"Another heavy rain of all last night, and this whole day's continuance; which, whatever impediments it might occasion to our other affairs, was no hindrance to our celebration of the General's birth-day, as had been always the custom hitherto; and in the very same manner as we did last year, under the discharge of cannon, &c." And McCall, who has named December 21st, says, "I am indebted to the Encyclopedia Perthensis, and to the Journal of a private gentleman in Georgia, where his birth-day was celebrated, for the date which I have inserted."[1]
[Footnote 1: History of Georgia, Vol. I. p. 321.]
This assignment will tally with the other dates and their attendant circumstances; allow time, with becoming propriety, for finishing his education at the University; and show that he was not so precocious a soldier as has been represented, but that, instead of the juvenile age of eleven, he entered the army at the manly age of twenty-one.
Memorandum. This attempt to ascertain the exact age of Oglethorpe, was written in 1837. I have, since then, received the following letter, dated London, October 2d, 1840.
My Dear Sir.
In compliance with your request, I. have been, this morning,
to the vestry of St. James, Westminster, where I examined
the record of Oglethorpe's baptism, of which the following is
an exact copy in substance and form.
Bapt. | June 1689
2. | James Oglethorpe of Sir Theophilus and
| his lady Elinor, b. 1.
I certify that the above is a true extract from the Register
Book of Baptisms belonging to the Parish of St. James,
Westminster.
J.G. GIFFORD, Preacher and Assistant.
Hence it appears that Oglethorpe was born on the first of
June, 1669, and baptized on the second. I was assured by
Mr. Gifford that this is the true meaning of the record; and
I observed in the Register Book that other names were recorded
in like manner. There were several other baptisms the
same day, with different days of birth.
Most truly your friend and obedient servant,
JARED SPARKS.
This will be deemed decisive; though to me not entirely satisfactory. I think I see cause for questioning the "b.1." not their import, but their correctness: occasioned either for family reasons, or that the date given at the font either was not distinctly heard by the officiating clergyman, or misremembered at the time when the entry was made in the Book. Besides, there would seem no occasion for the presentation so immediately after the birth; for, according to custom, it is very unusual before the eighth day. On the other hand, from the statement of Nichols, Vol. II. p. 19, that of the children of Sir Theophilus, "the five eldest were born at St. James London," we may infer that JAMES, who was the sixth in the order of births in the family, was born at Godalming. This is proved, also, by Shaftoe's narrative, which mentions the going down of the mother to London, in consequence of the sickness and death of one of the nurslings. Now, though the main statement of that document may not be true, such an incidental circumstance as this, which has no direct bearing on "the vexed question," may be admitted. If, therefore, born at Godalming, he could not be taken to London, for baptism, on the day after his birth. And, admitting that his nativity was on the 21st of December, the season of the year alone would be sufficient reason for deferring the public ceremony till after the inclement weather, and the opportunity favored for having it in the Parish Church, where all the other children had been baptized.
After all, the fact that on the ninth of July, seventeen hundred and four, he was sixteen years old, as is testified on the Record of his admission into College, is incompatible with the date of June 1st, 1689, for the day of his birth, but consistent with that of December 21st, 1688.