German Moravian Missionaries in the British Colony of Victoria, Australia, 1848-1908 9004179216, 9789004179219

Citation preview

German Moravian Missionaries in the British Colony of Victoria, Australia, 1848–1908

Studies in Christian Mission General Editors

Marc R. Spindler, Leiden University Heleen L. Murre-van den Berg, Leiden University

Editorial Board

Peggy Brock, Edith Cowan University James Grayson, University of Sheffield David Maxwell, Keele University

VOLUME 38

German Moravian Missionaries in the British Colony of Victoria, Australia, 1848–1908 Influential Strangers

By Felicity Jensz

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010

On the cover: Friedrich Hagenauer preaching at Ramahyuck, 1868. With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Morgensegen, Foto (F.S.Mission U1.05) This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jensz, Felicity. German Moravian missionaries in the British colony of Victoria, Australia, 1848-1908 : influential strangers / by Felicity Jensz. p. cm. -- (Studies in Christian mission, ISSN 0924-9389 ; v. 38) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17921-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Moravian Church--Missions--Australia--Victoria--History--19th century. 2. Missions, German--Australia--Victoria--History--19th century. 3. Germans-Australia--Victoria--History--19th century. 4. Aboriginal Australians--Missions-Australia--Victoria--History--19th century. 5. Victoria--Church history--19th century. I. Title. BV3660.V5J46 2010 266’.0234309409034--dc22 2009046088

ISSN: 0924-9389 ISBN: 978 9004 17921 9 Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS List of Illustrations ................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements ............................................................................... ix Glossary and Abbreviations ................................................................. xi Introduction ........................................................................................... Chapter One God’s Lot: Moravians and Missions ......................... Chapter Two “The most Wretched and Bleakest”: Moravian Desire to Work Amongst the Australian Aborigines.................................................................... Chapter Three „ein fauler Fleck“: Lake Boga, a Putrid Stain .......... Chapter Four “I is done: no more”: the First Converts................... Chapter Five „alles geht seinen schleppenden Gang“ – Expansion, Movement and Sluggish Progress ........ Chapter Six “Every Triumphant Death” – Closure in a British Colony ..............................................................

1 15

41 71 113

Conclusion ............................................................................................. Appendices ............................................................................................. Bibliography ........................................................................................... Index .......................................................................................................

227 233 247 263

153 185

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1

Map of Moravian Missions in Australia, 1869 .................xvii

With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Missions der Brüder-Unität in Australien, Karte des Südteils von Australien mit Angabe der Reiserouten der Missionare, kolorierte Lithographie von L.T. Reichel, 1869 (TS Bd.21.097.a) Figure 2 Map of Victoria and South Eastern Australia, circa 1860 ......................................................................................xviii With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Landkarte von Victoria Süd Ost Australia, (Bd. 21.096.a) Figure 3 View of Ebenezer mission station, circa 1862 ..................111 With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Ansicht von Ebenezer in Australien, Federzeichnung um 1862 (TS Bd.21.097.b) Figure 4 View of Ramahyuck mission station, circa 1863 .............112

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Ansicht von Ramahyuck in Australien (TS Bd.30.20.a+) Lithograph of a Corroboree, 1859 .....................................124 With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: “Tanz der Papus” Ansicht von Cooroborree [sic] der Eingeborenen in Australien, Lithographie um 1859 [Abbildung im Missionsblatt der Bruedergemeine, 1859, 109] (TS Bd.21.99a) A portrait of Kühn, Meißel, Walder and Kramer- the four missionaries sent to the interior of Australia. Taken before they left Germany for Australia, 1864 ...............................161 With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Die Missionare Kühn, Meißel, Walder und Kramer vor ihrer Ausreise. Bernhard Sparmeyer, Herrnhut 1864, (FS- Mission 7. o. Sign) Friedrich Hagenauer preaching at Ramahyuck ...............183 With permission from the Unitätsarchiv: Das Innere der Kirche auf der Missionstation Ramahyuck während des täglichen Morgensegens mit Friedrich August Hagenauer…. (FS-Mission, Australien, U1, o. Nr.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book was born as a doctoral thesis in the School of History at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and has grown into its current shape—in somewhat of a reverse of many of the subjects of this book— whilst I have been living in Germany and working as a postdoctoral fellow at the Exzellenzcluster: Religion und Politik at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. I owe a great deal of thanks to those people who were there as the thesis was being conceived, written, and passed. My primary supervisor, Professor Patricia Grimshaw, never failed to amaze me with her generosity of time and blue pen, and Professor Kate Darian-Smith, as my secondary supervisor, was a wonderful source of sound advice. My colleagues in the School of History are also to be thanked for provided a supporting and challenging environment. The research would never have been as rich had it not have been for the generous funding I received from a number of sources. For my extensive overseas research I was fortunate to receive multiple scholarships, which allowed me to travel to archives in the United States of America, Britain, and Germany. This was made possible by the generous funds from the Alma Hansen Scholarship fund, the Lizette Bentwitch Scholarship fund, and awards from the University of Melbourne Scholarships Office, including a TRIPS award and a PORES award. My extended research in Germany was made possible through a substantial grant from the Deutsche Akademische Austausch Dienst (DAAD), for which I will be forever grateful. Finally, I am thankful to the Ian Robertson Travel Fund Scholarship, 2007, which allowed me to travel to Canberra to undertake research on Hagenauer’s Letter-books. Throughout these journeys to different lands and various archives I have received the support from archivists, librarians and fellow researchers. My thanks is particularly extended, in chronological order, to: Vernon Nelson and June Lacke of the Moravian Archives in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Lorraine Parson, Archivist at the Moravian Church Archives and Library in Moravian Church House, London; the staff of the Unitätsarchiv in Herrnhut, in particular Paul Peucker who moved from the Unitätsarchiv, Herrnhut, to the Moravian Archives, Pennsylvania during my research; Rüdiger Kröger from the

x

acknowledgements

Unitätsarchiv, Herrnhut, and Lanie Graf of the Moravian Archives, Pennsylvania. My most sincere thanks goes to: Ann Jensz, Jen Makin, Jane Sampson, Anja Schwarz, Christine Winter. I also thank the many scholars with whom I have had interesting, and illuminating conversations, as well as all those at Brill. Any shortcomings of the text, although not intentional, remain however mine alone. There are, of course, many other people who have helped and supported me through this venture, including my loving family and friends. I am humbled by all that you have given. The person who deserves gratitude of an unequalled magnitude is Mark. Thank you.

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS Note: The form of the nineteenth-century German is kept as close to original as possible. For example, some possessive apostrophes have been kept in names that now do not use them, such as in Cooper’s Creek. Symbols such as “=” have also been kept, for example in “Eben=Ezer”, when citing the original. In order that the quotations are not littered with sic, they have been left out unless omission would render the text incomprehensible. Term, Place or Abbreviation AAV Akoluth, Akoluthie

Barby, Germany

Berthelsdorf, Germany

Br Brüder-Unität Brüdergemeine

Description Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (Australia) Bruder or Schwester who is accepted to a special position as Helper within the congregation Moravian congregation located at this town. Site of Theology Seminary (1749-89), and the UAC (1781-84) Seat of the Missionsdepartement. An estate in the Oberlaustiz, which belonged to Zinzendorf ’s grandmother. In 1722 Zinzendorf bought it from his grandmother and built a palace there. Bruder,Brüder Brother, Brothers Another term for Brüdergemeine Brüdergemeine is the official name of the Church and is often preceded in German by ‘evangelische’ or ‘Herrnhuter’. The term is a German rendering of the Czech ‘Jednota bratrská’ (Unity of Brothers). Brüdergemeie is spelt without a second ‘d’ [ie. not Brüdergemeinde]

xii

glossary and abbreviations

Board for the Protection of the Aborigines (BPA)

Chinese and Aboriginal Missions Committee Colony of Victoria

Secular organisation established in 1869 by the Victorian Colonial government to overlook indigenous affairs Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Australia Established in 1851 and subsumed by the State of Victoria in the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901

Committee of the Melbourne Known as Melbourne Association, Association in Aid of the and later as the Victorian Association. Moravian Mission to the Received support from all Aborigines of Australia denominations, although many Church of England members Der Australische Christenbote Monthly German-language publication of the Lutheran Church of Victoria. Established 1860 Diakonus First of the ordination offices and actual ordination, which allows a person to administer the sacraments and lead a congregation Dienstlauf Service record of Moravian missionaries Djadja Wurrung Language group residing around Mount Franklin, Victoria German mile approximately 4 English miles Geschw. Geschwister, married couple of Moravian missionaries Gunai Aboriginal Nation consisting of five clans/language groups in the area of Gippsland. Also known as Kurnai Herrnhut, Germany English Translation: ‘The Lord’s Watch’. Original location of the renewed Brüder-Unität. Built on the Berthelsdorf estate

glossary and abbreviations Kulin

Lebenslauf London Association

LMA MAB MF

Moravian Church

Missionsblatt

Missionsdepartement

xiii

Aboriginal Nation consisting of five clans/language groups in the area of and around Melbourne. Woi Wurrung part of this nation. Life record of Moravian missionaries London Association in Aid of the Missions of the United Brethren or London Association in aid of the Moravian Missions - Not Moravians, rather composed of ‘friends of the Church’s work among the heathen’ London Moravian Archive, England, Britain Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA Copies of Microfilms containing Moravian material held by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria By 1760 it was the term used in English speaking world to refer to the Unitas Fratrum, which in turn is known in the German-speaking world as Brüder-unität, or Brüdergemeine. British Moravians refer to themselves as Moravians or in more formal contexts as the Unity of the Brethren Missionsblatt aus der Brüdergemeine [Vol. 1 -12, 1837-1848] Missions-Blatt aus der Brüdergemeine vom Jahr …[Vol. 13-57, 1848-1893] Missions-Blatt der Brüdergemeine [Vol. 58-103, 1894-1939] Department of the UAC responsible for the Moravian mission affairs. Replaced by the Missionsdirektion in 1899

xiv

glossary and abbreviations

Melbourne Association

NLA Papuas

Periodical Accounts

PUAC

PMD

Port Phillip Protectorate

Provinz

Provinzialältestenkonferenz

See: Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia National Library of Australia A nineteenth century term for indigenous Australians as well as western Pacific Islanders, used frequently by the Moravians Periodical Accounts relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren, established among the Heathen. First published in 1790 by the SFG Protocoll der Unitätsaeltestenconferenz. Minutes of the UAC held at the Unitätsarchiv, Archives of the Moravian Church, Herrnhut, Germany Protocoll des Missionsdepartement. Minutes of the Mission Department, held at the Unitätsarchiv, Archives of the Moravian Church, Herrnhut, Germany Area of southern Australia which was under the administration of the Colony of New South Wales from 1835 to 1851 when it was subsumed by the Colony of Victoria in 1851 Before 1857 regions with a certain unifying characteristics, for example Holland, England, Pennsylvania, Silesia. From 1857 independent parts of the Unity, with their own Synod and Direction Provincial Elders Conference, established in 1857. Self governing responsibilities for the individual

glossary and abbreviations

Schw. SFG

UA Unitas Fratrum

UAC

United Brethren of Moravians Victorian Association

Wemba Wemba

Wotjobaluk

xv

provinces: being the British, American and German Province. Reported to the UAC. Schwester(n), Sister(s) Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel in the British Dominions, London, known also as Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel Among the Heathens. The Moravian committee in London. Unitätsarchiv, Archives of the Moravian Church, Herrnhut, Germany Name of the world wide BrüderUnität. Latin rendering of the Czech term ‘Jednota bratrská’. Unitätsältestenconferenz, Unity Elders Conference. The German-based directorate of the global Moravian Church between the General Synods. Term used to refer to the Moravian Church in England See: Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia Language group of indigenous people who are the traditional owners of the Lake Boga area Language group of indigenous people who are the traditional owners of the area around the Ebenezer mission site, belonging to the larger Wergaia language group. Alternative spellings include: Wotjubalak, Wotjibolik, and Wudjubalug

Author’s note: All translations within the text from German to English are the author’s.

Figure 1. Map of Moravian Missions in Australia, 1869.

Figure 2. Map of Victoria and South Eastern Australia, circa 1806.

