Historical and biographical sketches/06 Abraham and Dirck op den Graeff

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Talking of old home scenes, op den Graaff
Teased the low backlog with his shodden staff,
Till the red embers broke into a laugh
And dance of flame, as if they fain would cheer
The rugged face, half tender, half austere,
Touched with the pathos of a homesick tear!”

The history of Pennsylvania is as yet unwritten. When the typical American of to-day, momentarily wearied with the chase after wealth, an establishment, horses, a footman, and all those things which represent his conception of prosperity and practical happiness, stops to inquire, if ever he does, concerning the men who founded his country, who they were and whence they came, and what were the causes which have influenced the development of its civilization, his thoughts invariably turn toward Massachusetts. Plymouth rock looms up before him vast and imposing, but the Delaware flows by unheeded. He is familiar with the story of the Mayflower, and her burden of strange folk destined to a barren shore is impressed vividly upon his imagination, but of the Welcome which sailed over the same sea, bearing a purer people to a better land, he has never heard a whisper. Why the chroniclers, who have so energetically and successfullv tilled the one field, should neglect the other, it is difficult to understand. Surely there is enough of romance to please the fancy, and much food for rugged thought, in the career of that son of a fighting old English admiral, who forsook the paths which seemingly led direct to fame and fortune, and, assuming the quaint ways and plain garb of a despised sect, preached its peaceful faith. Caleb Pusey, going out unarmed into the forest to meet a threatened attack of the savages, is a more heroic figure than blustering Miles Standish, girt with the sword he fought with in Flanders. Lloyd, Logan, and Pastorius, trained in the schools of Europe, and versed in all the learning of their day, were men whose peers are rarely found among colonists. The Quaker, the Mennonite and the Moravian, mindful of how their fathers were harried from place to place with the prison behind and the stake threatening before, bringing across the ocean with them their Bibles and often nothing else, with hearts warm enough and a creed broad enough to embrace the religious wayfarer and wanderer, as well as the negro and Indian, contrast favorably with the narrow and intolerant Puritan whose hand fell heavily upon all of different race, habits or belief from his own. Unfortunately, however, the German has been hard to assimilate, the Quaker repressed tendencies which seemed to him to partake of the vanities of the world, and the descendants of both have been slow to grope with the lamp of the historian amid the lives of their forefathers. Much which ought to have been preserved has therefore been irretrievably lost; but there still remain in neglected and out of the way places rich harvests to be garnered by the future investigator, when a higher culture and the growth of a more correct taste have taught him their value. After all the materials have been gathered and winnowed so that the true measure of the influence which has been exerted by the Quaker may be ascertained, he will thenceforth occupy the conspicuous position in the annals of the country to which he is entitled, but which he has as yet scarcely begun to attain.

Of recent years, since the long-continued struggle with slavery in the United States ended in its overthrow during the rebellion, the protest against that institution sent by four German Friends of Germantown to the quarterly meeting in 1688, which was the first glimmering of the dawn of the contest, has grown to be famous. The men who prepared and signed this remarkable document slumbered in almost undisturbed obscurity until the scholarly Seidensticker published his sketches, and Whittier using the material thus collected, gave the name of Pastorius to the world in his beautiful poem. It is a little sad that Pastorius, whose life in America was spent here and who belonged to a mental and moral type entirely our own, should become celebrated as the Pennsylvania Pilgrim, as if he could only obtain appreciation by the suggestion of a comparison with the men who landed at Plymouth; but no poet arose along the Schuylkill to tell the tale, and we must recognize with gratitude, if with regret, how fittingly others have commemorated the worth of one whom we neglected.

