New Jersey Journal 12 Nov 1788 — marriage notice Daniel Cooper Esq. of Long-Hill × Mrs. Gibb of New-Brunswick (3 Nov 1788)

Transcription and notes

Verbatim text of marriage notice

"On Monday evening the 3d inst. the torch of Hymen was lighted between Daniel Cooper, Esq. of Long-Hill, Morris county, and Mrs. Gibb, of New-Brunswick. The former aged 90, the latter 79, and what is very remarkable, this is the fifth helpmate Mr. Cooper has taken, — he is now very active and strong; mounts a horse and rides with agility; walks a distance and does not appear fatigued."

Data from the document

• Marriage date: Monday evening, the 3d inst. = Monday 3 November 1788 (= "inst." = current month, paper dated 12 Nov 1788)
• Groom: "Daniel Cooper, Esq. of Long-Hill, Morris county"
• Groom age: "aged 90"
• Bride: "Mrs. Gibb, of New-Brunswick"
• Bride age: "79"
• Marriage ordinal: "this is the fifth helpmate Mr. Cooper has taken" (= 5th wife)
• Description of Daniel Sr. at age 90: "very active and strong; mounts a horse and rides with agility; walks a distance and does not appear fatigued"

Other content on the page (non-Cooper-related, summarized)

The page contains two preceding news items: 1. British paper Sept. 5 report: Swedish frigate Bellona + 3 other frigates captured a 26-gun / 95-man store ship under Russian convoy in the north seas and carried it to Marstrand. Cargo = 128 cannons + ammunition + 2 silver table services (for the Admirals in the Black Sea — the Prince of Nassau and Paul Jones) + mahogany chairs + 200 suits of clothes for Russian troops. 2. Charleston paper report from Dunkirk: a "gentleman lately from Dunkirk" describes a "young man of quality" bitten by a mad dog whose convulsions were so violent he had to be carried in procession to the sea for bathing; bathing was unsuccessful; physicians consulted on "the most gentle manner of putting him to death"; bleeding agreed on and executed.

(Both unrelated to Cooper research; recorded for completeness of the page content.)

Critical new datum — bride's age 79 → b. ~1709

The newspaper specifies bride's age = 79 in November 1788 → calculated birth year ≈ 1709.

Discrepancy with Brode 1932 / catalog [p.280]

I.130 Brode 1932 p. 74 lists Daniel Sr's 5th wife as "Barbaty-Margaret Gibbs b. 1738 d. 1789", which the catalog has been using to construct p.280. If Mrs. Gibb's b. = ~1709 per this newspaper, Brode's "b. 1738" is off by ~29 years.

Three possible reconciliations

1. Newspaper age is correct, Brode's b. 1738 is wrong → Daniel Sr's 5th wife was b. ~1709 = age 79 in 1788. Brode 1932 was working from secondary-source-of-secondary-source ~144 years after the marriage and may have garbled or guessed the birth year. This interpretation makes the newspaper the senior primary source.
2. Brode's b. 1738 is correct, newspaper age is journalistic exaggeration → Bride was actually ~50 in 1788; newspaper inflated her age along with Daniel's "90" to maximize the "remarkable" framing for readers. Newspaper writers of the era did sometimes round ages up for dramatic effect.
3. Two different Mrs. Gibbs → Brode's "Barbaty-Margaret Gibbs b. 1738 d. 1789" is a different person than the "Mrs. Gibb of New-Brunswick" in this newspaper notice. The Richard Gibb 1778 will A.71 attests "Barbary Margreta" as Richard's wife in 1778, but if she was b. 1738 she'd have been ~50 in 1788, not 79. This would imply the catalog has been conflating two distinct Mrs. Gibbs.

Implications for Richard Gibb's wife identification

• If interpretation #1 → "Barbara Margreta" in Richard Gibb's 1778 will is a senior (= b. ~1709, age 69 in 1778 = a not-uncommon late-life 2nd marriage age for Richard) — consistent with the A.71 reading that Hannah Harriss + John Gibb were Richard's adult children from his 1st marriage to Catrine Van Imburg (m. 1737).
• If interpretation #2 → "Barbara Margreta" b. ~1738 = age 40 in 1778, age 50 in 1788; the "79" is dramatic embellishment.
• If interpretation #3 → the "Barbara Margreta" of A.71 ≠ "Mrs. Gibb of New-Brunswick" of J.152. Implies p.280's two-strand identification needs further investigation.

Catalog action

• Flag the discrepancy in p.280 with "b. ~1709 per J.152" as alternative birth year.
• Update p.1 Marriages table with citation to J.152 (= upgrade from NJ Journal 12 Nov 1788 text reference to verbatim-on-disk).
• Maintain Brode b. 1738 as alternative; mark as [unresolved] in p.280.

Daniel Sr's age at marriage

Newspaper states Daniel = 90 in Nov 1788 → b. ~1698. - Catalog has Daniel Sr b. 1695 per p.1. - If b. Jan 1695 → age 93 in Nov 1788 (3 years older than newspaper claim). - If b. late 1698 → age 90 in Nov 1788 (exact match). - Newspaper age may be (a) slightly rounded, (b) Daniel self-reported his age inaccurately, OR (c) Daniel was actually b. closer to 1698 than 1695. - Note: Daniel Sr's gravestone-attested d. 1795 at "age 100" per Brode = b. 1695, but if he was age 90 in Nov 1788 the "100 at death" framing also rounded up by ~3 years.

Catalog cross-references

• p.1 Daniel Cooper Sr 1695-1795 — primary groom subject; Marriages row #5 cites this source
• p.280 Barbara Margaretta Gibb Cooper — primary bride subject; b. 1738 vs b. ~1709 discrepancy
• I.130 Brode 1932 — secondary-published-secondary identification of bride as "Barbaty-Margaret Gibbs b. 1738 d. 1789"
• A.71 Richard Gibb 1778 will — primary-source-attests "Barbary Margreta" as Richard's wife pre-1786
• pr.8 Daniel Sr life events — = active project tracking Daniel Sr's marriages

Follow-up

• Update p.280 born field to flag b. 1709 vs b. 1738 discrepancy
• Update p.1 Marriages table row #5 source-grade to include J.152 verbatim reference
• Locate the NJ Journal Elizabeth-Town NJ issues 12-26 Nov 1788 for any follow-up notices on Daniel Sr × Mrs. Gibb (= obit, errata, or further detail). Newspaper not on disk for adjacent issues.
• Cross-check Brode 1932 I.130 p. 74 source-of-data trail for "Barbaty-Margaret Gibbs b. 1738 d. 1789" — what was Brode's primary source? If Brode was working from family Bible or stone, "b. 1738" may be more reliable than the newspaper's "79". If Brode was estimating from a marriage record alone, "b. 1738" is likely guess.