INTRODUCTION TRACING A “WONDERFUL RECORD OF PATIENT CONTINUANCES IN WELL DOING” In 1905, an unnamed church official at Berthelsdorf, near Herrnhut in the Oberlausitz in eastern Germany, the home of the Moravian Church, wrote a letter of gratitude to Bruder Friedrich August Hagenauer, a long-serving missionary in the British colony of Victoria, which had of late become a state in the new Commonwealth of Australia. Hagenauer was nearly 80 years of age and was contemplating his retirement from public duties. He had recently sent to headquarters the diaries of the defunct Ebenezer mission station, a Moravian mission to the indigenous peoples of the area established in 1859 in the north-west of Victoria and closed in 1904 (see Figure 1). This had been his first posting, until he later moved in 1862 to the frontier landscape of Gippsland in eastern Victoria, where he established the Ramahyuck mission station in order to convert heathen Aborigines to Christianity. Yet at the close of nineteenth century, the number of Aborigines on both the stations had declined as a result of the Government’s policy of dispersing Aborigines of mixed descent into mainstream settler society. With the closure of Ebenezer in 1904, and only a hand-full of people left living at Ramahyuck, the Moravian mission in Australia in 1905 was drawing to a close. The Moravian official acknowledged the diaries’ arrival in Herrnhut as follows: I think I have already referred to the Diaries of Ebenezer, which arrived safely. They were carefully examined by the custom house official (perhaps to see that they contained no dynamite) & they are now deposited in the Herrnhut Archive. I looked respectfully over some of their pages, & noted that they are not quite complete. But as to the time to read that wonderful record of patient continuances in well doing, well one could only wish that one’s busy life admitted of it. When some pen comes to write the history someone will be glad to have to find the time to study their pages.1

1 Unsigned (Herrnhut, Germany) to Hagenauer (Ramahyuck, Australia), 18 November, 1905, Copy held by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV), Microfilm (MF) 185, 1.

2

introduction

For many years these diaries, as well as the copious amounts of other writings from the Moravian missionaries in Australia, faithfully preserved for posterity, have lain mostly dormant, waiting for “some pen” to write a history of the Moravian’s endeavour in Victoria, Australia. This book draws upon such source materials to examine the Church’s work within this British colony during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The work of the Moravian Church amongst the indigenous inhabitants of Victoria spanned six decades, with 1848 seeing the decision made by the Moravian Church’s Elders to undertake a mission to Australia, and 1908 the closure of the last Moravian mission within Victoria. When the missionaries first arrived it was to the area known as the Port Phillip Protectorate, which in 1851 became the Colony of Victoria, and in 1901 a state in the Commonwealth of Australia. The foremost aim of this book is to analyse the ways by which the Moravian missionaries navigated competing agendas within the colonial setting across these decades, especially those agendas that impacted upon their sense of personal vocation, their practices of conversion, and their understandings of the indigenous non-Christian peoples in the British settler context of the Victoria. The missionaries’ reactions to such challenges were primarily shaped by the long mission tradition of the Moravian Church (known in German language as the Evangelische Brüder-Unität or Brüdergemeine),2 which had established many missions across the globe, and actively followed the advice in the Gospels of Mark (xvi:15) and Matthew (xxviii:19-20) to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”3 Following this advice, the Moravians evangelised to people from many different cultures across the globe.4 Beginning their evangelical missionary work amongst the slaves of the Danish West Indies in 1732, the Church expanded its missionary endeavours, as well as its diaspora, creating a substantial transatlantic network by the end of the eighteenth century, which continued to 2 The term ‘Brüdergemeine’ is a translation from the name of the Ancient Church, the Unitas Fratrum, in which the Brüder is an inclusive term referring to both males and females. Gemeine is a term meaning ‘common, public, general’, and has been replaced in modern German by the term Gemeinde. See Arthur J. Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1998), 4. 3 Matthew xxviii:19, King James Version with Strong’s & Geneva Notes. 4 See Appendix 1 for a list of Moravian mission fields and dates.

wonderful record of patient

3

expand into a truly global network into the nineteenth century.5 They first made their mark on the Australian mission field in the mid-nineteenth century in the Colony of Victoria, where they remained, apart from one short break, until the last missionary – the above mentioned Hagenauer - retired in 1908. They established the Lake Boga mission station (1850-6), near Swan Hill in the north of the Colony; the Ebenezer mission station (1859-1904), in the west of the Colony; and the Ramahyuck mission station (1862-1908), in the east of the Colony (see Figure 1). They also sent missionaries into the arid, lowly populated centre of Australia—known as the ‘Interior’—to establish the short-lived Kopperamanna mission station (1866-8) (see Figure 1). Although the history of the Moravian mission to the Aborigines of Australia was described by one Moravian as a “wonderful record of patient continuances,” this history of the mission is also integral to understanding the changing attitudes towards indigenous peoples within the wider Colony of Victoria during the nineteenth century. The story also forms part of a broader global discourse on Western attitudes towards non-Christian peoples under colonial domination. The experiences of the missionaries themselves constitutes the central curiosity that drives the present analysis, with a focus on how the history and practices of the Moravian Church shaped the missionaries’ responses to the novel situations with which they were confronted within Victoria. Within this book, it is argued that the history of this unique church powerfully constrained the methods and outcomes evident in the Victorian mission field. In order to do so, the book contextualizes the Moravians’ Victorian experience within a broader global Moravian framework by examining the rationale for sending Germanspeaking missionaries to British colonies; their choice of Victoria as a site of activity; and the challenges to successful proselytization, including those specifically presented by the indigenous inhabitants themselves. Ultimately, the Moravians aimed to convert Aborigines to Christianity, yet in order to do so they needed the support of colonial officials and also funding bodies, including not only those in their base in Germany, but also within the colony. During the Moravian’s tenure in Victoria, the Government took increasing control over Aboriginal 5

For a discussion of the nature of the Moravian Transatlantic network see for example: Peter Vogt, “ “Everywhere at Home”: The Eighteenth Century Moravian Movement as a Transatlantic Religious Community,” Journal of Moravian History Fall, no. 1 (2006): 7-29.

4

introduction

affairs, with the missionaries becoming in some respects agents of the state, albeit ones who served God before government. Their necessary involvement in the politics of the colony was a far cry from the Church’s original core intention, as well as diverging from the Church’s experiences in other colonial societies throughout the world. In examining the history of the Moravians in Victoria within the fuller context of the greater history, practices, and religious beliefs of the Church, a story emerges of how the Moravians– as self-declared “strangers in a strange land”6 – constructed their own identity as foreign missionaries as they interacted with indigenous peoples, colonists, and government officials. This analysis of the Moravian mission in Australia provides a more complex understanding of the role of missionaries in the later decades of the nineteenth century than hitherto histories have conceded. The records of these men—and more rarely, women—blinded by their own faith to many of the nuances of Aboriginal customs and ways of life, offer fascinating insights into their navigation of the many conflicting expectations placed upon them. This study further contributes to a critical examination of the colonial politics of Victoria, through revealing the treatment of indigenous inhabitants as seen through the eyes of a non-English international missionary organization. Background The official writings of Moravian Church historians were essential for providing a background for this work, with their detailed, ponderous and sometimes stolid texts providing invaluable information on Moravian missiology and the debates surrounding it. The Church was a prolific publisher of historical works such as J.E. Hutton’s 1922, A History of Moravian Missions, Benjamin La Trobe’s 1896 The Moravian Missions. A Glance at 164 Years of Unbroken Missionary Labours, and J. Hamilton and Kenneth G. Hamilton’s 1967 History of the Moravian Church: The Renewed Unitas Fratrum 1722-1957, to name just three.7 6 Mary Hartmann (Ebenezer) to Dan [Hines], 21 July 1863, Box 1 of 4, E. Hartmann Collection (1979), Moravian Archives, Bethlehem (MAB), Pennsylvania, USA. This quote also reflects the Biblical passages of Exodus ii:22 and Exodus xviii:3. 7 B. La Trobe, The Moravian Missions. A Glance at 164 Years of Unbroken Missionary Labours (London: Norman and Sons, 1896); J. Taylor Hamilton and Kenneth G. Hamilton, History of the Moravian Church. The Renewed Unitas Fratrum 1722-1957,

wonderful record of patient

5

These of course provide versions of Moravian history appropriate to the aims of celebratory publications. Amongst Moravian historians there are also a small number who examined the Church’s work in Australia in some detail. Works of these writers include Adolf Schulze’s 1932 book, 200 Jahre Brüdermission and H.G. Schneider’s 1882 Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien, both of which have been informative in tracing the Moravian perspective of the Victorian mission venture.8 Both of these sources, however, are dated and reflect their own historical contexts. Indeed, since H.G. Schneider’s 1882 book, there has been no book devoted entirely to the work of the Moravian Church within Australia. Partly this hole in recent scholarship is due to the fact that access to Moravian historical records in Herrnhut, Germany remained difficult from the end of World War Two until the reunification of Germany, as they were stored in the former German Democratic Republic.9 Despite such challenges, a number of scholarly histories of Moravian work have appeared in the last few decades. These include those of John Mason and Colin Podmore, both focusing on the British Moravian Church; several focussing on the African mission field, such as that of Tim Keegan; and those focussing on the American Moravian settlements and mission activities such as the studies of Jon Sensbach and Daniel Thorp.10 This shift from historians embedded in religious institutions to those researching within academic frameworks is noticeable not only within

Second ed. (Bethlehem: Interprovincial Board of Christian Education Moravian Church in America, 1983); J. E. Hutton, A History of Moravian Missions (London: Moravian Publications Office, 1922). See also: J. Taylor Hamilton, A History of the Missions of the Moravian Church during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. (Bethlehem, PA: Times Publishing Company, 1901); John Holmes, Historical Sketches of the Missions of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, from Their Commencement to the Present Time. (Dublin: R. Napper, 1818). 8 Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das Zweite Missionsjahrhundert, vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932); H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882). 9 Thaddeus Sunseri, “The Moravian, Berlin, and Leipzig Mission Archives in Eastern Germany,” History in Africa 26 (1999), 457-462. 10 Colin Podmore, The Moravian Church in England 1728-1760 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); Daniel B. Thorp, The Moravian Community in Colonial North Carolina (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989); Timothy Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, 1828-1928: Four Accounts of Moravian Mission Work on the Eastern Cape Frontier (Paarl: Paarl Print, 2004); J.C.S. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760-1800 (Suffolk: The Boydell Press for The Royal Historical Society, 2001); Jon F. Sensbach, A Separate Canaan: The Making of an AfroMoravian World in North Carolina, 1763-1840 (Chapel Hill and London: University of

6

introduction

Moravian histories, of course, but in the broader international enterprise of mission history. Alongside the growth of postcolonial critiques of missionaries as part of oppressive imperial agendas to extract land, valuable resources, and cheap labour from other people’s countries, other mission historians have sought to complicate mission aims and outcomes. The missionary endeavour was much more complex, suggest scholars such as Norman Etherington, than a dialectical approach can account for.11 In the last thirty or so years, there has been a growth in the number of international books and edited collections which provide complex readings of mission histories, some of which have been realised through undertaking cross-disciplinary analyses of mission histories.12 Such studies, which often outline the secular as well as the religious aspects of the missions, demonstrate the variously nuanced ways by which mission histories and Christian conversions can be

North Carolina Press, 1998). See also: Frank Seeliger “Einer prügelt uns und der Andere bringt uns Religion…” Eine Ethnohistorische Studie über Fremdheitserfahrungen in der Zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts im Tibetisch-Buddhistischen West-Himalaya-Gebiet Lahoul aus Sicht Herrnhuter Missionare, Vol. 10, Beiheft der Unitas Fratrum (Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2003). 11 Norman Etherington, ed. Missions and Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 12 See for example: Klaus J. Bade, Imperialismus und Kolonialmission: Kaiserliches Deutschland und Koloniales Imperium (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1984); Norman Etherington, ed. Missions and Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Helen Gardner, Gathering for God: George Brown in Oceania (Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2006); Host Gründer, Christliche Mission und deutscher Imperialismus, 1884-1914 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh: 1982); Rebekka Habermas, “Mission im 19. Jahrhundert—Global Netze des Religiösen” Historische Zeitschrift, 287 (2008): 629-679; Patrick Harris, Butterflies & Barbarians: Swiss Missionaries & Systems of Knowledge in South-East Africa (Harare, Johannesburg, Oxford, and Athens: Weaver Press, Wits University Press, James Currey, & Ohio University Press, 2007); John C. Hawley, ed. Historicizing Christian Encounters with the Other (Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1998); Robert Hefner, ed. Conversion to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Mary Taylor Huber and Nancy C. Lutkehaus, eds. Gendered Missions: Women and Men in Missionary Discourse and Practice (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999); Dagmar Konrad, Missionsbräute. Pietistinnen des 19. Jahrhunderts in der Basler Mission (Münster: Waxmann, 2001); Jean Michaud, ‘Incidental’ Ethnographers. French Catholic Mission on the Tonkin-Yunnan Frontier, 1880-1930 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Kenneth Mills and Anthony Grafton, eds. Conversion. Old Worlds and New (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2003); Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths, eds. Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Missions (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); and, Brian Stanley, ed. Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, Studies in the History of Christian Missions. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001).

wonderful record of patient

7

analysed. At the same time, they acknowledge the diversity arising not only from the missionaries’ theologies and histories, but from times, places, and specific situations of the indigenous peoples to whom they were sent. Within Australia a number of scholars of Australian missions have undertaken complex interpretative mission studies since the 1980s. There has been a generally renewed interest in the activities of missionaries, with scholarly edited works including the 1988 volume, Aboriginal Australians and Christian Missions, by Tony Swain and Deborah Bird Rose, providing illuminating analyses of missions within the Australian context.13 More recently, Peggy Brock’s edited volume, Indigenous Peoples and Religious Change, focused on Aborigines as objects of missionary practice, but also as agents of the new Christian churches that arose within Australian indigenous environments.14 The Australian historical scholarship differs from that of many European countries insofar as it tends to utilise only English-language sources. There have nevertheless been a number of studies that have engaged with non-English language sources, such as Christine Stevens’s work on German Lutheran missionaries in Central Australia, and Walter Veit’s edited collection on German missionaries and scientists in Australia.15 As works on the Germanspeaking Moravian missionaries in Victoria have remained sparse, it is the aim of this book to rectify such omissions by utilising the records which the Moravians so carefully and faithfully preserved for posterity.

