AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: spgordon on May 17, 2021, 02:59:49 PM
-
A few weeks ago I gave a talk at a conference about Oerter's signatures--and the conference organizers asked us to submit videos in advance in case the technology failed during the conference itself. So I have this video of me awkwardly "delivering" my paper. But, given the discussion on another thread, I thought I would share it here. It is about 15 minutes long.
There are clumsy moments: I call John Antes Henry Antes, you'll hear the heating system in my office clunking behind me, and at the end I seem to be reading my own paper with (as somebody said of Eisenhower) a "sense of discovery." Hopefully I delivered it better live! In any case, it is what it is.
If anybody takes the time to watch it, I would be very grateful for reactions--especially ones that are skeptical or that would explain Oerter's signatures (or any barrel signatures) differently. I will probably publish this in an expanded form and so hearing from you about what parts of this seem convincing and what parts don't would be very helpful.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w197p37f1mbx9ww/Gordon%20%7C%20Puzzle%20of%20Signatures.mp4?dl=0
-
Very interesting and excellent presentation. A lot to think about and digest. Thanks for posting!!!!!!
Mitch
-
Thanks, Mitch! I appreciate you taking the time to watch.
-
Outstanding presentation Scott. Thank-you for posting this. I've watched it once and will do so again later in the day.
-
Lots to think about!
Regarding the possibility that the signatures were instituted as a brand to distinguish the work at CS from imitations or to assure customers that they could return them for repairs: I find this intriguing. An underlying premise is that other guns were being made elsewhere and sold by other shops, possibly as though made by the CS shop. Another premise is that a significant number of guns were not being sold on site where an individual customer would obviously know and see who made the gun. This weakens the popular scenario of most business being compromised of customers visiting the shop and ordering a gun or picking a plain, unfinished gun to be completed with varying degrees of decoration. I can certainly see Dickert signing guns from his shop to assure customers they were getting quality guns as his production seems high.
Regarding numbering because of contracts, it seems odd that Oerter alone seems to have numbered some of his rifles. Dickert and other contemporaneous builders including the Molls, Niehardt, Rupps, and so on in the general area , who may also have had contracts from time to time, were not numbering their guns. I’d expect to see Lancaster guns numbered, and later contract rifles to be numbered if this was common practice. Of course, a practice does not need to be common to have occurred.
Another mystery is that Oerter was creative with his guns in using wire inlay, various patchbox configurations and so on. Superficially this does not mesh well with a traditional contract. For trade to tribes aligned with the British, Sir William Johnson was ordering a couple grades of trade guns which appear to have been made to patterns. One can imagine scenarios where a supplier of rifles (but who, and where?) would order 50 rifles from Oerter and 200 from Dickert and 75 from Gonter and ask that they vary in decoration. This raises the questions of uniformity in pricing and why numbered and signed rifles do not appear such as “No. 236 Jacob Dickert Lancaster 1774.”
Altogether, at the moment, the idea that the CS leadership instituted it sits best with me primarily because it is unique and does not require evidence of a system outside the economy and supporting parallel examples such as No. 71 Peter Gonter 1772.
What then of rifles not signed but guessed to be made by the shop in the same timeframe? It’s possible that only scratch built guns would be numbered and signed and restocks or composite guns made from not-new parts would not be considered “in the brand.” This might be convenient for us as we consider the Marshall and Rochester rifles, for example.
-
I really appreciate these thoughts. As you say, lots to think about!
It's worth pointing out, I think, that Oerter (and, earlier, Albrecht) was working in a system that was very different from the circumstances under which most (all?) other makers worked. It has nothing to do with communalism, though: the difference lies in the way the hatmaker's or cooper's or shoemaker's or gunsmith's work reflected on the reputation of the community as a whole. Moravian authorities were obsessed with this. My example of the hatmaker only hints at this. Moravian authorities composed elaborate regulations that policed quality and prices and manner of dealing with customers in order to preserve good relations with neighbors and others.
When John Newcomer made a rifle, its quality (or not) affected only Newcomer's own reputation. But Albrecht & Oerter understood that the reputation of the Moravian movement itself was put at stake by the products that they produced. Or at least this is what they, like others, were told by authorities.