It is the purpose of this article to gather into one sheaf such scattered and fragmentary facts concerning the lives of two others of those four signers as have survived the lapse of nearly two hundred years. In the council of the Mennonite Church which set forth the eighteen articles of their confession of faith at the city of Dordrecht, April 21st, 1632, one of the two delegates from Krevelt or Crefeld was Hermann op den Graeff. Of the antecedents of this Hermann, nothing is known.[2] A tradition, current among some of the descendants, asserts that the family were French-Germans, but the name itself would seem to indicate a Dutch origin. A recent able writer upon the subject has suggested the query as to how far the founders of the Quakers were familiar with the doctrines of the German Anabaptists, and intimates the opinion that the former sect was an outgrowth of the latter.[3] At all events, the plainness of dress and of speech, the opposition to warfare, lawsuits, and the taking of oaths, and others points of resemblance, rendered a transition from the one belief to the other comparatively easy, so that George Fox, Robert Barclay, and William Penn, found little difficulty in the establishment of Friends' meetings along the Rhine. The testimony of the yearly meeting at Amsterdam, 5 mo., 1693, says of Stephen Crisp, a noted preacher, that “In the year 1667 he visited the small company of Friends then living at a place called Kreysheim in the Palatinate,” and “Another time he made a journey into the County of Meurs to the town of Crevel, where a meeting was set up.” A priori we would expect the first German emigrants to Pennsylvania to come from these towns, as was the case; and if we should make the farther inference that they were among the attendants at these Quaker meetings, we would probably not be far from the truth. When Pastorius had concluded to cross the ocean, in order, as he says, “to lead a quiet and Christian life,” he visited during April, 1683, a number of his friends, to endeavor to persuade them to accompany him. At Cologne he found an acquaintance named Dotzen, who was willing, but he could not obtain the consent of his wife. The reasons she gave for declining were, that at home she went from place to place in a carriage, but in America “must she perhaps look after the cattle and milk her cows.” Madame Dotzen was evidently a clear-headed woman, who was too wise to exchange her present advantages and comforts for the uncertainties of a distant wilderness. From Urdingen he went to Crefeld on foot, and there talked with Thones Kunders and his wife, and with Dirck, Hermann, and Abraham up den Graeff, three brothers, who were grandsons of the Mennonite delegate. Did they have some dim and vague consciousness of the great work which they and their children under the guidance of Providence were to perform? Was it given to them to catch a glimpse of what that little colony, planted in an unknown land thousands of miles away, was in the course of a few generations to become, or was the hope of a religious peace alone sufficient to calm their doubts and allay their fears? Six weeks later they followed Pastorius. At Rotterdam, on the way, on the 11th of June, they bought jointly from Jacob Telner two thousand acres of land to be laid out in Pennsylvania. On the 6th of October, 1683, together with Lenart Arets, Thones Kunders, Reynier Tyson, Willem Streypers, Jan Lensen, Peter Keurlis, Jan Seimens, Johannes Bleikers, Abraham Tunes and Jan Lucken, their wives, cliildren and servants, in all thirteen families, they arrived in Philadelphia. On the 24th, in Germantown, they all drew lots for their respective locations, and immediately began to build the huts and dig the caves in which, with, as may be imagined, considerable inconvenience, they passed the following winter. Germantown was laid out into fifty-five lots of fifty acres each, running along upon both sides of the main street, and in 1689 Dirck op den Graeff owned the second lot on the west side going north, Hermann the third, and Abraham the fourth, with another half lot further to the northward. All three were weavers of linen. Richard Frame, in a description of Pennsylvania in verse, published in 1692, refers to Germantown:

Where lives High German People and Low Dutch
Whose Trade in weaving Linnen Cloth is much.
There grows the Flax, as also you may know
That from the same they do divide the tow;”

and Gabriel Thomas, in his account of the “Province and Country of Pennsylvania,” published in 1698, says they made “very fine German Linen, such as no person of Quality need be ashamed to wear.” It may be fairly claimed for Abraham op den Graeff that he was the most skilled of these artisans, doing even more that his part to have the town merit its motto of “Vinum Linum et Textrinum” since on the 17th of 9th month, 1686, his petition was presented to the Provincial Council, “for ye Govr's promise to him should make the first and finest pece of linnen cloath.”[4] Upon a bond given by him to John Gibb in 1702 for 38l. 5s., afterward assigned to Joseph Shippen, and recorded in the Germantown book, are, among others, these items of credit: “Cloth 32 yds @ 3s, 6d.” and “36¼ Linning @ 4s,” showing the prices at which these fabrics were valued.

On the 12th of 6th month, 1689, Penn issued to Dirck op den Graeff, Abraham op den Graeff, Hermann op den Graeff, called “Towne President,” and eight others, a charter for the incorporation of Germantown, and directed Dirck, Hermann, and Thones Kunders to be the first burgesses, and Abraham, with Jacob Isaacs Van Bebber, Johannes Kassel, Heifert Papen, Hermann Bon and Dirck Van Kolk to be the first committee-men. The bailiff and two eldest burgesses were made justices of the peace.[5] This charter, however, did not go into effect until 1691. Under it, afterward, Dirck was bailiff in the years 1693 and 1694, and Abraham a burgess in 1692. Abraham was also elected a member of the Assembly for the years 1689, 1690 and 1692, sharing with Pastorius, who held the same position in 1687, the honor of being the only Germantown settlers who became legislators.

Their strongest claim, however, to the remembrance of future generations, is based upon the protest hitherto referred to, signed by Gerhard Hendricks, Dirck op den Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius and Abraham op den Graeff. This historic document may be seen in the Grundung von Germantown — a work which should be made more accessible — Watson's Annals, Evan's Friends in the XVII. Century, and other books, but in all, except the first, the name of Abraham is found distorted by an original misprint, which is ever faithfully copied, and almost destroys its identity. Two hundred years have added few arguments and little strength to the objections which it urges.

“Now, though they are black, we cannot conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves than it is to have other white ones.”

“Or have these poor negers not as much right to fight for their freedom as you have to keep them slaves?”

“Now, what is this better done than Turks do? Yea, rather is it worse for them which say they are Christians.”

The opinions of the writers are expressed in a sturdy and vigorous language, which, under the circumstances, was certainly remarkable. “But, to bring men hither, or to rob or sell them against their will, we stand against.”

It is probable, from the learning and ability of Pastorius, that he was the author of this protest, though there is no positive evidence of the fact; but it is reasonably certain that Dirck op den Graeff bore it to the quarterly meeting at Richard Worrall's, and his is the only name mentioned in connection with its presentation to the yearly meeting, to which it was referred as a topic of too much importance to be considered elsewhere. Perhaps, also, it should be observed that among the signatures, his name precedes that of Pastorius, so that if any significance whatever attaches to this circumstance, it may not be forgotten.

A short time after this earnest expression of humanitarian sentiment had been laid away among neglected records, awaiting a more genial air and a stronger light in which to germinate, events of seemingly much more moment occurred to claim the attention of the Society of Friends. George Keith, whose memory is apostatized by them, and revered by Episcopalians, who had been one of the earliest and most effective of their preachers, began to differ with many of the leading members of the Society concerning questions of doctrine. In the nature of things, the defection of a man of such prominence was followed by that of many others. Dispension was introduced into the meetings and division and discord into families. In a quiet and peaceable way the warfare was waged very bitterly and many harsh things were said softly. Dirck op den Graeff adhered to the cause of the Friends, but Abraham and Hermann were among the disaffected, and the three brothers seem to have become more deeply involved in the controversy than any of the other Germans. The numerous public discussions which were held only served to confirm each faction in the correctness of its own rendering of the Scriptures; the Friends who were sent to deal with George privately and to indicate to him whither he was tending made little progress; and the difficulty having become too great to be appeased, twenty-eight ministers presented a paper of condemnation against him at the monthly meeting at Frankford. Dirck op den Graeff, a magistrate in the right of his position as a burgess of Germantown, was present at the meeting and must in some way have shown an interest in the proceedings, since Keith called him publicly “an impudent Rascal.” Most unfortunate words! Uttered in a moment of thoughtless wrath, and repeated in the numerous pamphlets and broadsides which the occasion called forth, they returned again and again to plague their author. Beaten out in the fervor of religious and polemic zeal, they were construed to impliedly attack the civil government in the person of one of its trusted officers. Ere long, in reply to the testimony against Keith, the celebrated William Bradford printed “An appeal from the twenty-eight Judges to the Spirit of Truth and true Judgment in all faithful Friends called Quakers that meet at this yearly meeting at Burlington, 7 mo., '92,” signed by George Keith, George Hutcheson, Thomas Budd, John Hart, Richard Dungwoody and Abraham op den Graeff. The Appeal is, in the main, an attempt to submit to the people the question which had been decided against Keith by the Ministers as to whether the inner light was not alone insufficient, but it closes with the following pointed and pertinent queries:

“9. Whether the said 28 persons had not done much better to have passed Judgment against some of their Brethren at Philadelphia (some of themselves being deeply guilty) for countenancing and allowing some called Quakers, and owning them in so doing, to hire men to fight (and giving them a Commission so to do, signed by three Justices of the Peace called Quakers, one whereof being a Preacher among them) as accordingly they did, and recovered a Sloop, and took some Privateers by force of arms?

“10. Whether hiring men thus to fight, and also to provide the Indians with Powder and Lead to fight against other Indians is not a manifest Transgression of our principle against the use of the carnal Sword and other carnal Weapons? Whether these called Quakers in their so doing have not greatly weakened the Testimony of Friends in England, Barbadoes, &c., who have suffered much for their refusing to contribute to uphold the Militia, or any Military force? And whether is not their Practice here an evil President, if any change of government happen in this place, to bring Sufferings on faithful Friends, that for Conscience sake refuse to contribute to the Militia? And how can they justly refuse to do that under another's Government, which they have done or allowed to be done under their own? But in these and other things we stand up Witnesses against them, with all faithful Friends everywhere.