13 Tony Swain and Deborah Bird Rose, eds., Aboriginal Australians and Christian Missions: Ethnographic and Historical Studies, Special Studies in Religion, Number 6 (Adelaide: Australian Association for the Study of Religions, 1988). 14 Peggy Brock, ed. Indigenous Peoples and Religious Change, Studies in Christian Mission (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 15 See for example: Christine Stevens, White Man’s Dreaming. Killalpaninna Mission 1866-1915 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Everard Leske, ed. Hermannsburg: A Vision and a Mission (Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977); Regina Ganter, “Letters from Mapoon,” Australian Historical Studies 30, no. 113 (1999), 267-285; Peter Austin, “Diyari Language Postcards and Diyari Literacy,” Aboriginal History 10, no. 2 (1986), 175-192; Jürgen Tampke, “ ‘Our Duty to Convert Men-Eaters and Cannibals’: German Lutheran Missionaries and Their Work in Australia and New Guinea before 1914,” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 81, no. 1 (1995), 53-70; Walter Veit, ed. The Struggle for Souls and Science. Constructing the Fifth Continent: German Missionaries and Scientists in Australia, no. 3, Strehlow Research Centre Occasional Paper (Alice Springs: Northern Territory Government, 2004).

8

introduction Approach

This study follows Andrew Porter’s suggestion to historians to “take not only theology but a good many other things as seriously as did most missionaries of the day,”16 and Jane Samson’s caution to historians of missions not to “marginalize human spirituality and the role of religious belief in influencing attitudes and actions.”17 It does this by providing not only in-depth examinations of the history, theological underpinnings, practices, and European roots of the missionary enterprise, but also contextualises these aspects when analysing the history of the Moravian missions to Victoria. Furthermore, the book follows the historian Nicholas Thomas’s counsel in Colonialism’s Culture that historians should be alert to the differences among colonisers on imperial frontiers, just as we have increasingly become careful to distinguish the specificities of indigenous and local societies with whom colonisers interacted.18 This is particularly important when disentangling the relationship between missionaries and the state. There were differences between colonial officers, traders, settlers, and missionaries, and these groups cannot be unambiguously lumped together. Porter notes that missionaries often “saw themselves much of the times as ‘anti-imperialist,’ and their relationship with empire as deeply ambiguous at best.”19 Relationships between imperialism, colonialism, and the Christian missionary outreach were complex. In spite of this, there were common aims held by both government and missionaries, such as the ‘civilization’ and control of the ‘native,’ yet the rationales behind these aims were often based on different assumptions. Thus, to understand the rationale of missionaries in entering into Aboriginal affairs we must consider their cultural heritage, relationships with government, and above all, their faith in providence. The Moravian position within colonial encounters was influenced by Moravian practices and history that differed those of their nonMoravian British contemporaries. For example, the historian Timothy 16 Andrew Porter, Religion versus empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 11. 17 Jane Samson, “Landscapes of Faith: British Missionary Tourism in the South Pacific” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Mission, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 93. 18 Nicholas Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel and Government (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994). 19 Porter, Religion versus empire?, 13.

wonderful record of patient

9

Keegan has argued that there existed a fundamental difference, in nineteenth century southern Africa, between the missionary practices of British evangelical and German Moravian missionaries, with British missionaries more likely to mirror contemporary discourses of imperialism in matters such as race, whereas Moravian missionaries, distanced somewhat from imperialism, were more inclined to relegate decisions to providence.20 Australia, like much of southern Africa, was ruled by British imperial powers thereby replicating much of the hegemonic power-structure evident within colonial institutions. The Moravian missionaries, as both cultural and religious outsiders, were not privy to the internal machinations of such structures, yet they were required to make themselves amenable to the laws of the land. Within this study, Moravian missionaries are positioned as the ‘Other’ in relation both to the British Colonial Government and to contemporary religious organizations. Despite being subservient to colonial laws, Moravian missionaries, in common with all other missionary bodies, saw their canon of law to be beyond the statue law of the colony, with ultimate authority always attributed to the Christian word. Thus for missionaries, tensions often arose between Christian practices, colonial norms, and the regulations of the norms of their own peculiar mission organizations. Often within academic studies the Christian beliefs of missionaries are underplayed in order to focus on hegemonic structures, yet this itself poses problems for, as the anthropologist Robert J. Priest notes, “the missionary or traditional Christian of the modernist and postmodernist imagination depends very little on what missionaries or traditional Christians are.”21 He further argues that missionaries are often conflated with stereotypes of ethnocentricity, which are at odds with the cultural relativist stance of anthropologists, and that the religious viewpoints of missionaries have thus not been appreciated within the academy. This study promotes the religious understandings of Moravian missionaries’ to the fore when analysing their actions and texts, and in doing so offers deeper insight into the religious paradigm through which they viewed the world, which, in turn, impacted upon their actions. As products of their time, the Moravian missionaries in Australia, like their contemporaries, used language that reflected the nineteenth-century 20

Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, xxii–xxiii. Robert J. Priest, “Missionary Positions: Christian, Modernist, Postmodernist” Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (2001), 45. 21

10

introduction

vernacular, which, although they sometimes grate on our twenty-first century sensibilities, are often reproduced in this text to demonstrate the attitudes and images conjured up not only of the missionaries, but also of the people amongst whom they worked. In the nineteenth century, for example, the terms ‘depravity’ and ‘degradation’ had theological overtones pertaining to the doctrine of total depravity and were used in reference to the absence of the Christian God in a person’s heart.22 The people that the missionaries worked amongst were often referred to as ‘the heathen’ or ‘heathen’ in their un-Christianized state—with the term ‘heathen’ referring to biblical references pertaining to those people outside the covenant between God and Jews. Moreover, the definitive article before the term ‘heathen’ indicated an amorphous and undifferentiated unity, under which all indigenous peoples of non-Christian faiths were subsumed. Once indigenous peoples lived on mission stations they were often called ‘our blacks,’ a term which reflects a belief in the possessiveness of indigenous peoples by the German missionaries. Other words, such as ‘tribes’, have also been reproduced in this work, even though current anthropological trends preferentially refer to indigenous Australians’ moiety, clan, or language group, of which there were more than 30 cultural-language groups upon the missionaries arrival in the Colony of Victoria.23 Within this study, the term Australia—the great southern land—refers to the geographical landmass of the continent, and not to the political entity—the Commonwealth of Australia—which only came into existence in 1901. For those not so familiar with some of the Australian people referred to in this text, Appendix Two provides some bibliographical details of a number of these characters. This study also utilizes the terms ‘converted’ and ‘convert’ to indicate the spiritual state of an indigenous person whom the missionaries deemed as professing a belief in the Christian God - often forsaking their own spiritual beliefs in the process. Similarly, the term ‘success’ when relating to mission stations reflected the missionaries’ belief that the Holy Spirit was working amongst the heathen, and that the heathen were opening their hearts to the Christian God. These terms are

22

See for example: John Harris, One Blood. 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity: A Story of Hope (Sutherland: Albatross, 1990), 30-32. 23 Richard Broome, Aboriginal Victorians: A History since 1800 (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005), xxi. For an overview of indigenous language areas within the current state of Victoria see for example: Ian Clark, Aboriginal languages and clans: an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800-1900 (Melbourne: Monash University, 1990).

wonderful record of patient

11

used not in order to perpetuate nineteenth-century views, but rather, to explicitly display the cultural, spiritual, and political environment which the missionaries inhabited. The sources used in the writing of this book are many and varied. Much of the unpublished material is extracted from the Moravian Church’s archive in Herrnhut, Germany, which holds an enormous amount of material pertaining to the Church’s work across three centuries and six continents. The two major sources of archival material used here were the minutes of the Unitätsaeltestenkonferenz (UAC, in English Unity Elder’s Conference), which was the administrative body that directed and superintended over the whole Moravian Church between general synods. The minutes of the Missionsdepartement (Mission Department), which was the administrative body of the UAC responsible for missionary affairs, provide further detail on the work of the missionaries in foreign lands.24 Both of these committees met regularly, usually once every few days, and recorded their overviews of incoming correspondence, their reactions to these correspondences, and various requests from the missionaries and other bodies. These detailed minutes are indispensable in presenting not only the missionaries’ positions, but also often frequently provide the responses of the administrative boards, and thus shed light on the internal dynamics of the Church, as well as on the tensions between the administrating body and the missionaries in the field. The other materials used in the shaping of this work include Moravian publications held in the Moravian archives in Bethlehem (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), London (U.K.), and Herrnhut (Germany); missionaries’ correspondences collected from these same archives, as well as those available from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) in Canberra; colonial Victorian governmental records available at the Public Records Office in Victoria, and the National Archives of Australia, Victorian Branch; other missionary organizations’ publications, such as those found in the archives of the Berlin Mission Society, and archives of the Lutheran Church of Australia in Adelaide; and contemporary publications, such as those found in the stacks of the Berlin Public Library, the Reeves Library of the Moravian College in Bethlehem, the British Library, the Baillieu Library of the University

24 Paul Peucker, Herrnhuter Wörterbuch. Kleines Lexikon von Brüderischen Begriffen (Herrnhut: Unitätsarchiv, 2000), 53.

12

introduction

of Melbourne, the State Library of Victoria, and the National Library of Australia in Canberra. Within the records of the UAC and Missionsdepartement, the proportion of material relating to Aboriginal people per se is small. Once the mission was established, the missionaries spent much of their time subsumed by administrative duties and reports. Their written correspondence include reports to various boards and funding bodies, reports on the physical state of the mission, requests for land, comments on the weather, and complaints about fellow missionaries. This left comparatively little space for considered or detailed references to Aboriginal people. It is mostly within the governmental files—such as the correspondence to the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines (BPA)—that Aboriginal people rise as individuals from the parchment of history as their letters recount aspects of Aboriginal resistance to the strict control of their lives under both governmental and missionary regulations.25 This book seeks an understanding of the missionary position which itself led to such strict regulations being forced upon indigenous people by missionaries, and in doing so places the focus of investigation upon the missionaries and their experiences. Structure of the book The structure of this work is chronological. It commences with the Moravians in Germany, moving to its first forays into the Victorian mission field, the expansion of its mission there, and finally the negotiations between the missionaries and government leading up to the so-called ‘Half-Caste’ Act, which was passed by the Colonial Government of Victoria into law in 1886, and which itself heralded the demise of the Victorian Moravian mission stations. Throughout the present study, the Moravians missionaries working within Victoria are contextualised within their global Church movement as well as in the local Australian environment.

