Almost Always is Not Always [25 February 2013]
Since no existing record, as far as we can tell, says 1682/83, it seems presumptuous to make that assumption. I disagree with your edit, but choose not to pursue it further.--jaques1724 10:56, 25 February 2013 (EST)
- Legally, Feb. 9th was considered part of 1682. And the town clerk recording the death was an officer of the town, so he was making legal records. The presumption is exactly that they would do things the legal way to fit within the reporting requirements when he sent copies to the county. They had no need to write 1682/83 because it was understood that 1682 meant the Feb that followed Dec 1682. This was 70 years before the change to the Gregorian calendar, which was not even a glimmer in their eye yet, so to speak. It's possible I wouldn't feel so comfortable making such an edit in the 1740's, but in the 1680's, it would be unreasonable not to start with that assumption. It's true that sometimes you can tell the meaning to be different than intended by providing other dates that come in a known sequence, such as siblings births too close, probate dates, etc., or that the chronology of recorded births indicates this Feb. was at the beginning or end of the year's records, but that is mostly closer to the changeover, and nothing of the kind seems to exist in this case that I am aware of. Please add such evidence if you know of some. --Jrich 11:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
|