“11. Whether it be according to the Gospel that Ministers should pass sentence of Death on Malefactors, as some pretended Ministers here have done, preaching one day Not to take an Eye for an Eye (Matt. v. 38), and another day to contradict it by taking Life?

“12. Whether there is any Example or President for it in Scripture, or in all Christendom, that Ministers should engross the worldly Government, as they do here? which hath proved of a very evil tendency.”[6]

There was enough of truth in the intimations contained in these queries to make them offensive and disagreeable. According to the account of it given by Caleb Pusey, an opponent of Keith, in his “Satan's Harbinger Encountered,” when Babbitt had stolen the sloop and escaped down the river, the three magistrates issued a warrant in the nature of a hue and cry, and a party of men went out in a boat and captured the robbers. As they were about to depart, Samuel Carpenter, a leading and wealthy Friend, stood up on the wharf and promised them one hundred pounds in the event of success. Doubtless they used some force; but to call them militia, and the warrant a commission, was, to say the least for it, quite ingenious on the part of Keith. The Appeal had the effect of converting what had hitherto been purely a matter of Church into one of State. Bradford and John McComb was arrested and committed for printing it, but were afterward discharged. Keith and Budd were indicted before the grand jury, tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of five pounds each. These proceedings caused as much excitement as our placid forefathers were capable of feeling, and became the subject of universal comment. The justices, Arthur Cooke, Samuel Jennings, Samuel Richardson, Humphrey Murray, Anthony Morris, and Robert Ewer met in private session on the 25th of 6 mo., 1692, and issued the following proclamation of warning and explanation:

“Whereas, the government of this Province, being by the late King of England's peculiar favor, vested and since continued in Governor Penn, who thought fit to make his and our worthy friend, Thomas Lloyd, his Deputy Governor, by and under whom the Magistrates do act in the government, and whereas it hath been proved before us that George Keith, being a resident here, did, contrary to his duty, publicly revile the said Deputy Governor by calling him an impudent man, telling him he was not fit to be a Governor, and that his name would stink, with many other slighting and abusive expressions, both to him and the magistrates: (and he that useth such exorbitancy of speech towards our said Governor, may be supposed will easily dare to call the Members of Council and Magistrates impudent Rascals, as he hath lately called one in an open assembly, that was constituted by the Proprietary to be a Magistrate) and he also charged the Magistrates who are Magistrates here, with engrossing the magisterial power into their hands, that they might usurp authority over him: saying also, he hoped in God, he should shortly see their power taken from them: All which he acted in an indecent manner.

“And further, the said George Keith, with several of his adherents, having some few days since, with unusual insolence, by a printed sheet called an Appeal, etc., traduced and vilely misrepresented the industry, care, readiness, and vigilance of some magistrates and others here, in their late proceedings against the privateers Babbitt and his crew, in order to bring them then to condign punishment, whereby to discourage such assemblies for the future; and have thereby defamed and arraigned the determination of the principal judicature against Murderers; and not only so, but also by wrong insinuations have laboured to possess the readers of their pamphlet, that it is inconsistent for those who are Ministers of the Gospel to act as Magistrates, which if granted, will render our said proprietary incapable of the powers given him by the King's letters patent, and so prostitute the validity of every act of government, more especially in the executive part thereof, to the courtesie and censure of all factious spirits, and malcontents under the same.

“Now forasmuch as we, as well as others, have borne and still do patiently endure the said George Keith and his adherents in their many personal reflections against us and their gross revilings of our religious Society, yet we cannot (without the violation of our trust to the King and governor, as also to the inhabitants of this government) pass by or connive at, such part of the said pamphlet and speeches, that have a tendency to sedition and disturbance of the peace, as also to the subversion of the present government, or to the aspersing of the magistrates thereof. Therefore for the undeceiving of all people, we have thought fit by this public writing not only to signify that our procedure against the persons now in the Sheriff's custody, as well as what we intend against others concerned (in its proper place) respects only that part of the said printed sheet which appears to have the tendency aforesaid, and not any part relating to differences in religion, but also these are to caution such who are well affected to the security, peace and legal administration of justice in this place that they give no countenance to any revilers and contemners of authority, magistrates or magistracy, as also to warn all other persons that they forbear the further publishing and spreading of the said pamphlets, as they will answer the contrary at their peril.”[7]