25 See for example: File B313, Public Record Office of Victoria, VPRS 1694, National Archives of Australia (Victorian Branch), Melbourne, Australia; For an edited version of some letters see: Elizabeth Nelson, Sandra Smith, and Patricia Grimshaw, eds., Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1926 (Melbourne: The History Department, The University of Melbourne, 2002).

wonderful record of patient

13

Chapter One, God’s Lot: Moravians and Missions, examines the background to the Moravian Church’s establishment of missionary activity amongst the world’s ‘heathen’, thus forming the framework within which the missionaries to Australia would work. It provides an understanding of some of the theological aspects of the Church, as well as the culture and practice which influenced the missionaries who were sent out to foreign missionary fields. Chapter Two, “The most Wretched and Bleakest”: Moravian Desire to Work Amongst the Australian Aborigines, describes the deliberations that led to the sending out of Moravian missionaries to Australia. As a Church that imagined itself as a successful missionary organization, Moravians saw Australia as a suitable place to establish a mission amongst the “most wretched and bleakest” heathens26 – the Aborigines of Australia. The chapter provides an overview of contemporary missionary work within Australia and argues that the decision to send missionaries to Australia was not a simple one, rather that it was bound up in traditional Moravian decision-making practices. The chapter demonstrates how these processes, unique to the Moravian Church, profoundly affected the outcomes of the mission to the newly formed settler-colony of Victoria. In Chapter Three, “Ein fauler Fleck”: Lake Boga, a Putrid Stain, the demise of the first mission station is explored, as well as the influences that this demise had on the establishment of a renewed mission venture to Australia. The chapter demonstrates that the traditions of the Moravian Church were not easy to put into practice within an Australian environment. It explores a number of differences between missionaries’ descriptions of Aborigines and the resulting official printed versions, in order to demonstrate how images of Aborigines were manipulated to promote the aims of the Church, and did not necessarily reflect the experiences of the missionaries themselves. In discussing the failure of the Lake Boga mission, the chapter argues that it was necessary for the Moravian Church to present one missionary as a scapegoat for the failed mission, in order that the Church could return to Australia at a later date, given that Moravian self-perceptions did not accommodate the closure of any mission station without consent from the UAC. Chapter Four, “I is done, no more”: The First Convert, reflects on the success that the Moravians encountered at their second missionary

26

Missionsblatt, 1856, 3, 41.

14

introduction

attempt in Victoria. It examines some of the Moravians’ ethnocentric descriptions of Aborigines, including the Indigenous transposition of Biblical events on to local landscapes, and demonstrates the notable absence of reciprocal cultural exchanges in Moravian narratives. The chapter argues that long-standing Moravian historical traditions indelibly impacted on the establishment of the mission and the way in which the mission was carried out. Chapter Five, “Alles geht seinen schleppenden Gang”: Expansion, Movement and Sluggish Progress, follows the initial years of the Ramahyuck mission and the rise and abandonment of the mission to the ‘Interior’ of Australia. The chapter follows the progress of the missionary the Reverend Friedrich August Hagenauer, from naïve interloper to more astute manipulator of public and government opinion. It advances the argument developed in Chapter Four that the missionaries presented themselves in different ways depending upon their audience, yet they always privileged the act of converting the heathen over engaging in the on-going fates of individual converts. Within Chapter Six, “Every Triumphant Death”: Closure in a British Colony, a closer look is taken at how the missionaries viewed themselves as agents of governmental policy. Particular emphasis is placed on Hagenauer, who became Secretary and General Inspector to the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines, the governmental body responsible for the welfare of the colony’s remaining Aborigines. Given that Hagenauer’s prominent contribution to political life was at odds with the Moravian principles of abstaining from local politics, this chapter outlines how such a situation arose, and offers unique insights into Victorian colonial politics from an outsider’s perspective. The conclusion draws together the themes of the book and demonstrates that a greater understanding of missionary practice is gained through paying close attention to the specific religious backgrounds and national origins of the people involved in missionary fields, thereby avoiding conflation into meta-narratives of hegemonic power structures. Although the Moravian missionaries cooperated in some of their endeavours with government, the relationships between missionaries and politicians were not always easy, and even when outcomes were agreed upon, the missions and State sometimes had divergent aims. Such points of difference can help us to understand not only Victorian colonial politics and indigenous affairs, but also the broader exercise of power and authority throughout the British settler colonies and beyond.

CHAPTER ONE

GOD’S LOT: MORAVIANS AND MISSIONS The Moravian missionaries who came out to Australia from the midnineteenth century were part of a long missionary tradition. Their theological history is often traced back to the fifteenth century reformer Jan Hus, with the history of the renewed Moravian Church beginning in the early eighteenth century from a small town called Herrnhut in the Oberlausitz in Germany. From 1730, Moravian missionaries spread throughout the world with the desire to follow the instruction of Mark xvi:15 and Matthew xxviii:19, 20: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Throughout their travels, they profoundly influenced other missionary organizations, individuals, and of course the indigenous peoples amongst whom they worked. Conversions to Protestant Christianity not only entailed a change in spiritual beliefs of the indigine, but also a change from the Western vision of what it was to be ‘savage’ to Western views of what ‘civilized’ meant. By the time the Moravians arrived in southern Australia in 1848, the Church had had more than a century of missionary experience in the dual aims of ‘Christianizing and civilizing’ the heathen. This chapter examines the foundations of the Church, as well as providing an understanding of the rich historical and theological heritage of its mission aims and practices. As will be demonstrated in subsequent chapters, this history and its associated practices would profoundly affect ways in which their Victorian mission field was run. The Three Eras of the Moravian Church Moravians themselves define three major eras in the Church’s history, the “Ancient Church” or “Ancient Unitas Fratrum,” (1457 to 1656), the “Hidden Seed” (1656 to 1722), and “Renewed Church” or “Renewed Unitas Fratrum” (from 1722 onwards).1 Although the first era begins 1 J. Taylor Hamilton, The Moravian Manual Containing an Account of the Moravian Church, or Unitas Fratrum. Published by Authority of the Provincial Synod of the American Moravian Church, North (Bethlehem, P.A.: Times Publishing Co, 1901), 1.

16

chapter one

in 1457, the dominant Moravian historical narrative traces the theological history of the Moravian Church to Jan Hus’s (c. 1369-1415). His theology and practice inspired Czech reformers to establish the Unitas Fratrum years after his death. Hus was a Czech religious reformer, who attacked the Orthodox Catholic beliefs of the Church, and was burnt at the stake in 1415 for his perceived heretical beliefs.2 This act incited revolution amongst his Czech followers, with a group of Hussites founding their own Episcopal Church in 1467. This church was called the Unitas Fratrum [Unity of Brethren], and was the beginning of the first major Moravian historical era.3 In 1601, the Unitas Fratrum was banned in Bohemia after the defenestration of three Catholics from the Hradčany Palace in Prague at the hands of Protestant noblemen. This act incited the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), during which many of the members of the Unitas Fratrum migrated to Poland; those who stayed were forced to convert to Catholicism. A small minority of the members escaped religious persecution during the CounterReformation, but only under onerous circumstances, such as conducting their worship in secret. Thus formed the second era of the Moravian historical narrative; the era of the “Hidden Seed.”4 The third era, the “Renewed Unitas Fratrum,” is closely aligned with Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf (henceforth Zinzendorf), who is credited with the revival of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum in the eighteenth century. Zinzendorf was born on the 26th of May, 1700, in Dresden, Saxony, during an epoch in history when Enlightenment-influenced ideas were circulating through many institutions in Europe. The memories of the bloody Thirty Years War (1618-48) having faded, his era was one of colonial expansion, developing international commerce and evangelical revivals. Zinzendorf was raised by his maternal grandmother, who herself was heavily influenced by the seventeenth-century Pietism movement 2 Hus attacked the Indulgences of Pope John XXIII, which were sold in order to financially support the Pope’s crusades against the King of Naples, who in turn, supported the rival Pope Gregory XII. See for example: Harold Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1954); and M. Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 9. 3 Josef Macek, The Hussite Movement in Bohemia, Second, enlarged edition (Prague: Orbis, 1958), 28. 4 See for example: John Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (London: Printed for the author, 1825); Josef Macek, The Hussite Movement in Bohemia; and Margaret Deanesly, A History of the Medieval Church, 590-1500, Fourth Edition. (London: Methuen & Co, 1941).

god’s lot: moravians and missions

17

within the Lutheran Church. He was affected greatly by the principles of Pietism, for example “the demand for personal conversion and for holiness, close fellowship in the Society, and responsibility for witness.”5 In his youth, Zinzendorf was further influenced by the emotive aspects of pietism during his time at Halle as a student of August Hermann Francke (1663-1727), under whose influence Halle had become the hub of the German Pietist movement.6 Although Zinzendorf would later differ with the teachings of Halle, the teachings of the Moravian Church, nevertheless, remained indebted to the ideas of Pietism.7 The Pietist movement was active in engaging the Lutheran Church in the Christian missionary movement. Prior to this movement, the Christian missionary movement was the realm of the Catholics.8 Before the eighteenth century Protestants did not have the co-ordinated and sanctioned missionary programmes of the Catholic Church. By the end of the eighteenth century, however, there had been an increase in the English and Dutch mercantile ventures, which facilitated the opening up of sea routes and ports, and thereby lands. This in itself made distant travel feasible for missionaries, including those from lands without large colonial domains, such as Germany.9 As “commerce 5 D.A. Schattschneider, “Pioneers in Mission: Zinzendorf and the Moravians,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research (1984): 63-67. 6 Francke himself was influenced by his former teacher Philip Spencer. See for example: Andrew F. Walls, “The Eighteenth-Century Protestant Missionary Awakening,” in Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, ed. Brian Stanley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001): 22-44. 7 Arthur J. Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1998), 31-32; T.L. Reichel, Our Foreign Missions and the British Province; A Paper Read at the Provincial Synod, Held at Fairfield, In June and July, 1874 (Derby: T.L. Hadham, 1874), 6-7. 8 The Catholic Church had been sending out missionaries for hundreds of years before the Protestant evangelical mission awakening of the eighteenth century, and had dominated in the Christianization and colonization of South America. See for example: Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Harper & Row, 1984); Christoph Nebgen, Missionarsberufungen nach Übersee in drei deutschen Provinzen der Gesellschaft Jesu im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2007). 9 In 1797 the Protestant Nederlands Zendelinggenootschap (Dutch Missionary Society) was established in Rotterdam, partly to be of service to the Dutch colonizing missions established through the Dutch mercantile ventures into Southeast Asia and the Americas. Two years earlier, in 1795, the English had established the London Missionary Society, with similar aims. See for example: Rita Smith Kipp, The Early Years of a Dutch Colonial Mission: The Karo Field (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1990).

18

chapter one

had been made to open the way for communication with distant races,” according to the nineteenth century Irish Moravian writer John Libbey, it was the Moravian Church’s duty to follow the “strong and common impulse to engage in the Lord’s work in distant lands.”10 Zinzendorf attributed his own missionary awakening to his encounter with two missionaries on furlough from the Royal Danish mission in Tranquebar, India during his student days at Halle. The environment that Francke provided was one which actively engaged in missionary affairs, including Francke’s own publication of the letters of the DanishHalle missionaries at Tranquebar.11 Zinzendorf ’s own youthful aspiration to become a missionary was suppressed by his family. Societal and family expectations directed his university studies to law, which he undertook at the University of Wittenberg and later practiced at the courts of the electoral Government of Saxony. Much of his education and experiences to this time had allowed him to observe differences between Protestant theologies, which, in turn, influenced his subsequent desire to see the commonality of Christian religions. Moreover, his exposure to different Protestant theologies allowed him to form his own ideas on mission, in which he believed that the teaching of the Gospel to the heathen should be done without the cumbersome baggage that the historical controversies within Christianity had created.12 Whilst Zinzendorf was working in the law courts he married Erdmuthe Dorothea von Reuss, a woman of similar societal standing and religious piety. It was also during this time that Zinzendorf first met refugees belonging to the tradition of the Unitas Fratrum. These German-speaking religious refugees from Catholic Moravia were led in 1722 by Christian David to the Zinzendorf ’s estate in the Oberlausitz in Saxony. There is no consensus in the Moravian secondary literature as to why the refugees decided to move at that time, yet all concur that Zinzendorf welcomed the religious refugees on his land because their spiritual plight had moved him.13 10 John Libbey, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869), 9. 11 Ernst Benz, “Pietist and Puritan Sources of Early Protestant World Mission (Cotton Mather and A.H. Francke)” Church History 20, no. 2 (1951): 28-55; W.R. Ward, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 12 Schattschneider, “Pioneers in Mission,” 63-67. 13 See for example: E.R. Hassé, The Moravians (London: National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, 1911), 15; Colin Podmore, The Moravian Church in England 1728-1760 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 5; and J.Taylor Hamilton, A History of

