The Moravians were variously known as the Unitas Fratrum (Unity of the Brethren), Brűdergemeine (Congregation of the Brethren), Herrnhuters, and in America, Moravians. Their religious practices and beliefs had roots in their historical past that extended to pre-Reformations days in Central Europe as descendants of fifteenth-century Czech reformer and martyr Jan Hus (1370–1415). Hus and his followers, Hussites, opposed the machinery of church and state and clerical abuses but promoted nonviolence and communalism. Eventually Bohemian descendents of Hus and adherents of German Pietism, who had emerged from the ravages of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), came together inadvertently in the early eighteenth century. As Lutheran Pietists espoused a heart-felt religion and formed conventicles or small gatherings within their congregations, they were accused of establishing a “fourth species” or new religion outlawed by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which recognized only the Reformed (Calvinist), Evangelisch (Lutheran), and Roman Catholic churches. Opposition to these reforming movements resonated throughout German territories and Hapsburg hereditary lands.In the early 1720s these disparate asylum seekers sought refuge with reformed minded German Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf. Zinzendorf settled them on a small village named Herrnhut (the Lord’s watch) near the count’s estate, Berthelsdorf, in the southeast corner of Saxony, a German state. By 1727, Zinzendorf formulated the future of his adherents by becoming founder and architect of the Renewed Moravian Church. In 1728 Zinzendorf resurrected ancient rituals such as the use of the Lot that posed questions to the Lot to determine the fate of every Moravian congregant. Pieces of paper marked Ja or Nein or left blank were put in a box. If a spiritual leader drew a blank, it meant the decision was deferred. The Lot managed almost every detail of congregational life from career choices to marriage partners. The Lot even settled questions involving whether to accept Indian converts into baptism and the naming of mission outposts. Moravians believed Christ actually made all decisions through the Lot.Another pervasive practice fostered by Zinzendorf was the Pietist idea of conventicles or small gatherings. He divided his congregation into ten Banden or Choirs: single men, single women, older boys, older girls, little boys, little girls, married men, married women, widowers, and widows. They were housed separately. Zinzendorf believed that the Choir system corresponded to the stages of the Savior’s life from infancy to manhood. They executed these practices and other customs in their Georgia mission; these practices startled outsiders.More acceptable to non-Moravians was the lovefeast (Liebesmahl), an early church ritual that allowed strangers to attend. Buns and hot tea were passed among the attendees. Another idiosyncratic custom was the Singstunde (song-sermon). An elder led hymns as the audience sang unceasingly for an hour. The hymns were thematic. Moravian services as well as everyday living concentrated on the wounds of Jesus and the depravity of humankind.Their stand on nonviolence added more tensions to a landscape already inflamed. They refused to serve in the King’s army. To ensure the church’s longevity, Zinzendorf encouraged some to migrate to British North America to evangelize Indigenous peoples. Their mission experiences abroad gave rise to writing almost daily and sending copious documents to other Moravian congregations, in particular, Herrnhut.Aware of the significance of these Journals or Diaria, coeditors Ackim Kopp and John Thomas Scott mined the Moravian records at the Unity Archives in Herrnhut (Germany) and made available the Journals of the Moravian settlers in colonial Georgia from 1734 to 1737. The editors carefully transcribed the difficult cursive German script, an archaic writing convention, and proceeded to translate eighteenth-century German in addition to annotating their translations in detail. The Journals are replete with their pioneering experiences and particularly multiple entries describing their unique religious rituals as mentioned above.In addition, the Journals unfolded Zinzendorf’s responding to British General James Oglethorpe’s advertisements encouraging settlement in the newly established colony of Georgia. Oglethorpe’s enthusiastic evangelizing focus let Zinzendorf know of the Indigenous Creek Nation’s interest in hearing more about the “Great Word.” Beginning in 1734, he sent his agent, Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenberg, to London to meet with the Georgia Trustees to arrange for a grant of land near Savannah.Kopp and Scott carefully delineate their editorial organization and why they chose certain Journals to publish. They included a timeline for the mission, lists of Moravian missionaries and fellow travelers, their biographical summaries, appendices A and B: letters of Spangenburg to Herrnhut (1736), catalog of alternate spellings of names and terms in the Journals, illustrations, and maps. The editors chose the Journals of the following Diaria keepers and dates of their participation to and from Georgia and in Georgia itself: Chapter 1: Journal of Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenburg (1734–1736); chapter 2: Journal of David Nitschmann, Bishop: 1736 (1735–1736); chapter 3: Journal of Johann Tőltschig (1736–1737); and chapter 4: Journal of Johann Andreas Dober (1735–1737).The coeditors selected particular Journals because of the substantive nature of the Moravian colonizing experience. Spangenburg’s Journal described travels of the first ten settlers from the time they left London until they settled in Georgia; he named them the First Party. The Nitschmann Journal designated the bulk of the Moravian missionaries as the Second Party; his Journal began with their overland journey from Herrnhut to England, their crossing the Atlantic, and arrival in Savannah. The Tőltschig Journal included Anglican priest and founder of Methodism John Wesley, his brother Charles, and Anglican co-founder of the mission to the Creeks, Benjamin Ingham of Yorkshire. The English and Moravian Mission, Irene, employed principal Moravian missionaries, Peter and Catharina Rose; they taught Creek children English. Kopp and Scott named this Journal the most “Georgian” of all the journals (xvi). The Dober Journal traced the return of Dober and his wife back to Herrnhut.During the Moravian sojourn, little was recorded about the Moravian relationship with Indigenous peoples. Oglethorpe’s friendship with Yawmacaw (a Creek band) Tomochitti allowed Spangenburg to remark that Tomochitti was a “wise Man” (47). Tomochitti noted that the Spanish baptized Indians before they heard about the “Great Word,” and he wanted to hear more about the “Great Word” before being baptized (48). Tomochitti told the Wesleys that if they wanted to get to know his people, they needed to learn their language. A Creek interpreter to Tomochitti and Oglethorpe, Mary Musgrave, lived in two worlds, European and Creek, and unfortunately her fluency and profound influence while the Moravians were in Georgia was sparingly mentioned. The Journals offer little ethnographic information about Indigenous people.Kopp’s and Scott’s publication revealed that the Moravian community had an uneasy relationship with the Salzburgers, who as Protestants had left the Hapsburg hereditary lands and settled Ebenezer, Georgia, near Savannah. Kopp and Scott unveiled the sometimes-bitter relationship Salzburger Johann Martin Bolzius and Israel Christian Gronau had with the Moravians. In addition, the Moravian close-knit community and strict customs added to internal divisions, according to Moravian scholar Aaron Spencer Fogleman, and led to the mission’s dissolution.The Journals do enlighten the reader about the hardships the Moravians faced. The landscape with all its iterations was foreign to them. General audiences and colonial scholars will find Kopp’s and Scott’s publication a worthwhile read.
Rowena McClinton (Thu,) studied this question.