“Introduction” in “Detailed Reports on the Salzburger Emigrants Who Settled in America . . .: Volume Six, 1739”
Introduction
THE following reports, which cover the year 1739, were written by Johann Martin Boltzius and, during his absence or sickness, by his assistant, Israel Christian Gronau, the Lutheran ministers assigned to the Salzburger exiles at Ebenezer in the colony of Georgia. For information about the expulsion of the Protestants from Salzburg in 1731 and the reception and settlement of some two hundred of them in Georgia the reader is directed to the introductions of the previous volumes of this series and to that of Henry Newman’s Salzburger Letterbooks.1
The reports for the year 1738 indicate that, having moved from the sterile and isolated spot where they first settled to the more fertile and accessible Red Bluff on the Savannah River, the Georgia Salzburgers were at last self-sustaining. The health conditions at New Ebenezer were still just as bad, however; and the mortality rate remained high. Nevertheless, those who had survived years of malaria, dysentery, and other illnesses had enough antibodies to resist them further; and they continued to function despite constant sickness. It was the new arrivals who now suffered the high mortality previously suffered by the first settlers. The population of New Ebenezer (or Ebenezer, as the new town began to be called, as the older settlement disappeared from map and memory) gradually increased through the addition of other Salzburgers, who had found refuge in Protestant cities of South Germany, and of indentured “Palatines” from Savannah.
This volume continues in the same style as the earlier ones with only minor changes. For the sake of simplicity, footnotes are now numbered according to the month rather than numbered throughout. The old, mostly Latin, names of the days of the church calendar are increasingly modernized: for example, Dominica Oculi is rendered as the 3rd Sunday in Lent and Dominica Laetare is rendered as the 4th Sunday in Lent. Since hymns usually have no true title but are identified by their opening line, however meaningless it may be out of context (especially when translated), the titles (i.e. opening lines) of hymns are given in German, and an alphabetical list is provided in Appendix I. Because the surname of the Jewish convert Johann Gottlieb Christ causes confusion in certain contexts, his Christian name is inserted to distinguish him from Jesus Christ (whose epithet in German is Christus, and therefore not in danger of being confused with the surname Christ).
As in the previous volumes, the word “Fathers” is capitalized when referring to the Salzburgers’ spiritual sponsors or “Reverend Fathers”: Gotthilf August Francke, Samuel Urlsperger, and Friedrich Michael Ziegenhagen. It will be noticed that Boltzius never uses the Salzburgers’ Christian names except to distinguish between two of them bearing the same surname, and even then he prefers to call them “the older” or “the younger,” when that is applicable. New readers are advised that, to economize on footnotes, all proper names are identified in the index.
Boltzius uses pronouns peculiarly: for example, he says he loves Kalcher and receives much good from him and her (her being Mrs. Kalcher, of course!). Incidentally, Boltzius never designates the Salzburger women as “Mrs.” (Frau), that title being reserved for women of quality. Instead, he uses the feminine ending in (e.g., die Schweigerin, die Spielbieglerin), a suffix which has confused many historians and genealogists, who mistake it for a part of the family name. Since English has no feminine ending for this purpose, this translation uses the titles “Mrs.” and “Miss,” as modern usage would require. Boltzius also says that, while he was talking to a certain man, another woman came into the room; and he also speaks consistently of the “oldest” of two people. Like the good preacher that he was, he loved redundancy, since a thing repeated twice is easier to understand and comprehend and also easier to remember and recollect. Consequently, we find tautologies like “slothful and lazy” (lass und träge), “guide and lead” (leiten und führen), and “absence and short separation” (Abwesenheit und kurtze Entfernung). Like other preachers, Boltzius was fond of using triads of words: for example, in the short entry for 22 April we find four of them: “faith, love, and joy,” “instruction, edification, and imitation,” “acquaintance, company, and instruction,” and “thoughts, wishes, and resolutions.”
A reader unfamiliar with the technical jargon of the Pietists must pay close attention to terms like “external” (äusserlich), “external respectability” (äusserliche Ehrbarkeit), “legalistic” (gesetzlich), “legalistic anxiety” (gesetzliche Unruhe), “temptation” (Anfechtung), “honest” (ehrlich), “miserable” (elend), and “civil righteousness” (bürgerliche Gerechtigkeit), many of which will be explained a few paragraphs below or else in the notes.
