USA > New York > New York City > Dutch New York (early history of the Dutch in New York) > Part 16
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26
Under Stuyvesant and Drisius, people were com- pelled to observe the Sabbath in the strict Mosaic fashion. The Director and Council issued several ordinances for the better observance of the Sabbath. The first of these, dated April 29, 1648, runs as follows :
On the Lord's day of rest, usually called Sunday, no person shall be allowed to do the ordinary and customary labors of his calling, such as Sowing, Mowing, Building, Sawing Wood, Smithing, Bleeching, Hunting, Fishing, or any works allowable on other days, under the penalty of One Pound Flemish, for each person so offending ; much less any idle or unallowed exercises and sports, such as Drinking to excess, frequenting Inns or Tap- houses, Dancing, Card-playing, Tick-tacking, Playing at ball, Playing at bowls, Playing at nine-pins, taking jaunts in Boats, Wagons, or Carriages, before, between, or dur- ing Divine Service, under the penalty of a double fine (Two Pounds, Flemish) ; and in order to prevent all
201
RELIGION
such accidents and injuries, there shall be a fine of Twelve Guilders for the first offence; Twenty-four Guilders for the second offence; and arbitrary correction for the third offence; the One-third for the Officers; One-third for the Poor; and the remaining One-third for the Prosecutor.
Many were the cases brought into court for breaking the Sunday laws, and many were the excuses of the defendants. Sometimes they plead ignorance of the law, and sometimes they break the law and pay the fines with callous indifference. Let us glance at the wickedness of a few of the sinners. Hendrick de Backer, of Fort Orange, 1660, was fined twelve guilders for bringing in a load of hay on Sunday, about the third tolling of the bell. In 1664, Manuel Sanderson, a negro, was fined six guilders and costs because his son had been found shooting pigeons in the woods on Manhattan Island on Sunday. Tiebout Wessels was fined for the same misdemeanor, and a certain Jan de Noper was complained of for resisting an officer who wanted to arrest him at the same time. Jan Bockholt, a herdsman, prayed for forgiveness, pleading ignorance of the law, but was fined twelve guilders and costs. The Fiscal also complained against Dame Gerritse, "who is famous for being a scold," for abusing the officer who had seized her son's gun while shooting pigeons on Sunday; and she was fined twelve guilders and costs. On the same court day an ordinance was issued " for the better and more careful instruction of youth in the principles of the Christian religion."
In 1667, the Schout says that Claes Dietlofs and Jan, the cake-baker, " rolled a barrel with maize along the street on last Sunday." He demands the fine accord- ing to Placard. "Defendants answer that they first came in the morning with a canoe, and that they durst
202
DUTCH NEW YORK
not trust it the whole day in a canoe." In 1663, Jacob Stoffels, Ide van Vorst, and other farmers were fined six guilders each for working on Sunday.
Judging by the ordinance of 1667, Sabbath breaking was deplorably common :
Whereas we experience to our grief, that the previously enacted and frequently renewed Placards and Ordinances against the desecration of the Sabbath of the Lord, the unlawful and unseasonable tapping on the same and after setting of the watch or drum beat, are not observed, but that many of the inhabitants almost make it a cus- tom, in place of observing the Sabbath, as it ought to be observed, to frequent the taverns more than on other days and to take their delight in illegal exercises, to prevent and obviate which hereafter as much as possible for the future, the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens renew the aforesaid Placards, enacted on that subject and hereby interdict and forbid within this City of N: Orange and the jurisdiction thereof from sunrise to sundown on Sun- day all sorts of handicraft, trade and traffick, gaming, boat-racing or running with carts or wagons, fishing, fowl- ing, running and picking nuts, strawberries, etc., all riot- ous racing, calling and shouting of children in the streets, together with all unlawful exercises and games, drunken- ness, frequenting taverns or taphouses, dancing, card- playing, ball playing, rolling nine pins or bowls, etc., which is more in vogue on this than on any other day; to prohibit and prevent which, all tavern keepers and tapsters are strictly enjoined to entertain no clubs on this day from sunrise to sunset, nor permit nor suffer any games in their houses or places, on pain for the tavern keeper, who shall be found to suffer such in his house, of forfeiting for the first offence 25 gl. for the second offence 50 gl. and for the 3ª offence he shall no longer be allowed to tap and moreover forfeit a fine of one hun- dred guilders zeawant; and each person found on Sun- day in a club or gaming house shall forfeit three guilders
THE PARROT CAGE JAN STEEN
203
RELIGION
zeawant; and if any children be caught on the street playing, racing and shouting, previous to the termina- tion of the last preaching, the officers of the law may take their hat or upper garment, which shall not be restored to the parents, until they have paid a fine of two guilders.
The intention of the above prohibition is not, that a stranger or citizen shall not buy a drink of wine or beer for the assuaging of his thirst, but only to prevent the sitting of clubs on the Sabbath, whereby many are hin- dered resorting to Divine Worship.
Further no tapsters, nor tavernkeepers shall tap, pre- sent or sell any wines, brandies, beer, etc., nor set any clubs on Sunday, nor on the night of any other day after setting of the watch or ringing of the bell, under the penalty and fine as above.
Special days of fasting and thanksgiving were fre- quently set apart. The first seems to have occurred during Director Kieft's rule, when a Fast Day was appointed, March 4, 1643, in consequence of the In- dian troubles, and a Thanksgiving Day on Sept. 6, 1645. His proclamation of Aug. 31, 1645, reads :
Whereas God Almighty has been pleased, by his grace and mercy, and in addition to the numerous blessings that we have enjoyed, to bestow on this country that long desired peace with the savages - so it has been deemed becoming to proclaim this good tidings throughout the New Netherlands, with the intention that in all places where there are any English or Dutch churches, God Almighty shall be thanked and praised, on the sixth day of September next in the forenoon. The words of the text must be applicable to the occasion and the sermon likewise.
Another day of special sanctity was the New Year, especially during Stuyvesant's administration, and on
204
DUTCH NEW YORK
March 24, 1653, the first Wednesday of each month was appointed a fast and prayer day.
Superstition was general in all creeds and classes. People believed in omens, signs, and prognostications, and in such antidotes as charms, amulets, and scapu- laries. Comets and eclipses of the sun and moon filled every one with fear, for they predicted war and other calamities, while earthquakes and thunderclaps were thought to be utterances of God's wrath. In every house was found The Wheel of Adventure, or the Spiritual Truth Sayer, Planet books, and the works of Ludeman. There were also fortune-tellers, who predicted the future by means of cards, reading the palm, coffee and tea grounds, etc. A very favorite method of divination was by turning the Bible. On April 6, 1662, George Hewel, Dr. Clarke, John Too, and Daniel East of Mespath, Long Island, were prose- cuted for having had recourse to turning the Bible in order to discover who had stolen tobacco from Wil- liam Britton. It would seem that they were led astray by a false prophet, for the individual accused by their investigations later brought an action for slander against them.
People believed in ghosts, in haunted places, in changelings, and, above all, in witches. No old women with wrinkled faces and no women of fascinating charms were safe from the accusation of witchcraft. Storms, barrenness of the land, disease of people and cattle, -- in short, every disaster, great and small, was attributed to witchcraft. If anybody wanted to know whether a sick person was ill or bewitched, the only thing to do was to cut open the pillow from under the head. If the feathers were changed into flowers or ferns, there was no doubt that he was touched by the evil hand. If one wanted to find out who had
205
RELIGION
done the evil act, all that was necessary was to put a live black hen or cock in a pot of boiling water, and the person who passed the door while the bird was crying was the witch. In early youth the children were already taught to believe in witchcraft, as appears from the following Dutch catechism :
Q. What is the second capital-sin? A. Witchcraft. Q. Does Witchcraft appear in God's Word? A. Yes. Q. Prove it. A. Exodus xii. vers. 22, and xxii. v. 18. Deuteronomy xviii. v. 10. Acts viii. v. 9. Q. Are there any people who say that there is no witchcraft? A. Yes. Q. Who are they? A. The " Sadducees " of this day and the Libertines amongst the so-called Christians, who be- lieve that all that is said of Satan and his work are fables and that everything that takes place is perfectly natural.
Witches were, of course, in league with Satan, changed themselves into cats, rode on broomsticks, and cast evil spells on man and beast; it was unsafe to take an apple or any other dainty from the hands of a witch, for, just as. likely as not, it would turn into a toad.
