[APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation

LBoswell laboswell at rogers.com
Sun Dec 20 10:59:55 MST 2009


Debbie mentioned Greece changed on "Thursday, 1 March 1923, following 
Wednesday, 15 February 1923".   Just to correct the 1 jan 1923 that I gave 
in the previous email.

So no one had a birthday on 16 Feb to 30 Mar of that year, and nothing else 
happened, no newspapers etc...  Unlike the British version where they 
chopped the days from September to re-synch the calendar, Greece seems to 
have combined both changes at once which makes more sense.

Larry


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LBoswell" <laboswell at rogers.com>
To: "Debbie Petrides" <petrides at hotmail.com>; <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation


>I took a run at this off list, suggesting the use of double year notation 
>for the overlap period in dates expressed in Julian format is the 
>traditional approach, but Debbie points out that there's also the shift in 
>days (12 by 1923) that has to be accounted for because the Julian calendar 
>by 1923 had become 12 days ahead of the Gregorian. (by 1752 it was 11 days 
>out of whack).
>
> Because the Julian calendar year (new year) starts 25 Mar in any given, 
> while of course the Gregorian new year begins 1 Jan, traditionally we'd 
> use the double notation system in the overlap period between when the 
> Gregorian new year began, and when the Julian later begins that same 
> numbered year (where the Julian year 'intrudes' into the new Gregorian 
> year before entering the same year after 26 Mar).
>
> So if the birth was 6 Feb 1680 in Julian calendar we'd record it as 6 Feb 
> 1680/81.  But that doesn't take into account that the Gregorian date is 
> actually 10-12 days earlier (depending on the time period).
>
> I don't know where this idea of double notation came from (historians?), 
> but isn't it actually redundant given that we should be listing the julian 
> date *and* the fully corrected gregorian date?
>
> If Greece changed to Gregorian on 1 Jan 1923, and was in Julian calendar 
> to that year, then that would mean a birth previous to 1923 in the Julian 
> calendar (and in the overlap period of 1 Jan to 24 Mar) would be listed by 
> double year notation.  For example,  say 4 Jan 1920 would be written 
> normally as 4 Jan 1920/21.  But the actual Gregorian equivalent date for 4 
> Jan 1920 in the Julian calendar would have fallen 12 days later in 
> Gregorian calendar month of December, but in *1920* not 1921.  If you saw 
> only the double year notation, you could think the Gregorian date is 4 Jan 
> 1921.
>
> Given that sometimes later on  sometimes only the Gregorian birth year 
> format is adopted, with the Julian dropped in a family file mistake of 
> years could be a problem.  The double year notation in the above case 
> doesn't get even the year right.
>
> Maybe all Julian dates should be shown   Julian date  /  corrected 
> Gregorian date.   The double notation serves no purpose.
>
> But this is all from meandering around,  is there anything I've messed up 
> in the above?
>
> Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Debbie Petrides" <petrides at hotmail.com>
> To: <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:29 AM
> Subject: [APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation
>
>
>
> I was hoping to understand how to express Julian dates in my newspaper 
> sources.  I have too many such documents because Greece switched to the 
> Gregorian calendar late (1923).
>
>
>
> A. In certain wills, dowries, etc. what I currently do (feel free to 
> correct me if this is wrong) is something like this:
>
> Last Will and Testament of Stamatios Stephanou Casanova, 9 June 1905 (22 
> June 1905 NS); bk. 919, pp. 66r.-66vº, document no. 274; Notarial Codex of 
> Dafnonas (1862 - 1914); Genika Apxeia toy Kratoys (General State 
> Archives), Chios, Greece. In the narrative I use the NS throughout and 
> allow the citation to speak for the date conversion.
>
>
>
> B. If this same source refers to an event occurring on another Julian 
> date, I also express that as NS in the narrative but include an additional 
> note after the citation explaining why.
>
>
>
> For example: Stamatios died before 4 Aug 1906.
>
>
>
> Last Will and Testament of Stamatios Stephanou Casanova, 9 June 1905 (22 
> June 1905 NS); bk. 919, pp. 66r.-66vº, document no. 274; Notarial Codex of 
> Dafnonas (1862 - 1914); Genika Apxeia toy Kratoys (General State 
> Archives), Chios, Greece. Notation states will probated on 22 July 1906 (4 
> August 1906 NS).
>
>
>
> What do you all think of this? It is ok to do this?
>
>
>
> The wills and those types of documents have been dealt with in this 
> manner.
>
>
>
> Now I have newspapers pre Gregorian.
>
>
> Can I handle them the same way?
>
> The reason I’m in a quandary is because of two reasons. The date given in 
> the citation for the newspaper is meant to help the reader relocate the 
> article and maybe noting the NS version is unnecessary in the same manner? 
> Would it be better to use method B and put all explanations at the end of 
> the citation?
>
>
>
> I’m sure there are many issues that have escaped me but the newspaper 
> citations seem so much more inflexible and before I work on them I needed 
> some advice.
>
>
>
> I’ll just keep the questions coming as long as they inspire debate.
>
>
>
> Debbie Sideratos-Petrides
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right 
> from Hotmail®.
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009 



More information about the APGPublicList mailing list