As mentioned in previous volumes, Samuel Urlsperger took great liberties in editing Boltzius’ reports, as editors often did in the eighteenth century; and his Ausführliche Nachricht2 expunged everything that might reflect unfavorably upon the Salzburgers or the decision to settle them in Georgia. These unhappy, but usually most interesting, omissions have been restored to the previous volumes in this series through the kindness of the authorities of the Francke Foundation in Halle, who have permitted me (GFJ) to search their archives on three occasions to find and photograph the unexpurgated versions of Boltzius’ reports, which had been copied into the Foundation’s records.3
Unfortunately, these unexpurgated copies are now beginning to run out. For the year 1739 we have only part of those for July and August and for the year 1740 none survive. We do have the entire unexpurgated report for the year 1741, after which there are no more. From then on we will have to resign ourselves to the suppression of the most interesting and sensational passages, as well as the most wicked and therefore interesting people. Whenever we find a gap in the expurgated reports, such as the missing entries from 29 through 31 January in this volume, we can safely assume that Urlsperger deleted them, since Boltzius tried to make some entry, no matter how trivial, every day. This tampering with the text probably explains such discrepancies as the fact that Boltzius mentions Muggitzer’s return on 10 February even though he has not mentioned his departure; Urlsperger did not wish the benefactors or potential emigrants to know that some people were displeased with Ebenezer, nor would he wish anyone to know that a Salzburger had become a slave-driver. Urlsperger is quite inconsistent with his deletions: sometimes he deletes the name Zuebli for no reason, and at other times he does not (14, 16 June); sometimes he suppresses the name Schweighofer even when the description clearly reveals the widow’s identity (24 March).
It is a rare event for Boltzius to show a sense of humor, as he does in his comment of 19 March that, if it is true that all the Salzburgers do is eat and pray, then to judge by their bountiful harvest God certainly must be answering their prayers. Since man’s only purpose in this vale of tears is to prepare for a happy death, frivolity is not only a vanity but also a sin. Boltzius reveals his sense of values on 20 October when he quotes the long-winded letter from Samuel Lau, the court chaplain at Wernigerode who ordained him and Gronau on their journey from Halle to Rotterdam. The pious behavior demanded by Boltzius explains why certain frivolous people like the shoemaker Reck, the schoolmaster’s wife Juliana Ortmann, and the widow Rheinlaender were not happy in his celestial city. An English inhabitant of Georgia at that time exclaimed, “Oh that we had a prudent Zealous & painful Minister,” a description which would have well fitted Boltzius, even if “painful” were taken in its modern meaning.
Whenever we read that a certain Mrs. N., a pious widow, has been regurgitating pious platitudes, we may be sure that it is the tedious Mrs. Schweighofer, a moral hypochondriac who was chronically concerned with her own and her children’s salvation. Even though Boltzius was always refreshed by her edifying expressions, most of our worldly generation would have liked to report her to the Mikado, at whose court “All prosy, dull, society sinners Who chatter and bleat and bore, are sent to hear sermons By mystical Germans Who preach from ten to four.” But alas, the good widow would have enjoyed such mystical sermons even if they lasted until five or six, provided they did not conflict with prayer meeting, repetition hour, or house devotions. In marvelling at this excess of religious fervor at Ebenezer and the time spent in devotions, we must remember that it was largely the same people who participated in prayer meetings and that they represented only a fraction of the entire populace, since Boltzius’ house would not hold many people. Many families remain almost entirely out of our view for long periods and emerge only in case of sickness or as signers of petitions or as harvesters of crops.
Although Boltzius was a Pietist, his Christianity was strictly orthodox Lutheran; and nearly all the dogma he acquired from his mentors at the University of Halle can be traced back to Martin Luther himself. During the year 1739 Boltzius’ chief concern seems to have been to persuade his parishioners that salvation can be achieved only through faith and not through good works. To understand his use of the terms “faith,” ‘Justification,” “work-righteousness,” etc., we need only consult the opening paragraphs of Luther’s preface to the book of Galatians, which he wrote in Latin in the year 1535 and in which he presents his interpretation of St. Paul’s argument in this epistle. Those readers averse to theology are free to skip the next four paragraphs.
