Editing Openai/6967cb19-00ac-8006-95fb-cdd2efe1177b (section)

=== Assistant: You’re not imagining it — and you’re not misreading it. ===
You’re not imagining it — and you’re not misreading it.
This “two years for the price of one” effect is entirely real, and in February 1715–16 it is at its most confusing.

Let’s pin it down cleanly.

==== The short answer ====

England was still using the Old Style calendar, in which:
* the legal new year began on 25 March (Lady Day)
'' January, February, and most of March were still counted as part of the ''previous* year

So:

: Thursday, February 9, 1715–16
: means
: 9 February 1716 (by modern reckoning)

The printer is being careful — not clever.

==== Why printers wrote “1715–16” ====

By the early 18th century, everyone knew this caused trouble.
* Lawyers, clerks, and Parliament still used Old Style
* Merchants, diplomats, and continental correspondents increasingly used New Style
* Readers argued about dates

So printers began using dual dating for January–March:

: 1715–16
: = “1715 by the English legal year, 1716 by the modern year”

This is not poetic licence.
It’s an insurance policy against confusion.

==== Apply it to your heading ====

: Thursday, February 9. 1715–16

Break it down:
* Thursday → calendar-accurate (Feb 9 was a Thursday in 1716 NS)
* 1715 → English legal year (had not yet reached 25 March)
* –16 → clarification for readers using the modern year

So the pamphlet was printed in what we would call:

: 9 February 1716

==== Why this matters especially for Jacobite material ====

You’re reading material tied to:
* the 1715 Jacobite Rising
* trials, executions, and prosecutions that continued well into early 1716

So printers were constantly dealing with:
* events of “the rebellion of ’15”
* happening in what felt like “the next year”

Dual dating avoids this problem:

: “Yes, it’s still legally 1715 — but this is after the rebellion.”

==== Why it feels like sleight of hand ====

Because it is, just not dishonest sleight of hand.

To a modern reader it looks like:
* time bending
* retrospective framing
* narrative manipulation

To an 18th-century reader it meant:

: “Please don’t sue me, misdate a contract, or accuse me of printing false news.”

==== A useful rule of thumb (for your research) ====

For English material before 1752:
* January–24 March → add +1 year to get the modern date

So:
* Feb 1715 = Feb 1716 (modern)
* Mar 10, 1715 = Mar 1716 (modern)
* Mar 26, 1715 = Mar 1715 (modern — the year flips here)

You are currently working right in the danger zone.

==== One last, subtle point (important for interpretation) ====

The title:

: BEING Historical and Political Observations on the Transactions of Europe…

combined with dual dating tells you something else:

This is retrospective commentary, not breaking news.

It is:
* reflective
* interpretative
* consciously framing events after the immediate crisis

Which loops neatly back to your earlier question about propaganda.

This is the moment when governments stop shouting
and start writing the story.

If you want, next we can:
* re-date your entire Liverpool/Preston sequence into modern dates
* check which executions happened before vs after Feb 1716
* or flag where historians often trip over this exact issue

You’re navigating one of the trickiest chronological swamps in British history — and doing it very well.