Family talk:John Lane and Susanna Whipple (1)

On Blaine Whipple's Genealogy [15 August 2011]

I have relied on Source:Whipple, Blaine. History and Genealogy of "Elder" John Whipple of Ipswich, Massachusetts, and a derivative work Whipple Genweb, in trying to sort out the Whipples of Ipswich. However, its handling of the marriage date for this couple, p. G11, does not fill me with confidence about its reliability and credibility.

To start with, Mr. Whipple gives a marriage date of 2 Jan 1681 with no explanation of how it was arrived at, which is odd, because in the discussion that follows this statement, several sources are cited along with various differing dates. So how Mr. Whipple settles on a date that is never mentioned by any of the cited references is apparently a proof left to the reader? This reader, after looking at all the sources, has decided that 20 Mar 1681/82 is the most likely marriage date, and to the extent that 2 Jan 1681[/82?] has any basis in fact, I can only guess that it might be a date of publishment?

It does not help that Mr. Whipple never seems to use double dating, and so most of his cited dates carry some ambiguity of year. In many instances, the choice of year alone could be the difference between feasibility and impossibility. For example, the birth of daughter Susannah is listed as 24 Jan 1682 (the way it is given in the Billerica VRs), which is almost certainly 24 Jan 1682/83 based on common usage. But if one assumes a birth of 24 Jan 1681/82, then very different conclusions are drawn. Without double-dating, we cannot tell for sure which position Mr. Whipple took.

The Ipswich VRs are clearly wrong. The marriage date reported there of 20 Dec 1683 is incompatible with the birth of daughter Susannah 24 Jan 1682/83, 11 months earlier. (If the original used month 1^o, meaning first, that might explain where month 10 - December - came from, and misreading a 2 to be 3 on a faded document is not inconceivable, meaning the original could have said 20 Mar 1681/82, but that is all speculative musing. As it stands, it is just wrong.)

In refuting this date, Mr. Whipple mentions two sources that give the date 20 Mar 1680. One, Source:NEHGR, p. 10:356, does actually give the date attributed to it. This is an article, "Memoranda Concerning the Eliot, Lane and Jessop Families", no author specified, and no evidence given to support the asserted date. The second such source is the Lane Genealogies, which on p. 3:34 actually gives the date 20 Mar 1681-82!?! (And since this source specifies the name of the justice of the peace, it suggests that the author has seen an actual marriage record.) A third source mentioned, The Abridged Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. 3, is said to have the rather imprecise date "1681". Now, this book is merely lists of ancestors, so carries no great authority, but the page I can find, p. 330, on which this marriage is mentioned (twice), no date at all is given?

What is also interesting is a source that is never mentioned. The Billerica VRs report that Middlesex County records for Billerica give a date of 20 Mar 1682. If one assumes March is treated as the first month of 1682, this date would be 20 Mar 1681/82. Without seeing the original handwritten record, this is not an unreasonable assumption, March always being ambiguous about which year it belonged to. This date would then be perfectly compatible with the birth of a daughter 24 Jan 1682/83, 10 months later.

I have found no source that gives a date of 2 Jan 1681. Though the marriage occurred in Salem, it was unfortunately not included in the Salem VRs. Of the primary sources, Ipswich VRs are thrown out as impossibly wrong, and the Billerica VRs give 20 Mar 1681-2. Of the secondary sources, the one that shows any evidence of having based its conclusion on a primary record says 20 Mar 1681-2. So, after my little investigation, 20 Mar 1681/82 clearly seems like the most probable date. Plus it works.

A lifetime of studying a family still does not earn one uncritical acceptance, and even Mr. Whipple needs to justify his conclusions. Until/unless additional evidence is presented, the available evidence suggests he is wrong. Let's hope the rest of the book does not suffer from the poor methodology displayed here. --Jrich 09:53, 15 August 2011 (EDT)--Jrich 10:41, 15 August 2011 (EDT)