TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-07 > 1058060584


From: "Linda C. Koehler" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:43:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200307122103.h6CL3Ubv031943@lists5.rootsweb.com>


Darrell,

I'm going to have to eat my words, or at least chew on some of them. I
should know better than to state anything as an absolute. Especially since
I'm not going to be able to cite my sources - I can't find the one I had in
mind when I wrote my note.

Anyway, I think Pete Hill is right about double dating in March until
1752. Up to March 25, the year in a Quaker date _might_ be written as a
double date, as anyone living during that time period might do. So March
dates before 1752 might be ambiguous unless you have a continuous record to
help interpret the practice of a particular clerk. I know I have
abstracted some pre-1752 Quaker records from the original where the clerk
did not double date at all in March. But I can't find them at the moment
so I can't say where I saw it.

So, to rephrase my previous reply: if a Quaker date was written simply as
10th day 1st month 1751, I would assume that 1751 was the new year, and
that the date could be interpreted as 10 Mar 1750/1751 by someone who
preferred double dating - but I would want to see it in the
original, hopefully with similar records written by the same clerk, such
as in a set of men's minutes covering a number of years.

And I still think that "1st month 1750" would mean March 1750 (i.e., March
1749/1750), but I would probably hedge my bets with conditionals like
"probably March 1750" if my only frame of reference was that isolated date.

Linda


At 03:03 PM 7/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>TMG-D Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1253
> #12 Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux ["Linda C. Koehler"
> <]
>
>______________________________
>
>
>Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:35:27 -0400
>From: "Linda C. Koehler" <>
>Subject: Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux
>To:
>Message-id: <>
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>X-Message: #12
>
>Darrell,
>
>It is my understanding that all of March is considered the first month of
>the new year, at least for Quaker dating. So I would be very surprised to
>find March given as a dual date in an original Quaker record, since there
>is no question as to which year it would be in. In the example you give,
>"10 March 1750/1751" (assuming that the person writing the date intended
>dual dating as done for January and February), a Quaker would write the
>date simply as 10th day 1st month 1751.
>
> "1st month 1750" would definitely be March 1750, not 1749 or 1751, and
> not expressed as a dual date.
>
>Linda


This thread: