A "Mather" of Dates
by
William R. Manierre
In 1896 Kuno Francke published the "record" of what he calls
"probably . . . the earliest expression of sustained interest, on the part of
Americans, in German affairs"—a "chronological" listing of letters
from
Cotton Mather to August Hermann Francke and of entries from Mather's
diary which mention Francke or his activities.[1]
In this "record" is printed the following extract from Mather's diary:
"1711. Nov. 10: I am again writing to ye University of Hall
in
ye Lower Saxony; sending a present of Gold for ye
Orphan-house there." After this entry there appears a portion
of a letter, dated December 19, 1714, from A. H. Francke to Mather,
which makes patent reference to both the proposed letter and gift mentioned
by Mather in the passage just quoted. "Reverend Sir, It was
the
first of April, 1713, when I receiv'd your Letter, dated the
10th of
January 1712, in the West-Indies; together with
the
Packet of Books, and the Piece of Gold accompanying them: But as for
those you sent me the 28th of May, 1711,
(the Copy
whereof I find also enclosed in the Packet just mentioned) they are not
come to my Hands." To this entry Kuno Francke appends a footnote:
"Since the year 1712 of Mather's diary is lost, our only information about
this letter from Mather's side
is the entry of Nov. 10, 1711."
Inasmuch as this "lost" Mather diary has since been recovered,[2] there seems some use in pointing
out that
it says nothing whatever of the letter in question. Only one entry, that of
December 17, concerns Mather's correspondence with the Pietist
leader.
4. G.D. Among my other Ultramarine Services, I would again
transmitt
unto y
e Lower
Saxony, Such things as being
translated into
High Dutch, may Serve y
e Kingdome of God, in those
Countreyes; and
Particularly Encourage Dr.
Franckius & his
Orphan-house.
Unfortunately, we cannot let the matter rest here. Mr. Francke's
footnote, in suggesting that Mather's diary entry of January 10, 1712, might
well have contained a comment on his letter of the same date, indirectly
laments the loss of that comment. On closer inspection, however, one finds
that what Francke's article dates as Mather's diary entry of November 10,
1711, is, in fact, the entry for January 10, 1711/12,[3] precisely the date mentioned by
Mather's
correspondent; so that what we have is the curious circumstance of a
scholar's calling attention to the non-existence of a passage which,
unrecognized by himself, he has just quoted.
Curious this may be but it occurs not once but twice in the article
under discussion. Again in a footnote, Mr. Francke remarks that, "it is
strange that the [diary] entry of May 28, 1711, does not contain a mention
of a letter of Mather's to Francke which is referred to in Francke's letter
of Dec. 19, 1714, as bearing that date. This seems to have been the first
communication sent by Mather to Francke." But already quoted in the
article, under date of March 25, is this passage: "When I send unto Dr.
Franckius in the lower Saxony, I would enclose
a
present of Gold, for his Orphan-house, which may be to the
value of four or five pounds in that Country." But once again Kuno Francke
has misdated a quotation by two months; and the passage, correctly dated
"May 25," is, in spite of the negligible difference of three days, pretty
obviously the very "mention" the "strange" absence of which his article
points out.[4]
The cause of all this confusion is, of course, Francke's unawareness
that Mather, in accordance with "legal-year" practise, considered March,
not January, to be the first month of the year. Accordingly, whenever
Mather numbered the month instead of writing it out, Francke is two
months off in his ascription. "2.d 8.m,"
for instance, by which
Mather meant the second day of the eighth month (October), becomes, in
Francke's article, the second day of August and "10.d
1.m"
becomes the tenth of January instead of March.[5] The result is that this pioneering
study of
the relations between the prominent Boston divine and the father of German
Pietism is, so far as chronology is concerned, completely unreliable.
Half of a total of twenty-four citations are misdated; all twelve by two
months and three by varying numbers of days. On the left, below, are the
twelve incorrect entries as recorded by Francke.
1709. Mather's Diary
- "Dec. 9" . . . . . should be February 3, 1709/10.
I do not know how Francke arrived at his "9". The manuscript diary
reads, "3.d 12.m Friday."
1711. Mather's Diary
- "Mar. 12-13" . . . . . should be May 16.
Mather frequently went a week or more without entering a date. Each
day of the week, however, was identified by a numbered "G. D." or "Good
Devised," an intention to perform some benevolent action on the day of
entry. Sunday was assigned number 1, and a new series began each week.
Francke's difficulty here stems from his ignorance of this peculiarity of
Mather's system.
Mather's last dated entry reads, "12/13.d
3.m
Satureday/Lords-Day"; i.e. the night of the 12th and morning of the 13th
of May. Following this are four "G. D's," the fourth of which, representing
Mather's pious intention for Wednesday, May 16, constitutes what Francke
dates as "Mar. 12-13."
- "Mar. 25" . . . . . should be May 25.
- "Apr. 7" . . . . . should be June 27.
I do not see how Francke arrived at his "7". Mather's last dated entry
is "24.d 4.m Lords-Day" for Sunday,
June 24. What Francke
ascribes to April 7 is the third "G. D." following—or Mather's entry
for
June 27.
- "Nov. 10" . . . . . should be January 10, 1711/12.
Mather's entry is the fourth "G. D." following the dated entry for
January 6. Why, in this instance, Francke counted the "G. D.'s" correctly
I cannot say.
From this point on, Francke's dating of diary entries is correct,
presumably because Mather altered his system by: 1) identifying month by
name instead of number and 2) numbering his "G. D.'s" consecutively
throughout each month instead of by week. Unfortunately, however, Mather
continued to identify the dates of his letters by number rather than name of
month. The result in Francke's article is that correctly dated diary entries
alternate with incorrectly dated letters.
Following are the incorrect ascripitons:
1715.
- "Oct. 2. Letter from Mather to Boehme"[6] . . . . . should be December
2.
1716
- "June 6. Letter from Mather to Boehme" . . . . . should be August
6.
Here only does incorrect dating lead to error in the article's
"chronological" order. The following entry (from Mather's diary) is
correctly dated "Aug. 2."
1718.
- "Jan. 10 . . . letter to Boehme . . ." should be March
10.
- "May 15 . . . letter to Boehme . . ." should be July 15.
1720.
- "May 4 . . . letter to John Winthrop . . ." should be July
4.
- "May 8 . . . letter to Boehme . . ." should be July 8.
- "Oct. 26 . . . letter to John Winthrop . . ." should be Dec.
26.
Notes