“What we intend against others concerned,” would seem to imply that a bolt was being forged over the heads of Abraham op den Graeff and the remaining three signers of the insolent pamphlet; but it was never discharged. The yearly meeting at Burlington disowned Keith, and this action the yearly meeting at London confirmed. Dirck op den Graeff was one of those who signed the testimony against him and one of those giving a certificate to Samuel Jennings, who went to London to represent his opponents. Hermann op den Graeff, on the other hand, was among a minority of sixty-nine, who issued a paper at the yearly meeting at Burlington, favoring him. The results of this schism were extensive and grave. It placed a weapon in the hands of the enemies of Friends which they used in Europe, as well as here, without stint. Ecclesiastically it led to the foundation of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. Politically it threatened to change the destinies of a Commonwealth, since it was one of the principal reasons assigned for depriving Penn of the control of his province.

The incorporation of Germantown rendered necessary the opening of a court. In its records may be traced the little bickerings and contentions which mark the darker parts of the characters of these goodly people. Its proceedings conducted with their simple and primitive ideas of judicature, written in their quaint language, are both instructive and entertaining, since they show what manner of men these were, whose worst faults appear to have consisted in the neglect of fences and the occasional use of uncomplimentary adjectives. From among them is extracted whatever, during the course of about thirteen years, relates to the op den Graeffs.

1696. “The 3d day of the 9th month, before the persons constituting this Court of Record, proclamation was made and the overseers of the fences did present as insufficient the fence of Hermann op den Graeff, Abraham op den Graeff, Isaac Jacobs, Johannes Pottinger, Lenert Arets and Reinert Tyson.”

“The 6th day of the 9th month, after proclamation, the overseers of the fences being appointed to appear before this Court, did present as yet insufficient the fence of Hermann op den Graeff, Abraham op den Graeff, Isaac Jacobs and Johannes Pottinger.”

“James de la Plaine, Coroner, brought into this court the names of the jury which he summoned the 24th day of 4th month, 1701, viz.: Thomas Williams, foreman; Peter Keurlis, Hermann op den Graeff, Reiner Peters, Peter Shoemaker, Reiner Tyson, Peter Brown, John Umstat, Thomas Potts, Reiner Hermans, Dirk Johnson, Hermann Tunes. Their verdict was as followeth: We, the jury, find that through carelessness the cart and the lime killed the man; the wheel wounded his back and head, and it killed him.”

1700-1. “The 7th day of the 9th month, Abraham op de Graeff and Peter Keurlis were sent for to answer the complaints made against their children by Daniel Falckner and Johannes Jawert, but the said Abraham op de Graeff being not well and Peter Keurlis gone to Philadelphia, this matter was left to the next session.”

20th of 11th month, 1701. “The sheriff complains against Abraham op de Graeff's son Jacob, for having taken a horse out of his custody. The said Jacob answers that he brought the horse thither again. The Court fined him half a crown, besides what his father is to pay the sheriff according to the law of this corporation.”

“The sheriff, Jonas Potts, gave Abraham op de Graeff the lie for saying that the said sheriff agreed with Matthew Peters to take for his fees 7s. 6d., which upon acknowledgment was forgiven and laid by.”

December 28th, 1703. “Abraham op de Graeff did mightly abuse the Bailiff in open court, wherefore he was brought out of it to answer for the same at the next Court of Record.”

21st of 1st month, 1703-4. “Abraham op de Graeff being formerly committed by James de la Plaine, Bailiff, for several offences mentioned in the mittimus, and the said Abraham having further, with many injurious words, abused the now Bailiff Arent Klincken in open Court of Record, held here at Germantown, the 28th day of December, 1703, was fined by this present Court the sum of two pounds and ten shillings, and he to remain in the Sheriff's custody until the said fine and fees be satisfied.” 13th of 4th month, 1704. “The action of Mattheus Smith against Abraham op de Graeff was called and the following persons attested as jurymen, viz.: Paul Wolff, Tunes Kunders, William Strepers, Dirk Jansen, Jr., John Van de Wilderness, Dirk Jansen, Sr., Walter Simens, Henry Tubben, John Smith, Lenert Arets, Hermannus Kuster and Cornelius Dewees. The declaration of Matthew Smith being read, the answer of the defendant was that he proffered pay to the plaintiff, but that he would not accept of it, and brings for his evidences Edward Jerman and Joseph Coulson, who were both attested and said that Abraham op den Graeff came to the ordinary of Germantown, where Matthew Smith was and told to the said Smith that he should come along with him and receive his pay, and that he said Abraham had scales at home; but Smith did not go. The plaintiff asked the said German and Coulston whether they heard the defendant proffer any kind of payment; they both said no. The jury's verdict was as followeth: The jury understand that Matthew Smith refused the payment which Abraham has offered, the said Matthew is guilty; but Abraham must pay the sum which the arbitrators had agreed upon. Paul Wolff, foreman.”

