u/te-r con & De £

HALVE MAEN Magazine of Ww ^utd) Colonial

+ period in Mmecica +

Vol. lxix Fall 1996 No. 3

Tublijbed by The Holland Society ofJ^ew Torl^

122 Cast 58th Street ^(ew Torf^, D^T U

The Holland Society of New York 122 EAST 58th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022

President Roland H. Bogardus

Advisory Council of Past Presidents

Kenneth L. Demarest, Jr. Rev. Louis O. Springsteen Walter E. Hopper Thomas M. Van der Veer James E. Quackenbush Peter Van Dyke ArthurR. Smock, Jr. Carl A. Willsey

Vice-Presidents New York County Stephen S. Wyckoff Long Island Gregory W. Carman, Jr. Dutchess County Kevin A. Denton Ulster County Nomian J. Van Valkenburgh Patroons Robert E. Van Vranken Central New York Craig H. Van Cott Old Bergen County, N.J Edward J. Van Duzer Essex, Morris Counties, N.J Daniel S. Van Riper Central New Jersey Kenneth L. Demarest, Jr. Connecticut-Westchester Harrold W. deGroff New England Tweed Roosevelt Potomac Francis W. Sloat Florida, East Coast Richard G. Post Florida, West Coast Henry DeGrove Niagara Frontier Chase Viele Mid-West Peter H. Schenck Pacific Coast Paul H. Davis Virginia and the Carolinas Edward E. Van Schaick, Jr. South River Walton Van Winkle III Old South H. John Ouderkirk Texas Rev. Robert Terhune, Jr. Jersey Shore William Van Winkle Pacific Northwest John B. Van Derbeek United States Army Capt. Adrian T. Bogart (Res) United States Air Force Lt. Col. Laurence C. Vliet, USAF United States Navy Lt. Cmdr. Richard W. De Mott, USNR United States Marines Lt. Col. Robert W. Banta, USMC

Treasurer Secretary Peter Van Dyke Rev. Louis O. Springsteen

Domine Associate Domine Rev. Everett L. Zabriskie III Rev. Louis O. Springsteen

Burgher Guard Captain William A. Snedeker

Trustees Adrian T. Bogart, Jr. James M. Van Buren, II Andrew W. Brink John B. Van Derbeek Ralph L. DeGroff, Jr. John S. Van der Veer John O. Delamater Walton Van Winkle, III Richard W. Demott William Van Winkle Robert G. Goelet Chase Viele Robert D. Nostrand David William Voorhees David M. Riker John R. Voorhis, III John G. Storm Edward A. Vrooman Frederick M. Tibbitts, Jr Ferdinand L. Wyckoff, Jr.

Trustees Emeritus William M. Alrich

Hubert T. Mandeville John H. Vanderveer James M. Vreeland

Editor David William Voorhees

Editorial Committee James E. Quackenbush, Chairman

Andrew W. Brink James M. Van Buren, II Kevin A. Denton John S. Van der Veer David M. Riker Kiliaen D. Van Rensselaer

Production Manager Annette van Rooy Copy Editor Joy Rich

Organized in 1885 to collect and preserve information respecting the early history and settlement of New Netherland by the Dutch, to perpetuate the memory, foster and promote the principles and virtues of the Dutch ancestors of its members, to maintain a library relating to the Dutch in America, and to prepare papers, essays, books, etc. in regard to the history and genealogy of the Dutch in America.

The Society is principally organized of descendants in the direct male line of residents of the Dutch Colonies in America prior to or during the year 1675. Inquiries respecting the several criteria for membership are invited.

De Halve Maen, published by the Society, is entered at the post office at New York City, New York. Communications to the editor should be directed to the Society's address, 122 East 58th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022, (212) 758-1675. Subscriptions $28.50 per year, international, $35.00.

Copy right ©1996 The Holland Society of New York. All rights reserved. ISSN 0017-6834

The Editor's Corner The production, distribution, preparation, and consumption of

food occupies most of mankind's energies, though today we, often consumers removed from most stages of food production, rarely think about the overwhelming importance and necessity of the total food process. The 19th Rensselaerswijck Seminar in Albany provided, however, a thought-provoking glimpse into the relationship between food and culture. Entitled "The Staffs of Life: Bread and Beer," the conference presentations examined various aspects of the food culture of New Netherland. In light of the conference title, not surprisingly, grain products formed the core of the diet, with fruits and vegetables and fish, poultry, and meats as supplements.

This issue of de Halve Maen presents two of the papers given at the Rensselaerswijck Seminar: Vincent T. van Vilsteren's on the history of beer in the Netherlands and Jan Folkerts's examination of the Dutch West India Company's farms on Manhattan.

Although it is seldom realized today, before the advent of pasteurization and the chemical treatment of water, alcoholic beverages were often the only safe liquids to consume. Van Vilsteren looks at the evolution of beer production in the Netherlands. The de­velopment of beer as a national drink, he writes, is a story in which throughout most of history "little worthwhile mentioning happened" and "of a very rapid development" during short intervals of time. The widespread consumption of beer in New Netherland becomes more comprehensible in light of its historic role in the Old World.

Folkerts examines the West India Company's plans for making New Netherland the bread basket of its western empire and why its policies failed. As he writes, "if we want to understand seventeenth-century colonial life, we also have to understand the basics of New Netherland agriculture." Focusing on the Company's Manhattan farms, Folkerts discovers that the Company's own policies undermined any success it might have had in agriculture. "By issuing the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1629," he states, "the Company had itself laid the foundation for the ruinous development of its farms." In creating the patroonsliips, the Company placed itself in competition with in­dependent landholders better suited to promote agricultural development.

At the time of the Rensselaerswicjk Seminar, archeologist Karen Hartgen made public the discovery of an important archeological site uncovered by the New York State Dormitory Authority's construction of a new building in downtown Albany. The site includes, most fittingly, in light of the conference topic, one of the earliest Dutch breweries in the New World. The Dormitory Authority's attempt to keep the discovery secret resulted in a public outcry. A subsequent legal suit forced the Authority to modify its plans and allow archeological investigations to continue while construction is underway. Although this compromise is not totally satisfactory, the public pressure behind it reveals the widespread interest in New Netherland. It is hoped that such pressures will continue to force public agencies to more closely examine their actions when it comes to preserving the rich historical legacy of this region.

IN THIS ISSUE

From Herbs to Hops 41 The Failure of West India Company Farming

in New Netherland 47 Book Review 53 Society Activities 54 Here and There with Members 55 InMemoriam 55

Cover: Jacobus Harrewyn, "Nieuw lorck" (c. 1673), copper engraving published by J. Allard in Amsterdam.

m

HALVE MAEN VOL. LXIX • NO. 3 FALL 1996 NEW YORK CITY

From Herbs to Hops: Outlines of the Brewing Process in Medieval Europe

V.T. van Vilsteren

Long before the first Viking set foot on the coast of the American continent, beer had become a major ingredient of the everyday lifestyle of most of tlie inhabitants of the southeastern parts of the Mediterranean. Tlie story of beer is a story of many, many centuries in which little worthwhile mentioning happened. But it is also a story of a very rapid development in the middle ages, a development that was provoked more than a thousand years ago by tlie spread of the Christian church and was favored in tlie twelfth and thirteenth centuries by such factors as tlie rise of cities in northwestern Europe and the consequent pollution. Tlie last jump to a leading role in medieval consumption followed the economic rules of supply and demand.

No one knows exactly where, when, and by whom beer was discovered. Very possibly it was discovered by chance rather than by invention. A simple coincidence would have been enough to start tlie brewing process. Wet loaves of bread were an ideal place for starches to convert into sugars. The process of fermentation could have begun spontaneously, because the air is full of yeast cells. At some stage, someone somewhere would have been struck by tlie characteristic aroma of this early beer. The slight effect of alcohol would have been discovered soon after that. The spontaneous process of fermentation was probably difficult to control at tlie outset but would have been refined by trial and error.

The origins of brewing can be traced to Sumer, tlie region between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, in what is today Iraq. There are indications that beer was brewed in this "land of milk and honey" between 3500 and 3000 B.C.E. Most of our knowledge of beer's early history, however, stems from Egypt, where beer, as in Sumer and Babylon,

Mr. van Vilsteren is curator of medieval archeology at the Drents Museum inAsscn, the Netherlands. He received degrees in geology from the State University in Groningcn and in archeology from the University of Amsterdam. His most recent work on the development of beer was for two exhibitions joining archeologists, historians, and art historians held at the Amsterdam Historical Museum and the Drents Museum.

was a beverage of the people. Brewing techniques had remained essentially the same. The Egyptians frequently depicted the production process in murals, and a wealth of information also has been provided by models of breweries, which were sometimes buried with the dead. The Egyptians first made bread dough; tlie germination and the development of enzymes could have taken place at this stage. The dough was then lightly baked or roasted. This is possibly comparable to the process of oasting, which developed much later. The loaves were then broken and mixed with water to form a thin gruel. At this stage, enzymes would have converted the starches into sugars. Tlie conversion of the sugars into alcohol by means of fermentation was the last stage of the process. After tlie beer had been filtered, it could be poured into amphorae.

