1650-August- legal deed

page 2

Dear Anne,

It is a testimony (attestatie). The testimony was provided by two witnesses:

1) Lijsbeth Jans, aged 55, wife of Eeuwout Dammasz, miller of the watermill staning near the 'Oude Overslag' outside the town of Delft (this mill was located on the border of the Zuidpolder of Delfgauw and is still the location of a modern pumping station today)

2) Annitgen Maertens, aged 42, wife of Willem Arijensz, skipper of a jachtschuit (a boat drawn by horses and/or manpower) who travelled back and forth to Rotterdam (hence 'op Rotterdam), who resided outside the Ketelpoort (one of the town gates of Delft)

Their testimony was requested by and in favour of the unmarried woman ('jongedochter') Maertgen Pieters, who was living within the jurisdiction area ('Ambacht') of Rijswijck. Both witnesses declared that the truth was that Maertgen was a daughter born out of wedlock of the late Claesgen Huijgen, who had been the wife of skipper Jan Harmensz, who was living (and apparently still alive!) in a house called 'De Drie Hekeltgens' ['The Three Small Hackles'] at the Gasthuislaan in Delft.

The first witness testified to know this because she had been the wet-nurse ['minne'] of Maertgen when Maertgen was born until Claesgen was able to breast-feed her daughter, about 27 years ago.
The second witness testified to know this, because at the same time, she was taking care of Maertgen when Claesgen went out to work and brought the child to the house Claesgen worked, in order to have the child breast-fed.
The second witness also testified that she had visited Claesgen several times before she gave birth to Maertgen and had brought here some food.

They both declared therefore to be sure that Maertgen was the daughter of Claesgen (please note that the deed does not specify who the actual father was!).

The document was signed by both witnesses with their handmark, and also carries the signature of the notary and both formal witnesses, Cornelis Joesten vant Wout (master carpenter, inhabitant of Delft) and Job Joesten vant Wout (also inhabitant of Delft and most likely a brother of the first formal witness).

Well Rene, this is absolutely fascinating!

So the Delft archives were right when they said Claesgen Huijchdr was a 'single' women when she married Jan Harmensz van Dijssel in 1633. What had thrown me were the 3 deeds from the same day in September 1650 you translated for me not long ago when Martegen Pietersdr stated firstly she'd received her full entitlement of her deceased mother's Claesgen Huijchdr estate from her step-father Jans Harmensz, then she withdrew that as she thought she was entitled to 6 times the amount, and that her father was Pieter Martgens. 

Then do you remember Claesgen's aunt, Neeltgen Huijchdr in 1624 left her niece in her will 200 guilders for her wedding due to the good service she'd received from her niece (and continued to receive from her)? What's very intriguing is that Neelgen Huijchdr was married to Pieter Martgensz- was that possibly a coincidence? Also was this where Claesgen was working when the women mentioned she took the baby to her so she could breast feed her?

The other details provided by the witnesses in this testimony provide a wonderful description of the female social networks in Delft during the 1620's in which 2 women helped to support an unmarried mother raise her child. 

I will now have to rewrite my narrative about Petronella van Dijssel's mother Claesgen Huijchdr, as I'd got it all wrong :-( 

 It also shows the importance of obtaining as many details from the records as possible, which with your help and the other contributors on this Forum, has made it possible to create such a rich picture of the past lives of the women pottery owners in Delft. So from me, very grateful thanks as always.

Anne