[APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation
laboswell at rogers.com
Mon Dec 21 17:52:35 MST 2009
> 1 March 1748/9
> This means that the document itself gives the date as 1 March 1728, but
> adding the /9 to indicate that it would be 1729 by our calendar. This
> I don't end up with situations in which people die before they make their
> will, etc.
Elizabeth, how about an example of 1 Jan 1748/9? The matching year in our
calendar for that Julian date would actually be 1748 (Dec), not 1749, as
would any corresponding entry up to 11 Jan 1748 (Julian).
It's too bad the convention isn't simply Julian date [corresponding
Gregorian date]. Wouldn't have to worry about accounting for the year
discrepancy in the overlap period Jan 1-Mar 24. Would also be simpler to
More information about the APGPublicList