October 3d, 1704. “The action of Abraham op den Graeff, against David Sherkes, for slandering him, the said Abraham, that no honest man would be in his company, was called, and the bond of the said David Sherkes and Dirck Keyser, Sr., for the defendant's appearing at this Court was read; the cause pleaded, and as witnesses were attested Dirck Keyser, Sr., Dirck Keyser, Jr., Arnold Van Vosen and Hermann Dors, whereupon the jury brought in their verdict thus: We of the jury find for the defendant. The plaintiff desired an appeal, but when. he was told he must pay the charges of the Court and give bond to prosecute he went away and did neither.”

Dirck died about May, 1697, leaving a widow Nilcken or Nieltje, but probably no children. Hermann, about September 29th, 1701, removed to Kent county, in the “Territories,” now the State of Delaware, and died before May 2d, 1704. In a deed made by Abraham in 1685 there is a reference to his “hausfrau Catharina,” and May 16th, 1704, he and his wife Trintje sold their brick house in Germantown. Soon afterward he removed to Perkiomen, and traces of the closing years of his life are very meagre. Of the two thousand acres purchased by the three brothers from Telner, eight hundred and twenty-eight were located in Germantown and sold, and the balance, after the deaths of Dirck and Hermann, vested in Abraham through the legal principle of survivorship. He had them laid out in the Dutch Township fronting on the Perkiomen, where he was living April 6th, 1710, and where he died before March, 25th, 1731. On the 27th of August, 1709, he gave to his daughter Margaret and her husband Thomas Howe, a tailor of Germantown, three hundred acres of this land. In consideration of the gift Howe “doth hereby promise to maintain the within named Abraham op den Graeff if he should want livelihood at any time during his life, and to attend upon him and be dutiful to him.” It is to be hoped that this covenant was more faithfully kept than sometimes happens with such promises when men in their old age drop the reins into other hands. His children beside Margaret, were Isaac, Jacob, and Anne, wife of Hermann In de Hoffen. In their youth he sent Isaac and Jacob to school to Pastorius. It is probable that after the Keith difficulty he did not renew his association with the Friends, and that his remains lie with those of the In de Hoffens (Dehaven) in the Mennonite graveyard on the Skippack near Evansburg. His name has been converted into Updegraff, Updegrave and Updegrove, but those who bear it are not numerous.

The fine traits of character displayed by the German settlers of Pennsylvania in their fortitude under persecution abroad, and their persistent energy in overcoming the difficulties they encountered in a new land, among a strange people, speaking a different language, have met with little recognition. Their peculiarities have attracted more attention than their thrifty habits and correct morals. The events of their lives, though they might often teach a lesson well worthy of our remembrance, have been buried in oblivion. And a hard fate, more malicious in its mischievousness than the gnomes of their native mountains, has, in many instances, by awkward and grotesque attempts at anglicization, which leave no traces of the original, obliterated their very names from the face of the earth.[8]

  1. Many of the facts contained in this article have been obtained from Seidensticker's “Pastorius und die Grundung von Germantown.”
  2. When this article was written I had no knowledge of the Scheuten genealogy. That valuable MS. says that Hermann op den Graeff was born November 26th, 1585, at Aldekerk a village near the borders of Holland. He moved to Crefeld, and there married a Mennonite girl, Grietjen Pletjes daughter of Driessen, August 16th, 1605. He died December 27th, 1642, and she died January 7th, 1643. They had eighteen children, among whom was Isaac who was born February 28th 1616, and died January 17th, 1679. He had four children Hermann, Abraham, Dirck and Margaret all of whom emigrated to Germantown.
  3. Authoress of the Pennsylvania Dutch.
  4. Colonial records. Vol. i, p. 193.
  5. Pennsylvania Archives. Vol. i, p. 3.
  6. A mutilated copy of this Appeal is in the Friends' library on Arch street above Third.
  7. Smith's History in Hazard's Register, Vol. vi., p. 281.
  8. For example: Bromberg has become Brownback, Bosshardt is now Buzzard, and Rieser, a giant, is changed into Razor.