The Long-Lost Friend: Your Comments Answered

Thanks to everyone for your kind words and comments on The Long-Lost Friend.  Let’s dive in with Graeme, who asks:

Did they rely upon [folk medicine] more heavily than other European settlers in different areas? (For example the English in Virginia) Or were they unique in this? Are there, for example, other such texts that were used by different colonial groups in different areas? If so, how much overlap is there between them?

The general area of folk medicine is one that I haven’t investigated much, but my sense is that folk medicine was quite prevalent in the early colonies, especially where geography or finances made other sorts of medical care less likely.  It also seems that the remedies were often collected in book form, though most of the publishing was on the European side. It’s likely that the situation with the Pennsylvania Dutch is different due to the explicit inclusion of charms in the material, and the extensive publishing industry devoted to creating German-language sources.

AncientHistory said:

Well, you probably know that the invocation from “A CHARM TO BE CARRIED ABOUT THE PERSON” is taken from the canticle “The Song of the Three Holy Children” (or so I presume). However, where Hohman gives the names as “Ananiah, Azariah, and Missel,” I’ve usually heard them as “Ananiah” (sometimes “Hananiah”), “Azariah”, and “Mishael”. Is this just a small misstep in the translation, or was this an error carried forward that would point to a specific source?

Actually, I didn’t know that, so I’m quite grateful about it (and please let me know if you’d like to be credited under your name for the catch).  I did do some detective work on this particular charm, using and the German copies of Hohman on hand and Google Books to look at German Bibles from the period.  There is some slight variation in the wording, but it is different from all of the German Bibles – including one “multiple edition” study Bible I was able to find.  So, no luck there.

Kevin Nelson writes:

I think the common belief was that anyone could “try”, as they called it, using Hohman’s remedies, but it was generally believed that only “gifted” sorts: pow-wow doctors, braucherei, hexerei, etc., had a far better success rate because they were often part of a magical lineage. These people knew the secret gestures and often were skilled herbalists. Anyone else who used Hohman was just reciting strange verses with mixed success.

From what I’ve seen so far, it seems that there were indeed different levels of powwowing, ranging from non-practice to those who practiced one or two remedies to the full-fledged “doctors.”  Yet, in the material I’ve read, I’ve seen little indication that a magical lineage was necessary.  According to Kriebel’s modern research, sometimes the “gift” is passed in the family, but most would say that more important factors are sex (cross-gender transmission is common), training, and faith.  Hohman himself makes no reference to any lineage – I think it’s likely, in fact, that he or his wife taught the other spouse.  At any rate, the very nature of Hohman’s project makes it likely that a good number of Pennsylvania Dutch saw possession of a book as sufficient for practicing such remedies.

Please keep the comments coming!  It’s very encouraging, especially when I have to tackle some of the more monumental parts of this.

Published in: on May 8, 2010 at 11:37 am  Comments (3)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/1846/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Dear danharms:

    My name is Leora Trub and I am a student in the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Program at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). I am conducting a study of the reasons that people blog and what benefits it brings, which at this point are still largely unexplored in research studies. I am therefore reaching out to you as a blogger who can help deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. I believe that your voice is an important one to be heard and hope you will enjoy participating in the study. I have developed an online questionnaire that asks about specific aspects of blogging as well as asking about feelings about yourself and others in your life. The survey is a mix of numerical scales and opportunities to reflect in an open-ended format about the role of blogging in your life, and how it has changed over time.

    You are eligible to participate if you are at least 21 years of age and have been maintaining an English-language personal blog for at least six months that you update or visit at least twice a week (on average). Your participation involves completing a confidential online questionnaire. The data will be downloaded onto a secure server to which only I have access. No identifying information, such as your names or address, will be collected. If you desire, you may choose not to share your blog name, in which case I will not access your blog for any reason after this point. If you do share your blog name, it will NOT be connected to your responses in the survey. Additionally, you will be given the opportunity to be identified by a code name in research reports and to have your blog description changed slightly so it cannot be identified.

    The survey takes approximately 45 minutes to complete and participation is completely voluntary. Three participants who complete the survey will be randomly selected by a lottery to receive a $75 cash prize.

    There are no foreseeable risks to participation in the study. Although some of the questions are personal in nature, participation in the study provides an opportunity to think about the role that your blog plays in your life.

    If you have any questions about this research, you can contact me at (732) 407-7928 or ltrub@gc.cuny.edu, or my advisors Dr. Arietta Slade at (212) 650-5658 or arietta.slade@gmail.com and Dr. Tracey Revenson at (212) 817-8709 or trevenson@gc.cuny.edu.

    The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Graduate School of the City University of New York and meets of their guidelines as well as all state and federal guidelines for research with human participants. If you have any concerns about the project at any time, you can contact Ms. Kay Powell, Institutional Review Board at the Graduate School of the City University of New York (212) 817-7525 or kpowell@gc.cuny.edu.

    In order to participate in this study, I need to send you an invitation through survey monkey. If you are interested, please send an email to ltrub@gc.cuny.edu from the email address to which you would like the invitation sent. I hope that you will decide to participate and also that you will share it with others if you decide you would like to. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

    Sincerely,

    Leora Trub, M.A.
    Doctoral student in Clinical Psychology
    Graduate School of the City University of New York
    365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4309
    ltrub@gc.cuny.edu

  2. On a Google Scholarship note, I was toodling around looking for a possible translation or meaning to “Hbbi Massa danti Lantien” when I came across a slew of German charms of the same general form as those in Hohman (and in some cases, the same Latin phrases and magic cross constructions) in the third chapter of Baltic Studies, Vol. 36. No idea if that’s at all useful.

    Link to GoogleBook: http://tinyurl.com/28uv3fn

  3. Just a quick, unrelated(?) link — http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=125542780794533


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s