Tlie fall of pharaonic Egypt and its incorporation into tlie Hellenic Empire of Alexander tlie Great (356-323 B.C.E.) marked tlie end of the early heyday of beer production. Neither tlie Greeks nor tlie Romans were great beer drinkers. This may be ascribed to tlie fact that grapes grew abundantly in tlie Mediterranean region, making the production of wine a more logical option. The Romans did, however, come into contact willi beer in tlie more remote parts of their empire. In tlie west, for example, in what is now France, beer was an extremely popular drink among tlie Gauls. The historian Pliny (C.E. 23-79) made reference to this fact in his writings. He even gave an account of tlie names given to this ardent beverage: in Spain it was known as caelia, and in Gaul and tlie other provinces it was known as cervisia. Beer was also brewed more to the east on the other side of the river Rhine in tlie Germanic region. Tlie Roman historian Tacitus wrote that tlie Teutonic tribes "have a drink made of barley or some other grain sort, which is brewed to form something akin to wine."1

It is unknown whether tlie nations of northern and western Europe discovered tlie brewing process independently and, if so, at which time this discovery was made. There is

1 G. Fischer, H. Gansohr, B.Heizmann, W. Herborn, H. G. Schultze-Berndt, Bierbrauen im Rheinland (exhibition catalog: Kbln, Germany, 1985).

(41)

a distinct possibility that the knowledge of brewing spread north from the southeastern Mediterranean. It is also not known which techniques were used in brewing in Roman times. Although a wealth of archaeological clues from this period have been found, experts have not been able to link particular finds with the process of brewing. Perhaps it may be surmised that the pots and pans used for daily meals were also used for the production of beer. Each household probably brewed its own beer in relatively small quantities. In any case, there are no indications that specialized brewers were active at the time.

There is a gap in written history between the writings of the Roman historians and the days of Charlemagne, around 800 C.E. In those days there were vast domains — more or less independent, large-scale farmlands, char­acterized by a rigid organizational structure. One of the regulations was that a specified number of tradesmen should be present in each domain. This included the so-called siceratores, who not only brewed cervisia but also other alcoholic beverages. For the first time, brewing was referred to as an independent, specialized craft. In fact, in the centuries that followed this proved to be one of the prerequisites for the growth of knowledge about brewing techniques and their improvement.

A probably even more important contributing factor was the establishment of a great number of monasteries during this period. The expansion of the Carolingian Empire around 800 C.E. went hand-in-hand with the spread of Christianity. This new religion became firmly rooted in

society due to the establishment of these monasteries. The monks proved to be quite capable in improving the quality of beer. Most of the Carolingian monasteries in the Rhineland had at least one brewery on the premises. The floor plan of the monastery of St. Gallen in Switzerland, dating from 814 C.E., sows three breweries: one for the monks, situated next to the dining hall; one for the beggars and pilgrims who stayed in the monastery overnight; and one in the direct vicinity of the quarters for important guests. It gives an indication of the ingenuity of the structure and organization of the monastery. It is interesting to note that each of the three breweries has been projected on the floor plan in combination with a bakery. This underscores the fact that the origins of brewing were closely related to the production of bread. This is hardly surprising, considering that both have the same main ingredient (grain) and both require the use of an oven.

In early medieval monasteries there was not a clear division of tasks between bakers and brewers. The monks changed tasks on a weekly basis, and it was not until the Synod of Aken, in 816/817, that they were assigned to either the brewery or the bakery for an entire year. The most characteristic feature of the brewery floor plan is the square block with a small circle drawn in each corner. The architect probably used this to indicate a large oven block with a pot at each of the four corners. Four more circles have been drawn outside the oven at each corner. Perhaps these indicate the receptacles used to prepare the smash.

> ->

M fry^^^^y-M.

cowrie*

The brewing and baking house for the guests. Monastery of St. Gallen. A similar complex was projected for pilgrims and beggars and a third one for the monks themselves. Stiftsbibliothek, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

(42)

In an area adjacent to the brewery proper, two rectangles have been drawn on either side of a circle. The rectangles were probably trough-like basins in which beer could be quickly cooled.2

It was the monastery brewers who improved the flavor of beer by introducing hops as an ingredient. The earliest references to this flavor additive stem from 822 C.E. At that time the monks were still gathering wild hops. In documents of 859 and 883, however, there are references to humularia, or hop gardens, at a monastery in Bavaria in southern Germany. Apparently, the use of hops rapidly became more popular during this period. This is borne out by the hops found in the ciao Graveney boat, which sank near Canterbury, in the English county of Kent, in the tenth century. An analysis of the cargo revealed that the boat must have been carrying one or more bales of hops. It is unclear if the hops originated in England or France. Anyway, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that hops were being used to brew beer in France at the t ime /

Surprisingly, hops did not become a popular ingredient in Flanders and the Netherlands. In these regions, a different ingredient was used to improve the flavor and shelf life of beer: that was the gruit, a mixture of herbs that varied from one region to another. One of the standard ingredients was sweetgale, or myrtle, and, very often, also resin. The first reference to gruit dates from the year 999 C.E. In that year the emperor of Germany granted to the bishop of Utrecht the right of gruit. From later documents it is clear that a tax was imposed on one of the then-standard ingredients of beer rather then upon the brewing itself/ The main reason for this was that at that time brewing was still a non-taxed home industry. The sale and distribution of the herb mixture was thus monopolized by the sovereign. Naturally this only made sense if the gruit was considered to be an essential ingredient of beer. Apparently, this was the case.

The herb mixture and the right to sell it in a certain region were both known as gruit. The sovereign repeatedly granted this right to counts, bishops, and other dignitaries, who could in turn grant the right to others. As beer became more popular, the returns from gruit gradually increased.

During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries an important breakthrough was made in the production of beer. The breakthrough was mainly prompted by the development of cities in northwestern Europe. The cities' tanners, cobblers, and drapers were dependent upon bakers, brewers, and other producers of foodstuffs. Due to the development of cities, beer brewing also became a specialized trade outside the monasteries. As a result, the quality of the beer improved, and production was increased. The brewing industry gained momentum. This breakthrough was particularly evident in southern Belgium, where many new breweries were established at the time. But at the same time an explosive increase in the number of cities occurred in the northern Netherlands. Here too the increase went hand in hand with the growing popularity of beer. This is borne out by archaeological evidence found in the vicinity

Reconstruction drawing of the brewery-cum-bakery for the guests, Monastery of St. Gallen. The bakery is situated to the left of the brewery. Stiftsbibliothek, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

of the city of Groningen.5 The low lying peat bogs directly southwest of this city were dotted with small mounds (terps). Archaeological excavations have revealed that these mounds were briefly inhabited during the thirteenth century. The mounds, which have now partially subsided into the peat, were no more than a meter high. The houses on these mounds were fifteen meters long and were built of turf and peat. The yard was surrounded by a ditch. Good drinking water was supplied by a well which had been sunk down to the sand bed. These mound dwellings closely resemble those in other peat-reclamation areas dating from this period. However, they deviate in one respect: the unique inventory of pots and pans that was found in the dwellings. The peculiar shape of these earthenware objects indicates that they were used for the production of beer.

Huge spherical pots provided the first archaeological clue. These pots often had a volume of 100 liters or more, and it was undoubtedly difficult to boil water in them. In order to do so, a special structure was required, a stove of sorts. Such very unusual objects, also found on the mounds, consisted of thick-walled, circular segments which could be variably stacked to form a stove. Other unusual earthenware finds are small pestles which were probably used to grind grain, thus facilitating the release of the starch that was required

2 W. Horn and E. Born, The Plan of St. Gall; a Study of the Architecture and Economy of, and Life in a Paradigmatic Carolingian Monastery, 3 vols., (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1979).

3 D.G. Wilson and A.P. Conolly, "Plant Remains including the Evidence for Hops," in V. Fenwick, ed., The Graveney Boat: a Tenth-Century Find from Kem(= BAR British Series 1978, 53), 133-150.

4 G. Doorman, De middeleeuwse brouwerij en de gruit (The Hague, 1955).

5 V. T. van Vilsteren, "Overblijfselen eener verbazend armelijke en eenvoudige kultuur; opkomst en ondergang van proto-ambachtelijke bierbrouwers in Drenthe in de 13de eeuw," in Oudheidkundige Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden the Leiden (1992), 72, 117-150.

(43)

to produce the sugars. Spherical pots with a spout at the bottom were also found. Liquids that were poured in at the top of the pot simply ran out at the bottom. Although this seems quite senseless in terms of normal utility criteria, the pots may have been handy filtration utensils. A small plank with holes and some straw, which was placed over the spout, served to filter the grain husks from the mash.6

The entire range of pots was made of a type of earthenware which was also used to manufacture normal household utensils. During the thirteenth century, the traditional brewing process, which had previously taken place in every household, rapidly developed into a full-fledged craft. Seen in this light, it is understandable that the increasing demand for beer led to a corresponding increase in the range of brewery utensils. Naturally, there were limitations. Pots with a volume up to 150 liters were still feasible, but anything larger than that would have been highly impractical, due to the high risk of breakage during manufacture and use. The problem was solved by the discovery of new materials. We will return to this later on.

The swiftly expanding cities attracted a wide variety of tradesmen. It is, therefore, surprising that the thirteenth-century brewers of Groningen preferred to work outside the city rather than within its walls. This undoubtedly had something to do with the taxation of beer. As mentioned above, the gruit was the preferred method of taxation in the Netherlands, and although it was primarily a prerogative of the local ruler, he was empowered to grant his right to others. Around the year 1250 only very few cities were in possession of the gruit. For example, the right of gruit for Groningen originally was in the hands of the bishop of Utrecht, who later granted this right to the lords of Eelde. The gruit itself was established in Yde, an insignificant hamlet situated close to the castle of the lords of

A medieval brewery in operation. Illustration from a manuscript dated 1462. On the left, the mash is being made in the mash tun and the brewing vessel is in use on the right. Municipal Archives, Kampen.

Eelde, a stone's throw from the city of Groningen. Consequently, the city itself did not receive the revenue from brewery taxation. The city, therefore, had no particu­lar financial incentive to want the brewers within its walls. Similarly, the brewers themselves had no particular desire to set up breweries in the city. One of the advantages of working outside the city was that raw materials and turf were close at hand. Moreover, the proximity of the city ensured the brewers of a large group of customers.

