QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 1996-10 > 0845136434


From: Jeff Palmer <>
Subject: Re: Quaker Dating Convention
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:07:14 -0400 (EDT)


The problem is not with the Quakers. The Quakers only substituted
numbers for names ("1st day" for Sunday, "1st month" for January, etc.)

To quote from "Penn's Colony, Volume 2: The Welcome Claimants...", by
George E. McCracken:

"...the Julian calendar was replaced in England and it possessions by the
Gregorian in September 1752, at which time two changes were made:

(1) a period of eleven days was omitted;
(2) New Year's Day was changed from 25 March to 1 January.

The first of these changes causes no difficulty as these eleven days are
ignored, and all days appear as in the source, Old Style.

The second, however, requires some explanation. In the Julian calendar as
used in this country before 1752, the entire month of March was designated
the first month, April, the second, and so on, January being the eleventh
and February the twelth month. Thus, when dealing with any year before
1752, it is necessary to make clear which Style is being followed, and the
best way to do this is to use a double year. Thus, "22 Feb. 1731/2" or
"22 12th mo. 1731/2" means that the year was that which those who lived
through it called 1731 but which we would now call 1732. In a few
instances, the double year will not appear though it should. This is
because it has not always been possible to determine which year is meant.
Beginning with 25 March, Old Style and New Style are the same but
sometimes records will be found with a double-year for a day after 25
March.

Jeff Palmer - - NO ARCHIVE

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 wrote:

> I haven't seen this address so far (though I would imagine it's one of
> those FAQ's) and hope someone will take pity on me and set me straight.
>
> The early Quaker's used different dates. I understood that the first
> month was March, but later learned that the first day was the 25th (!).
> This makes it *very* difficult to come up with an accurate date of birth,
> etc.
>
> Does anyone have a quick way to convert these dates? Also, when did this
> form of dating end?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Gail Harvey Budda
>

This thread: