Colleagues

The intricacies of the change in calendars has slipped away from my 
original query in response to the date for Adam Smith's baptism (and 
all his correspondence before 1752) and similar dated historical 
events in the History of Economic Thought in that period and before.

The original enquiry was about whether as historians we write Adam 
Smith's baptism as being 5 June, 1723 as recorded on his baptismal 
certificate on the day he was baptised and as recorded on the 
certificate in Registry House, or do we unilaterally change it 
according to a calendar created and adopted in 1752 about 29 years later?

I asked what is the profession's view of these matters, as the 
decision affects all documents, legal and otherwise, all letters and 
all bills that passed through parliament.

It seems to me the administrative inconvenience of such a 
post-editing of all such historical dates is riddled with lapses, and 
likely to cause confusion when some historians retrospectively change 
everything, some don't at all and some do one thing part of the time 
and another thing when they forget, and many are not aware of the 
issue at all.

The 'missing' 11 days in September 1752, only affects those days; the 
alternative affects every single date for hundreds of years in the past.

So, has the profession made a decision on this?  How many members of 
HES follow one or other of the conventions?

Thank you

Gavin Kennedy