It seems somewhat strange that from the middle of the Seventeenth Century and during the Long Parliament (1640-1660), when the terrible " witch- finders" sent three thousand witches to death, and while the English settlements on South Hampton and East Hampton were sending their supposed witches to Connecticut for trial, no witches were persecuted in New Amsterdam. The Dutch and French churches of New Amsterdam protested, asserting that "the ap- parition of a person afflicting another is very insuffi- cient proof of a witch, and that a good name, obtained by a good life, should not be lost by mere 'spectral accusation.'" The only witchcraft trial ever held on
206
DUTCH NEW YORK
the island was that of Ralph Hall and his wife of Seatalcott, Long Island, under Governor Nichols in October, 1665. It took place at the City Hall, and both parties were discharged.
The authorities of New England, however, did not respect their more enlightened neighbors. No less a personage than Governor Stuyvesant's sister-in-law, the attractive Judith Varleth, was tried and held as a witch in Connecticut in 1662. This circumstance brought forth the following letter from Stuyvesant to the Deputy-Governor of the Court of Magistrates at Hartford in 1662:
Honoured and worthy sirs: By this occasion of my brother-in-law being necessitated to make a second voy- age to ayd a distressed sister, Judith Varlet, imprisoned, as we are informed upon pretended accusation of witch- ery, we really believe, and out of her well-known educa- tion, life, conversation and profession of faith, we dare assure, that she is innocent of such a horrible crimen, and, wherefore, I doubt not he will now, as formerly, finde your honour's favour and ayde for the innocent.
CHAPTER X
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE
T WO festivals were particularly honored among the Dutch, - the christening and the wed- ding. Parents began to provide for the future from the very birth of the child, and betrothals some- times took place while the babies were lying in the cradle; sometimes even alliances were determined be- fore birth. Gold coins and medals were accumulated for dowry, silver and jewels were collected, and coffers and chests filled with linen; and, as she grew up, the maiden spun and collected her linen, and made the lace collar and cuffs, her bridal gift to her future husband.
This custom of infant betrothal was naturally most prevalent in the upper classes, where wealthy alliances were of importance for political or business reasons ; but in the family of the average burgher considerable latitude of choice was allowed, and, as long as the pro- spective bride, or groom, was not absolutely objection- able to the parents on either side, the course of true love ran fairly smoothly. The custom known in this country as " bundling " prevailed in Holland as well as in England and Wales. As a rule, the more humble the class, the greater was the freedom of intercourse between the Dutch youth. Female virtue was a ques- tion of the highest solicitude with the Church, and the average morality of the Dutch housewife was very high. The mother set a good example and reposed almost
207
208
DUTCH NEW YORK
entire confidence in the daughter. This was the case in North Holland especially. Not only did the parents absent themselves when the lover visited their daughter, but they even allowed the lovers a separate room for courtship. These visits sometimes lasted five or six hours, and sometimes even until daybreak, without at- tracting the slightest attention. Not only did the parents allow this, but they even encouraged it. No girl was respected that did not have an honest queester (night visitor), and even widows received these visits. The laws of propriety were seldom trans- gressed, and assistance was always at hand at need. Sometimes the visitor was received in the parents' bedroom.
In South Holland, the daughters were strictly watched, and the church or a visit was the only means of forming an acquaintance. Lovers often had to resort to ruse to meet one another. The first meeting was generally effected by bribing the maidservant, or if there was no servant the girl's attention was at- tracted by fastening a flower, bouquet, or wreath on the front door. If this lay in the street the next morning, the lover was not disheartened, but replaced the flower by another with a ribbon tied round it, and sometimes he added a verse or motto. Later he would place on one of the window-sills of his sweetheart's room a prettily decorated basket filled with candy, or he would fasten this to a branch of a May-tree near the window. These baskets were followed by others with choice fruit and flowers, and rhymes and son- nets in which the lover expressed his feelings, and these were followed again by serenades. If upon a first visit the girl stood up, arranged her bonnet, and smoothed out her dress so as to make herself attractive, the lover knew he was welcome, but if she went to
COUNTRY HOUSE PIETER DE HOOCH
209
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE
the fireplace and gripped the tongs, he had to try his luck elsewhere.
To effect an introduction matchmakers were often hired. These were often the wet-nurses or the mid- wives. They had, according to the popular saying, to put "the door on the latch," and effect the first meeting, generally on Sundays at six o'clock. Each young man then chose his girl, at whose door he knocked at nine o'clock. If he came before nine, the door was not opened to him; if later, then it was thought that he had been disappointed at another girl's house; but the door was opened and the regular conversation fol- lowed, as is described in hundreds of Dutch books on love. On entering, the meeting at the church was discussed, and shortly after the lover left to tell the news to his comrades. Custom demanded that the young man should propose to the girl on three successive Sundays. In case he did not please, he received his refusal on the third Sunday, otherwise his visits were encouraged, and he then called earlier. The accepted lover was also allowed to call on Wednesdays, to take his sweetheart to Whitsuntide fêtes and to the kermis.
On examining the court records of New Amsterdam, we must conclude that many of the inhabitants were extremely lax in their compliance with and observa- tion of the laws of Fatherland. Several of those who described the customs of the province notice the loose ties among a large class of the inhabitants. The evil was evidently a serious one, because the following law was passed on Jan. 15, 1658 :
Persons whose banns have been published must marry within one month, or show cause to the contrary, under a penalty of 10 guilders for the first week and 20 guilders for each succeeding week.
No man or woman shall be at liberty to keep house as
I4
210
DUTCH NEW YORK
married persons, before they are legally married, on pain of forfeiting 100 guilders, more or less, as their quality shall be found to warrant, and all such persons may be amerced anew therefor every month, according to the order and custom of our Fatherland.
The binding nature of the betrothal in the eye of the law is evident from many entries in the records. A promise of marriage, given in the presence of others with the exchange of a pledge, generally in the form of a ring or a coin, was regarded as being as sacred as the marriage ceremony itself; and many suits for breach of promise of marriage were tried in the courts here. Thus, on May 17, 1644, Elsje Jans, widow of Jan Petersen, sued William Harlo for breach of prom- ise, producing a shilling which she had received from the fickle William, as a pledge of his troth. After hearing what he had to say, the court ordered him to bring proof that the lady had acted unbecomingly since the betrothal.
The offense in the eyes of the law was a very serious one in the case of the breaking of the engagement after the publication of the banns. For example, on April 5, 1658, Nicholas Albertsen, for deserting his ship and betrothed bride after publication of the banns, was sentenced to have his head shaved, then to be flogged, and have his ears bored, and to work two years with the negroes. Even when there would seem to be good cause for the non-fulfilment of the contract, the authorities were extremely unwilling to consent to its abrogation. Thus, in 1654, we read :
A suit has been instituted before the Court of the City of New Amsterdam by Pieter Kock, bachelor, against Anna van Vorst, spinster living at Ahasimus,1 respecting
1 In New Jersey.
2II
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE
a marriage contract, or an oral promise of marriage, mutually entered into between said Pieter Kock and Anna van Vorst, and in confirmation thereof certain gifts and presents were made by plaintiff to the aforesaid defend- ant; however, it appears by the documents exhibited by parties, that defendant, in consequence of certain misbe- haviour, is in no wise disposed to marry said Pieter Kock, and also proves by two witnesses that Pieter Cock had released her, with promise to give her a written acquittal to that effect, therefore Burgomasters and Schepens of this City, adjudge, that the promise of marriage having been made and given before the Eyes of God, shall re- main in force, so that neither plaintiff nor defendant shall be at liberty without the knowledge and approbation of the Worshipful Magistrates and the other one of the interested parties to enter into matrimony with any other person, whether single man or single woman. Also that all the presents made in confirmation of the promise of marriage shall remain in the possession of defendant, until parties with the pleasure, good will, contentment and inclination of both, shall marry together, or with the knowledge of the Magistracy shall release and set each other free.
Still more serious is a case in 1662:
Maria Besems made a written demand on the prop- erty of Boudewyn van Nieulant, absconded from here. " Whereas the said Boudewyn has acknowledged before this court to have given the aforesaid Maria Besems a written promise of marriage, the Burgomasters decree that she shall enter on all that the aforesaid Boudewyn has in this country, nothing excepted, for the payment of childbed expenses and the support of the child.
