Easter 1701

[tamaranth]

I am trying to discover the date of Easter 1701.

Some sites give me 27th March. (As does the EASTERSUNDAY(yr) function in OpenOffice Calc).

Others give me 20th April.

The sites I've been reviewing are calculation-based.

There is roughly equal consensus on those two dates, with no others being mentioned.

Both these dates are Sundays (unless you believe the WEEKDAY function in OpenOffice Calc!)

And of course there is the added complication of Julian versus Gregorian dating. (The difference between the two dates is too large to be accounted for by this, though.)

Can anyone say for sure which date is correct? And on what basis?

Comments

[drplokta]

The Gregorian and Julian calendars have different formulae for calculating Easter, as well as the eleven day (in the 18th century) difference. Do you want the Julian or Gregorian date for the Julian or Gregorian Easter?

[childeric.livejournal.com]

C.R. Cheney and M. Jones, A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History contains definitive tables. If, as is possible, you don't have a copy to hand, then ask me very nicely and I can nip upstairs and find out for you...

[drplokta]

Oh, and if you're talking about Sweden, it's different again, due to specifically Swedish calendrical ineptitude between 1700 and 1712.

[childeric.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's alright, I've gone and looked it up anyway. Easter Day fell on 20 April in 1701. If calculated according to the Gregorian Calendar it would have fallen on 27 March.

[drplokta]

So, it appears that the Gregorian Easter on the Gregorian calendar was 27 March 1701. On the Julian calendar, that was 16 March 1700.

Julian Easter on the Julian calendar was 30 March 1701. The Julian Easter on the Gregorian calendar was thus 10 April 1701.

Gregorian Easter in 1702 was 16 April 1702, which is 5 April 1702 Julian.

So there was no Gregorian Easter in the Julian year 1701.

[childeric.livejournal.com]

Assuming you're talking about England, of course, which only adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752. Elsewhere, Easter will have fallen on 27 March. For instance, William of Orange left Holland on 11 November 1688 to launch his attack on James II, but arrived in England on 5 November...

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

Well said!

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

Drabble's Oxford Companion says 20 April Old Style, 27 March New Style, ie Julian and Gregorian (not Sandian as I nearly typed). Lord Chesterfield brings us into line with Europe about fifty years later.

As I recall the calculation of Easter would be something to do with full moons, so presumably the week or so slippage would also through it out a cycle some years.

For reference:

1700 31 Mar 11 Apr
1702 5 Apr 16 Apr
1703 28 Mar 8 Apr
1704 16 Apr 23 Mar
1705 8 Apr 12 Apr


Of course the legal new year would be March 25, which suggests that, say 1610 had two Easters, 8 April and 24 March. I wonder how calendars and almanacs would have been date in this period.

[d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com]

specifically Swedish calendrical ineptitude

[snigger]

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

Yes, a lot of my Google results mention Sweden. How very exotic!

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

Assume I have asked very nicely indeed, with fizzy sprinkles on top (or maybe just FIZZ) ... oh, you sweetie!

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

Actually, France ... so will that be a 27th March, then? Damn, March sounds far too early, weather-wise.

Bah. Shall make stuff up. All the best historical writers do it. (Remind me to tell you about Blood and Sand some time ...)

[childeric.livejournal.com]

Yup, in general Catholic countries went over to Gregorian before Protestant, so France would have been on Gregorian by 1701.

Yes, tell me about Blood and Sand!

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

Coo, thanks for this! what is Drabble's Oxford Companion, eh? Perhaps I need one ...

I've found multiple pages that detail the calculations involved (Dionysian and something else), as well as quick and easy ways to get around these calculations. But basically it's arcane stuff to do with new moons (in the sense of 'first visible crescent' rather than 'nothing visible') and solstices and the like.

What I really need is a proper almanac for 1701: not so worried about when to plant rye as when full moons were, etc. (And that, I'm positive, will be online somewhere. Probably in two or three contradictory versions. It's maths, innit?)

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

By the way, this is a useful site.

http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

Margaret Drabble's Oxford Companion to English Literature, which i reach for over Wikipedia most days if it's pre-1939 born authors (there's an inexplicable cut off although I found an exception once). Of course this is the 1985 edition. But you'd've thunk that Amis jr would be there.

Author bios, summaries of various novels and poems, some technical terms, movements. Appendices on censorship, copyright, the calendar (Easter and Regnal years from 1066-1984, calendar for 1752, dates of moveable feasts, list of feasts, Saints Days, Days of the week)

There has been a newer edition - an updated (2006) version of the sixth (2000) edition. It's got me through writing more than one book as a reference tool. That, a Roget's, a Fowler's, a Chambers and a Time Out Film Guide are always to hand when writing. Although Fowler never glosses the problems I'm looking for. I ought to have a Brewer's but you need facsimile (for coverage) and latest edition (for uptodateness). I used to have a Pears Cyclopedia, too, but that's too dated.


http://www.anythingarkansas.com/almanac/1701.html won't do it.

Closer: http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/jan2000.html

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

Throw it out. Obviously. Have read too many student Questionnaires. with Random capitals and speling.

Old Style was left hand column.

[incy.livejournal.com]

Well presumably William travelled at excessive speed hence proving Einsteins theory :)

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

I suspect the Vatican was getting a slice of the action when everyone had to buy new calendars and diaries. Indeed, I'm surprised Gordon Brown's not suggested doing it again.