god’s lot: moravians and missions

19

During 1722, more people continued to move on to Zinzendorf ’s land establishing the settlement of Herrnhut, which is translated often into English as “God’s watch,” or the “Lord’s watch,” which according to the eighteenth century Moravian Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenberg was taken from the old testament term “watch-hill,” indicating that the town would be under God’s care.14 Those who came first were followers of the Ancient Unitas—which was an Episcopate—with people from other religious traditions under the banner of the Presbyterian Group, such as those from Reformed and Lutheran Churches, also attaching themselves to the Herrnhut group. Due to differences in faiths, traditions, and political outlooks, there were some tensions in the community, which were overcome, according to the many Moravian sources, through the guidance of Zinzendorf. By August 1727, a “new spirit had begun within the community, and a profound spiritual experience occurred at a Communion service held on the 13th of August in the parish church at Berthelsdorf,” a township close to Herrnhut.15 This date is still celebrated as the beginnings of the renewed Brüdergemeine. Zinzendorf, who had taken a keen interest in the spiritual community on his property, withdrew from his career in law and took the opportunity to satisfy his heart by dedicating his life’s work to the spiritual needs of the Moravian community. From this small community in the Oberlausitz in Germany, the Moravian Church would influence the Protestant missionary revival of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, not only in Germany, but also in England and the colonial world, including in the British colony of Victoria. The community of the Moravian Church During the eighteenth century, people were attracted to the practices of the Moravian Church, which was Christ-centric in approach and encouraged members to develop their own intensive individual

the church known as the Moravian Church, or the Unitas Fratrum, or the Unity of the Brethren, During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Bethlehem, P.A: Times Publishing Company, 1900), 30. 14 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, An Exposition of Christian Doctrine, as Taught in the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or, Unitas Fratrum. Written in German, by August Gottlieb Spangenberg; with a Preface by Benjamin La Trobe, Fifth Edition (Bath: S. Hazard, 1796), 8. 15 Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart, 33-34.

20

chapter one

relationships with God. The Church’s doctrine was founded solely upon the Bible, in which with “child-like simplicity, humility and selfdenial” they were encouraged to believe.16 The doctrine was further complimented by a culture of communal worship and religious practices. One of these practices, which is one of the most enduring legacies of the Moravian Church to the current day, is the publication of “Die Losungen,” known as the “Watch Words” in English. It is currently printed in over 50 languages world-wide. This practice originates from a custom established in Herrnhut in 1728, where a Church Elder would go from house to house each morning reciting a biblical text, “designed to supply the congregation with a subject of meditation for the day.”17 In 1731, a printed collection of these daily texts was published for the year, with texts from the Old and New Testaments appearing in such publications from 1740 onward for distribution not only amongst Moravians in Germany or on mission stations around the globe, but also for whomever wished to purchase the book. The establishment of the Losung reflects the Moravian individual relationship with God through meditation upon a Scriptural text, as well as the communal aspect of the practice, which was apparent in the origins of the daily personal communication of the text. The cultural and communal aspects of the Church were further defined through music, education, and mission. Music, for example, was seen to be a “vital means of spiritual uplift and praise,”18 with music within a worship service being selected “to enhance the mood and the message of the liturgical event.”19 Aside from within more formal events such as church services, music was integrated into many aspects of congregational members’ lives through Singstunden, hymns, festive 16 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren Adhering to the Confession of Augsburg, Translated from the Fifth Improved German Edition (Philadelphia: McCarty & Davis, 1833), 47. 17 “The Daily Words and Doctrinal Texts of the Brethren’s Congregations - 1831,” The United Brethren’s Missionary Intelligencer, and Religious Miscellany; Containing the Most Recent Accounts Relating to the United Brethren’s Missions Among the Heathen; With other interesting Communications from the Records of that Church vol. IV, no. 2, Second Quarter (1831): 90-92. 18 Harry H. Hall, “Moravian Music Education in America, Ca. 1750 to Ca. 1830,” Journal of Research in Music Education 29, no. 3 (1981), 226. 19 Peter Vogt, “The Moravian Music Tradition in Germany: Continuity and Change from 1865 to 1907,” Journal of Moravian History 3 (2007): 89-99. See also: Lanie Graf, “John Frederick Hintz, Eighteenth-Century Moravian Instrument Maker, and the Use of the Cittern in Moravian Worship,” Journal of Moravian History 5 (2008): 7-39.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

21

music, organ music, brass music, instruments, and music education.20 From the eighteenth century onwards, Moravian education in music, academic, and practical spheres was seen as very progressive, with Moravians establishing various educational facilities for both men and women. Much of the humanistic ideals built into Moravian teaching are accredited to Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670), a Moravian bishop of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum. Besides from these progressive attitudes towards education, the Moravian Church was also known, and presented itself, as a Missionary Church with a primary focus directed towards missionary work.21 According to the Moravian theologian Arthur Freeman, many people came to the Church in order to embrace the feeling of being part “of a single international organization,” which, through its missionary work, was seen as “a lively, active movement in which great things were happening.”22 Once part of the Church, members became part of a tight-woven community, in which they received pastoral care and advice. By the mid-eighteenth century, the Moravian movement had grown from the settlement on Zinzendorf ’s estate in Saxony and congregations had been established in other German towns around the area, such as Kleinwelka (established 1751), and other communities further afield, such as Herrnhaag near Frankfurt am Main (1738-52).23 The Church also spread beyond the borders of Germany and established congregations in the Netherlands, such as Zeist (1746), in Denmark, such as Stomgade (1739); and in Russia, such as Sarepta (after 1765).24 Over the Atlantic in North America more Moravian communities were established, such as those in Savanna, Georgia (1735) and Bethlehem in Pennsylvania (1742). Closer to home in Britain, the Moravian church also established congregations including one at Fetter Lane in London (1742), and at Fulneck near Leeds (1744), with Moravian congregations such as these exerting a great influence on the English Evangelical movement of the eighteenth century.25 These congregations 20 Nola Reed Knouse, “Moravian Music: Introduction, Theme, and Variations,” Journal of Moravian History 2 (2007): 37-54. 21 Libbey, The Missionary Character of Moravians, 10. 22 Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart, 124. 23 Andreas Richter, “Die Siedlungen der Brüdergemeine in Europa: Eine Typologische Übersicht,” Unitas Fratrum Bd 51/52 (2003): 1-9. 24 John Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (London: Printed for the author, 1825), 253, 227-228. 25 D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 39.

22

chapter one

in England became especially important in the mediation of invitations to establish Moravian mission fields in British colonies, and it was through the ports of the British world that the Moravian missionaries departed for Australia. Furthermore, the Moravian Church in Britain had a great influence on the British Evangelical Protestant movement, especially through their influence on John Wesley. It is said that Wesley’s heart had been ‘strangely warmed’ at a meeting, on the 24th of May, 1738, of the Fetter Lane Society at which many Moravians were present. Although Wesley parted company from the Moravians, his connection to them influenced the establishment of the Methodist Church and also the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society.26 In 1749, the Moravians were officially recognised in Britain through the ‘Moravian Act’ (An Act for Encouraging the People known by the Name of Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, to settle in his Majesty’s Colonies in America). Through this Act, the Moravians became the first church after the Church of England, to be recognized by the English Parliament as having Episcopal legitimacy.27 A contentious Act at the time, the historian Colin Podmore argues that it encouraged Moravians to settle in the American colonies and allowed Moravians in America to make payments in order to be exempt from military service.28 One significant consequence of the Act was that it cemented the name ‘Moravian Church’ in the English-speaking world, and by doing so reinforced English Moravians historical ties with Jan Hus.29 With the Moravian Church stretched over so many countries and continents, it became increasingly important to create administrative structures to direct the development of the Church and also of the members’ lives. From 1736 until 1756 members of the global Moravian Church met yearly at synods or synodal conferences.30 After the death of Zinzendorf, the Church became more firmly established through the administration of the Unitätaeltestenkonferenz (UAC, in English known as the United Elders’ Conference or, Elders’ Conference of the Unity). The UAC was established in 1764 with ten members and three 26 Colin Podmore, “Zinzendorf and the English Moravians,” Journal of Moravian History 3, (2007): 31-50. 27 Jonathan Yonan, “Archbishop Herring, Anti-Catholicism, and the Moravian Church,” Journal of Moravian History 4 (2008): 29-43. 28 Podmore, The Moravian Church in England, 228-265. 29 For a detailed analysis of this tendency see: Colin Podmore, “Zinzendorf and the English Moravians.” 30 Paul Peucker, Herrnhuter Wörterbuch. Kleines Lexikon von Brüderischen Begriffen (Herrnhut: Unitätsarchiv, 2000), 59.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

23

departments, being the “Helpers’ and Education Department,” the “Overseer’s and Warden’s Department,” and the “Mission Department.”31 It was the directing and superintendent body of the global Moravian Church between the general synods, which themselves were held on an irregular basis. These synods provided an opportunity for members of the world-wide Moravian Churches to congregate together to discuss “material change in the Constitution” and other aspects of the Church.32 Another administrative layer was added to the Church in 1857, when, after much petitioning, the Church formed a Provinzialältestenkonferenz (PAC, known in English as Provincial Elders’ Conference) for the British, American, and European Provinces. After this time these Provinces became responsible for their own geographic areas, yet all still reported to the UAC and the general synods. Missionary activities were also heavily administrated and directed through the Missionsdepartement (known in English as the Mission Department), which was established in 1789 as one of the three subcommittees of the UAC mentioned above.33 As members of both the UAC and Missionsdepartement were in the most part drawn from the European Province, the Church remained German-centric in its administration throughout the nineteenth century.34 For the present study it is pertinent to point out that during the period that the Moravians were active in the Colony of Victoria, Australia, although the English Moravian Church could offer suggestions, all directions for the mission came through either the German-based and German-centric Missionsdepartement specifically, or through the UAC. The administrative structures of the Moravian Church also played a dominant part in the congregational members’ daily lives. For example, from the very beginnings of the Moravian Church Elders were appointed to look after the temporal and spiritual concerns of the congregation. Members were furthermore divided into ‘bands,’ which by 1740 had transformed into a system of ten choirs, which was duplicated in Moravian communities around the world at various times. 31 Spangenberg, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 36-40. 32 Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 280-282. 33 Before the establishment of the Missionsdepartement a Missionsdiakonie had been established in 1755, which presided over the missionary work of the Moravian Church. See for example: Peucker, Herrnhuter Wörterbuch, 40. 34 Alliques, The Church of the Brethren and Her Mission (London: Printed for private circulation, 1871).

24

chapter one

These choirs were arranged according to a member’s age, sex, and marital status, and unmarried members of these choirs lived together in strictly sexually-segregated choir houses under the spiritual guidance of a choir helper.35 Within these systems, communal interests were privileged over individual ones, with the desired effect being to facilitate the communal aspect of the group. As well as five age-segregated choirs for children, there were also separate choirs for single men, single women, married couples, and another for widowed members. The segregation of the sexes was instigated to allow for increased opportunity for religious practice, including prayer, song, study, and testimony. Moreover, in segregating the sexes the system circumvented the danger that religious awakening and its associated emotionalism might be directed towards sensual preoccupation as opposed to religious objects. This is not to say, however, that the Moravians did not appreciate sex and sexuality. Indeed, they were pioneers of sex education with Zinzendorf ’s theology teaching that both the Church and also individual members were Brides of Christ, and that an earthly marriage with frequent sex was preparation for the heavenly marriage between members and Christ.36 Earthly marriages were, like many aspects of early Moravian communities lives, not decided upon by members, rather were dependent on the drawing of the Los. The Gamble of God: The Moravian use of the Los The Moravians used a practice of drawing a Los (lot) to determine what they believed God’s will to be, following older Biblical practices such as found in Leviticus xvi:8. Zinzendorf himself used this system of drawing out pieces of paper, or markers, to ask God’s divine will in matters of importance, and the Ancient Unitas Fratrum also used this method to elect ministers following the advice of Acts i:15-26.37 According to the nineteenth century Moravian historian, John Holmes, the instigation of the Los as a decision making tool occurred at a synod held

35 Paul Peucker, “ “Inspired by Flames of Love”: Homosexuality, Mysticism, and Moravian Brothers around 1750,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 15, no. 1 (2006): 30-64. 36 Craig D. Atwood, “Sleeping in the Arms of Christ: Sanctifying Sexuality in the Eighteenth-Century Moravian Church,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 8, no. 1 (1997): 25-62. 37 Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 50.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

