

I would say you could put an full explanation of your dating practice in your a foreword, but most people don't read those.

taf

On 11-Sep-23 4:27 AM, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-7, JPD wrote:
>> Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.
>
> There are two different double datings in play here. One is the conversion between Julian and Gregorian, but that is almost never reported/corrected in British historiography. It is presented using the date used at the time and place in question, so 12 February remains 12 February, independent of whether other countries assigned a different number to that day of the year - the only exception might be if you are knowingly dealing with a detailed chronology that involves dates in both systems that are being compared in the same narrative. Then conversion or double-reporting is necessary for clarity. What is sometimes used - scholarly practice goes back and forth on it - is double-dating for different year-starts. Your audience needs to be your gauge here - which style is likely to confuse them more (or require/avoid repetitive explanations).
>
> I would say you could put an full explanation of your dating practice in your a foreword, but most people don't read those.

Approaching medieval history through the early-modern period and the end
of the middle ages has tended to distort the understanding of
year-starts, resulting in dates given for instance as 21 February
1579/80 as if the only alternatives for the first day of the year are 1
January ("new" style) or Annunciation day ("old" style), effectively
disregarding Christmas, Easter, Pisan and other medieval calendar styles
and reckonings that may confuse the issue.

I think this kind of oversimplified presentation is to be avoided, as it
leaves open to doubt whether the event is known to have happened in a
certain year with variant old/new style numbering or happened on a known
date but uncertainly in either of two years with invariant numbering -
i.e. recorded as taking place on 21 February but the exact year 1579 or
1580 being questionable.

Expending just a little more print-space and ink (if wasting resources
on a physical publication in the first place), it is clearer to write 21
February 1579os/1580ns or similar. Most readers with any interest in the
timeframe would not need to look at a foreword to understand what this
means.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:05:54 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 11-Sep-23 4:27 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-7, JPD wrote:
> >> Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.
> >
> > There are two different double datings in play here. One is the conversion between Julian and Gregorian, but that is almost never reported/corrected in British historiography. It is presented using the date used at the time and place in question, so 12 February remains 12 February, independent of whether other countries assigned a different number to that day of the year - the only exception might be if you are knowingly dealing with a detailed chronology that involves dates in both systems that are being compared in the same narrative. Then conversion or double-reporting is necessary for clarity. What is sometimes used - scholarly practice goes back and forth on it - is double-dating for different year-starts. Your audience needs to be your gauge here - which style is likely to confuse them more (or require/avoid repetitive explanations).
> >
> > I would say you could put an full explanation of your dating practice in your a foreword, but most people don't read those.
> Approaching medieval history through the early-modern period and the end
> of the middle ages has tended to distort the understanding of
> year-starts, resulting in dates given for instance as 21 February
> 1579/80 as if the only alternatives for the first day of the year are 1
> January ("new" style) or Annunciation day ("old" style), effectively
> disregarding Christmas, Easter, Pisan and other medieval calendar styles
> and reckonings that may confuse the issue.
>
> I think this kind of oversimplified presentation is to be avoided, as it
> leaves open to doubt whether the event is known to have happened in a
> certain year with variant old/new style numbering or happened on a known
> date but uncertainly in either of two years with invariant numbering -
> i.e. recorded as taking place on 21 February but the exact year 1579 or
> 1580 being questionable.
>
> Expending just a little more print-space and ink (if wasting resources
> on a physical publication in the first place), it is clearer to write 21
> February 1579os/1580ns or similar. Most readers with any interest in the
> timeframe would not need to look at a foreword to understand what this
> means.
>

yes OS/NS is the way to go; a lot of books on russian history especially russian revolution have dual dates, but some just use gregorian even though the soviets didnt adopt it til 1918. So the famous february revolution that toppled the Tsar is actually in March and the October uprising which brought Lenin to power was in November.

In ancient chronologies theres a lot more than 13 days difference to various dates proposed for ancient kings. I
notice for instance, Hammurabi is usually given the dates c1792-50 but recently i saw another set of dates c1728-1686! It seems most ancient dates alternate between an upper or lower chronology based on a number of interpretations, in H's case something to do with venus; it seems upto the academic to decide which they prefer. But in this case it quite a difference, like Queen Vic dying in 1837 not 1901.