“First of all, we must speak of the argument, that is, of the issue with which Paul deals in this epistle. The argument is this: Paul wants to establish the doctrine of faith, grace, the forgiveness of sins or Christian righteousness, so that we may have a perfect knowledge and know the difference between Christian righteousness and all other kinds of righteousness. For righteousness is of many kinds. There is a political righteousness, which the emperor, the princes of the world, philosophers, and lawyers consider. There is also a ceremonial righteousness, which human traditions teach, as, for example, the traditions of the pope and other traditions. Parents and teachers may teach this righteousness without danger, because they do not attribute to it any power to make satisfaction for sin, to placate God, and to earn grace; but they teach that these ceremonies are necessary only for moral discipline and for certain observances. There is, in addition to these, yet another righteousness, the righteousness of the Law or of the Decalog, which Moses teaches. We, too, teach this, but after the doctrine of faith.
“Over and above all these there is the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, which is to be distinguished most carefully from all the others. For they are all contrary to this righteousness, both because they proceed from the laws of emperors, the traditions of the pope, and the commandments of God, and because they consist in our works and can be achieved by us with ‘purely natural endowments,’ as the scholastics teach, or from a gift of God. For these kinds of the righteousness of works, too, are gifts of God, as are all the things we have. But this most excellent righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which God imputes to us through Christ without works, is neither political nor ceremonial nor legal nor work-righteousness but is quite the opposite; it is a merely passive righteousness, while all the others, listed above, are active. For here we work nothing, render nothing to God; we only receive and permit someone else to work in us, namely, God. Therefore it is appropriate to call the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness ‘passive.’ This is a righteousness hidden in a mystery, which the world does not understand. In fact, Christians themselves do not adequately understand it or grasp it in the midst of their temptations. Therefore it must always be taught and continually exercised. And anyone who does not grasp or take hold of it in afflictions and terrors of conscience cannot stand. For there is no comfort of conscience so solid and certain as is this passive righteousness.
“But such is human weakness and misery that in the terrors of conscience and in the danger of death we look at nothing except our own works, our worthiness, and the Law. When the Law shows us our sin, our past life immediately comes to our mind. Then the sinner, in his great anguish of mind, groans and says to himself: ‘Oh, how damnably I have lived! If only I could live longer! Then I would amend my life.’ Thus human reason cannot refrain from looking at active righteousness, that is, its own righteousness; nor can it shift its gaze to passive, that is, Christian righteousness, but it simply rests in the active righteousness. So deeply is this evil rooted in us, and so completely have we acquired this unhappy habit! Taking advantage of the weakness of our nature, Satan increases and aggravates these thoughts in us. Then it is impossible for the conscience to avoid being more seriously troubled, confounded, and frightened. For it is impossible for the human mind to conceive any comfort of itself, or to look only at grace amid its consciousness and terror of sin, or consistently to reject all discussion of works. To do this is beyond human power and thought. Indeed, it is even beyond the Law of God. For although the Law is the best of all things in the world, it still cannot bring peace to a terrified conscience but makes it even sadder and drives it to despair. For by the Law sin becomes exceedingly sinful (Rom. 7: 13).
“Therefore the afflicted conscience has no remedy against despair and eternal death except to take hold of the promise of grace offered in Christ, that is, this righteousness of faith, this passive or Christian righteousness, which says with confidence: ‘I do not seek active righteousness. I ought to have and perform it; but I declare that even if I did have it and perform it, I cannot trust in it or stand up before the judgment of God on the basis of it. Thus I put myself beyond all active righteousness, all righteousness of my own or of the divine Law, and I embrace only that passive righteousness which is the righteousness of grace, mercy, and the forgiveness of sins.’ In other words, this is the righteousness of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, which we do not perform but receive, which we do not have but accept, when God the Father grants it to us through Jesus Christ.”4
Again and again we see members of Boltzius’ congregation who do not understand this “passive righteousness” or ‘Justification by faith” and therefore fear damnation under the Law because of their sins; and we see Boltzius constantly reassuring them of the comfort of conscience afforded by passive righteousness and promising them the grace offered in Christ. It is to this end that he stirs up their memories of past sins committed in Salzburg or Germany, as in the case of the woman mentioned on 22 January who restored a portion of what she had stolen years before while in service. Once the sinners have confessed and attempted restitution, Boltzius tries to free them from their “legalistic fears,” or their fear of punishment under the Law.