25

in London 1741, when the Elders of the Church were discussing who would replace the position of General Elder of the Church which had recently become vacant due to the resignation of the incumbent. The Conference unanimously resolved, to abolish the office of General Elder, and, instead of investing any man, however pious and deserving of confidence, with the authority hitherto exercised by the General Elder, to apply for direction to the Lord himself, by the use of the lot, in concerns connected with the government of the Brethren’s Church, in all cases in which the holy Scriptures and the leadings of divine providence do not furnish a clear rule of action.38

The Los was systematically introduced from 1741, and became integral to Moravian decision making processes for Ministers, Elders, and congregational members. It was, for example, through a Los that both the primary offices and officers for the founding of Herrnhut were decided. In order to conduct the Los, members of the UAC would first discuss the issue in depth, and when “the holy Scriptures and the leadings of divine providence do not furnish a clear rule of action,” they would turn to the Los.39 For this they would formulate a question with three or so possible answers or, more often, with a possible yes/no outcome. One of the elders would offer a prayer “to His heart, that He would display to them His purpose and His will,” after which one member drew a marker from a box.40 They read God’s will from the drawn slip of paper, either that of a name, or, in the case of a ‘yes/no’ question, one of three markers inscribed with a ‘yes’ a ‘no’, or one left blank. There were a number of interpretations of a blank Los. One was that the question should be asked again at a later date; another was that UAC should themselves interpret the situation; a further was that the question had not been framed clearly enough and needed to be reformulated and put again to the Los. When Zinzendorf first instigated the drawing of the Los, it was during the early eighteenth century when the Enlightenment was just beginning to take hold, and the ideas of mysticism were still pronounced within religious practices. He justified the use of the Los by referring to its Old Testament sanctions; and he also called for people to have a ‘childlike’ belief in God and trust in His divine intervention.41 38

Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 286. Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 286. 40 Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart, 225. 41 Erich Beyreuther, “Lostheorie und Lospraxis,” in Studien zur Theologie Zinzendorfs: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Neukirchen-Vlyun: Kreis Moers, 1962): 109-135. 39

26

chapter one

Furthermore, the use of the Los was deemed desirable as, according to Spangenberg, the Moravians felt: the weakness of their own understanding in the things of God, and in the guidance of his church; and were convinced that his thoughts were not always as their thoughts, neither their ways as his ways.42

They therefore felt the need for divine intervention to enrich their understandings of the will of God. The Moravians were not the only people to use the system of a Los. It was also used by Lutherans in Colonial Victoria, when in 1868 a Los was used to determine who would be the next pastor for the Melbourne Trinity Lutheran congregation. In this instance a child drew the Los, whereas in the Moravians’ use of the Los, the drawers were adults demonstrating their child-like belief in God.43 At the synod of 1769, nine years after Zinzendorf ’s death, the use of the Los was officially sanctioned. Although its use was initially confined to deciding on membership of the Church, it became more widely used for many matters, such as the appointment of bishops, marriages, and the sending out of missionaries, with rigid rules governing its proper use.44 According to the Moravian historian Bernhard Krüger, the Los was also used in South Africa to determine if converts could be baptized.45 Its usage, however, was often problematic and many members of the Church opposed its use. As the nineteenth century advanced, the use of the Los became less frequent until 1889, when official usage stopped.46 During the time of the establishment of the Moravian mission field in Australia, there was substantial usage of the Los, and the next chapter will demonstrate the profound consequences of this prophetic decision-making process for the Moravian’s work in Australia. Such practices ensured that the Australian mission field was developed 42 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren Adhering to the Confession of Augsburg, Translated from the Fifth Improved German Edition (Philadelphia: McCarty & Davis, 1833), 41. 43 Herbert D. Mees, ed. A German Church in the Garden of God: Melbourne’s Trinity Lutheran Church 1853-2003 (East Melbourne: Arbeitskreis für Kirchengeschichte, 2004). 44 Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 289-292. 45 See for example: J.C.S. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760-1800 (Suffolk: The Boydell Press for The Royal Historical Society, 2001), 15. 46 Wilhelm Bettermann, “Das Los in der Brüdergemeine,” Zeitschrift für Volkskunde III, Heft 3 (1931): 284-287.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

27

following Moravian traditions—which relied upon the will of God— rather than as a response to contemporary challenges specific to the Australian situation. The beginnings of the Moravian missionary movement In 1732, just five years after the beginnings of the renewed Unitas Fratrum, the first Moravian missionaries were sent to engage in the dual aims of ‘Christianization and civilization’ of the heathen slaves of the colonies in the West Indies. In the Moravian historical narrative, the Church’s impetus to embark on its missionary course is attributed to Zinzendorf ’s encounter in 1731 with Anton, a converted black slave from the Danish West Indies island of St Thomas, at the coronation of King Christian IV of the Danish royal court, who himself was a relative of Zinzendorf ’s. Through Anton, Zinzendorf “heard the tale of woe and the longing cry for spiritual help that came from the degraded slaves of the West Indies.”47 Anton’s plea inspired two men, the potter Leonard Dober and the carpenter David Nitschmann, to volunteer their services as missionaries. In September 1732 they commenced their journey to the Danish controlled Caribbean island of St Thomas, thus beginning the Moravian missionary movement.48 Throughout the ensuing decades and centuries the Church went on to establish missions all around the globe, including in Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Australasia. It saw itself, and would be seen by others, as primarily a “missionary church”; one that aimed to bring Christianity to the ‘heathen’ and the ‘heathen’ to Christianity.49 Yet for the Moravians it was not only the Christian message which they brought to the heathen, for their dual aims were to ‘civilize and Christianize’ the heathen, for which the missionary brings “in the right hand the Gospel, and in the left, brings what one, simply stated, understands under the term ‘Civilization.’ ”50 In order to enact these aims, the Church positioned itself often as the “handmaid of the other larger Churches,”51 as we shall 47

Libbey, The Missionary Character of Moravians, 9. B. La Trobe, The Moravian Missions. A Glance at 164 Years of Unbroken Missionary Labours (London: Norman and Sons, 1896), 7. 49 Evangelisches Missions Magazin (herausgeben im Auftrag der evangelischen Missionsgesellschaft, Basel), 1860, vierter Jahrgang: 244. 50 H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882), 2. 51 Libbey, The Missionary Character of Moravians, 7. 48

28

chapter one

read this was indeed the case in Australia. This, in turn, reflected to some degree the theological influence of Pietism its promotion of the concept of ecclesiolae in ecclesia (little churches within the church).52 The twentieth century religious historian W.R. Ward provides a more pragmatic reason for the beginnings of Zinzendorf ’s missionary endeavours. He states that due to the politically sensitive situation of the early eighteenth century, “the Moravians had no option but to become a missionary body.”53 In October of 1732, Augustus the Strong exiled Zinzendorf from Saxony for his beliefs. Although this banishment was revoked in 1733 after the death of Augustus, Ward suggests that at this time “negotiations began for bases abroad, first in Denmark, then in Georgia [North America], in case Herrnhut should become untenable.”54 Thus, according to Ward, the Moravian missionary endeavour was as much about providing a safe haven for the European Moravians to practice their beliefs as it was about a desire to provide a spiritual alternative for the heathen. Although there is some truth in Ward’s claim—as maintained in fact by Moravian sources55—the subsequent fervour of the Moravian missionary expansion demonstrates their focused attempt to bring Christianity to those they saw as ‘heathen,’ often to the Moravians’ own mortal and material detriment. Yet it also demonstrates that the Moravians were from the outset aware of the political sensitivities of their work, and were willing to undergo displacement so long as it served the continuation of the greater Church. The first two Moravian missionaries who travelled to the Danish West Indies worked to bring slaves to Christianity. At the time there was much debate as to whether these missionaries would have to relinquish their own freedom and live the lives of slaves themselves. Zinzendorf condoned the practice of slavery as he saw it “neither contrary to Christian doctrine, nor to the laws of the land.”56 Although the Moravians did not actively oppose slavery, as they saw it as a “condition

52

Daniel B. Thorp, The Moravian Community in Colonial North Carolina (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 15. See also: Hamilton, A History of the church known as the Moravian Church, 67. 53 Ward, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening, 129. 54 Ward, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening, 129. 55 William Schwarze and Samuel Gapp, A History of the Beginnings of Moravian Work in America Being a Translation of Georg Neisser’s Manuscripts, vol. 1, Publications of the Archives of the Moravian Church (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1955), 5. 56 Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening, 103.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

29

ordained by God,” they also believed in the “spiritual equality of all souls,” and as such did not see the contradiction inherent in owing slaves themselves—such as those in the West Indies and North Carolina—and proselytizing.57 Zinzendorf ’s train of thought was akin to that of the Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG), established in England in 1701, who worked closely with the slaves of North America, and participated in the slave trade in order to more effectively catechize to African slaves.58 Ultimately, the Moravians in the Danish West Indies did not have to become slaves themselves, however, this act of placing an emphasis on conversion rather than on human or natural rights—of privileging spirituality over humanity—which was applied in the first Moravian mission field, remained evident within the Australian colonial mission scene missionaries over one hundred years later. Once the West Indies mission was established, the Moravian Church looked to further expand their mission field. Through Zinzendorf ’s connections with the Danish Royal Court, the Moravians were able to found a second mission field to the Inuit in the Danish Colony of Greenland in 1733.59 Along with the growth of the mission fields, the Moravian Church also built up the infrastructure that would support the missionary endeavour. This included a theological seminary that was opened within a decade of the first missionaries being sent out. Subjects included the requisite theological ones, as well as secular subjects such as geography, law, philosophy, state history, and trade skills.60

57 Helen Richards, “Distant Garden: Moravian Missions and the Culture of Slavery in the Danish West Indies, 1732-1848,” Journal of Moravian History 2 (2007): 55-74. 58 Faith Vibert, “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: Its Work for the Negroes in North America before 1783,” Journal of Negro History 18, no. 2 (1933): 171-212. 59 This mission field was not without its own troubles, as the Danish court tried in vain a number of times to place the Moravian missions under Lutheran control, and these were finally given over to the Danish Church in 1900. As the Lutheran Church had already established mission stations in Greenland, the Moravian mission was seen as an incursion into their field, and the survival of the missions in the Danish colony became crucial to the continuation of the Church as a whole. See for example: Heinz Israel, ‘Inuit-Menschen im Hohen Norden,’ in Ethnographie und Herrnhuter Mission. Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut. Katalog zur ständigen Ausstellung im Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut Außenstelle des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde Dresden, ed. Annegret Nippa (Herrnhut: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, 2003): 98-109. 60 Claudia Mai, “Das Theologische Seminar der Brüder-Unität in Barby 1754-1789,” Unitas Fratrum 55/56 (2005): 111-123.

