Wolfgang Haga: Feb 1776

[spgordon]

Patrick,

I have no dog in this hunt: it really does not matter to me what the "correct" spelling of his name was. I have never written about Hachen/Haga and probably never will. Almost no eighteenth-century speaker had never seen his name "in print," so given the record that you carefully lay out I would say that most people heard his name as "Haga" and used that in tax lists, censuses, etc. It would be interesting to know whether these documents were produced by English- or German-speakers, but I don't think it matters. It seems clear that most people heard his name as "Haga."

It is equally clear that he signed his own name as "Hachen" three times. I did not find the earlier two instances (one from 1757, the other from a list of church officers [I'm not sure of the year]) and so do not feel authorized to post images those documents, but the signatures are very similar--and they match, as I've said, the handwriting on the back of that paper that Peter Gonter had (a letter written to him by his father-in-law: Hachen) and used as a receipt. To me all this seems conclusive.

I agree with you that it is odd that the will, which seems to use the name "Hachen" in the text, uses "Haga" in the signature part. I cannot tell whether the signature is in the same handwriting as the document itself. (Eric suggested that it was.) The "H"s certainly look similar. I wonder if one of the witnesses or whomever Hachen was with at the time signed for him--and, if so, this friend also wrote his name as "Haga" rather than Hachen.

And then there's the gravestone, which is not "Haga" or "Hachen."

In my experience of reading documents nearly every day involving Germans in eighteenth-century Pennsylvania, there are lots and lots and lots of instances of individuals who signed their name one way but whose name is spelled differently in other documents, especially those by English-speakers. It is not uncommon. William Henry writes Ettwein as "Edwine," in Moravian records Dickert is often "Tickert" or other variants. "Haga," "Haggan (the 1752 newspaper spelling), "Hagen" (the gravestone), and "Hachen" may have all sounded about the same, especially when you think how "ch" is pronounced by Germans and how easily the "n" can disappear in speech.

My practice in such situations is not to try to resolve something that is not resolvable but rather to present the problem as it is. I think we have a person who, at times, referred to himself as "Hachen" but who was called "Haga" by many others, perhaps even those who knew him well. I myself would probably use "Hachen," since it is the only way we know he signed his own name--but "Haga" may very well have captured better how he said it aloud.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I also do not feel that the actual spelling of a name - at this point in history - is terribly important, because various scribes wrote names phonetically much more often than they may have written a name with an eye toward "proper" spelling.  Tax lists, census records, church records, pretty much ANY records - practically none of these records were written by an individual in question, so frankly I don't see how the spelling matters.  Heck, some of the time some of these guys spelled their OWN names differently; I've seen Angtadt rifles signed Angstadt, Angstat and Anstat.  Not to mention JOS AN.  I don't think this means they didn't know the spelling of their own name, I think it means that it wasn't considered that important because the end user and others nearby would know who was being represented.

When I see a 'signature' with the included "His Mark" and the central X, I can't think of any other way to interpret that other than that the individual *at the time* was unable to sign his name.  I don't think this means he was necessarily illiterate, but I do very much believe it means he was unable to sign a full signature other than to scribble an X.  If there may be another way to view this, I'd like to know what it is.  This is seen in wills, deeds and indentures, petitions etc. as Scott mentioned.  You will find proper signatures intermixed with names with the "His Mark" addition and the central X.

[smart dog]

Hi,
But why in two places in the will, does the author of the will write "Wolfgang Hachen"?  Was he popularly known by that spelling of his name?

dave

[spgordon]

I know this is counterintuitive, but nobody knew him by any spelling of his name. The tax assessors, the clerks who wrote out a will (which is surely a copy in the registrar's office ledger), even the ministers who may have recorded his name in a baptismal register: none of these people had ever seen his name written down (it is likely). Print tends to consolidate a particular usage (people repeat it). But, in the absence of print, people just recorded what they heard. And what one person recorded (on a receipt, say) wasn't typically seen by others who might record it later (in a church register).

So, in my opinion, the best way to think about this is to imagine that people hear his name and different people transcribe that sound/utterance differently. So, yes, he was known as "Hachen" and as "Haga" at the same time if these are two attempts to capture his name. To me, the fact that he signed his own name consistently as "Hachen" indicates that this is the word he was uttering--but most people, perhaps especially English-speakers, heard it as "Haga." "Haga" seems to have been how he pronounced his name, even if he himself spelled it as "Hachen."

[wabeek]

The will "signature" is by mark, the name written by the attorney, scribe or another but not by Haga.  This was and still is Pennsylvania law as to how someone who cannot sign can still make a will...by mark.  We see the name is written leaving a space in the middle for the testator to make his mark, which he has been done.  This does not mean that there are no existing samples of his signature as he may well have been infirm or otherwise unable to sign other than by mark.  This writing shows his name as known to the writer but is also a good example of what is not his signature.

[Buck2]

All,

I would contest the notion that the script in the will matches the Signature of Haga. The H's are entirely different as well as the bottom loop of the g's, not saying the signature is Haga's but definitely different.

Buck

[spgordon]

I think I agree with Buck. Maybe a family member/friend signed for Hachen/Haga and the text of the will is in the clerk's hand. People didn't generally write out their own wills then any more than they do now. The language is very formulaic legal discourse (so-and-so shall "have, hold, and possess" certain items) and would be written out by a clerk. Then it would be signed by the testator, though in this case, the testator (Hachen) being blind, he signed only by mark.