Boltzius is particularly severe towards those misguided souls who put their faith in good works and hope to achieve salvation on their own merits. Of course Boltzius, like Luther, was not opposed to good works, as we see in the entry for 28 March, when he tells a woman that Luther “considered a faithful and patient execution of one’s work to be a prayer and God-pleasing service.” However, good works must be the result of faith, not a means to an end. The righteousness of the Law applies to the Old Adam, whereas Christian righteousness or justification by faith belongs to the New Man who has been reborn in the wounds of Jesus. Before Held’s wife died (17 August), Boltzius had feared she was not yet truly converted but comforted herself in her previous good behavior, and therefore he had preached eloquently against self-justification (eigene Gerechtigkeit), false comfort (falschen Trost), and self-made comfort (selbstgemachten Trost).
Despite all the sorrow and suffering he had witnessed during his five years in Georgia, Boltzius had lost none of his optimism, an attitude inevitable in one who believes in God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and loving kindness. He often taught, as he did on g May, that “even the cross, physical want, and trials are benefits bestowed by the Lord,” so it is not surprising that his parishioners also realized that what appears to be evil is often a blessing in disguise, as was the case on 1 6 January when a woman recognized that her protracted illness was sent by God for her own good. Regardless of his faith in the Lord, Boltzius knew that God helps those who keep their powder dry: on 1 2 May, while assuring a cowherd of God’s help against snakebite, he nonetheless had a pair of leather leggings made for him.
Although God is a loving God, He is also a just God; therefore a person who is punished must be guilty (unless, of course, it is merely a loving chastisement for his own good). When Boltzius learned on 1 February that a French doctor from Purysburg had been drowned with his entire family, it was clearly a judgment of God, because they were all atheists. Likewise, when Boltzius learned two weeks later that his former pupil Johann Jacob Metzscher had drowned along with his younger brother and sister in the same disaster, it was a judgment against their father for keeping his house in disorder; besides that, the boy had begun using blasphemous language since leaving Ebenezer (21 February). The smaller children were, it would seem, victims of collective guilt. When some Scots drowned in an accident somewhat later, Boltzius mentioned in his entry for 22 March that they must have been drunk on St. Patrick’s Day. Perhaps Boltzius did not distinguish between St. Patrick and St. Andrew, but undoubtedly he was right about the Highlanders’ propensity to drink.
These reports reveal not only Boltzius’ theology, but also the way he conducted his church services; church historians should be pleased with his accounts of catechism lessons (18 October), church penance ( 16 December), and confirmation ( 23 December). Also of interest is the account of musical life at Ebenezer, still entirely in the service of God. Unlike the Quakers, the Pietists were not averse to good music, provided it was for religious purposes. Before allowing the children to join the singing hour on 2 1 December, Boltzius had to assure himself that they would bring not only their mouths but also their hearts full of praise. His description of polyphonic music on 25 December is surely the oldest such account in Georgia; the introduction of polyphonic music possibly helps explain why most of the hymns mentioned in 1 739 were new to the congregation. Also of interest, and pointing toward the future, were the “adult education courses” provided for those like Simon Reiter and Margaretha Berenberger who had not had an opportunity to learn to read in their youth (22 June, 18 July). Young Theobald Kieffer had an even more difficult task to perform in teaching his father’s slaves to read, since they had to learn German first (14 May).
In reading these reports, the reader may wonder whether the good pastor was not sometimes duped by his parishioners. When he finds a married couple praying in the forest on 1 1 October, we ask ourselves whether or not they might have fallen on their knees only after seeing him approach. When he finds two women walking together on 4 May, we suspect that possibly they had been talking about something other than salvation. We may also question whether tears really flowed as copiously as reported; if we are to believe their pastor, the Salzburgers of Ebenezer must have dampened many a handkerchief. The tearful emotionalism of the Pietists stemmed from the Biblical idea of tears as an indication of remorse, and this Pietist emotionalism may have been the source of the many tears shed by the heroes of the Romantic Movement, a literary trend that arose in the part of Germany inhabited by the Pietists.
Although Boltzius was primarily interested in the salvation of his parishioners’ souls, he was responsible for the survival of their bodies as well, a responsibility he had inflicted upon himself by expelling the two secular commissioners, Baron von Reck and Jean Vat. His method of exhausting his financial resources and even going into debt for the orphanage and church was very astute; he knew that God would bail him out through some human agency (2 January).
It should be noted that, as is the case in all undeveloped lands, nearly all enterprise in the American colonies was based on debt. Most settlers arrived in South Carolina and Georgia in debt to the ship’s captain or to the planter who bought their indenture. When redeemed, they were usually still penniless and had to contract debts to acquire their tools and cattle. Interest was at usurious rates, since the high mortality made lending a risky business. In South Carolina, and later in Georgia, the planters received free land, which was worthless in its natural state but had enough value when cleared and cultivated to stand as collateral for further loans so that the planter could purchase more land and perhaps a slave or two, which were then mortgaged in order to buy more land and slaves. As a result, wealth and power did not lie in the hands of the planters, as our Antebellum literature would have us believe, but in the hands of merchant-moneylenders, who sometimes maintained plantations on the side, as Samuel Montagut did (23 May). Since nearly all transactions were made on credit, a merchant had to be a moneylender and charge high enough interest to cover losses. It will be noted that most of the wealthy Englishmen whom Boltzius met and mentioned were moneylending merchants.
In view of the deficit economy of the area, the people of Purysburg and Savannah were amazed that the Salzburgers paid cash and did not ask for credit (g June); these frugal mountain folk wished to keep their economic freedom. It will be noticed that they pinched their pennies to buy cattle, that being their chief source of income and status, and that by 27 July 1739 they had 250 head. Boltzius’ strong sense of business ethics is shown by his concern for the debt owed to the Swiss merchant Schlatter, who had sent a benefaction some years earlier along with an unsolicited shipment of linen for sale.5 This linen had been sold at the storehouse in Savannah by Thomas Causton, who then failed to compensate the sender.
Perhaps the most important event in Ebenezer during the year 1739 was the arrival of Georg Sanftleben, the Silesian carpenter who had returned from Ebenezer to Germany to fetch his sister, some tradesmen, and some unmarried women. Sanftleben wrote a travelogue, as Boltzius urged him to do (2 July); and we can also follow his journey through a voluminous correspondence maintained by Urlsperger and the Trustees.6 Sanftleben’s party had sailed from England on 29 March on board the Charles, with Captain Haeramond,7 just two weeks after the Salzburgers had sent a long letter petitioning Oglethorpe to have more Salzburgers sent over.8 The captain treated them well and they arrived safely in Charleston; but the journey from there to Ebenezer in an open boat in bad weather caused illness, and they were all sick upon arrival, as Boltzius observed on 25 July.
Despite his sickness, the saintly shoemaker Johann Caspar Ulich married one of his travelling companions, Margaretha Egger, two weeks after arriving but then died three weeks later. Gertrud Lackner, the sister of Martin Lackner of Ebenezer, never recovered from her sickness and slowly wasted away. The three other surviving women eventually married or were otherwise provided for; the widow Ulich soon married Martin Lackner, as her friend Gertrud had urged on her deathbed. With everyone sick, two fatally, this group closely matched the performance of the first settlers. We do not know why Elisabeth Sanftleben had difficulty in adapting, unless perhaps she could not find a husband even in that favorable matrimonial market (18 October).
The next most important events of 1739 were the construction of Boltzius’ house, which was begun the second day of the year, and of the church, which was begun shortly thereafter. Although Boltzius was delighted with his house and thought it would last a century, the great Lutheran patriarch Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg was greatly disappointed in it when he visited Ebenezer some thirty-five years later.9
Like the Germans of Germantown in Pennsylvania, those of Ebenezer were outspoken opponents of slavery, on both moral and practical grounds. It is impossible to know whether Boltzius’ views were innate or whether they had been influenced by those of Oglethorpe, with which they largely agreed; but in any case they were forcefully expressed, as we see in his and his parishioners’ letters. His views regarding Negroes were ambivalent: he considered them innately vicious, yet he realized that they were brutally treated ( 13 March). The “Moors” who had been lent to the Salzburgers as sawyers upon their arrival had been very savage, and one had injured another seriously with a knife, after which the Salzburgers stood in dread of them. On the other hand, on his trip to Charleston in May 1735, Boltzius had found that they were poor benighted heathens who thirsted for knowledge of Jesus.10
In addition to information about the Salzburgers themselves, these reports also give us insights into life in Georgia in general, much of which is not recorded elsewhere. We see the nebulous character Falk, a Swede who claimed to be an ordained Lutheran minister and wished to preach to the Germans, even though he had no credentials and could hardly speak German (3 January); and we see the sinister Spanish spy who called himself Anton Masig and claimed to be a German from Cologne (3 1 July). We also hear the murmurings of Malcontents in Savannah, who wished to cast off all the restrictions of the Trustees ( 1 8 February), and we find an amusing description of the Indians who visited Savannah on 6 March.