30

chapter one

The breadth of the curriculum reflected the Moravians’ interest in understanding and documenting the secular aspects of the people amongst whom they worked, in order to proselytize more effectively. Furthermore, the Missionskinder—children of missionaries who were born in foreign places, such as Australia—attended a boarding school in Kleinwelka, near Bautzen, Saxony from around the age of ten. Thus, missionary children received a European education within the Moravian community, thereby ensuring a continuing connection to Moravian customs and traditions.61 By 1792, the Moravians had expanded into twenty-seven different locations around the globe. Yet, despite this geographical expansion, they were losing esteem in the eyes of their Protestant contemporaries, due in part to Zinzendorf ’s theology which became increasingly more influenced by his mystical beliefs. These ideas were greatly ridiculed, and turned some people away from the Church. Known to Moravian historians as the ‘Sifting Time’ (1743-50), the era is signified by Zinzendorf ’s experimental theology, its emphasis on the “language of the wounds of Christ and the image of mystical marriage, along with a concern for inspiration, child-like simplicity, creativity and religious experience,” with Freeman suggesting that these “were carried to excess to the neglect of other responsibilities.”62 The translations of hymns from German into English also incited ridicule in Britain, as there were many references to sexual acts and sexual organs. Christ’s side-wound, for example, was seen as a metaphor for the womb in the Moravian liturgy.63 For the Moravian Church in England, it was, however, their financial demise in 1753 that pushed it to a “spectacular crash in credit and reputation.”64 Much of the Moravian land purchases and expansions for buildings and other initiatives had been made on credit. After the crash, with the Moravians on the brink of financial ruin, detractors in Britain took the opportunity to humiliate them by writing denigrating 61 Protocoll des Missionsdepartement (PMD), 26 October 1870, #1, 305; PMD, 24 April 1872, #4, 178. Other German missionary societies also sent Missionskinder back to Germany for a European education. See for example: Ernst-August Lüdemann (ed) Vision: Gemeinde Weltweit. 150 Jahre Hermannsburger Mission und Ev.-luth. Missionswerk in Niedersachsen (Hermannsburg: Verlag der Missionshandlung Hermansburg, 2000), 61. 62 Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart, 13. 63 Paul Peucker, “The Songs of the Sifting. Understanding the Role of Bridal Mysticism in Moravian Piety during the Late 1740s,” Journal of Moravian History 3 (2007): 51-87. 64 Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening, 9.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

31

pamphlets and books, the negative effects of which took many years to overcome. The Church reacted by assuming a greater and more centralized control over all aspects, including finances, and the actions of the provinces outside of Germany. With the death of Zinzendorf in 1760, a new era for the Moravians began as Augustus Gottlieb Spangenberg took on the leadership of the Church, and under his influence the Church became more measured and deliberate in its theology, and dissociated itself from the problems of the ‘Sifting Time.’65 Regardless, its missionary aspect continued to be promoted throughout. In England, for example, Moravians revived the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel in the British Dominions in September of 1768 under the name of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen (SFG).66 This Society’s chief aim was to “further the gospel, and assist the missionaries in the British dominions in America, and other parts of the world” whilst still providing “all possible aid to the Brethren’s missions among the heathen in other countries.”67 This arrangement worked well for the primarily German based Moravian Church, for as Germany itself had limited colonial dominions in both geographical as well as temporal terms, German based missionary organizations often had to rely on the support of international organizations, most notable in order to travel through British or other imperial powers’ ports to reach the missionary fields. It was therefore valuable that the SFG was willing to: receiv[e] and entertain … such Missionaries as passed through London, on their way to America, providing them with proper lodgings, supplying them with what might be wanting in the way of passage-money, provisions, and necessary refreshments; recommending them to the captains, making the bargain for their passage, taking care of their letters, executing

65 For more information on Spangenberg see for example: Craig D. Atwood, “Spangenberg: A Radical Pietist in Colonial America,” Journal of Moravian History 4 (2008): 7-27; Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 243-251. 66 Moravian Archives, London, UK, 3 September 1768, Minutes of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen (SFG minutes), Volume 1, 1768-1772, #1, 1. The SFG was an exclusively Moravian Society initially established to help the missionaries. It is not to be confused with the London Association in aid of the Moravian Missions, which was composed of non-Moravian Christian friends who supported the heathen mission work. See for example: The Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, The Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel and Its Third Jubilee, (London, 1891). 67 Moravian Archives, London, no date, Stated Rules of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel Among the Heathen, no place, pamphlet, 8 pages.

32

chapter one their little commissions; and doing, in short, any thing by which we could forward their object, serve them, or give them pleasure.68

This comprehensive list, although only referring to America, would be extended in the nineteenth century to cover all Moravian missionaries travelling through London, such as those destined for Australia. Besides from assisting individual German Moravian missionaries, the SFG also became responsible for the administration of the mission field to the Inuit of Labrador. The Society even owned a ship, Harmony, which set sail once a year from Britain to take supplies to the missionaries. On its return the ship brought goods from the Inuit mission field, which were sold to support the mission. Yet this act was not undertaken without significant deliberations, as an excerpt from a 150th anniversary document from the SFG stated: As a trading concern with a purely missionary purpose S.F.G. has long provided the Eskimoes with a market for their furs, fish, oil and other products. In doing so the Society had guarded them from traders who would have sold them intoxicants, as well as taken advantage of their ignorance. It has also by the help freely given to the poor every winter stood between the Eskimoes and starvation in many a hard season. This barter traffic has never fully supported the mission but thanks also to donations from friends and especially to the interest on capitals formed by legacies left to S.F.G., the General Mission Fund has been relieved of almost the entire cost of the work in Labrador.69

Thus, it was of paramount importance to the SFG, and the Moravian Church, not to be seen as using the missionary work as a guise for their commercial practices. Indeed, the minutes of the SFG in 1772 noted that the Chairman of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Samuel Wegg, on hearing that our Missionaries did not meddle with Trade, said, He made no Doubt but that the Company would have no Sort of Objection to our going occasionally thither, & he was sure if the Missionaries came there, they would not be ill looked upon.70

Trade generated from the Labrador mission became so important for its financial support that in 1827 the SFG decided to ban missionaries 68 James Montgomery, Retrospect of the Origin and Progress of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen; and of Its Operations during the Past Hundred Years. Read at the Centenary Anniversary of the Society, on Nov 19, 1841 (The Mount near Sheffield, 1841), 3. 69 The Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel and Its Third Jubilee, (London, 1891), 6-7. 70 SFG Minutes, 5 May 1772, Volume 1, #2, 131.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

33

in Labrador from engaging in private trade of ‘curiosities’ in order than the profits from any such trade would be gained by the Society itself.71 Such decisions reveal the Moravian Church’s need to continually balance their need to earn enough money to support the missions, and yet not be seen as a commercial venture. Furthermore, they also had to balance their desire to send out missionaries to all corners of the globe with the practicalities of doing so. In the eighteenth century, the Moravians decided that it was impractical to send out missionaries to New Holland, as Australia was then called. The issue was, however, deliberated with some of the world’s experts on the matter insofar that the President of the SFG, Brother James Hutton, had in 1772 had an “Interview lately with Mr [Joseph] Banks and Dr [Daniel] Solander, Dr Franklin & other gentleman.” These first two had in 1768-71 been on Captain James Cook’s first voyage to the Pacific. The exploration of Botany Bay on the east coast of Australia had raised the possibility of establishing a mission station there, with the SGF notes stating: Dr Franklin, wished our Brs would go to New Holland, Dr Solander gave a better Account of New Zealand; but as the Intercourse was so very precarious it did not seem feasible to expose our Missionaries; if ever they could once get thither to be cut off from all further communications with the Prov[ince] in Europe or elsewhere.72

In 1772, Australia had not yet been colonized by the British. The first penal settlements were only established in 1788, some sixteen years after the above mentioned meeting. Thus, although the mission was not then seen as feasible, these words demonstrated the Moravian’s desire to further their missionary activity, and also their connection with scientists who had first-hand accounts of the indigenous peoples amongst whom the Moravians would work. Thus, it demonstrated a link between imperial explorations and Moravian missionary endeavours. The Moravians desired to go to locations deemed by Europeans to be the “most remote, unfavourable, and neglected parts of the surface of the earth,”73 including to mission fields where other denominations had failed. For them the “more destitute, degraded and savage any people

71

SFG Minutes, 21 May 1827, # 5, 329. SFG Minutes, 5 May 1772, Volume 1, #2, 131. 73 Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964), 237. 72

34

chapter one

were, the greater was their pity for them, and the stronger their desire to offer to them the consolations of the gospel.”74 Australia, as noted, was deemed to be a difficult place for the Moravians to travel to, and contemporary descriptions portrayed the Australian indigenous inhabitants in an extremely negative way. According to the Australian historian Glyndwr Williams for example, Banks described Aborigines to a Committee of the House of Commons as “naked, treacherous, and armed with Lances, but extremely cowardly.”75 Williams further argues that in 1785, when Banks described the situation in Australia to a committee considering the merits of colonising the land mass as a penal settlement, his main intent was, “to show that the Aborigines were a nomadic people, with no trace of political authority, social organization or religious belief, and that the east coast of New Holland was, accordingly, terra nullius, open to European settlement and dominion.”76 Thus, although Banks described the land as terra nullius and the people as a tabula rasa in relation to spiritual matters, it was the physical isolation of the continent that ensured that the Moravians did not again consider sending missionaries to Australia until the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century saw the Moravians expand their mission into new fields. This second missionary period began in 1828, with a new mission attempt in South Africa, with that to Australia following some two decades later, and being one of over thirty missionary attempts for the Church in the nineteenth century. With such a large and geographically diverse missionary field, the Moravians required an efficient administration and substantial funding. In order to lighten the burden on central Church funds, some Moravian societies or provinces assumed the financial burden for particular mission fields. For example, the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen (SPG) in Pennsylvania, USA, preferentially supported work amongst the ‘Indian mission’ in North America; the Mission Society in Zeist, the Netherlands, preferentially supported the mission in Dutch Guiana (Suriname); the Mission Association of North Schleswig, Denmark, preferentially supported the mission in Greenland;

74

Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 250. Glyndwr Williams, “ ‘Far More Happier Than We Europeans’: Reactions to the Australian Aborigines on Cook’s Voyage,” in Through White Eyes, ed. Susan Janson and Stuart Macintyre (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990), 64. 76 Williams, “ ‘Far More Happier,’ ” 64. 75

god’s lot: moravians and missions

35

and, as we have read, the London-based SFG preferentially supported the Labrador mission.77 No Province or Society preferentially supported the Australian mission, exacerbating the need both for the Australian missions to find funding from wherever they were able, and also to ensure their continued need to engage with local communities to engender support. Despite the differences and inequality in financial support, all missionaries were equal insofar as they were all under the same administration, that of the Missionsdepartement, which itself was under the direction of the UAC. In administrating all of these various mission fields, the UAC gained much insight into how best to instruct their missionaries in the art of establishing and maintaining successful mission fields. In the late eighteenth century, after over fifty years in a missionary work, the UAC requested that Spangenberg, “draw up a series of INSTRUCTIONS [emphasis in original] for our messengers to the Heathen,” in order that Moravian missionaries all over the globe could profit from the knowledge of those who had gone before them, and so that the heathen may “be turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts xxvi: 18).78 The German-language edition, entitled Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen, appeared in 1784, with a second revised and enlarged German version appearing in 1837. As the Moravian Church was truly international in its scope, two English language versions appeared in 1784 and 1840. Instructions in the 1837 German language version included advice on preparing to be a missionary (§9); on learning the ‘heathen’ language (§19); on establishing schools for the children (§39); on writing detailed accounts for the missionary board (§54); on why not to ‘sheep steal,’ or tempt converts away from other missionary societies (§59); and on why not to mix in the political and civil opportunities of the land (§61). The Instructions were also intended for Moravians in the home congregations so that they could, according to the 1784 English introduction, “be excited to think more earnestly of your service among

77 L.T Reichel, Our Foreign Missions and the British Province; a Paper Read at the Provincial Synod, Held at Fairfield, in June and July, 1874 (Derby: T.L. Hadham, 1874), 4. 78 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, trans. From the German, Second (Revised and Enlarged) ed. (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), vi & 10.

36

chapter one

the heathen” and how this contributed to a global Moravian Church.79 The Church was indeed very focused on the incorporation of all members into supporting its large mission field, as they needed financial support and also personnel to keep the missions and the missionaries well catered for. This was particularly necessary since the proportion of missionaries within the Moravian Church was extraordinarily high, with one in sixty members serving as a missionary—for other Protestant churches the figure was one in 5,000.80 Home congregations were more directly informed of missionary activities through the monthly hand-written Gemeinnachrichten (congregational reports), which were read aloud to congregations in order to foster a sense of community.81 They were also kept abreast of news through numerous Moravian missionary publications, including Periodical Accounts relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren, established among the Heathen (Periodical Accounts), which was first published in 1790 by the SFG; and the Missionsblatt aus der Brüdergemeine, first published in Herrnhut in 1837. Over the ensuing years, more and more publications were added to the Moravian fold with periodicals appearing in the Dutch, Danish, French, and Bohemian languages, and numerous other periodicals printed to serve the American, English and German Moravian communities. Such mounds of material demonstrated what can aptly be described as “the missionary writing machine”—to borrow a term from the eminent historian of South Africa, Norman Etherington—in order to, amongst other reasons, raise spirits and money, and make people aware of the works of the missionary society.82 Through the various Moravian publications, missionaries and these members of the Church dispersed throughout the world could maintain a sense of community and also be aware of each other’s work, experiences, hardships, and successes.