From the year 1250 onward, gruit houses were also established in the cities.7 Generally, this was the case when the local lord, in his capacity as owner, leased the gruit right and associated income. It often happened that the local lord suddenly needed a large amount of money for his own expenditure. He would borrow this from a town, for example, for a specific period and repay it in installments over a period of time. In exchange for the loan, the town might be granted the gruit right and all associated income from it. The financial problems of many local lords often resulted in their not being able to pay the installments and the loan being extended. That is how the cities got in possession of the gruit right.5 This, for example, was apparently the case in Zwolle. In a deed dated 1341 we can read that the sheriffs of Zwolle paid their lord, the bishop of Utrecht, money for the gruit. In 1404 the bishop still couldn't repay the loan and once again leased the gruit right to the town. That deed contains some interesting comments. There is a complaint, as the bishop states, that "our gruit has diminished and been destroyed by the hop beer which people usually drink in this country." The increasingly popular hop beer, had therefore, drastically reduced the income from the gruit.

Flavoring beer with hops instead of gruit was introduced in the northern Netherlands in about 1320, probably in imitation of the full-flavored beer from Hamburg that had already been made with hops for a long time. Owing to the high import duties, the hop-brewed Hamburg beer was expensive but, appar­ently, delicious. Gruit was quickly supplanted as an ingredient in brewing, even though gruit beer continued to be produced until the beginning of the fifteenth century. The excise on brewing hop beer compensated the holder of the gruit right for the loss of income from gruit sales. The gradual transition from a monopoly on the sale of an ingredient to an excise on brewing diminished the whole concept of gruit. In the records, particularly in the fifteenth century, the excise on brewing hop beer is often entered under gruit. The term hoppengruit (hop gruit) is sometimes even used, indicating that people were no longer aware of the origins of gruit.

6 In early twentieth-century Norway fanners still used the method of filtering with straw. See, for example, O. Nordland, Brewing and beer traditions in Norway (Oslo, 1961).

7 T. E. Jensma, "Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het recht van de gruit in het graafschap Holland, het bisdom Utrecht en het hertogdom Gelre," in Verslagen en Mededeelingen van de Vereeniging tot Uitgaaf der Bronnen van het Oud-Vaderlarutsch Recht (1960), 12: 167-215.

8 H. Ebbing and V. T. van Vilsteren, "From herbs to hops; developments in the middle ages," in R. E. Kistemaker and V. T. van Vilsteren, eds., Beer! The story of Holland's favourite drink ( A m s t e r d a m , 1994) , 2 1 .

(44)

In the thirteenth century, beer was brewed in pots with a volume ranging from 100 to 150 litres. The pots were heated on sturdy, adjustable clay stoves. The pots often ha\>e a tap-hole so that the liquids could be drawn off more easily. Brewers tried to increase production by increasing the size of the pots. Around the year 1300, the earthenware receptacles reached their maximum size and copper kettles and large wooden vats were introduced.

As mentioned above, beer became increasingly popular as its quality improved and cities expanded. In order to meet the growing demand, production had to be increased substantially: there was a growing need to produce brews in a larger volume. The brewers, particularly those in the cities, were bound by regulations imposed by the magistrates. These regulations were largely in the city's own interest, because they were imposed to ensure that the brewers did not evade taxes. They were, however, also intended to guarantee the quality of the beer. The regulations, which were usually laid down in the city's statutes, often also stipulated how often brews could be produced and the maximum size of the brews. The latter aspect gives particular insight into the development of brewing technology. Between 1300 and 1500 the brew volume appears to have gradually increased from several hundred liters to more than 4,000 liters per batch. It goes without saying that this had certain consequences for the layout of the breweries. It was impossible to enlarge the scale of traditional production utensils, such as the simple earthenware pots. Brew volumes in excess of a thousand liters were only possible by new methods of production:

copper kettles were introduced. The replacement of the traditional earthenware brewing pots with metal receptacles started around the year 1300 and gained pace rapidly during the fourteenth century. As was so often the case, the demand for ever larger production utensils stimulated technological development — in this case of the copper-smithies. The coppersmith's trade had initially been limited to the production of copper pots. Due to the manufacturing technique, these hammered utensils were extremely thin-walled and, as a result, their size was limited. In the early fifteenth century, a solution was found: thicker copper plates were riveted together. This led to the manufacture of large, cylindrical copper kettles which were able to withstand the pressure of several hundred liters of liquid. The ovens increased in size and in structure. They now consisted of a circular brick structure with an arched opening on one side through which the fire could be stoked.

After brick ovens had been introduced, changes in the brewing process were largely limited. The only truly important discovery in the centuries thereafter was that the mixing of the mash and the boiling of tire wort could be treated as separate processes. The main coasequence was that less fuel was required, because the husks no longer had to be boiled along with the mash.

In Nuremberg in 1380, Konrad Mendel, a rich citizen, established a house in which twelve working men could spend their old age, in imitation of Christ's twelve apostles. One stipulation of this Mendelsche Zwolfbriiderstiftung was that all twelve should have pursued a different kind of work. When one of the brothers died, a drawing was made of him engaged in his former profession. The drawings were incorporated in a kind of commemorative book. This particular drawing shows brother Jorg who died in 1437. Stadtbibliothek, Nuremburg

(45)

Essentially, there are only two major differences between brewing in the fifteenth century and in tlie seventeenth century. The first one is the predominance of oats in late medieval times. It was not until 1600 that barley became tlie most important ingredient. The other difference is the aspect of the scale of brewing. Already in late medieval times beer was to be regarded as tlie beverage of the people. It was real mass-production which also applied

to all of tlie related trades. That scale of brewing still increased, but by 1500 everytliing was ready for the Golden Age. That era also was to become a golden age for brewing in which an ever-decreasing number of brewers made an ever-increasing amount of beer.9

' R. J. Ynteina, The brewing industry in Holland 1300-1800; a study in iruiustrial development (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1992).

Engraving of a brewery dated 1799from Volledigebeschriving van alle konsten, ambachten, handwerken, f abrieken, trafieken, derzelver werkhuizen, gereed-schappen, enz. (Complete description of all arts, crafts, handwork, industries, trading, and of works places, tools, etc.) by Dordrecht brewer J. Buijs. Water is heated in vat a and a mash of hot water and malt is made in vat B. The mash ispumpedvia vat C into brewing vessel A. There it is boiled with the hops. The brewer ladles the liquid with a large vat bucket into a channel which takes the liquid to cooling vessels D. When cool it is transferred to the yeast vat E where yeast is added. After a few day, the beer is casked via vat F and is ready to be sold.

C A L L F O R P A P E R S

CONFERENCE ON NEW YORK STATE HISTORY

J U N E 6 - 7 , I 9 9 7 SARATOGA S P R I N G S

INDIVIDUAL PAPER ABSTRACTS, PANEL PROPOSALS, AND OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS ARE NOW INVITED FOR THE

1 9 9 7 CONFERENCE ON NEW YORK STATE HISTORY IN SARATOGA SPRINGS. PRESENTATIONS MAY CONSIDER ANY ASPECT O F

THE HISTORY O F NEW YORK OVER T H E PAST 4 0 0 YEARS. DIVERSE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGICAL

APPROACHES ARE WELCOMED. T H E DEADUNE FOR PROPOSALS IS DECEMBER 3 1 , I 9 9 6 .

INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO DISCUSS PROPOSALS AND CONFERENCE-RELATED IDEAS WITH CONFERENCE

ORGANIZERS DAVID BRUMBERG OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, WENDELL TRIPP OF THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,

AND STEFAN BIELINSKI O F THE NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM, THE CONFERENCE COORDINATOR. A PROPOSAL MUST INCLUDE

PAPER AND/OR SESSION TTTLES, NAMES, PHONE NUMBERS, AND E"MAJL ADDRESSES, IF POSSIBLE, O F ALL PARTICIPANTS,

AND A ONE- OR TWO-PAGE DESCRIPTION O F EACH PRESENTATION. SPECIAL SCHEDULING AND EQUIPMENT REQUESTS SHOULD

ALSO ACCOMPANY T H E PROPOSAL. A L L PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS ARE EXPECTED TO REGISTER FOR T H E CONFERENCE.

ADDRESS PROPOSALS TO: STEFAN BIELINSKI, CONFERENCE ON NEW YORK STATE HISTORY, 3 0 9 3 CULTURAL EDUCATION

CENTER, ALBANY, NY I 2 2 3 0 , (5 18) 4 7 4 - 6 9 17, SBIELINS@MUSEUM.NYSED.GOV. PARTICIPANTS WILL B E NOTIFIED O F

THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY MID-FEBRUARY 1 9 9 7 .

(46)

The Failure of West India Company Farming on the Island of Manhattan

Jan Folkerts

Until lately, the American historiography of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic seemed like a history of commonplaces. We all seemed to personally know those rich Amsterdam merchants controlling a vast empire of trade from their comfortable houses on the canals of this wealthy metropolis. Beyond the historical cliches, however, lies a kaleidoscopic universe representing the first modern economy of the world. In a brilliant synthesis, using much new material, A. Van der Woude and J. De Vries have recently shown how modern in many respects that society really was. In their book, The Netherlands 1500-1815. The First Round of Modern Economic Growth, agriculture is restored to its rightful place as a vital part of this new society.1 The highly commercial type of agriculture that developed in the Low Countries in the late middle ages served as a basis for all future developments. Although much has been published in recent decades on agriculture in the early modern period in the Dutch Republic, this is not the case in respect to agriculture in the Dutch colonies. Here — at least to a certain extent — the proverbial Amsterdam merchant still dominates.

It is perfectly clear, however, that if we want to understand seventeenth-century colonial life, we also have to understand the basics of New Netherland agriculture. There is a lot to be said about New Netherland fanning. Much more than some historians want us to believe. Take, for instance, A. P. Hedrick, who in the 1930s told liis readers that maize was a major crop among the colonists.

There is not much evidence in the seventeenth-century sources to support Hedrick's statement, though David Steven Cohen repeats the story.2 Hedrick writes in A History of Agriculture in the State of New York that, from the beginning, much corn was raised, native fashion.3 Perhaps Hedrick's opinion is based on Edmund B. O'Callaghan, who imprecisely translated a statement made in 1650 by Comelis Van Tienhoven concerning the use of maize by the first colonists. Where Van Tienhoven wrote that maize may have served in the beginning as bread for people and food for animals, O'Callaghan simply omits "voor t eerst" (in the beginning) in his translation.4

The impression is given that, nonnally, the Dutch ate maize bread. This is only one of many mistakes in Hedrick's view of colonial agriculture. In fact, he made a mockery of New Netherland agriculture by comparing colonial fanners to the farmers of biblical times, making the statement that the Romans would have put the best colonial farmers to shame.5

Maize was only of minor importance. The sources show

Jan Folkerts studied jounalism in Utrecht, and received degrees in early modern history from the State University of Groningen and in American studies from the University of Amsterdam. He was formerly associated with the state archives in Groningen and Overijssel and has been active as a journalist. He is currently municipal archivist of Zwolle.

that wheat was of overwhelming importance in nearly all parts of the colony, with the exception of Manhattan, where much rye was grown, with oats at a close second place and all other grains playing minor roles. Bread was made of wheat or rye. Specified rents paid in grain in the years 1642 and 1643 on three Manhattan farms show us that sixty-one percent was paid in rye, eighteen percent in barley, fourteen percent in wheat, and seven percent in peas.6

At most, maize may have been of some importance on smaller plantations for making the soil ready for growing other grains. There are a number of cases in which, on some scale, maize was bought from the natives.7 In 1639, for example, two New Amsterdam merchants contracted for the purchase of 500 schepels of maize from the Indians.8

A schepel is a grain measure, that comes down to 0,764 bushels. This is an indication that New Netherland agriculture at this time did not produce enough to meet its own needs.

A better source than Hedrick for understanding Dutch colonial fanning is the former director-general of New Netherland himself, Petrus Stuyvesant, who in 1667 wrote, "Since their manner of agriculture is wholly different from that way practiced by the English nation here, and therefore cannot possibly expect a supply from England of those utensils relating to the cultivating of the land, but of necessity must expect them from their own country' (otherwise) it will not only be impossible for them to subsist, but they must be constrained to forsake their tillage and seek out a livelihood elsewhere."9

hi this light, the importance of Dutch farming on the North American mainland needs to be reassessed. The West India Company wanted New Netherland to be the granary of its western Atlantic empire. After 1654, when the Dutch lost their last stronghold in Brazil and their dreams about a western empire came to an end, farms were already so widespread in the colony that no one doubted the possibilities of the rich lands in this part of North America.

1 J. de Vries and A. van der Woude, Nederland 1500-1815. De eerste ronde van moderne economische groei (Amsterdam, 1995).

2 David Steven Cohen, The Dutch-American Farm (New York, 1992), 116.

3 A. P. Hedrick, A History of Agriculture in the State of New York (New York, 1933), 67.

4 Compare E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of the Stale of New York, 4 vols. (New York, 1850-1851), 4: 23, with ARA, Archives of the States-General, inv. nr. 12564, 30a, "Bedenckinge over het aenvaerden . . . ".

5 Ibid.

6 A. J. F. van Laer, ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch (Baltimore, Md., 1974), 1: 67, 126, 132 [hereafter cited as NYHM].

7 A. J. F. van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts Albany, NY, 1908), 35 [hereafer cited as VRBM]. This was also the case in Virginia and Massachusetts in the early stages of their development. Ph. A. Bruce, "Products and methods of the Virginia Indians," Readings in the Economic History of American Agriculture (New York, 1925), 45; P. W. Bidwell, J. I. Falconer, History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860 (Washington, D.C., 1925), 41 .

8 NYHM, 1: 231-232.

(47)

In the first fifteen years of its existence, farming in New Netherland was heavily controlled by the West India Company. Company farming failed in the end. This essay analyses why it failed and will show why the West India Company did not succeed in providing its own colonists with bread, let alone the other colonies in the West.

Sometime during the summer of 1625 the famous sale of Manhattan by the local Indians took place. On the accompanying debate about the question of who exactly were involved and on which date this bargain was realized, too much useless ink has already been spilled.10 In the late summer or fall of 1625, Crijn Fredericksz began his work of surveying the southern part of Manhattan and laying out the fort, the towns and the "bouweries," the West India Company farms. In a 1626 letter it is stated that the colonists sowed all their grain in the middle of May and reaped in the middle of August. They sent back to the Company their samples of summer grain such as wheat, rye, bailey, oats, buckwheat, canary seed, beans, and flax.11

Unfortunately, the contracts between the Company and the individual farmers of 1625 have not survived. Van Tienhoven, however, tells us something about the conditions of these contracts. The fanners were granted the farm, barn, "bergti" and tools for six years, together with four cows, four horses, and pigs and sheep in proportion.12 The farmers had to return the same number of cattle on the date of expiration of tlie contract. All the increase remained with the farmer. The farmers were allowed to sell the milk of their cows for their own profit.13

As rent, the fanners annually paid 100 guilders and eighty pounds of butter to the Company. The risk of the cattle dying was shared in common. According to Van Tien­hoven, who writes in 1650, this Company policy was a success: the people who obtained these conditions all prospered during their residence on the Company's lands.14 As Van Tienhoven wrote a defense of the Company policy in New Netherland and as he was secretary of the colony, he cannot

be considered an impartial observer beyond any doubt. Below, we will try to find out whether his statement is true or not.

Not all observers seem to have been very enthusiastic about the quality of Manhattan's soil. According to Dutch dominie Jonas Michaelius, the island was somewhat less fertile than other spots and gave more trouble on account of the multitude of roots of shrubs and trees.15 This is confirmed by Nicolaes van Wassenaer, who calls the land "full of weeds and poor."16 Another eyewitness, Isaac De Rasiere, is more specific. He writes that most of the land was in need of manure; it was partly worn out by weeds. "Because of the weeds, not all the arable will be sown, the more so because the farmers are hired men." Farms no. 1 and 2 were the best, according to De Rasiere; these were the two most northerly situated; the other farms have also good soil but not as much and it is more sandy (saveliger), so that they are more suited for rye and buckwheat.17

The letter of De Rasiere can be dated sometime in 1628; it is remarkable to note that another witness of the developments in the colony in the same year also tends to be more critical. In a letter dated August 11, 1628, the Reverend Jonas Michaelius sharply attacks the Company for making promises to him that appeared to have no value. 9 John Romeyn Baidhead, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of he State of New York, 15 vols. (New York, 1848-1885), 3: 164.

0 Condon, New York Beginnings, 71-72.

1 Letter from J. P. Schagen to the States-General, Nov. 5, 1626, ARA, Archives of the States General, inv. nr. 5751 IT.

12 "In proportion." This condition seems to have been worked out as four horses, four cows, two vaarzen or yearlings, six sheep, and six swine, see VRBM, 163.

3 Wassenaer, Historisch Verhael, 11: 39.

4 ARA, Archives of the States-General, inv. nr. 12564, 30a. "Bedenckinge over net aenvaerden( . . . )" (1650).

Letter of August 8, 1628, Eekhoff, Jonas Michaelius, 109.

J. Franklin Jameson, ed., Narratives of New Netherland (New York, 1909),

"De 'Memorie' van Isaack de Rasiere," 267.

(48)

The Company had promised him a few morgens of land for his living (a Dutch morgen is slightly more than two acres) but as it turned out to be impossible to buy any horses or cattle on Manhattan this promise was meaningless. Michaelius complains that during the next winter he will have to do without tilings like butter and that he will have to live on peas, beans, bailey, and stockfish. At one point however, Michaelius is more optimistic: the harvest is in the barns and it is larger than in the preceding years.

The optimism of Michaelius at this point is balanced by Wassenaer, who states that "the winter grain has turned out well there, but the summer grain which ripened before it was half grown in consequence of excessive heat, was very light."18 Michaelius, in a letter of August 8, 1628, gets to the heart of the matter by stating that "we need nothing so much as horses and cows, and industrious workers for the building of houses and forts, and to make our farming more profitable, in order that we may have sufficient dairy produce and crops."19

Although the sequence of events is not always clear from the available evidence, we know that before the first contracts with the farmers expired, they were replaced. This took place on January 8, 1630, when the Company rented six farms to six individuals as of May 1, 1630. In these contracts the Company control was relaxed. No longer did the animals stay in the possession of the company; this time to each fanner were sold four horses, four cows, two yearlings, six sheep and six swine, and all farming implements for 600 guilders, but the fanners, in addition, had to pay two horses of three years, two cows of two years, and three sheep and three swine as soon as they would be available.20

To each farmer a suitable fann with a house, hay barrack, and barn was rented, together with about fifty morgens of land, for the term of six years.