Mike

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:05:54 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 11-Sep-23 4:27 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-7, JPD wrote:
> >> Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.
> >
> > There are two different double datings in play here. One is the conversion between Julian and Gregorian, but that is almost never reported/corrected in British historiography. It is presented using the date used at the time and place in question, so 12 February remains 12 February, independent of whether other countries assigned a different number to that day of the year - the only exception might be if you are knowingly dealing with a detailed chronology that involves dates in both systems that are being compared in the same narrative. Then conversion or double-reporting is necessary for clarity. What is sometimes used - scholarly practice goes back and forth on it - is double-dating for different year-starts. Your audience needs to be your gauge here - which style is likely to confuse them more (or require/avoid repetitive explanations).
> >
> > I would say you could put an full explanation of your dating practice in your a foreword, but most people don't read those.
> Approaching medieval history through the early-modern period and the end
> of the middle ages has tended to distort the understanding of
> year-starts, resulting in dates given for instance as 21 February
> 1579/80 as if the only alternatives for the first day of the year are 1
> January ("new" style) or Annunciation day ("old" style), effectively
> disregarding Christmas, Easter, Pisan and other medieval calendar styles
> and reckonings that may confuse the issue.
>
> I think this kind of oversimplified presentation is to be avoided, as it
> leaves open to doubt whether the event is known to have happened in a
> certain year with variant old/new style numbering or happened on a known
> date but uncertainly in either of two years with invariant numbering -
> i.e. recorded as taking place on 21 February but the exact year 1579 or
> 1580 being questionable.
>
> Expending just a little more print-space and ink (if wasting resources
> on a physical publication in the first place), it is clearer to write 21
> February 1579os/1580ns or similar. Most readers with any interest in the
> timeframe would not need to look at a foreword to understand what this
> means.

Writing something like that can be misleading and requires just as much explanation as the tidier 1579/80. "Old style" and "new style" usually refer to the change between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, so for example, George Washington was born on 11 February 1731 old style, which was 22 February 1732 new style for those countries which had already converted to the Gregorian calendar, and I remember that we [i.e., Americans] always used to celebrate Washington's birthday on 22 February (or February 22 a.s. [American style]) before his birthday and Lincoln's were combined into "President's Day". So, I think that also using "os" and "ns" to denote differences in the start of the year just adds confusion. Thankfully, this process of converting to the Gregorian calendar by adding 10 or 11 days (10 days 1582-1700, 11 days 1700-1752) is not used by genealogists, who use the double dating as a convenient way of informing the reader what the date is by 1 January dating, when the vast majority of the records use 25 March dating prior to 1752 when the record uses AD dating. In the often-used method which I use, a date written as "23 January 1602[/3]" would indicate that the date appeared as 23 January 1602 in the record used, and the "[/3]" would be my editorial addition indicating that the year is 1603 in 1 January dating. I would write "1602/3" without the brackets only if the date appeared as such in the original record (which happens occasionally, but not usually). In certain rare cases where a parish register is using 1 January as the beginning of the year, I would indicate the same date as 23 January 160[2/]3, the "[2/]" being added as clarification to indicate that the date should not be interpreted as 1603/4. In the earlier period when the vast majority of dates were given in the year of a king's reign without giving the AD year, the standard practice of giving the year [preferably in brackets] using 1 January as the beginning of the year seems like the best compromise for a confusing situation. (In some genealogy courses which I have taught, it has been interesting to watch the reactions of novices when I tell them about the peculiarities of 25 March dating.)

