To confuse matters further, the federal fiscal year
(Oct. - Sep.)is related to the old Celtic year that
began on Samhain (Holloween).  I have no idea why this
is.
 
--- "Patrice L. Jeppson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
> 



      ___________________________________________________________________________________
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html