I do think it is possible--but entirely speculation--that what happened with the hatmaker happened to the gunsmith: sub-par rifles were being associated (wrongly) with the Moravian shop and so authorities told Oerter to start marking his rifles so that couldn't happen anymore.
-
Good stuff, thanks for posting this.
-
Lots to think about!
Another premise is that a significant number of guns were not being sold on site where an individual customer would obviously know and see who made the gun. This weakens the popular scenario of most business being compromised of customers visiting the shop and ordering a gun or picking a plain, unfinished gun to be completed with varying degrees of decoration. I can certainly see Dickert signing guns from his shop to assure customers they were getting quality guns as his production seems high.
I wish we knew more about how rifles made at Christiansbrunn were sold (including where they were sold). I don't think we have any evidence that customers would visit Christiansbrunn itself to purchase a rifle, though they may have.
More typically, Moravians carefully controlled the presence of "strangers" (non-Moravians) in their communities. They assigned specific individuals the responsibility to tour strangers around communities (fremdendeiner); they did not wander freely. And the "Strangers' Store" (1753) was built in Bethlehem outside the main settlement (not at its center, where we think stores would go!) to encourage economic activity but to keep strangers at a distance. So the idea that strangers would arrive at Christiansbrunn and stroll over to the gunshop is counter to what we know about the Moravians' careful organization of their communities.
The annual inventories that, by the 1770s, list several "new rifles" in the shop do not mean that these items were for sale there, any more than all the other items in the inventory were for sale there. These inventories were taken annually to count up the assets of the Moravian church as a whole and the gunshop and all its "stuff" were assets of the church. So these inventories tell us only that the shop had, say, five "new rifles" on its premises when the inventory was taken.
-
In addition to appreciating the content of your presentation, I thought the delivery was excellent. From what I hear, some folks can be self-conscious, but the presentation was very good in my view. I appreciate it when the content is the focus and ideas are proposed for consideration rather than as sound and final conclusions.
-
Well done, lot to think about. No doubt it will be re-watched many times.
Thanks, Tim C.
-
Love it! I have to go through it another time just to be able to form some germane commentary ;D but I very much enjoyed it and it does initiate some 'deep thoughts' regardless of Jack Handy's presence or not!
I do have one nitpicky note: you mention there being no period mention of a signature upon a rifle or arm in Colonial America. I present:
November 25, 1772
The Pennsylvania Gazette
FOUR DOLLARS Reward.
LOST, or taken out of a waggon loaded with hops, betwixt the river Sasquehanna and Philadelphia, upon the 5th, 6th, or 7th day of this present month November, a strong board CASE, without mark or direction, inclosing a very neat new FOWLING PIECE, 4 feet 2 inches in the barrel, 5 feet 5 inches the whole length of the gun, with a curled walnut stock, sliding loops, mounted with brass, the foresight and thumbpiece silver, the makername John Newcomer, engraven upon the hind part of the barrel, near the figure of a manhead, and J. Newcomer engraven on the lock. Whoever has found the same, is desired to deliver it to Joseph Vandegrist, at the sign of the Cross keys, in Chestnut street, Philadelphia; to Caleb Way, at the sign of the Waggon, on the Philadelphia road; to Matthias Slough, at the sign of the Swan, in Lancaster; or to James Wright, in Hempfield, near Susquehanna, and they shall receive FOUR DOLLARS reward. JAMES WRIGHT.
-
the makername John Newcomer, engraven upon the hind part of the barrel, near the figure of a manhead, and J. Newcomer engraven on the lock.
You're right, of course! Thanks, Eric. I've used this quotation before (is the "manhead" the "Lehigh county" Indian, in Lancaster County?) but it entirely slipped my mind when I was getting this paper together.
I wonder if there are other contemporary references to makers' names on barrels?
-
That's a great presentation! I've watched it twice now.
-
That's a great presentation! I've watched it twice now.
Maybe one too many ... ;)
-
I wonder if there are other contemporary references to makers' names on barrels?
That's the only reference of the period that I've ever seen. Sounds like it was one heck of a piece, too!
-
Awesome presentation! Thanks for sharing! 8)
-
Very well-done and extremely interesting!