Stewart Baldwin

On 13-Sep-23 3:29 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:05:54 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 11-Sep-23 4:27 AM, taf wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-7, JPD wrote:
>>>> Regarding double dating due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, I have a question. I understand that in England and Wales before 1752 and Scotland before 1600 I should use double dating. So, in England 12 February 1580 would be 21 February 1579/80. But what about before March 1582 when the calendar changed for most of Catholic Europe. Do I need to still use double dating before March 1582? After all, 3 March 1487 was the same day for everyone in the British Isles and in Europe. What does it matter if it is off for us moderns? Just seeking clarification.
>>>
>>> There are two different double datings in play here. One is the conversion between Julian and Gregorian, but that is almost never reported/corrected in British historiography. It is presented using the date used at the time and place in question, so 12 February remains 12 February, independent of whether other countries assigned a different number to that day of the year - the only exception might be if you are knowingly dealing with a detailed chronology that involves dates in both systems that are being compared in the same narrative. Then conversion or double-reporting is necessary for clarity. What is sometimes used - scholarly practice goes back and forth on it - is double-dating for different year-starts. Your audience needs to be your gauge here - which style is likely to confuse them more (or require/avoid repetitive explanations).
>>>
>>> I would say you could put an full explanation of your dating practice in your a foreword, but most people don't read those.
>> Approaching medieval history through the early-modern period and the end
>> of the middle ages has tended to distort the understanding of
>> year-starts, resulting in dates given for instance as 21 February
>> 1579/80 as if the only alternatives for the first day of the year are 1
>> January ("new" style) or Annunciation day ("old" style), effectively
>> disregarding Christmas, Easter, Pisan and other medieval calendar styles
>> and reckonings that may confuse the issue.
>>
>> I think this kind of oversimplified presentation is to be avoided, as it
>> leaves open to doubt whether the event is known to have happened in a
>> certain year with variant old/new style numbering or happened on a known
>> date but uncertainly in either of two years with invariant numbering -
>> i.e. recorded as taking place on 21 February but the exact year 1579 or
>> 1580 being questionable.
>>
>> Expending just a little more print-space and ink (if wasting resources
>> on a physical publication in the first place), it is clearer to write 21
>> February 1579os/1580ns or similar. Most readers with any interest in the
>> timeframe would not need to look at a foreword to understand what this
>> means.
>
> Writing something like that can be misleading and requires just as much explanation as the tidier 1579/80. "Old style" and "new style" usually refer to the change between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, so for example, George Washington was born on 11 February 1731 old style, which was 22 February 1732 new style for those countries which had already converted to the Gregorian calendar, and I remember that we [i.e., Americans] always used to celebrate Washington's birthday on 22 February (or February 22 a.s. [American style]) before his birthday and Lincoln's were combined into "President's Day". So, I think that also using "os" and "ns" to denote differences in the start of the year just adds confusion. Thankfully, this process of converting to the Gregorian calendar by adding 10 or 11 days (10 days 1582-1700, 11 days 1700-1752) is not used by genealogists, who use the double dating as a convenient way of informing the reader what the date is by 1 January dating, when the vast majority of the records use 25 March dating prior to 1752 when the record uses AD dating. In the often-used method which I use, a date written as "23 January 1602[/3]" would indicate that the date appeared as 23 January 1602 in the record used, and the "[/3]" would be my editorial addition indicating that the year is 1603 in 1 January dating. I would write "1602/3" without the brackets only if the date appeared as such in the original record (which happens occasionally, but not usually). In certain rare cases where a parish register is using 1 January as the beginning of the year, I would indicate the same date as 23 January 160[2/]3, the "[2/]" being added as clarification to indicate that the date should not be interpreted as 1603/4. In the earlier period when the vast majority of dates were given in the year of a king's reign without giving the AD year, the standard practice of giving the year [preferably in brackets] using 1 January as the beginning of the year seems like the best compromise for a confusing situation. (In some genealogy courses which I have taught, it has been interesting to watch the reactions of novices when I tell them about the peculiarities of 25 March dating.)
>
My own preference is for specific indications - for instance I might
give 21 February 1579(As)/1580(ns) to make clear that the variation is
in the start of the year Annunciation style vs 1 January style. In other
circumstances I might use Cs for Christmas, Es for Easter, Ps for Pisan
style, etc. The change-over from Julian to Gregorian calendars was a
blip affecting dates over a relatively short timeframe, yet this has
loomed disproportionately in the writing of historians and genealogists
whose primary concern is with the early-modern period. It has nothing to
do with centuries when "os" clearly refers to the calendar year and not
to the date within it. For much of the middle ages Annunciation style
dating was rare enough to be irrelevant, yet it scoops up the attention
of genealogists as if their "gateway" research should be the main focus
of everyone's concern.
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com