Concerning mention of the Hilarian and Michaelmas terms in the act, the text leaves the dates in place:
The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (statute chapter book number 24 Geo II c. 23), 'An Act for Regulating the Commencement of the Year; and for Correcting the Calendar now in Use'
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=1516754
"...and that all Acts, Deeds, Writings, Notes and other Instruments of what Nature or Kind soever, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, Publick or Private, which shall be made, executed or signed, upon or after the said first Day of January 1752, shall bear Date according to the said new Method of Supputation,
[Hilary and Michaelmas Terms, and all Courts, to be held on the same nominal Days.]
the two fixed Terms of St. Hilary and St. Michael, in that Part of Great Britain called England,
and the Courts of Great Sessions in the Counties Palatine, and in Wales,
and also the Courts of General Quarter-Sessions and General Sessions of the Peace,
and all other Courts of what Nature or Kind soever, whether Civil, Criminal, or Ecclesiastical..."
I'm not sure about the role of the terms in popular use before 1752. These terms mark the quarter days (Lady Day, Midsummer Day, Michaelmas, and Christmas) of the year upon which people hired hands and paid rents traditionally. Have you looked at Ronald Hutton's The rise and fall of merry England : the ritual year, 1400-1700 (Oxford (England) 1994)? That book might give a little help.
BJH
Barbara J Hickman, Staff Archeologist
Archeological Studies Program
Environmental Affairs Division
Texas Department of Transportation
125 East 11th Street
Austin TX 78701
Telephone: 512.416.2637
Fax: 512.416.2643
>>> "Patrice L. Jeppson" <[log in to unmask]> 07 June, 2007 9:33 AM >>>
I have been following this thread and have a related question. Does anyone
know how this calendar terminology (see below) is affected by the passage
of the Calendar Act? I have been researching this and coming up dry.
Michaelmas (October to December)
Hilary (January to April)
Easter (April to May)
Trinity (June to July)
These year divisions emerge in the deeper past as religious divisions of
the year. By the 1700s, they come to mark the legal year (court in session
indicators) and the academic year (in universities). Then, in 1752, the
Calendar Act imposes an official national year calendar. The legal year and
the academic year continue to operate with these older divisions and
terminology. Do these yearly divisions ALSO remain as common or popular
understandings - and if so, until when? What happens to this other 'way of
thinking about the year' when there is the official shift from March to
January for the start of the year?
I am asking because I am writing about a 1758 calendar token recovered in
Philadelphia. While I have located information about the Calendar Act, I
haven't been able to pin down the common or popular thinking about
divisions of the year in the 1700s. I know the Calendar Act eases business
transactions with the continent which had already largely adopted Jan. 1 as
the year start. Does the existence of this business calendar mean however
that everyday folks in England are no longer commonly using these earlier
divisions in the mid1750s?
Thanks for any ideas or recommendations for information that you might
have. Email me if you want to know more about the calendar token.
Patrice L. Jeppson
Patrice L. Jeppson, Ph.D.
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
www.p-j.net/pjeppson
At 01:44 PM 6/6/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Republican Roman consuls took their offices on 1 January, and the Romans
>started their calendar year in January (Ianuarius). From the time of
>Middle Ages in Europe people considered 1 January as New Year's Day. In
>between the two eras, the confusion of liturgical dating of the new year
>from 25 December or 25 March arose. Thus introducing the muddle ages??
>
>Barbara J Hickman, Staff Archeologist
>Archeological Studies Program
>Environmental Affairs Division
>Texas Department of Transportation
>125 East 11th Street
>Austin TX 78701
>Telephone: 512.416.2637
>Fax: 512.416.2643
>
>
>
>
> >>> geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> 06 June, 2007 11:42 AM >>>
>OK: that makes sense now: thanx
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Barbara Hickman"
>Subject: Re: calendars part 2
>
> The 1st of January had been the informal New Year's Day for a long time,
>bur 25 March was the legal start of the year.
>
>Barbara J Hickman, Staff Archeologist
>Archeological Studies Program
>Environmental Affairs Division
>Texas Department of Transportation
>125 East 11th Street
>Austin TX 78701
>Telephone: 512.416.2637
>Fax: 512.416.2643
>
>
>
>
> >>> Smoke <[log in to unmask]> 06 June, 2007 8:47 AM >>>
>The ways various Societies date their volumes over the years is many
>and varied. Here are two MORE reasons for double dates. Sometimes
>the double date is used to volumes that only come out every two years.
> Another method uses the year for which the paper or articles were
>written and presented to the Society at their meetings with the second
>date being the year in which the volume was actually published. There
>are probably even more reasons than this.
>
>Smoke
>
>On 6/6/07, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > pursuant to the last query: Stukeley has a strange reference to "In Feb.
> > 1727-28" in a letter published in Vol. 35 of the "Philosophical
> > Transactions of the Royal Society" - I wasn't sure if this represented
> > vagueness on his part about the date "they" did some plowing, or (the idea
> > I just had) that maybe the year began sometime in the middle of February
> > back in the 1720s...?
> > then i realised that Vol. 35 is dated "1727-1728," but published sometime
> > after (i assume), so...
> > curioser & curioser...
> > anyone have any clever explanations?
>
>
>--
>Smoke Pfeiffer
>
>I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
>form of tyranny over the mind of man.
>Thomas Jefferson
>(Carved at the base of the dome, interior of the Jefferson Memorial,
>Washington, D.C.)
Patrice L. Jeppson, Ph.D.
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
www.p-j.net/pjeppson
|