Parental consent was necessary for the publication of the banns and to render the marriage legal. . This is evident from a case which occurred in 1648; when William Harck, Sheriff of Flushing, having married
212
DUTCH NEW YORK'
Joan Smith, without her parents' consent, to Thomas Nuton, widower, was fined six hundred guilders and dismissed from office; the marriage was annulled. Nuton was fined three hundred guilders, and the mar- riage had to be again solemnized after three procla- mations. The second ceremony was performed thirteen days later.
Quite a romantic story is that of Maria Verleth and Johannes Van Beeck. It seems that there was great opposition on the part of the young man's father, and consequently they went into Connecticut and published their banns in Gravesend. This occasioned great ex- citement, for on Jan. 26, 1654, the " Schout appeared in Court and made a complaint of the illegal proceed- ings of the Court of Gravesend in setting up and affixing the bans of matrimony between Johan Van Beeck and Maria Verleth both of whom lived in New Amsterdam. This if allowed to pass might establish a precedent and prepare a way, whereby hereafter some sons and daughters unwilling to obey their par- ents and guardians, will, contrary to their wishes, secretly go and get married in such villages or else- where." A fortnight later, the Gravesend magistrates received a letter informing them that Johannes Van Beeck had presented a petition to the New Amsterdam Court to enter and properly proclaim his banns with Maria Verleth, who had previously made proclamation through the court at Gravesend, which was contrary to the style and laws of the Fatherland. In order to prevent future improprieties therefore they were in- formed that, " according to the custom of our Father- land every one shall have three publications at the place where his domicile is, and then he may go and be married wherever he pleases." On February 16, Casper Verleth, the bride's father, and Johannes van
1
213
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE
Beeck appeared in court and prayed most earnestly that disposal should be made of the petitions and re- monstrance concerning the marriage. Three days later, the court decided :
Regarding the bans of matrimony between Joh. van Beeck and Maria Verleth, therefore it being noted
First, Who in the beginning instituted marriage; also what the Apostle of the Gentiles teaches therein.
Secondly, The proper and attained ages of Johannes van Beeck and Marya Verleth.
Thirdly, The consent of the father and mother on the daughter's side.
Fourthly, the distance and remoteness of places between this and our Fatherland together with the difficulty be- tween Holland and England.
Fifthly, The danger that in such circumstances matters by long delay might come to be disclosed between these aforesaid young people, which would bring disgrace on both families, as well on one side as on the other
'T is true that our Theologians say, and that correctly, that we must not tolerate or permit lesser sins, in order thereby to avoid greater ones. Therefore we think (with due submission) that by a proper solemnization of mar- riage ( for the Apostle to the Hebrews calls the marriage bed honorable) the lesser and greater sins are prevented.
Therefore the Burgomasters and Schepens of this City are of opinion that the proper ecclesiastical proclama- tions of these aforesaid young people ought to be made at the earliest opportunity to be followed afterwards by their marriage.
Evidently the course of true love did not run smooth even yet; and so, after waiting weary months, the young couple took matters into their own hands and we hear that on Sept. 14, 1654, Maria Verleth ran away with Johannes van Beeck and was married at Green- wich, Connecticut by an unauthorized farmer, Goodman
214
DUTCH NEW YORK
Crab. Immediately the marriage was declared unlaw- ful, and the couple ordered to live apart. Maria Verleth came of a race of ladies who were strong of mind and strong of fist as well. Her mother, Judith Verleth (Mrs. Nicholas Bayard), was held for a witch in Connecticut after her husband's death. Maria had to fight her father-in-law in various lawsuits. In 1658, she was again married to P. Schrick, and for her third husband took William Teller, in 1664.
Even after divorce, the unoffending party could not marry again without permission from the authorities. In 1655, for example, John Hicks, of Flushing, re- ceived permission to remarry.
Judging from the numerous cases in the records, we must conclude that the marriage state in New Amster- dam was by no means a uniformly happy one, even among those in authority. Thus, in 1659, the Schout, Nicasius de Sille, petitioned for divorce and separation of marriage from Catharina Croegers on account of " her unbecoming and careless life, both by her wast- ing of property without his knowledge, as by her public habitual drunkenness."
The court's sympathy did not always go out towards the plaintiff. When, in 1652, Jacob Claessen demanded of his wife, Aeltje Dirrick, why she remained away from and would not live with him, " To prevent all trouble it was ordered that plaintiff remain imprisoned until the ships sail for Fatherland."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.