-
Scott, I enjoyed that presentation very much! I used to make presentations similar to this for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, and others to educate young school kids about sea turtles and such.
Yours is VERY well done, clear, and lucid. And you educate us all as to how and why signatures were done. I doubt much that I will ever have a signed rifle from the period, and will appreciate more the ones that are presented here.
Keep up your snooping and peeping through those dusty tomes. It is something that I admire, though I would not want to do it myself.
-
Thanks, Craig--and all the others who've taken time to watch this!
-
Scott, thanks for sharing your presentation, nice work! You seem to cover all of the possible theories. Theonly thought I have - perhaps the rifles were part of a contract to the british? Say perhaps a contract with the british to have Christians Spring furnish rifles directly to indians on behalf of the british government? To me a straight military contract seems possible but unlikely given the decorative nature of the guns. But an indian contract may have warranted rifles with more decoration? I would be curious if there were british sympathies or other business connections by Christians Springs? Anyway, just thinking out loud!
-
perhaps the rifles were part of a contract to the british? Say perhaps a contract with the british to have Christians Spring furnish rifles directly to indians on behalf of the british government? To me a straight military contract seems possible but unlikely given the decorative nature of the guns. But an indian contract may have warranted rifles with more decoration? I would be curious if there were british sympathies or other business connections by Christians Springs?
Hmmm, very interesting. Certainly in 1774 and even 1775 the Moravians thought of themselves as loyal to their rulers--the British. (Oerter would form a contract by 1776, though, to provide muskets to Pennsylvania's patriots.)
But, so far, no business connections between any of the Christiansbrunn trades--or any Moravian trades in these years--with the British military have been discovered that I can think of.
-
That was a great presentation and topic. I certainly would buy into it. Thank You for sharing with us.
-
Scott thank you for a very well thought out and well presented piece. I appreciate your efforts and I am glad you chose to share your thoughts with us. I do not pretend to have any thoughts as to the why he signed these rifles, I am just glad he did.
As a rifle builder and collector I have always wondered why so many fine rifles were not signed and dated, then there are a good number that were signed and a few that are both signed and dated. Why? I think about contemporary builders, some sign their work and some don't. Why? I am sure there are many reasons. I can only speak for myself. Early on in my building career I did not have the skills to engrave my name on a barrel. As time went on I eventually developed the skill to crudely sign my work. Today my engraving skills have improved enough that you can even read my signature ;D. I did not really start signing my work in earnest until I became a full time builder. It was then that I started making sure that every gun that I built and went out of my shop was signed and dated.
I doubt that my experience has anything to bear on your study, I just thought I would share it with you. Again thank you
Jim
-
Thanks for sharing your presentation with us here.
Very interesting and informative.
Jeff
-
Dave, Jim, utseabee, Jeff, others--Thanks very much for taking the time to watch this & for your thoughtful comments! I appreciate it. - Scott
-
Scott,
Keep speculating!
Sorry this is somewhat delayed, but I wanted to put my two cents worth in anyway. I watched your video three times to make sure that I understood everything. I believe that the numbers on the two rifles so marked were put on the barrel by the armorer of the Rifle Company that they eventually ended up in. That was a fairly common practice to ensure the troops kept their arms clean and functional.
I also agree that the signatures were very probably by order of the person who contracted for the rifles for accountability sake. This may have been the policy of of just one procurement officer from one individual company.
As you mention the practice of requiring arms builders to put their names on their products became, very early on, standard in the contracts issued by the Federal Govt and some states.
Enjoyed you presentation very much as I do for all of your papers I've read on Albrecht, Dickert , and the Henry's.
Kent
-
I watched your video three times to make sure that I understood everything.
Thanks, Kent, for the comments. And I think we can all agree that three times is too many (perhaps two too many)!
-
I appreciated your presentation and the insight. Thank you Scott
-
Reading all the comments, especially that by Kent "WESTbury", made me think a bit. If builders such as Kent, or ME, put their name on a piece that they have built, it indicates to me that they are proud of the good job that was done, and thus imply a sort of "guarantee" of the work.
Most of us, if we really goof up, would probably prefer that our name NOT be on the work!
I do believe that Christian Oerter WAS proud of his work, and/or did not want others to possibly claim it as theirs. Little bit of both selfishness and braggadocio.
