TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2010-09 > 1284598777

From: Darrell Martin <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Old Style dates
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:59:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

-----Original Message-----
>From: Harold Fox <>
>Sent: Sep 15, 2010 7:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [TMG] Old Style dates
>Thank you Richard for your response!
>My question comes to light with the finding that I have in my file dates
>which supposedly represent adjusted dates. TMG does not appear to have a
>problem with their presence.
>I was in the process of correcting these adjusted dates but then became
>concerned that I might be in error.
>Examples: "event date in my file" - "my revision"
>1643/1644 - changed to: c 1644

Probably INCORRECT, but that depends
on what your source says. 1643/44 is
NOT an imprecise date; it is a date

>26 Mar 1647/1648 - changed to: 26 Mar 1648

Again, depends on the original. A
date of 26 Mar should never be
double-dated, in the Julian to
Gregorian context. If that's what
your source says, your source's
credibility is (to that extent)

>25 Mar 1666/1667 - no change

INCORRECT. 25 Mar is New Year's
Day in the calendar we are
concerned with. The year is
the same in both Julian and
Gregorian calendars.

>22 Feb 1731/1732 - no change


>My assumption is that a double year is only correct notation if the date is
>from Jan 1 to Mar 25 during the years 1583-1752.

INCORRECT. It's 1 Jan to
*24* Mar, inclusive.

> I am aware of the other
>associated manipulations of time but they do not concern me at this point.
>I am just dealing with the presumed standard of notion for this time period.
>Thank you again for your opinion.


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter in exile in Illinois

This thread: