[DCRM-L] Interpolation of double-dates (DCRMMSS)

[Erin Blake]

I think it's safe to say "both" -- that's part of what makes it doubtful, especially because it's not as simple as "1752". For example, Lady Day dating for the new year ended in Scotland after 31 December 1599, but the Julian calendar continued to be used until 2 September 1752. And what about someone from England who happened to be in Italy? Did it matter who the audience was? (Personal example: my family is Canadian, but I now live in the US; my father claims he almost had a heart-attack when I wrote to thank him for the "check" rather than the "cheque" my parents sent for my birthday.... even though I know he was joking, I've been careful with my spelling on letters home ever since.)

There's a fabulous example of a letter in the Folger collection where the body of the letter uses "old style/new style" to refer to the Lady Day "year" discrepancy, and the endorsement uses it to refer to the Julian/Gregorian "day" discrepancy. I wrote about it in a blog post a while back:
https://collation.folger.edu/2019/02/untangling-dating/

Erin.


______________________

Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  she/her/hers  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  www.folger.edu<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>



From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Jay Moschella
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 1:29 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Interpolation of double-dates (DCRMMSS)

Greetings All -

I'm wondering about applying DCRM(MSS) 4C2.5.2 (Calendars with start dates other than January 1). My question is this: for correspondence written in Britain or in the British colonies prior to 1752 and dated between January 1 and March 24 (but not double-dated) are we simply to record the dates and encode the records with the year as-is (the easiest solution), or do we add the double-dating in?

4C2.5.2 notes that, in case of doubt, the cataloger should record the year as found on the manuscript. This might be nit-picking, but I wonder if the "doubt" clause pertains only to doubts about whether the manuscript was created in a territory still using old-style dates, or if the rule is referencing doubts regarding the specific writing habits of the person who sent the letter.

Any advice is much appreciated!

For reference, the text of the rule:


4C2.5.2. Calendars with start dates other than January 1. If the year of production is based on a calendar in which the new year begins on any day other than January 1, such as Lady Day (the feast of the Annunciation, March 25), double-date the year to reflect both the year as it appears on the item and the year according to the modern calendar, if different. Separate the two years by a slash. In case of doubt, only record the year found on the manuscript. Transcribe the date in a note if considered important.



, 1588/1589 February 8

Optional note: Date appears as: "Februar. 8. anno 1588"

, 1603/1604 March 15

Optional note: Date appears as: "decimo quinto die Martij Anno

        domini 1603 Primo Jacobi Regis"

Jay Moschella
Curator of Rare Books
Boston Public Library
700 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200629/ef15df46/attachment.html>