I am happy that many builders signed their names to what they built, as it gives me a small window into their life, here over 200 years later. These builders did not have half our tools and equipment, yet turned out masterpieces that many of us (me!) cannot emulate at all, even with fancy equipment, and access to parts and pieces that we did not have to make by hand, in dimly lit, probably unheated or cooled, workplaces.
-
Reading all the comments, especially that by Kent "WESTbury", made me think a bit. If builders such as Kent, or ME, put their name on a piece that they have built, it indicates to me that they are proud of the good job that was done, and thus imply a sort of "guarantee" of the work.
Most of us, if we really goof up, would probably prefer that our name NOT be on the work!
I do believe that Christian Oerter WAS proud of his work, and/or did not want others to possibly claim it as theirs. Little bit of both selfishness and braggadocio.
Maybe! (And I'm glad they signed their work, too!) The unanswerable question, so far, is whether they would have signed them, though, had they not been required or asked to by another authority. It seems, too, like there's a lot of really fantastic unsigned work ... which would suggest that pride-in-craftsmanship wasn't enough to lead a maker to sign his work.
-
Since this is speculation, let me say that I am surprised that the Moravian makers signed their work, given the many admonitions against pride in the Bible. You are exhorted to do good work, but to not be prideful. It seems that the Moravians somewhat straddled the fence as far as politics leading up to the Revolution. They had been the subject of persecution not that many years before establishing their presence in America. To put yourself in danger of new persecution would likely have been something to try to avoid. The British took harsh measures against riflemen captured and dealt out some of the same punishment to gunmakers when they were identified. Just south of the Lehigh Valley in Bucks Co. many gun makers never signed their guns or only used a couple of initials .A signature on the top of a barrel could lead to an air dance at the end of a hangman's rope. I am sure that this was a factor to consider during the war years. Thankfully, Shuler and Verner and a few others signed some of their work.
-
This point about the humility that was expected from Moravian craftsman is a great one—and further supports the proposition (I think) that these signatures did not result from a maker’s decision (which might exhibit pride) but rather was imposed upon makers by some other authority (thus, pride is not an issue).
The issue of the Moravians’ attitudes during the Rev War is a separate one that I’ll save for another time—but it’s worth pointing out that Oerter’s signatures, which are all from 1774 and 1775, probably pre-date any wartime production: his shop then begins to produce muskets (unsigned).
-
Hi Scott,
I agree with you completely about the issue of timing. We tend to be very loose about our recognition that chronological changes in fashion, politics, materials, methods, etc were just as influential then as now. A lot happened and changed during what we refer to as the colonial period and the Rev War period. I submit social, economic, fashion, and even methods of manufacture and marketing changed a lot between 1774 and 1783.
dave
-
If we raise the issue of the signatures being mandated or encouraged in order to confound counterfeits or to ensure accountability, it also then (to my mind) introduces the concept of branding - not branding in the abstract, however, but rather branding for the purpose of establishing value. I'm not clear on who, exactly, by 1774-1776 would stand to benefit most financially from enhanced value of a sale. Oerter alone? Oerter and the community proportionately? You and Bob surely can answer this better than I. I do wonder if the signatures were in some way proven to enhance the value of a piece? If the products of the CS shop were of a quality such that they would command a premium in sale value comparative to others (regionally? colony-wide? I don't know), wouldn't it then be in the best interest of Oerter, the Moravian community or perhaps both, to 'brand' them in such a way that the simple act of adding a signature/date/location would therefore add a multiple in value?
We see this today in practically every aspect of our consumer lives; so-called "smart shoppers" can easily find generic or unbranded products comparable in quality or whatever to a branded product, but the branded product can inevitably be sold for more money due to market recognition or perceived value/desirability.
-
I’m still finding it mystifying that with the hypotheses proposed, we do not see parallels elsewhere. I’ve not seen something like “No. 394 J. Dickert Lancaster”, or “1768 A. Albrecht Bethlehem” or whatever. Pardon my lack of recall on Albrecht’s dates. Nor am I aware of other sorts of durable goods produced at Christians Spring that were dated or numbered.
The Oerter signatures with a number and location appear as a one-off in my view and therefore requires some gymnastics to settle on a probable explanation. Fun to ponder though.
-
If we raise the issue of the signatures being mandated or encouraged in order to confound counterfeits or to ensure accountability, it also then (to my mind) introduces the concept of branding - not branding in the abstract, however, but rather branding for the purpose of establishing value. I'm not clear on who, exactly, by 1774-1776 would stand to benefit most financially from enhanced value of a sale. Oerter alone? Oerter and the community proportionately? You and Bob surely can answer this better than I. I do wonder if the signatures were in some way proven to enhance the value of a piece? If the products of the CS shop were of a quality such that they would command a premium in sale value comparative to others (regionally? colony-wide? I don't know), wouldn't it then be in the best interest of Oerter, the Moravian community or perhaps both, to 'brand' them in such a way that the simple act of adding a signature/date/location would therefore add a multiple in value?
I myself don't think these signatures established a brand in the modern sense. Business historians (who you might agree with or not!) distinguish between the sorts of marks that I think these are (designed to enable a maker to be held responsible or to testify that an item has met requirements) and a modern "brand," which attaches other meanings to a product (so with cars: luxury, "rough and ready," dependable, etc.).
There's no evidence whatsoever that Christiansbrunn rifles were known for unusual quality. In my opinion, that's a modern notion deposited in the heads of eighteenth-century consumers. (We think they're wonderful so mistakenly assume earlier people did.) We know that Oerter's rifles were owned by folks in Lancaster County and New Jersey: how they came to be owned by these folks is not known. There's no evidence that they sought these rifles out for their quality or because Christiansbrunn products were known to be high quality. Baer probably acquired his rifle because of a personal connection; the folks in New Jersey ... who knows. Maybe the phantom early contract was with a New Jersey rifle company?
If the Oerter signatures did establish a "brand" (which I don't believe, but if), Oerter himself would not have benefited whatsoever financially. As I show in my little talk, he did not own the items he produced or profit from them. I suppose more rifle sales meant more profit for the Moravian enterprise as a whole (to which the small community at Christiansbrunn contributed)? But it's important to remember what a tiny part of the Moravian "machine" rifle making was. Nearly everything was more important, made more money, and had more individuals assigned to it. Indeed, shortly after the Rev War the Christiansbrunn shop is closed entirely.
-
I’m still finding it mystifying that with the hypotheses proposed, we do not see parallels elsewhere. I’ve not seen something like “No. 394 J. Dickert Lancaster”, or “1768 A. Albrecht Bethlehem” or whatever. Pardon my lack of recall on Albrecht’s dates. Nor am I aware of other sorts of durable goods produced at Christians Spring that were dated or numbered.
The Oerter signatures with a number and location appear as a one-off in my view and therefore requires some gymnastics to settle on a probable explanation. Fun to ponder though.
You're right: it's an unusual practice & very hard to fathom. But, for sure, we can know that it does not relate to a change in the communal economy--which is the only other explanation of Oerter's practice that I know of.
The talk showed other Moravian goods that had makers' names on them--hats, musical instruments--and, in the case of hats, how those makers came to put their names on their products. Neither the hats nor the musical instruments were dated or numbered, though.
-
Scott I do grasp what you're saying and also I find it somewhat important - although I can't really define in what way - that as you note, Oerter did not benefit financially. That "seems" to be an important fact.
Just a few brief speculative comments: the work attributed to the CS shop *was* a bit better, IMHO, than others I have seen of the period in question. All of the rifles attributed to CS as well as Oerter's signed work tend to be of exceptional quality, inside and out. Again, does this have meaning relative to the question of the signature? No idea.
There is Baer in Lancaster purchasing a piece from Oerter; Shackleton is over in NJ and quite wealthy I believe; Coykendalls/Kuykendalls were up above Easton and into north Jersey if I recall correctly?; Edward Marshall appears to have been well-known throughout NH and Bucks Co. and of course his rifle has been attributed to CS since forever, and then his son William - down in Bucks - obtains a fantastic rifle from Oerter (the 'griffin'). That does seem to be a somewhat wide net for a small regional shop of the period. I don't think that our modern emphasis on work of this shop is entirely modern; I guess I'd just call it a gut thing, but I think there was some 'word on the street' about the work being done there, certainly within the region anyway given what I personally see as attempts by others to mimic what appears to have originated at CS. But perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps other work in the area was evolving concurrently along the same track?
Just throwing stuff at the wall, yes it's all just speculation.
-
If 18th century customers recognized that Oerter's rifles were of unusually high quality and patronized the Christiansbrunn shop on that basis--and other makers copied these superb rifles (probably the best evidence of them being widely known)--then I don't think whether or not Oerter profited from this work really matters? Oerter just chose in 1771 to operate in a different economic system than we are familiar with. But that doesn't have any impact, or at least none that I can see, on the fact that he produced high-quality rifles.
The fact that Oerter made no profit from his products--in 1760, 1766, 1771, 1776--is important only in that it shows that the previous explanation for the appearance of his signatures in 1774 & 1775 makes no sense. Oerter was not "working for himself" and would not have felt any more sense of "ownership" of his products than he had done before 1771. The economic circumstances under which he worked--he made no profit, the church "owned" the products he made--did not change during his entire time at Christiansbrunn.
As far as the "wide net for a small regional shop": maybe. But:
A. Other reasons than reputation/brand can explain how Oerter's rifles ended up in the hands of some of the men that you mention. It seems that the Baers had a personal connection to the Oerters; Shackleton did lots of business with the Moravians. It's easy to imagine similar things for others, Samuel Coykendall, who seems to have lived about fifty miles—and Aaron Hankinson half that distance—from Hope, New Jersey (founded, 1768), the last of the planned Moravian settlements. (Maybe research in the Hope NY Moravian records would reveal something. Anybody ever looked?) In December 1763 the Moravians gave John Jennings, sheriff of Northampton County, a rifle (valued at £6) from Christiansbrunn. There are lots of routes that a rifle could end up in somebody's hands besides that person seeking out that rifle at Christiansbrunn because of the widely-known reputation of the shop.
B. The Moravians were the most cosmopolitan/global group in early America--meaning that, far from "regional," they had extensive connections and networks throughout America and transatlantically. It is not surprising that their products would move beyond Northampton County--either because somebody at a distance had long-standing trade relations with the Moravians (Shackleton) or because somebody passed through Bethlehem.
C. On the other hand, if it is really true that other riflemakers began to "mimic" some styles that originated at Christiansbrunn: that's good evidence, it seems to me, that the quality of their rifles became widely known--at least among other makers (not necessarily among customers).
-
All good thoughts. I’m still befuddled by the uniqueness of the elements in the signatures on the Oerter rifles. Dickert rifles are often cited as widely known and respected. There is no design more copied or widespread than the daisy patchbox. The Lancaster architecture was copied far more widely than Oerter’s mild step wristed style. Other builders like Moll and Niehardt were contemporary and working their own styles contributing to the later Lehigh style in my view. The British probably chose a Dickert rifle to copy when they designed their early, brass box trade rifle. This could indicate that their customers were familiar with, and liked the quality of Dickert rifles above many other choices. Yet Dickert did not number his rifles or provide an address. I’m sure both men had their reasons for doing as they did.
Changing topics, how long was Oerter sick?
-
Changing topics, how long was Oerter sick?
Impossible to know. The spiritual memoir, which every Moravian writes (or, in some cases, has one written for them), is the source of all our information about his illness--and the timeline is not clear. It says: "He joined the Single Brothers' choir in 1767 at the choir festival. All the Brethren testify that he worked faithfully and industriously, sometimes even beyond his potential. Slowly this caused a weakness in his chest." I don't think, even though the sentences follow one another, that this means that he began to be sick as early as the late 1760s? But hard to tell. Another part of the memoir says: "After Br. Albrecht's marriage, he [Oerter] took over as the master of the gunshop and he was deeply concerned with this business. His sickness took more and more the form of consumption." Again, the sentences run into each other--but does that mean he began to exhibit signs of sickness as early as 1766 or 1767? I don't think so ... but maybe. The memoir states that he moved to the "sickroom" only in March 1777, the same month that he died.
William Henry arrives in September 1776--and takes over the shop after Oerter dies. Henry wrote a letter in 1801 that describes some things about these early years but he does not indicate anything about Oerter's health or when, in effect, he had to take over the gunshop (it is only assigned to him in April 1777, after Oerter's death).
-
Scott, Thank you for sharing your research, thoughts and video with us. I've enjoyed listening and reading everyone's comments, it's all very thought provoking. Like everyone else on this thread I'm intrigued by the Moravian work and Oerter's work in particular and tragic story.
-
I've enjoyed listening and reading everyone's comments, it's all very thought provoking. Like everyone else on this thread I'm intrigued by the Moravian work and Oerter's work in particular and tragic story.
It's a fun mystery to speculate about! (Better than UFOs and the origin of viruses. Well, maybe not better than UFOs.)
-
Since the reasoning behind Oerter's barrel markings is as-yet inexplicable to us other than to provide for interesting speculation, let me throw one more marshmallow into the bonfire of the hypotheticals:
Is it remotely conceivable, given the timing of his move to the 'sickroom' and the chance that he was suffering from either tuberculosis, a congestive heart condition or perhaps lung cancer (none of which generally manifest suddenly or immediately prior to death), that by @ 1774-1775 when the first of the surviving signatures appear, he perhaps was inwardly confronting his own mortality and the signatures are some form of outward expression of this? Yes Bob and Scott, this one is a REAL stretch! However, humans have always been humans, regardless of outward confirmation to religious belief; who can know what any person privately thinks, contemplates or fears when alone and restless at 2 AM on a sleepless night?
Just had to throw it out there.
-
We are just very lucky that he did sign them. It makes for great give and take on the ALR.
Of course he may be looking down on us and chuckling to himself!
-
Eric, your thought is what I had in mind when I asked about when his sickness developed.
-
Is it remotely conceivable....
Anything we can conceive is of course conceivable (possible)....
In general, I myself think that likening eighteenth-century Moravian attitudes or thinking to ours tends to send one in the wrong direction. But I know that others think differently.
If Oerter was a good Moravian (i.e., regularly experienced a personal relationship with his Savior), he would have eagerly "gone home" at his death (as they put it). Nearly every Moravian memoir ends with a moment in which the dying individual longs to join the Savior. These are formulaic, of course, and we cannot know what any individual actually felt. But I mention this only to emphasize that Oerter's notions of mortality were likely unlike our own and we shouldn't assume or expect him to respond to the prospect of death as we would.
It sounds from his memoir that, even after Oerter moved to the sickroom, he hoped to get better:
March 21st he complied with the many requests to move into the sickroom, and he was actually glad that he was able to lay there quiet and undisturbed. Still, however, he showed that he hoped to get well again, even though to others it was obvious that he only got weaker by the day. During his last days a brother told him to hold firmly to the Saviour, who alone could help him, and he answered: “The dear Saviour surely will do everything for me, as he has before.”
-
Hi,
To identify the work as from Christian's Spring, why not just engrave that name on the barrel? Why engrave Christian Oerter? The Moravians sound more and more like a corporation. You join, accept the religious dogma, and then are assigned to a job that supports the corporation. That Oerter and other Moravian tradesmen worked at a high level and sustained that effort without a personal profit motive flies in the face of our capitalist notions as set forth by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. Perhaps their profit motive was belief in spiritual profit in the next life or simply the approbation of their Moravian peers.
dave
-
The Moravians sound more and more like a corporation. You join, accept the religious dogma, and then are assigned to a job that supports the corporation. That Oerter and other Moravian tradesmen worked at a high level and sustained that effort without a personal profit motive flies in the face of our capitalist notions as set forth by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. Perhaps their profit motive was belief in spiritual profit in the next life or simply the approbation of their Moravian peers.
Yes, exactly--a corporation in which everybody plays their part, assigned by their Savior (and in practice orchestrated by church authorities, consulting directly with that Savior). The motive for their hard work, as you say, Dave, wasn't personal profit: it was furthering the "mission" of saving souls. So maybe a Moravian laborer felt that he was earning some spiritual profit for himself in the next life, but even that seems (to me) too individualistic for a people who strove hard to subordinate self and be dependent on the will of another (Christ's). I'd say it was more the satisfaction and pleasure of working on a "team"--and the confidence that they formed the only team that really mattered.
Corporation and cult rolled into one.