Previous volumes in this series have made occasional reference to the “Palatines,” the indentured servants in Savannah, who had come not only from the Rhenish Palatinate but also from other parts of Germany. Boltzius, who looked out for their spiritual needs once a month and gave Holy Communion to the few who merited it, generally spoke negatively of them, because they were not so docile as his captive congregation at Ebenezer. Besides that, many were Reformed and preferred to wait for the occasional visits of the lazy and profligate Reformed minister Chifelle of Purysburg, even though he could hardly speak German.11 Boltzius’ attitude toward these so-called “Dutch” servants was as ambivalent as it was towards the Negroes: he accused them of sloth and disloyalty, yet at the same time he realized that they were being shamefully mistreated. In general he took the side of the English authorities when the Dutch came to him with their grievances, and he resented their accepting his spiritual ministry merely as an excuse to win him as their advocate.
In one case Boltzius’ action brought him little credit among the Dutch in Savannah, namely when he was summoned to endorse a coroner’s report exonerating the bailiff John Fallow-field 12 for having struck and killed a servant who resisted arrest (7 March). It was at this time that Boltzius received thirty pounds for Gronau’s house13; we hope no one is reminded of another payment of thirty pieces of silver.
The British authorities were as ambivalent about the Dutch servants as was Boltzius: they constantly complained of their sloth and disloyalty, yet they had to admit that they were the best servants that could be had.14 On 2 1 November 1739 Colonel William Stephens, the Trustees’ representative in Georgia, wrote that “the Palatine servants sent over from Holland on board Cap.t Hewet are the most lazy of all, but those which went with Cap.t Thomson are good, and would have done well, if immediately on their arrival they had been made free, a little land given them, and a tolerable support in the beginning.”15 Here we have the crux of the matter: human beings, white or black, seldom work well if they are not to share in the proceeds of their work.
The entry for 7 May begins a melodrama that might well serve as the basis of a romantic novel. Boltzius learns that two German servants are living in sin and thus reflecting badly on the Germans and, indirectly, on the Salzburgers. The man, having been impoverished by his spendthrift wife and her relatives in Germany, had fled with his serving girl and had married her, assuming that his previous marriage was terminated. With much persuasion, and a bit of help from the authorities, Boltzius was able to break up this common-law marriage; but the end of this soap opera belongs better to the following year, when the woman becomes part of Ebenezer history. The same entry relates another scandal, namely that of a Roman Catholic girl who fled to St. Augustine after leaving her baby on a Jew’s doorstep. Boltzius did not doubt that the Jew was the father. It seems probable, however, that the mother had selected him as the only German in Savannah with sufficient means to support the child, for it is quite apparent that the man in question was the righteous Benjamin Sheftal, the advocate of the Germans in Savannah. The Christian authorities, obviously pleased by the embarrassment of this pious man, held him responsible but did help support the child. Yet an even more sensational event occurred during 1739: the Anglican minister raped a German girl. This sordid affair will be reserved for the reports of the year 1741, at which time it came to the attention of the harried Ebenezer minister.
Because so many of the Savannah Germans eventually found their way to Ebenezer, their story will begin to play a larger role in these reports. For this reason Appendix IV of the present volume includes a list of the “good” Palatines mentioned by Stephens and the Trustees on 20 June 1739 when they “read a memorial from the said Cap.t (William Thomson) alledging that he had carry’d over 116 heads of German servants at his own risk: which servants Col. Oglethorpe received, wherefore he pray’d payment for the charges of freight & of said servants amounting to 826.2.11¼.”16
We take this opportunity to thank the American Philosophical Society for supporting another visit by Dr. Jones to the archives of the Francke Foundation in Halle; and we also wish to express our appreciation to the authorities of the University and State Library of Sachsen-Anhalt for kindly furnishing microfilms of Boltzius’ unexpurgated reports, from which those passages deleted by Urlsperger have been restored. We are likewise indebted to the General Research Board of the University of Maryland for defraying typing charges and to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a generous grant which supported Dr. Jones as scholar in residence at the Georgia Historical Society in Savannah during his sabbatical leave in 1977 and also covered other related costs.
GEORGE FENWICK JONES
University of Maryland
RENATE WILSON
The Johns Hopkins University
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.