How do you handle Quaker dates when lives span past 1752?

Question

Many of the research books I use the old style Quaker dating system (e.g. 5th month 26th 1688 Julian equal to 26 Jul 1688 modern Gregorian). When converting these old dates to Gregorian how do I handle lives that span over 1752 where the birth was before 1752 and the death is after 1752? For example, the book "The Pennocks of Primitive Hall" (available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066250283;view=1up;seq=15) uses Quaker dating but some people span 1752 like Hannah Pennock (12th month 24th, 1722 - 7th month 17th 1779). Should that be listed at the top of her profile where only one date can be displayed as: born 24 Feb 1723, died 17 Jul 1779 or born 24 Feb 1723, died 17 Sep 1779? Other books use Quaker dates also and it's not known if the author made the conversion so it makes listing the correct date problematic especially when its spans 1752.

Also, to take it a step further, if the book is known to use Quaker dates within the book for people who are born and died before 1752 but uses the same style for people born after 1752 like 6th month 20th, 1770 - 1st month 20th 1817 are we to assume they have made the conversion in the middle of the book and this would be displayed 20 Jun 1770 - 20 Jan 1817? I would say yes even if it is confusing but I am still left with the issue of those lives that span 1752.
 

Comments

I think the kernel of your question is this:

• When the British world switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, did Quakers continue numbering months in the old form (March=1, April=2, ... September=7, etc.), or did they shift to modern numbering (January=1, February=2, ... July=7, etc.)?

---

Thanks Ellen. I was unfamiliar with "Quaker dating", your straightforward description confirms what I surmised.

In addition to switching calendars, they also switched when the New Year occurred, I assume the same time. Originally in March, it became Jan 1. I know on some old tombstones around the time of this change, you'll see a date like Feby 4, 1751/52. People were unsure which year to use in that Jan - Feb time frame, and I think this went for several years until people got used to the new system.

Answer 1

Before 1752, the Quakers used 1 month for March, 10 month for December, 11 month for January, 12 month for February etc. Since the year changed on 25 March, the day after 10m 31d 1600 was 11m 1d 1600, and the day after 1m 24d 1600 was 1m 25d 1601.

Dates in March were always the most confusing, even at the time, and many Quakers would have written this date as 1m 24 1600/1 in the original.

After 1752, 1m became January, 12 month December etc.

It is most important to be clear whether your source cites the dates as originally written or has changed them and to make it clear to the readers of your profiles what you have done. Plainly old Quaker sources all used the old system, and the norm in Quaker circles was to cite the old records unchanged when referring to them. For example the Irish Quakers compiled registers of births, marriages and deaths in 1859 using their original sources. The dates are all unchanged using the old system for dates before 1752 and the new system for dates afterwards. If you are citing a secondary source, then you will have to check what the author has done.

To clarify pre-1752 dates, I would be inclined, for example, to say in the profile text that someone was born on 1m (March) 24 1600 (1601). I would then enter 24 March 1601 in the date box. I agree with Todd that I would not add 10 days. Plainly the newer dates don't need re-stating except for translating numbers into months.

In my experience, the Quakers were pretty consistent in applying the new calendar immediately in 1752, sometimes adding the letters NS for 'New System' to make it clear. The Irish Quakers kept 'family lists' for all their members' families. The entries in these all changed systems on the same document when 1752 arrived.

You should treat the dates like this whether or not someone was born before and died after 1752, so that all dates are all clear to profile readers.

See note on dates here https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Irish_Quaker_sources_and_resources&public=1#Dates

Alan Watson

Comments

A daughter of a woman on a profile I manage for which Alan has submitted a merge is shown on gs photo from 7th day Baptist graveyard as died [2]9 Jul 1827 aged 84y 6mo 19d.  Her MM record shows birth 23 Twelfth 1742 .  I have doubts about the findagrave posted birth calculation 20 Oct 1742.  If she wasn't buried as Quaker, might we have any confidence in the date interval?  There are MM records of her marriage, so I'm inclined to accept the identification of the burial with the marriage and birth.

---

One of the various 'calculators' for such purposes would find her birth based on the stated age at death to be 10 Jan 1743. Did those who wrote her age at death know her date of birth and thus her correct age? We have no way of knowing. Did they figure in the calendar change? Again, we have no way of knowing. In the grand scheme is the date critical?

---

I can't immediately see who you are writing about. The only merge I can see that I have proposed and which involves you is Miller-16033 - two people both called Martha Miller with the same parents, both with a husband called John Jordon. But neither of the two Marthas has a daughter as you describe.

In any event, what is the issue here?

Answer 2

Yes, at times we do not know if later authors translated dates to Gregorian without consulting original documents. In broad terms, yes, Quakers updated so that January became the first month. However, you will find meeting minutes suggesting that the change was not handled in the same way in all locations.

Answer 3

To convert a Julian date in 1688 to a Gregorian date you have to add on 10 days -- so 26 July Julian becomes 5 August Gregorian.

By 1723 the difference between Julian and Gregorian had become 11 days. So 24 February 1723 Julian is 7 March 1723 Gregorian. But the modern convention that years start on 1 January instead of 25 March means that 7 March 1723 is 7 March 1724 by the modern convention. So in modern terms I think that Hannah was born on 7 March 1724 and died on 17 September 1779.

(I think the author of the book you quote has not done any date conversion but has taken the dates as given in the original records.)

Correction, sorry:  I think that 7th month 1779 means July not September.

Apologies again: I forgot about the leap year. 24 March 1723 Julian converts to 6 March 1723 Gregorian, or 6 March 1724 in modern terms, since February had 29 days.

Comments

In genealogy, it is not the standard to add 10, 11 or other number of days in date conversions.

---

Perhaps not, but the question mentioned Julian and Gregorian, and the change from Julian to Gregorian was all about getting the date of Easter back to its proper place in the solar year. So Pope Gregory told the Roman Catholic faithful to add on ten days to the date.

And WikiTree help does say "We attempt to use the modern Gregorian calendar in all cases, i.e. "New Style" dates. It doesn't matter if the Julian or another calendar was in use at the time the date was recorded."