Dmitry Krutikov raises an issue I had not 
considered but one potentially of considerable 
importance.  On the basis of the 11 day 
difference, does this mean that every single date 
in the historical records before 1752 must be 
changed?  If so how?  All Smith’s correspondence 
would need to be changed.   The Minister at the 
baptism wrote 5 June, his mother believed it was 
5 June; what people in 1752 believed is neither 
here nor there for the date of his baptism in 1723.

The complications this would cause with comparing 
dates on the original documents seem 
excessive.  The baptismal certificate of Adam 
Smith may not be regarded as important, but all 
the dates in Scottish history from the debates in 
the parliament, the dates for legislation and so 
on does pose serious problems. It seems his 
students in 1751 turned up for classes on 
different days to those they believed they did.

It seems convenient that the ’11 days’ just 
‘disappear’ for once only for 1752; after all the 
people who lived through it didn’t lose the 
actual time and it may not have any practical 
impact on a once-only year.  Everything then 
stays as the actual written records state – 
correcting literarily millions of written events 
seems excessive and confusing.

What is professional practice at present?

Gavin Kennedy