On the first of May 1630, almost five years after the start, there were eight farms on the island with forty-seven horses, sixty cattle, and seventy-nine sheep. If we assume that eighty-one horses and cattle survived the voyage and the seasoning period, the increase in these years had been thirty-two percent.21

Livestock on Manhattan, May 1,1630.

mares stallions cows bulls sheep

Commander's Bowery 7 2 8 -

Bijlevelt 5 6 -

Wolfert Gerritsen 4 1 9 2 20

Jehan Ides off 5 - 4 4 14 Gerrit de Reux Jacob Walichs ofte 6 2 6 2 22 Claes Comelysen Geurdt van Gelder 6 10 1

Evert Focken off 4 - 4 - 15 Rutger Hendricksen Soest Jan Lampo ofte 5 3 1 8 Cornells van Vorst

Total 42 5 50 10 79

Source: KB, Manuscript Collections, 129 C 15, "Generaele Staet vande Bestialen in Nijeuwnederlant in maijo 1630 ( . . . )."

A letter of September 1630 gives the impression of

much activity by stating that much land daily is ploughed by the farmers.22 Soon after this, however, the situation of agriculture on the island began to deteriorate. By issuing the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1629 for prospective great landowners (patroons) in the colony, the Company had itself laid the foundation for the ruinous development of its farms. Paradoxically, it was the great protagonist for agricultural settlement in New Netherland and large shai'eholder of the Company, Kiliaen van Rensselaer, who played a central part in the problems that evolved.

The inventory of animals at the Manhattan farms presented above was drawn up by Van Rensselaer in order to calculate how many "surplus" livestock there was on the Company farms, above the numbers provided for in the contracts. By doing this, he was able to find out how many animals could be purchased from the farmers by his agents. To complicate matters further, one of the head farmers, Wolfert Gerritsz, played a double role by acting as a Company tenant and as Van Rensselaer's agent on Manhattan. In fact, in the five years after the Freedoms and Exemptions, Company officials and farmers on the island sold almost all of their animals to Van Rensselaer, and, to a lesser degree, a number of other private individuals.23 This development found its culmination in the years 1632-1634, when Van Rensselaer bought livestock from at least four different farms on Manhattan. In July 1632, all animals of Bijlevelt's farm were sold to the patroon, including five horses, nine cows, six sheep, and six swine.24

hi the summer of 1632, many people were reported to have left Manhattan.25 According to one report, at the time of the arrival of the new director-general, Willem Kieft ,in March 1638, not only were five farms vacant but there was not a living animal to be found on those farms.26 An inventory taken in March 1639 shows the tragic state of affairs on the six farms. Probably at least twenty-seven cows (including yearlings and heifers) and thirteen horses had been sold to Van Rensselaer between 1632 and 1638.27 These numbers exclude the animals that were acquired before 1632. In a letter to Kieft of May 1639, Van Rensselaer somewhat halfheartedly states, "I judge, however, that the land at the Manhatans must be bad, as the people with their cattle are

18 Jameson, Narratives of New Netherland, 88

" Eekhoff, Jonas Michaelius, 109.

20 Notice served on the directors of the West India Company by notary Justus van de Ven, in the name of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, Apr. 27, 1634. De Roever, "Kiliaen van Rensselaer," 72 (bijlage C); see for an English translation V R B M 290-291.

21 See, however, Michaelius' statement in his Aug. 8, 1628, letter about more cattle having died as a consequence of "versuymenisse." If we have to take him literally, his wording "door ongeluck eiuie versuymeniss vele afgestorven sijn," may mean that fewere than 82 head finally survived. Eekhoff, Jonas Michaelius, 101.

22 Letter of Simon Dircksz. Pos to Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, Sept. 16, 1630, De Roever, "Kiliaen van Rennselaer," 70 (bijlage B).

23 Ample evidence of Van Rensselaers efforts is to be found in VRBM 206, 224-228, 276-277.

24 VRBM, 227-228. This farm was conveyed from Leendert Arenden to Pieter Stuyvesant in July 1663. Stokes, Iconography, 4: 144.

23 VRBM, 230.

26 Arnold J. F. van Laer, trans., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch. Register of the Provincial Secretary 1638-1642 (Baltimore, Md., 1974) 1: 131 [hereafter cited as NYHM].

27 VRBM, 192-193, 276-277; NYHM, 1: 115-116.

(49)

going to other places where they expect to find better land."28

The total stock on the West India Company farms on Manhattan in March 1639 consisted of four mares, one stallion, one gelding, ten cows, two heifers, eleven oxen and one bull on the Directors farm (farm no.l), and three milch cows and three bull calves on farm no. 3.29 In all thirty head of cattle and six horses, compared to sixty cows and forty-seven horses in 1630.

An idea of the causes of this situation as seen through the eyes of the Company officials may be found by looking at a special provision included in the lease contracts for the Manhattan farms in 1639. In these contracts the lessee had to promise that "he shall cultivate it or have it cultivated, diligently and industriously, witliout attending exclusively to the increase of the cattle, in order that the Company may annually receive a good quantity of grain."30 In another contract this provision is stated even clearer: "not to attend exclusively to the increase of the cattle, but diligently to till the soil, which is the Company's principal object herein."31 In the lease contracts made up before May 1639, there is not any allusion to tenants attending too much to cattle raising. The scarcity of grain, however, seems to have been a continuing problem for the Company in these years. In a contract of March 1639, in which farm no. 6 was leased to Jan van Vorst, it was stated mat Van Vorst was "bound to sow every year as much grain as he and his man will be able to conveniently manage."32

In various contracts of 1638-1639 it was stipulated that the Company should pay fifty guilders annually for the payment of farmhands. Apparently, the tillage of the soil was hindered by the lack of diligent farm servants. We know, however, that the Company also made use of its slaves in harvesting its grain in the years before 1638.33 For rent, the lessors of three company farms in the spring of 1639 had to pay half of their crops, thirty pounds of butter per cow and half of the increase of the cattle. Each of these farms was provided with three horses and five or six cows.34

The years 1638 and 1639 can be marked as the last effort of the Company to exploit its Manhattan farms on a profitable basis. Within two weeks after his arrival in March 1638, new director-general Kieft adressed the problem of the sad state of affairs on the farms. He immediately ran into trouble with his predecessor, Wouter van Twiller,

PetrusStuyvesant's "Bowery Mansion" may have been the building erected by the West India Company carpenters in 1633 for Wouter van Twiller on Farm No. 1.

who claimed certain rights on the cattle of farm no. 1, the best farm, that was traditionally rented by the highest Company official in New Netherlands the director-general. On April 8, 1638, Kieft and his council decided that the cattle on no. 1 should remain for the behoof of Van Twiller, on condition that the cattle not be removed from Manhattan. It was further decided that Kieft should take an inventory of the cattle and that the matter at issue was to be referred to the directors in Amsterdam.35

How bad the situation on Manhattan really was is also indicated by the fact that the ship on which Kieft had arrived, Harinck, was loaded with provisions which apparently could not be had in the colony. Among these were forty casks of beef, twenty casks of pork, eight tubs of butter, 1854 pounds of cheese, 2295 pounds hard bread, 360 schepels of barley, and 180 schepels of white peas.36 Finding no cattle on Manhattan, Kieft managed to get new cattle from Holland. In the summer of 1639 the ship Brant van Troyen (Fire of Troy) from Hoom, a private ship commanded by Jochem Pietersen Kuyter, arrived with cattle for the Company. David Pietersz de Vries, the famous captain, patroon, and adventurer who was at New Amsterdam at the time, exclaimed when seeing this ship full of animals at the roadstead, "that there may have come one hundred or three hundred families with farmers."37 To guarantee a minimum of grain and dairy produce, Kieft decided to lease the cows and horses of the Brant van Troyen on the condition that for each horse annually had to be paid fifteen schepels of wheat or "hard corn," and for each cow twenty-five pounds of butter. Apart from this, there was the well-known condition of the half-increase. On these conditions, seventeen cows and nine horses of the Brant van Troyen were leased to a number of private individuals.38 On the same conditions, four horses, arrived from Curacao on the ship Neptune, were leased.39

In 1641, another transport of Dutch cattle to New Netherland took place when the Coninck David was sent with cows and other goods to the North River, Manhattan, and Staten Island on the orders of Meijnert Meijnertsz van Keeren.40

28 VRBM, 428.

29 NYHM, 1: 113-114.

30 NYHM, 1: 161-162; the same provision in another wording in NYHM, 1: 158, where it is included for the first time (May 1639).

31 NYHM, 1: 159-160.

32 NYHM, 1: 127.

33 NYHM, 1: 112.

34 Farm no. 6, Mar. 31, 1639, NYHM, 1: 157-158; Farm no. 5, May 18, 1639, NYHM, 1: 159-160; Farm no. 3, May 18, 1639, NYHM, 1: 161-162.

35 NYHM, 4: 1. Probably related to this case is the disposition on May 5, 1639, of Jan Jansz. Damen of Bunnick, former tenant of Van Twiller, for an Amsterdam notary about the market prices of cattle on Manhattan between 1634/1635 and 1638. Amsterdam Notarial Archives, 1280, 60v, 61.

36 NYHM, 1: 208-209.

37 See also De Vries, Korie hisloriael, 235; Some years earlier, in 1635, a considerable number of Westfrisian cattle was transported from Hoorn to Boston. The shipping contract between Jan Martsz. Merens, former burgomaster of Hoom, and Sir Richard Saltenstall of London, provided for the purchase and transport of 55 horses, 50 heifers, 3 bulls, 70 ewes, and 4 lambs. We do not know if this transport ever really did take place. A. Merens, "Conlracten betreffende de levering van Wesl-Friesch vee naar Boston (Noord Amerika) in 1635, medegedeetd door A. Merens," in Economisch-Hislorisch Jaarboek XIX (1935), 97-113.

38 NHYM, 1: 277-278, 280-285.

39 NYHM, 1: 289-291.

40 Amsterdam Notarial Archives, July 2, 1641, 1526, 161.

(50)

.. ,vr/.' M A N A T V 5 Gelegfem o p d e N o o t

"i5-^/*._ "Rimer

" ^ . ^ J S F -

77te Manatus Map ("Manhattan Lying on the North River"), eighteenth-century copy of a map drawn in 1639, probably by Andries Hudde, showing the location of the West India Company's farms.

The lack of cattle and horses on Manhattan was only part of the trouble. We have already seen the special provision in the new lease contracts about the tilling of the land. As a result of a development in which fanners paid less and less attention to this, the Company in the 1630s had become completely dependent on the grain surplus of the patroonship of Renssselaerswijck on the upper Hudson. Comparatively large quantities of grain were delivered to the Company by Van Rensselaer's tenants in 1635, 1638, 1640-1644, and 1647, and probably most of the years in between.41 When a crop failed in Rensselaerswijck, as in 1639, this had severe consequences on Manhattan.42

Grain in schepels, delivered by the patroonship of Rensselaerswijck to the West India Company,

1638-1643.

Year

1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643

Schepels

914 526 323 666 1668 724

Source: G182.

Illegally, the tenants of Van Rensselaer exported their grain to Manhattan in apparently large quantities at prices below those officially set by the patroon. Time and again the patroon complained about the smuggling by his sub­ordinates.43

Even in 1642, when the colony was at the height of its development before the devastation of the Indian war, Kieft complained he got too little grain from Rensselaerswijck.44

In mat year, the winter crops on Manhattan had miserably failed.45 By contrast, the summer crops in 1642 were a success on Manhattan. In September Kieft expected to have fifty lasts of rye and twenty lasts of peas in his granary.46

It is about the only positive news we have from Manhattan agriculture in all these years. In 1643 there was again great shortage on Manhattan. Dried fish had to be imported from New England, "of pork, beef and peas we shall with God's help obtain enough here in New Netherland" it was stated.47

41 VRBM, 324, 467, 657, 659, 715; NYHM 2: 274-275, 407. 42 VRBM, 514. This is probably the reason why, in September 1639, David Provoost contracted for buying 500 schepels of maize from the Indians, NYHM 1: 231-232. 43 See, for instance, VRBM 657, 659. 44 VRBM, 570. 45 VRBM, 625. 46 ibid. 47 NYHM, 4: 202-203.

(51)

In the summer of 1644, as a consequence of the war, there was a shortage again. The Company didn't know "Wherewitli to feed or to maintain the soldiers" and tried to get provisions from Curacao.48

The Manatus Map of 1639 shows farms no. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as decayed, "of which now three again have been occupied." This fits with the situation after May 1639, when farms no. 3, 5, and 6 were again in operation, after they had been leased to Leendert Arentsen, Hendrick Hermansen, and Jan van Vorst, respectively. These three Company farms were leased on equal conditions. All tenants had to deliver half of their crops and half of their newborn cattle to the lessee, and, in addition, thirty pounds of butter per year were to be paid. The farms had an average of three cows and three horses to start with.

Separate from these lease contracts, which were made up soon after Kieft's arrival, six cows were leased to three different individuals against half increase and thirty or forty pounds of butter per cow. In one case, the lessor also had to pay three mengels of sweet milk and three mengels of buttermilk per week.

Apparently, the new lease contracts for the farms in 1638-1639 (when the conditions for Van Twiller to continue exploiting farm no. 1 were also set on a new footing) did not have the expected results. Half a year after the expiring of the contracts with Leendert Arentsen and Comelis Claessen Swits on farms no. 3 and 5 in 1645, these farms were transported to their lessors. In February 1646, no. 4 was conveyed, followed in the next year by the remaining farms no. 2 and 6.49 After farm no. 2 had been conveyed to Harmen Smeeman in April 1647, the Company kept only one foothold in Manhattan's agriculture, farm no. I.50

Van Twiller tried to run this farm as best he could by luring tenants from his own native region on the western Veluwe. First, in May 1639, he contracted with a certain Aert Willems of Garderbroek and his wife to manage the Manhattan farm for 200 guilders per year and a free passage.51 Two years later, he hired two young men from Voorthuizen and Putten to work on his farm. It was certainly not coincidental that these people all came from the Nijkerk region on the Veluwe. In the contract of 1641 it is expressly stated that the two farmhands had to sow, mow, plow, etc. in the Geldcrse manicr, the way they were used to in Guelderland.52

Even while the new patentees had complete control over their farms, their farming left much to be desired by the Company. The Company still had its interest in successful exploitation, because it was agreed in the patents that the farmers should pay tithes to the Company annually, as all freeholders in New Netherland had to do after a number of years. But when the first terms expired, no payments were made, and the Company complained that the fanners "made no preparation worth mentioning to improve the land and cultivate it with zeal and industry." Director-general and council warned the farmers to "fence their lands and to till them with all diligence . . . on pain, if they continue negligent, of being deprived of the lands which will be given to others who regularly pay the quitrent annually."53

Five years later, three of the patentees still appear not to have paid one penny to the Company. On August 25,

1653, Leendert Arentsen, Cornells Jacobsen Stifle, and Gerrit Hendricksen appear in the New Amsterdam court to answer complaints about their not paying tithes of the crops according to the patent. The three farmers responded that "on account of short crops and war, they had been heretofore excused . . . from paying the tithes." Leendert Arentsen said that he would leave his bouwerij, provided he is paid the moneys he has expended, and confessed that he is indebted to the Company, but did not know how much.54 At the next court session, the fiscal Cornelis van Tienhoven, who sued the fanners for their default, produced the obligations signed by Arentsen and Stille, proving their debts for 1563 and 789 guilders. The court condemned the two to immediate payment.55

It is not known if they were ever able to pay, but it is certain that their financial problems were not over after this year. When the Overseers of the Fences inspected the fences on the island of Manhattan in 1656 they found the common fence out of order in many places, among them the farms of Arentsen and Stille. Both were condemned to pay one guilder per head of cattle. Arentsen told the court that he was ready to pay but had nothing but peas, while Stille said he wasn't able to pay but promised to settle before the end of the month.56 The story of the Company tenants and their financial troubles as independent farmers after they had acquired patents automatically raises the question whether private fanning on Manhattan really was a good alternative to Company control.

As has been stated, after 1647 the West India Company only possessed on Manhattan the farm leased by Van Twiller, farm no. 1. But not even this largest and best farm could bring much profit to the Company. Van Twiller had in 1642 successfully claimed exemption from paying the sixth sheaf of his crops over the years 1638-1642; an indication that even Van Twiller had not been very punctual in paying his rent. He further was able to get favorable conditions from the Amsterdam directors at the expiration of his lease. He was allowed to dispose of his cattle, movables, slaves, and all that belonged to him.57

The era of Company fanning on Manhattan came to a close in March 1651, when the directors in Amsterdam sold farm no. 1 to director-general Pietrus Stuyvesant for 6400 guilders. Finally, the directors saw some ready money from their farms. The sale included farm, dwelling house, bam, hayrick, land, six cows, two horses, two young negroes.58

48 NYHM 4: 232. 49 Land Papers, GG 120, GG 129. GG 134, GG 195, GG 207. 50 Farm No. 2 was conveyed by Smeeman to Willem Beeckman in 1635, and from Beeckman to Petrus Stuyvesant in 1656. Stokes, Iconography 4 (?), 143. The farm was large 23 morgens and 486 rods, or 46 acres. 51 Amsterdam Notarial Archives, 1332, 45. 52 Amsterdam Notarial Archives, May 13, 1646, 1060, 89, 89v. 53 NYHM 4: 514. 54 RNA 4: 104-105. 55 RNA 1: 111-112. 56 RNA 2: 92. 57 NYHM 3: 174. 58 Charles Gehring, Guide to Dutch Manuscripts Relating to New Netherland. 426: 58.

(52)

Book Review

William B. Bogardus, Dear "Cousin": A Charted Genealogy of the Descendants of Anneke Jans Bogardus (1605-1663) to the 5th Generation (Wilmington, Ohio: Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus Descendants Association, 1996).

One of the more renowned residents of New Netherland is Anneke Jans, who immigrated with her husband, Roelof Jansen, in 1630. The couple first settled in Rensselaerswijck but Roelof Jansen was later granted a large tract of land for a farm in the lower part of Manhattan Island, where they settled about 1636. After her first husband's death, Anneke wed in 1638 Everardus Bogardus, dominie of the Dutch Reformed Church in New Amsterdam. By her two husbands, Anneke had ten children who married into some of the most prominent families of New Netherland. She also had a sister, Marritje, who settled in New Amsterdam and had three husbands, the last being the merchant Govert Loockermans.

Anneke Jans only became well known in the nineteenth century when her descendants attempted to recover the land she had once owned, which by that time was a valuable part of New York City real estate. The land had been given by the British gov­ernment to Trinity Church in 1705 without compensation to Anneke's descendants. As a result of the nine­teenth-century lawsuits and the pub­licity associated with them, there evolved false genealogical data and some mythical stories about Anneke. The most frequently told myth being that she was a grandaughter of William the Silent, prince of Orange. Some of these stories have long been discredited by genealogists and some of the genealogical material concerning her descendants corrected. Nonetheless, because much of this erroneous material was published, it continues to be perpetuated.

Dear "Cousin": A Charted Genealogy of the Descendants of Anneke Jans Bogardus (1605-1663) to the 5th Generation, corrects many of these errors. The author, William B. Bogardus, a member of the Holland Society, has devoted a complete section of the work to a discussion of the most significant errors and incorrect lines of descent, including Kierstede, Kip, Edwards, and others. Bogardus is the founder of The Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus Descendants Association and has been researching the Jans-Bogardus descendants for thirty-four years. He has an extensive genealogical library on the subject and helps many persons with their genealogy. This is the author's first major publication, although his association has produced booklets of lesser scope, such as Anneke Jans-Bogardus and Adam Brouwer Research Aid Bibliography and Directory of Genealogical

Alleged Portrait of Anneke Jans (1605-1663)

and Historical Articles Published in de Halve Maen from 1923 to 1991.

In addition to correcting genealogical errors, the author has included a complete discussion of the alleged portraits of Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus. Because the identity of the persons depicted in these portraits has been questioned, the author presents all sides of the argument but arrives at no definite conclusion. These portraits are shown as full-page illustrations.

The work also includes a section devoted to detailed biographies of Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus. In this regard, new information concerning the early life of Everardus Bogardus has recently been discovered in the Netherlands by Prof. Willem Th. M. Frijhoff (see de Halve Mae/2,68 [Spring 1995], 1-12).Theauthorhas also incorporated

the findings of genealogist George O. Zabriskie, as described in his articles "The Founding Families of New Netherland—The Roelof and Bogardus Families" (see de Halve Maen, 47 [Oct. 1972], 7-10, 15; [Jan. 1973], 11-12; vol.48 [Apr. 1973], 11-12; [July 1973], 9-10; [Oct. 1973], 13-14. His biog­raphies correct many of the published errors.

The most significant portion of the book is the charted genealogies of the descendants of Anneke Jans and her sister, Marritje Jans, to the fifth generation. These charts, which give birth, marriage, and death dates, are numbered and easy to follow as each chart refers to the number of the adjoining charts. There is a section at the back of the book devoted to a bibliography and notes for each chart, so if readers wish to learn more about an individual, they could consult these other sources. The charts are par­ticularly helpful in visualizing familial

relationships. Detailed footnotes are shown throughout the publication. A Dutch-to-English given name equivalent list and an adequate index of names complete the publication.

I highly recommend this work to all who are interested in New Netherland genealogy, even if they are not descendants of Anneke Jans Bogardus or her sister, Marritje. William B. Bogardus is to be congratulated on his efforts. I understand he will now work on another volume which will include the sixth and seventh generations, but only of Anneke Jans's descendants. I will be looking forward to the publication of this companion volume.

This hardcover book of 192 pages may be purchased postpaid for $29.50 from William B. Bogardus, 1121 Linhof Road, Wilmington, Ohio 45177-2917.

— David M. Riker

(53)

Society Activities Niagara Frontier Branch Meeting

Tlie Annual Spring Dinner Meeting of tlie Niagai'a Frontier Branch took place on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, at tlie popular, traditional site, the Buffalo Yacht Club, on tlie city's beautiful and scenic waterfront. The attractive upper dining area afforded a delightful twilight view of tlie Niagara River, Lake Erie, and the nearby International Peace Bridge, which spans the U.S.-Canadian border. A congenial gathering of Holland Society members and their wives and guests from throughout western New York and nearby Ontario, Canada, met for a cocktail hour preceding dinner. Guests of honor were tlie recently retired The Hon. Henriette S. locking, who served as Consul General of the Netherlands in Buffalo as well as Vice Consul for Western New York for some twenty years, and her husband Dr. Hubert L. Jockin.

Toasts to the President of tlie United States and the Queen of the Netherlands were followed by introductory remarks by Branch President Chase Viele. Speaker of tlie evening was Dr. Jan van Harssel, Professor and Chairperson, Institute of Travel, Hotel & Restaurant Adminisu'ation, Niagai'a University, Niagai'a Falls, New York. Dr. van Harssel's talk was entitled "Changing Needs of Mature Travelers in Today's World." A native of Etten-Leur, tlie Netherlands, with a B.A. degree from Breda (North Brabant), an M.A. from tlie New School (New York City), and an Ed.D. from tlie University of Vermont, he is the author of Tourism, An Exploration, published in 1989, now in its fourth edition and in use by over 100 U.S. colleges. Van Harssel's remarks, while general in scope, were directed especially toward tlie "older" traveling public and the innovative programs developed in recent years to accommodate tlie aging tourist, whose numbers currently constitute a rapidly expanding share of tlie total world tourism market.

Those in attendance were Mr. and Mrs. Howard C. Vreeland, Dr. and Mrs. Andrew W. Brink, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Coykendal, Dr. Robert L. Van Dusen, Mr. and Mrs. Applcton Fryer, Mr. and Mrs. Courtland Van Deusen IV, Mr. John I Eckerson, Mrs. Helen Kraatz, Dr. and Mrs. Hubert L. Jockin, Mr. and Mrs. Colin G. Lazier, Tlie Hon. & Mrs. Colin D. Lazier, Mr. Chase Viele, and Dr. Jan van Harssel.

Old Bergen Branch Meeting

On October 2, 1996, some twenty-five members of the Old Bergen Branch of The Holland Society and their guests gathered at the Old Paramus Reformed Church in Ridgewood, New Jersey, for their semi-annual meeting and dinner.

After dinner Robert T. Augustyn of Martayan Lan treated the assemblage to a wonderful introduction to selected and appropriate antique maps of New Nethcrland, "the real things." Martayan Lan, of 48 East 57th Street, New York City, is generally regarded as one of tlie world's leading dealers of fine antique maps. Mr. Augustyn has written several articles and reviews, the most recent article appealing in the magazine Antiques in September 1995. In the autumn

Robert T. Augustyn of Martayan Lan, New York City, speaking before the Old Bergen Branch Meeting in October.

of 1997, Rizzoli Publications International will publish The Mapping of Manhattan, of which Mr. Augustyn is co-author.

One of tlie original maps the members and guests enjoyed was W. Blaeu's classic map of New Natherland and New England,NovaBelgica EtAngliaNova, published in Amsterdam about 1635. This was the first map to illustrate North American animals, particularly the fur-bearing kind that initially lured Dutch merchants to North America. The map is also richly embellished with ships in full sail, Indian canoes and villages, elegant calligraphy, and a fine cartouche, which was based on a 1614 chart by Adriaen Block, the first European to explore Long Island Sound and to establish the insularity of both Manhattan and Long Island, and includes New Amsterdam and Plymouth.

Ulster Branch Meeting

Twenty-one members of the Ulster Branch of the Holland Society and their guests gathered at The Locust Tree Inn in New Paltz, New York, on October 27, 1996, for the Annual Fall Meeting of tlie Ulster Branch.

The afternoon began with a social hour where those attending visited with old friends and new acquaintances, including a prospective new member or two. After that cordial time, luncheon was enjoyed in a bright, pleasant, separate room provided by the inn's management. Rev. Louis O. Springsteen, Associate Dominie of the Holland Society, offered grace to introduce tlie meal. A brief and informal meeting followed, conducted by Branch President Norman Van Valkenburgh.

The meeting concluded with a presentation by Bob Lai'sen and Barbara Rubin, world renowned bird watchers. Larsen and Rubin chronicled their recent trip beyond tlie Arctic Circle to Baffin Island in northeastern Canada. They accompanied their talk with picturesque slides of the region and its birds.

(54)

Here and There With Members The New Netherland Project, a translation program initiated

by late Holland Society Trustee Ralph L. DeGroff, Sr., and based in Albany at the New York State Library under the direction of Holland Society Fellow Dr. Charles T. Gehring, was the recipient of a grant from the Prins Bernhard Fonds of the Netherlands. The amount received of 25,000 guilders, or approximately $15,900, was for the transcription of the volume of seventeenth-century Dutch manuscripts called Cor­respondence XII, 1654-1658, part of the series New Netherland Documents. The funds received will be used to match the New Netherland Project's three-year National Endowment for the Humanities grant, the seventh consecutive grant in

Bronson Atwell Quackenbush

Bronson Atwell Quackenbush, a member of The Holland Society of New York for more than forty years and a lifelong resident, businessman, and community leader of Herkimer, New York, died on August 29, 1996, at his summer home on Wellesley Island in The Thousand Islands, near Alexandria Bay, New York. He was eighty-nine years old. Mr. Quackenbush served as treasurer and general manager of H.M. Quackenbush, Inc. from 1946 until 1968, and as president, chief executive officer, and chairman from 1968 to 1986, when he retired.

Mr. Quackenbush was born on October 30, 1906, in Herkimer and was a direct tenth-generation descendant of Pieter Quackenbosch, who came to this country from Oestgeest, Holland (near Leiden), in the year 1653. He was the son of Paul Henry Quackenbush and Louise Wellesley Atwell.

Mr. Quackenbush graduated from The Peddie School in Hightstown, New Jersey, and then attended Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He left college at the end of his sophomore year to join his family business in Herkimer, which was founded in 1871 by his grandfather, Henry Marcus Quackenbush. The company, which was the subject of an extensive front-page article in the June 2, 1975, Wall Street Journal, originally made guns, air rifles, and shot, plus an assortment of household items, but has also been making nutcrackers for about 100 years in the very same factory. In the article Mr. Quackenbush said that he never liked to talk about numbers, but he reluctantly acknowledged that his company made "just about all the nutcrackers made in the United States," continuing that he "wouldn't want anyone to get ideas about going into the business." Mr. Quackenbush, during his tenure, considered building a new modem plant but decided against it because it would have cost $700,000 or $800,000 and "that's a lot of nutcrackers to sell." H. M. Quackenbush, Inc., now in its 125 th year of operation, continues in the family and is now headed by two of Bronson's grandsons.

Mr. Quackenbush wed Margaret Isabelle Lee Thompson on September 19, 1929, in Herkimer. They had tliree children, all bora in Herkimer: Margaret Lee, born January 23, 1931;

the lifetime of the project. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Prins Bernhard Fonds, the New Netherland Project can proceed with translating the archives of New Netherland which provide the vital link to the story of Dutch settlement and its impact in North America.

The Prins Berrnhard Fonds is considered the most important cultural foundation in the Netherlands. It is a major contributor to the arts, humanities, sciences, cultural education, historic and nature preservation in the country. Past recipients of Prins Bernhard Fonds grants have included the Papers of Jacob Leisler Project at New York University, under the direction of Holland Society Trustee Dr. David William Voorhees.

Constance Atwell, born March 4, 1932; and Paul Henry II, bora August 8, 1933.

In addition to H. M. Quackenbush, Inc., Mr. Quackenbush had been a director of Empire Airlines, Inc., a company founded by his son, and of the first National Bank of Herkimer and Marine Midland Bank.

Active in many civic organizations, including the Kiwanis Club of Herkimer and the Village Board of Education, of which he was president during the 1940s, Mr. Quackenbush was treasurer of the Thousand Island Park Tabernacle Committee, played a leading role in the Little Theater Club of Ilion, New York, and was a deacon of the Reformed Church of Herkimer, in addition to his membership in the Holland Society. Mr. Quackenbush was also a member of the Fort Schuyler Club in Utica, New York. He enjoyed sailing and power boating. His politics were Republican and in his application to the Holland Society, on November 3, 1952, he stated that he was "hoping to help elect General Eisenho wer tomorrow."

Mr. Quackenbush was predeceased by his wife of sixty-five years, Margaret Thompson Quackenbush, who died in October 1994, and by his son, Paul H. Quackenbush II, who died in August 1991 in an automobile accident. Paul had also been a member of The Holland Society. Mr. Quackenbush is survived by his daughters Margaret Hager Hart of New York City and Constance Q. Umberger of Nantucket, Massachusetts, and ten grandchildren and tliree great-grand­children.

Memorial services were held on September 1, 1996, at the Densmore Church on Wellesley Island and on September 3, 1996, at the Reformed Church of Herkimer. Interment was private.

James William Ringo

James William Ringo, a member of The Holland Society of New York since 1982, died at Ringo Ranch, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida, on May 24, 1996. He was eighty-one years old.

Mr. Ringo was a tenth-generation descendant of Philip

In Memoriam

(55)

Janszen Ringo, owner and operator of the ship New Netherlands Indian, who came to this country from Vassengan, Zeeland, in the Netherlands in the year 1643. He was born November 1, 1914, in Linton, Indiana, and was the son of Samuel Clay Ringo and Evelyn Janet Callaway.

Mr. Ringo was a well known cattleman in Collier County, Florida, and also the owner of Crandon Realty for more than fifty years. In addition, for tlie past few years he was also the proud owner of the largest herd of llamas in Florida.

Mr. Ringo graduated from Lake College of Commerce in Waukegan, Illinois, in 1936. He spent six years in the United States Navy, from 1939 to 1945, and saw action aboard the destroyer USS Hamilton in North Africa and in the Pacific, receiving nine Battle Stars and two Presidential Unit Citations.

Mr. Ringo settled in Florida upon his discharge from military service. There he operated a real estate brokerage business in Miami and Key Biscayne until 1953, when he built his home and ranch just south of Immokalee. He was active in Collier County politics, where he was chairman of the Immokalee Area Zoning Board for many years and also served on the Florida Regional Water Board. As an accredited real estate appraiser he did the appraisal of the Collier Company land, which was the largest single land appraisal ever completed east of the Mississippi River.

Mr. Ringo married Mildred Fern Frye in South Bend, Indiana, on January 4, 1935. They had three sons: James Joseph Ringo, born September 15, 1935, in Akin, Illinois; William Arthur Ringo, born February 11, 1937, in Battle Creek, Michigan; and Robert Ralph Ringo, born December 22, 1946, in Miami, Florida. Mr. Ringo married second Marjorie Ruth Herzog at Everglades City, Florida, on February 3, 1955.

Mr. Ringo was a life member of his Masonic Order. His principal recreation was raising purebred Santa Gertrudis cattle, exhibiting them, and then selling them. He also enjoyed collecting gem stones. His church denomination was Methodist, though he had not been a member of a congregation in some time. A registered Democrat, he voted independently for more than fifty years.

Mr. Ringo is survived by his wife of almost forty years, Marjorie, and his three sons: James of Port St. Lucy, Florida; William, of Naples, Florida; and Robert, of Fairfield, New Jersey.

Donald Frederick Sutphen

Donald Frederick Sutphen, a member of The Holland Society of New York for thirty-six years, died on July 24, 1996, in Centra State Medical Center, Freehold, New Jersey, from prostate cancer. He was sixty-six years old.

Mr. Sutphen claimed descent from Dirck Jansen van Sutphen, who came to this county from Utrecht, Holland, in the year 1651. He was born on May 8, 1930, in East Orange, New Jersey, and was tlie son of Frederick Ten Eyck Sutphen and Madeline G. Scriggins. His father also had been a member of the Holland Society.

Mr. Sutphen's education first ended when he received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of North Carolina in 1952, after which he was drafted into the service for tlie Korean War. He served with the United States Army, 143rd Field Artillery Battalion, in Korea in 1953 and 1954, serving as tlie Battalion Sergeant Major with tlie rank of Sergeant First Class, and was decorated twice while serving there. After his term in the service, his formal education began again at Columbia University in 1955 and continued in 1958 and 1959 at tlie General Theological Seminary in New York City.

Mr. Sutphen was employed by Dow Jones in Princeton, New Jersey, where he became tlie director of Sales Circulation. Upon his retirement, he became a financial consultant to Dow Jones.

Mr. Sutphen married Geraldine Paulmier at Christ Church, East Orange, New Jersey, on October 26, 1957. They had two children: Stephen Mark, bom February 26,1960, in Montclair, New Jersey; and Mary Elizabeth, bom August 22, 1969, in Neptune, New Jersey.

Mr. Sutphen was treasurer of the Episcopal Synod of Fellowship of St. Joseph of Arimatliea of Matawan, New Jersey, and a former Boy Scout Master of Troop Number 18, of Freehold, New Jersey. His politics were Republican. His avocations included scuba diving and travel.

Mr. Sutphen is survived by his wife of almost forty years, Geraldine, of Freehold; his son, Stephen Mark of Rumson, New Jersey; and his daughter, Mary Elizabeth Sutphen of Boston, Massachusetts; and three grandchildren.

A memorial service was held at King of Kings Lutheran Church, Middletown, New Jersey, and interment was in Rosedale Cemetery, Orange, New Jersey.

(56)

T H E TRUSTEES O F T H E FRIENDS O F NEW

NETHER LAND

ANNOUNCE

T H E I 9 9 7 HENDRICKS MANUSCRIPT AWARD

FOR THE B E S T MANUSCRIPT ON THE DUTCH COLONIAL

EXPERIENCE IN NORTH AMERICA

T H E FRIENDS OF NEW NETHERLAND IS THE RECIPIENT OF AN ENDOWMENT FROM ANDREW A.

HENDRICKS, A FRIENDS MEMBER FROM NORTH CAROLINA WHOSE AVOCATION IS THE HISTORY OF

NEW NETHERLAND. INCOME FROM THE ENDOWMENT IS USED TO PROMOTE AND STIMULATE RESEARCH

IN THE AREA OF NEW NETHERLAND STUDIES BY OFFERING AN ANNUAL PRIZE OF $ I . O O O FOR

THE BEST PUBLISHED OR UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT FOCUSING ON ANY ASPECT OF THE DUTCH

COLONIAL EXPERIENCE IN NORTH AMERICA.

ENTRIES MUST BE BASED ON RESEARCH COMPLETED OR PUBLISHED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR

TO FIRST SUBMISSION. MANUSCRIPTS MAY DEAL WITH ANY ASPECT OF NEW NETHERLAND HISTORY.

BIOGRAPHIES OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE CAREERS ILLUMINATE ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF NEW

NETHERLAND ARE ELIGIBLE, AS ARE MANUSCRIPTS DEALING WITH SUCH CULTURAL MATTERS AS

LITERATURE AND THE ARTS, PROVIDED THAT IN SUCH CASES THE METHODOLOGY IS HISTORICAL.

EDITED COLLECTIONS OF ARTICLES THAT MEET THE ABOVE CRITERIA ARE ELIGIBLE; HOWEVER, WORKS

OF FICTION AND WORKS OF ARTICLE LENGTH ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. T H E SUCCESSFUL ENTRY SHOULD

BE WELL WRITTEN, BE ADEQUATELY RESEARCHED AND DOCUMENTED, DEMONSTRATE THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE

OF PRIMARY SOURCES, FOLLOW ACCEPTED SCHOLARLY STANDARDS, AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCHOLARSHIP

IN THE FIELD.

THREE RIBBON COPIES, COMPUTER PRINTOUTS, OR CLEAR, READABLE PHOTOCOPIES SHOULD

BE SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER I , I 9 9 6 , WITH A LETTER OF INTENT TO ENTER THE

CONTEST. T H E PRIZE WINNER, CHOSEN BY A FIVE-MEMBER PANEL OF SCHOLARS, WILL BE SELECTED

IN MAY OR J U N E 1 9 9 7 . T H E PRIZE WILL BE GIVEN AT AN AWARDS CEREMONY IN CONJUNCTION

WITH THE RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR IN THE FALL OF I 9 9 7 . T H E WINNING MANUSCRIPT, IF

NOT OTHERWISE OBLIGATED, WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION BY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

A D D R E S S ENTRIES TO:

HENDRICKS MANUSCRIPT AWARD COMMITTEE

FRIENDS O F NEW NETHERLAND

C/O T H E NEW NETHERLAND P R O J E C T

NEW YORK STATE LIBRARY — CEC 8 T H FLOOR

ALBANY, NY I 2 2 3 0

R)UNDED188/