TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-07 > 1057158642


From: Darrell Martin <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Calculating Year of Birth
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:10:45 -0500 (GMT)


Lee wrote, in small part:

> The other question is whether the date given in the book
> was Old Style or New Style. Thus the date (to us) may
> have been anywhere from January 1594 to sometime in 1596.
> And since not only Old Style/New Style dating may be a
> factor but one must consider that the book author (or the
> author's source) may have used rounding which allows up
> to a six months error to be introduced). For these
> reasons, the closest one can get is a three-year range
> (1594-1596) unless there is some indication in the book
> that all dates are New Style (or Old Style) or unless
> there is something else to narrow the date range.

Hi, Lee:

Which illustrates why I find it useful to use a simple
and ambiguous date, "circa 1595", and let the text of the
source record speak for itself, for the most part. (If
there were evidence for the date usage of the source
document, I would include it in the Source definition in
TMG.)

I think that this example also illustrates the difference
between recording "what the source says" and "what I
conclude the source means". The latter is dependent, not
only on the text of the source, but on the context; and
on such issues as my perception of the credibility of the
source's author (or his sources in turn). The example
also points out what shaky ground we are on when we have
only one secondary document as support for a conclusion,
especially when that document has only an indirect
reference to the event.

That doesn't mean the "circa" or "say" date has no value.
It does mean that any attempt to define the range of
"possible" dates with precision must be taken with a
grain of salt, if not the whole shaker.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter in exile in Illinois


This thread: