At long last we arrive at the crux of the matter. Glenn Penner’s suggestion encompasses many details (for the full version, see here), each of which deserved attention. Thus far we have confirmed every one. The two Benjamin Bullers listed in the GRANDMA database (60393 and 32139) are indeed the same individual, who had at least five daughters and two sons. We discovered further that by 1815, while still in Poland/West Prussia, Benjamin had buried his wife, both sons, and one daughter. Five years later Benjamin, his daughter Trincke/Katharina and her husband Johann Ratzlaff, and nearly all the rest of the Przechovka Mennonite church emigrated to Molotschna, where they founded the village Alexanderwohl. There Benjamin lived in Wirtschaft 16 with Johann and Katharina, until he died in 1830.
All that is known with a good deal of certainty. Still, none of it proves that Benjamin Heinrich Buller was the father of Benjamin Benjamin Buller, at present our earliest known ancestor. That possibility remains to be examined, as we will do over the next several posts. We begin with a statement of the hypothesis as I understand it.
The father of David Buller (father of Peter D, father of Peter P, and so on) was named Benjamin Benjamin, his middle name indicating that his father was also named Benjamin. We have documented that fact on more than one occasion. Consequently, our task is to find a Buller named Benjamin who was associated with the Przechovka church (as were, we believe, all Mennonite Bullers) who would have had children at the time when Benjamin Benjamin was born, that is, around 1789. Glenn’s hypothesis is that we have evidence for only one Benjamin Buller who fits every criterion: Benjamin Heinrich Buller.
We already know that we have no positive evidence, no documentary proof, that this hypothesis is true. Consequently, instead of seeking to prove the hypothesis, we should try to disprove it by raising every possible objection against it. If, in the end, the hypothesis still stands, then we may conclude, until evidence demonstrates otherwise, that the hypothesis is the most likely explanation of all the facts at hand.
With all that as background, we begin with the strongest piece of evidence against the hypothesis: Benjamin Benjamin Buller is absent from the Przechovka church book (PCB). Why is this important? Seven of Benjamin Heinrich and Maricke Cornelsen Buller’s children are listed in the PCB, so one would expect any other children born to the couple also to be registered in the book. The fact that Benjamin is not listed at all requires some explanation.
The organization of the PCB may well provide one clue. The book begins by listing and describing briefly the families of the church, then proceeds to list the known members of each family as a group. Thus the Ratzlaff family members extend from entry 23 through 192, at which point the Wedel family members are listed as entries 193–287. After that the family listings proceed alphabetically from Becker, Buller, and Cornels through Thoms, Unrau, and Voht (yes, that is how it is spelled). Looking through all the family listings, most of the latest years of birth are 1783 or 1784, although a few 1788 entries appear. All this makes sense, given what we know about the origin of the PCB: in 1784 Jacob Wedel compiled, as best as he could, the names of all the members of the church from its beginning through to his day. All the names were grouped, of course, by family.
With only a few exceptions, children born after that time were listed in the second half of the book one after another by date, that is, not by family. So, for example, the children born in 1787 extend from entry 1238 through entry 1261, with 1788 spanning 1262 to 1277; the 1789 births are found in entries 1278–1293, those for 1790 in 1294–1308.
However, the listing of births is not as tidy as this description makes it sound. In fact, the listings are fairly jumbled in some cases. For example, the second section of the book, after the family groups, begins with two 1794 births, followed by ten 1795 births, then eight 1796 births, fifteen 1797 births, and two 1800 births. Then the book shifts to several small family groups before taking up the births by year again, except that entries 1196–1204 present births between 1760 and 1784 in no particular order. The listing then picks up with 1785 and proceeds in an orderly fashion through 1794, skips 1795–1796, mixes 1798 and 1797, then moves forward systematically year by year through 1818.
What relevance does this potentially tedious description of the PCB have for the question at hand? As we noted in an earlier post, Benjamin Heinrich’s first five children, born between 1775 and 1783, were listed in the family-group section (see photograph above); the final two children recorded were born in 1784 and 1788, respectively, that is, too late to be included in the family group. They were thus listed in the second section, as entries 1198 and 1264.
If Benjamin Benjamin was born in 1789 or thereabouts (as our records for him imply), why is he not listed in the second section as well? We would expect to find him in the upper 1200s or lower 1300s, but he appears neither there nor anywhere in the PCB.
The explanation for this is probably due to the periodically haphazard nature of the church’s record keeping. We should not think of the list as a precise and rigidly ordered account of all the births that took place in the church. The entries for 1789 offer a good example of the dynamics at play. The dates of birth for that year are listed below:
It appears that entries were made as information was provided to the record keeper, which led to him list, for example, an August birth followed by a May birth followed by another August one and then a March birth, followed by an earlier May birth. In other words, the process for recording births was rather loose, with the record keeper presumably adding information when he was told to do so. If parents forgot to tell him of a birth right away, he did not enter a record until they did so. If they neglected to tell him at all, presumably the birth went unrecorded.
The haphazard nature of the process could explain Benjamin Benjamin’s absence from the church book. In fact, we have another example close at hand that supports this theory. An earlier post in this series told how Johann Ratzlaff and his wife Katharina Buller emigrated to Molotschna as part of the Przechovka church. The passport identified Johann as hailing from Przechovka, and we know that Katharina/Trincke was a member of that church (entry 371). In short, there is little doubt that Johann was a member of the church, as was his father Peter Ratzlaff. Nevertheless, Johann Ratzlaff is never listed in the PCB; his birth, baptism, and marriage to church member Katharina are not recorded or even hinted at in the church book.
I have little doubt that we could multiply similar instances of church members who do not appear in the church book. The cause of this would make for an interesting study all on its own, but the reality seems inescapable: some members of the Przechovka church are never listed in the church book.
All that to say: it is feasible that Benjamin Heinrch and Maricke Cornelsen Buller had another child who was born after all the rest (i.e., after 1788) but who for some reason was not recorded in the church book: Benjamin Benjamin. The absence of this child from the church book is disappointing but not decisive. Benjamin Benjamin may well have been born into the church circa 1789; the next post in this series will consider another piece of evidence that implies that, in fact, he was.
With all that as background, we begin with the strongest piece of evidence against the hypothesis: Benjamin Benjamin Buller is absent from the Przechovka church book (PCB). Why is this important? Seven of Benjamin Heinrich and Maricke Cornelsen Buller’s children are listed in the PCB, so one would expect any other children born to the couple also to be registered in the book. The fact that Benjamin is not listed at all requires some explanation.
The organization of the PCB may well provide one clue. The book begins by listing and describing briefly the families of the church, then proceeds to list the known members of each family as a group. Thus the Ratzlaff family members extend from entry 23 through 192, at which point the Wedel family members are listed as entries 193–287. After that the family listings proceed alphabetically from Becker, Buller, and Cornels through Thoms, Unrau, and Voht (yes, that is how it is spelled). Looking through all the family listings, most of the latest years of birth are 1783 or 1784, although a few 1788 entries appear. All this makes sense, given what we know about the origin of the PCB: in 1784 Jacob Wedel compiled, as best as he could, the names of all the members of the church from its beginning through to his day. All the names were grouped, of course, by family.
With only a few exceptions, children born after that time were listed in the second half of the book one after another by date, that is, not by family. So, for example, the children born in 1787 extend from entry 1238 through entry 1261, with 1788 spanning 1262 to 1277; the 1789 births are found in entries 1278–1293, those for 1790 in 1294–1308.
However, the listing of births is not as tidy as this description makes it sound. In fact, the listings are fairly jumbled in some cases. For example, the second section of the book, after the family groups, begins with two 1794 births, followed by ten 1795 births, then eight 1796 births, fifteen 1797 births, and two 1800 births. Then the book shifts to several small family groups before taking up the births by year again, except that entries 1196–1204 present births between 1760 and 1784 in no particular order. The listing then picks up with 1785 and proceeds in an orderly fashion through 1794, skips 1795–1796, mixes 1798 and 1797, then moves forward systematically year by year through 1818.
What relevance does this potentially tedious description of the PCB have for the question at hand? As we noted in an earlier post, Benjamin Heinrich’s first five children, born between 1775 and 1783, were listed in the family-group section (see photograph above); the final two children recorded were born in 1784 and 1788, respectively, that is, too late to be included in the family group. They were thus listed in the second section, as entries 1198 and 1264.
If Benjamin Benjamin was born in 1789 or thereabouts (as our records for him imply), why is he not listed in the second section as well? We would expect to find him in the upper 1200s or lower 1300s, but he appears neither there nor anywhere in the PCB.
The explanation for this is probably due to the periodically haphazard nature of the church’s record keeping. We should not think of the list as a precise and rigidly ordered account of all the births that took place in the church. The entries for 1789 offer a good example of the dynamics at play. The dates of birth for that year are listed below:
- February 3
- February 23
- February 8
- April 1
- April 28
- March 14
- July 7
- August 4
- May 28
- August 16
- March 27
- May 2
- September 29
- October 3
- November 5
- December 18
It appears that entries were made as information was provided to the record keeper, which led to him list, for example, an August birth followed by a May birth followed by another August one and then a March birth, followed by an earlier May birth. In other words, the process for recording births was rather loose, with the record keeper presumably adding information when he was told to do so. If parents forgot to tell him of a birth right away, he did not enter a record until they did so. If they neglected to tell him at all, presumably the birth went unrecorded.
The haphazard nature of the process could explain Benjamin Benjamin’s absence from the church book. In fact, we have another example close at hand that supports this theory. An earlier post in this series told how Johann Ratzlaff and his wife Katharina Buller emigrated to Molotschna as part of the Przechovka church. The passport identified Johann as hailing from Przechovka, and we know that Katharina/Trincke was a member of that church (entry 371). In short, there is little doubt that Johann was a member of the church, as was his father Peter Ratzlaff. Nevertheless, Johann Ratzlaff is never listed in the PCB; his birth, baptism, and marriage to church member Katharina are not recorded or even hinted at in the church book.
I have little doubt that we could multiply similar instances of church members who do not appear in the church book. The cause of this would make for an interesting study all on its own, but the reality seems inescapable: some members of the Przechovka church are never listed in the church book.
All that to say: it is feasible that Benjamin Heinrch and Maricke Cornelsen Buller had another child who was born after all the rest (i.e., after 1788) but who for some reason was not recorded in the church book: Benjamin Benjamin. The absence of this child from the church book is disappointing but not decisive. Benjamin Benjamin may well have been born into the church circa 1789; the next post in this series will consider another piece of evidence that implies that, in fact, he was.
No comments:
Post a Comment