79 Spangenberg, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum, Who Minister in the Gospel among the Heathen (London: Brethren’s Society, for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, 1784), iv. 80 E.R. Hassé, Women’s Work in the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church: Paper Read at the Free Church Council March 9th, 1879 (Ashton-under-Lyne: Griffin & Sheard, 1897), 3. 81 Gisela Mettele, “Constructions of the Religious Self. Moravian Conversion and Transatlantic Communication,” Journal of Moravian History 2 (2007): 7-35. 82 Norman Etherington, “The Missionary Writing Machine in Nineteenth-Century Kwazulu-Natal,” in Mixed Messages. Materiality, Textuality, Missions, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 37.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

37

Despite the administrative structures, the support from various organisations at home and abroad, the specific instructions, the high numbers of missionaries within the Church, and the various publications, the Moravians were not immune to failures. On a human level, many missionaries died,83 and from an organisational standpoint many of the missions failed, which, as we shall read in the next chapters, was sometimes due to interference from colonial governments and local settlers, as the case of the first Australian mission attests to. The Church’s own aims were also not always met. For example, in 1874 it was noted with some disappointment that after almost 150 years, the Church’s aim of producing self-supporting missions in foreign fields with native agency had not been achieved. The cultural theorist, Dipesh Chakrabarty, has argued that native agency was itself a colonial trope, and one that missionaries and the broader colonial administration brandished freely. Furthermore, he suggests that missionaries shifted the benchmarks for ‘natives’ to reach in order to gain admission to ‘civilization’, thus leaving them “in the waiting room of history.”84 As later chapters will argue, within colonial Victoria and under the Moravian gaze, Aboriginal Victorians would also be relegated to the “waiting room of history” as the missionaries themselves took action on behalf of the Aborigines, not allowing them to have agency in the decision making process which would regulate indigenous lives on the mission stations. Through their substantial global missionary activity, the Moravians gained a reputation as one of the most successful mission churches in the world, with this, in turn, becoming a major tenet of their identity. Measures of ‘success’ were not explicitly stated, rather were implicit in references to the Church’s ability to convert indigenous peoples to Christianity where other missionary societies had failed, and also to the sheer numbers of Moravian missions around the world. Therefore, their external measures of success were comparisons to other missionary societies, and the internal measures of success were the depths of religious conversion of the people they worked amongst. The Moravians believed that the Holy Spirit would work in the hearts of indigenous peoples, and in order for this to occur the missionaries should not only 83 Allen Schattschneider, Through Five Hundred Years: A Popular History of the Moravian Church (Bethlehem and Winston-Salem: Comenius Press, 1956), 63. 84 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Differences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 8.

38

chapter one

preach, but also act as Christian role models for potential converts.85 Unlike the Catholics, the Moravians were never intent upon mass converting of people, nor were they intent of creating a Volkskirche amongst the converted indigene as other German Protestant Societies strived for; the Moravians abidingly ascribed to the ideal of ecclesiolae in ecclesia. Rather the Moravians brought Pietist-inspired Christianity to cultures that had not been exposed to the Christian God. As an evangelical mission society, they had a strong belief in individual spirituality, which translated to a missionary undertaking based on genuine and heart-felt conversions amongst the ‘heathen’. These conversions were seen to come through the grace of the Holy Spirit, who opened up the hearts of the first converts, known as first-fruits to God.86 The concept of first-fruits followed Biblical verses, such as Revelations xiv:4, which states: “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.” In order to achieve this, missionaries were instructed to learn the languages of the people amongst whom they worked in order that they could transmit the word of God in a language that the ‘heathen’ understood,87 and were further instructed to take “peculiar care and attention” of the first-fruits in order that the “countrymen [of the first-fruit] will be encouraged to follow their example.”88 The first-fruit were celebrated and admired universally, with oil paintings of them being commissioned to proclaim God’s grace. In the Australian mission field, the most celebrated first-fruit was Nathanael Pepper, who will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. His conversion was taken to indicate that Aboriginal Australians could indeed be converted to Christianity. Around the Moravian globe, once heathens had converted to Christianity they

85

See for example: August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum, Who Minister in the Gospel among the Heathen (London: Brethren’s Society, for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, 1784), 19-20. 86 See for example: Peter Vogt, “Everywhere at Home”: The Eighteenth Century Moravian Movement as a Transatlantic Religious Community,” Journal of Moravian History 1 (2006), 17. 87 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Unterricht Für Die Brüder Und Schwestern Welche Unter Den Heiden Am Evangelio Dienen, Zweite durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837). §19, 27-29. 88 Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren. §28, 35-6.

god’s lot: moravians and missions

39

were incorporated into a “systematic oversight of individuals” on the mission stations, where coverts were divided into five classes to facilitate their spiritual growth.89 Furthermore, three grades of assistants were sourced from the native converts - ‘Helpers,’ ‘Lay Readers,’ and ‘Assistant Missionaries,’ with the hope that ‘Assistant Missionaries’ could be recruited for “Native Ministers.”90 The structural organisation within mission stations reflected the broader Moravian administrative structures in place around the globe. When the Moravian Church first began sending out missionaries in 1732, it was one of a select number of German Protestant missionary societies. However, by the time that the Moravians turned their attention to Australia in the 1830s, there were a plethora of German missionary societies such as the Basler Missionsgesellschaft (in 1816), the Berliner Missionsgesellschaft (1824), the Hermannsburger Mission (1849) the Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft (1828), the Norddeutsche Missionsgesellschaft (1836), the Leipziger Missionsgesellschaft (1836, moved from Dresden to Leipzig in 1848), and the Neuendettelsauer Missionsgesellschaft (1872) sending out missionaries to places as far afield as Africa, China, North America, Australia, New Zealand, India, Borneo, Sumatra, and New Guinea.91 These lists of missionary organizations and fields are by no means exhaustive, and indeed the large missionary movement to convert the ‘heathen’ of the Pacific is not 89 J. Taylor Hamilton, A History of the Missions of the Moravian Church During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Bethlehem, PA: Times Publishing Company, 1901), 213. 90 Hamilton, A History of the Missions, 212. 91 See for example: Thomas Braun, Die Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft und der Missionshandel im 19. Jahrhundert (Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission Erlangen, 1992); D. Paul Fleisch, Hundert Jahre Lutherischer Mission (Leipzig: Verlag der Evangelisch=lutherischen Mission, 1936); Karl Förtsch, Kurze Geschichte Der Goßnerschen Mission. Zum Fünfundsiebzigjährigen Jubiläum. Den Missionsfreunden in Stadt und Land Erzählt (Berlin-Friedenau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Goßnerschen Mission, 1911); Horst Gründer Christliche Mission und deutscher Imperialismus, 18841914 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh: 1982); Georg Haccius, Hannoversche Missionsgeschichte (Hermannsburg: Druck und Verlag der Missionshandlung in Hermannsburg, 1905); Hermann Karsten, Die Geschichte der Evangelisch=Lutherischen Mission in Leipzig Von Ihrer Entstehung bis auf die Gegenwart Dargestellt. Erste Teil (Güstrow: Verlag von Opitz & Co, 1893); Ernst-August Lüdemann ed. Vision: Gemeinde Weltweit. 150 Jahre Hermannsburger Mission und Ev.-luth. Missionswerk in Niedersachsen (Hermannsburg: Verlag der Missionshandlung Hermannsburg, 2000); Helmut Lehmann, 150 Jahre Berliner Mission (Erlangen: Verlag der Ev. luth. Mission, 1974); and, Julius Richter, Geschichte der Berliner Missionsgesellschaft. 1824-1924 (Berlin: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Berliner ev. Missionsgesellschaft, 1924).

40

chapter one

touched upon here.92 Rather, this list exemplifies the rise of the German Protestant missionary societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and also parallels the expansion of the colonial world. Considering the diversity of evangelic missionary societies working in the colonial world during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the historian Andrew Walls has suggested that one overlooked aspect has been the “extent to which Pietistic and evangelical religion created a sense of common understanding and purpose between groups separated by geography, nationality, and confession.”93 Walls further argues that although the Protestant missionary awakening is often connected to activities in late eighteenth century England, one must look beyond the borders of geography and time, as “what happened in that period was British entry into a well-established continental tradition.”94 It is in responding to Walls’ admonition of looking beyond time and space that this chapter has focused on the early history and practices of the Moravian Church, which had a profound effect on how the Moravian mission in Victoria was established and run. From the perspective of Germany and the mission base, the Australian mission was only one of numerous missionary endeavours, yet it was part of a long and established tradition. As Chapter Three will demonstrate, when Moravian missionaries arrived in Victoria in the mid-nineteenth century, their responses to the situations in which they found themselves were shaped by Moravian practices such as the Los, as well as through the Instructions, advice from the Missionsdepartement, and also their connections into a broader Moravian community through the numerous Moravian publications. They were part of the broader Moravian enterprise of a self-proclaimed ‘successful’ Missionary Church. The long and rich history of the Church had impressed upon them the need to avoid involvement in colonial affairs, rather to aim for a mission history of ‘patient continuances.’ As the next chapter will demonstrate, the Moravians did, however, look for the support of colonial governments in order to establish new mission stations. Yet it was the outcomes of the Los that the Moravians followed as a sign of utmost faith in the omnipotent and omnipresent Christian God. How this impacted on the decision to send missionaries to Australia is the topic of the next chapter. 92 For examples of missionary work in the Pacific see: R. MacLeod and P. Rehbock, eds., Evolutionary Theory and Natural History in the Pacific. Darwin’s Laboratory (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,1994); Helen Bethea Gardner, Gathering for God: George Brown in Oceania (Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2006). 93 Walls, “The Eighteenth-Century Protestant Missionary Awakening,” 40. 94 Walls, “The Eighteenth-Century Protestant Missionary Awakening,” 34.

CHAPTER TWO

“THE MOST WRETCHED AND BLEAKEST”: MORAVIAN DESIRE TO WORK AMONGST THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES Over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Moravians fostered a positive reputation for their work. Contemporary observers described Moravians as primarily a “simple, frugal and selfdenying” people with a quiet devotion both to God and to the moral and spiritual lives of the people they worked amongst.1 They were praised by a contemporary anthropologist as being an “earnest and hard working and painstaking body of people,” who “directed their efforts in the first instance, to [the] civilisation [of the indigene].”2 Christian historians extolled their work and suggested that they “put to shame all other Churches by their devotion to the world-mission of the Gospel, and by the heroism with which they have played the part of soldiers of Christ Jesus in every continent and climate.”3 Other missionary organizations looked to them when establishing their own missionary societies, and within popular culture, authors of the prominence of Herman Melville and Leo Tolstoy referred to the Moravian missionaries in their writings and speeches.4 The Moravians were thus seen by many aspects of society as a ‘successful’ missionary organization, which in turn led the Moravians to describe themselves as a ‘Missionary Church.’5 They had created an organization that sent out 1 A. Wilson,‘The Abode of Snow,’Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, cited in Edward Paske, “Buddhism in the British Provinces of Little Tibet,” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 8 (1879), 208. 2 John Collinson, “[Comments on]: On the Indians of the Mosquito Territory,” Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 6 (1868), xiv. 3 George Findlay and Mary Grace Findlay, Wesley’s World Parish: A Sketch of the Hundred Years’ Work of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society (Hodder and Stoughton: Charles Kelly, 1913), 12. 4 See for example: Herman Melville, White Jacket, or the World in a Man-of-War (London: John Lehman, 1952), 257; Herman Melville, Pierre, or the Ambiguities, The Kraken Edition (HarperCollins Publishers, 1995), 49; Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina. With Notes by Amy Mandelker, trans. Constance Garnett (New York: Spark Publishing, 2003), xiv. 5 John Libbey, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869), 6.

42

chapter two

missionaries to the most remote and, as Europeans termed them, most difficult of missionary fields. Australia was no exception, with the Moravians first attempting in earnest to establish a mission amongst the Aborigines from the 1830s. This chapter explores the history of the Moravian mission fields in the period until the early nineteenth century, when the Moravians were beginning their second era of missionary expansion. It examines the failed Protestant mission stations in the Australian colonies in order to provide an understanding of the attitude towards the Christianization of Aboriginal people in this British colonial settlement. The chapter builds on the material from the previous chapter to demonstrate how the Moravian rationale behind sending out missionaries to Australia was dictated by Moravian Church practices and history. Moravian mission fields South Africa was the site of both the last Moravian mission field to be established in the eighteenth century and the first point of expansion in the early nineteenth century. The end of the eighteenth century saw the Moravians send Georg Schmit to minister to the stock-herding Hessequa Khoikhoin, earlier known to Europeans as ‘Hottentotten,’ on the west Cape of southern Africa (1792); with a Moravian mission established to the Bantu-speaking Nguni of the eastern part of the Cape in 1828.6 During the time that had elapsed between these two dates, South Africa had become a sought-after missionary field due in part to the diversity of its inhabitants and their perceived depravity. In Africa, like many other parts of the world, the Moravians and their other contemporary missionary societies undertook different types of missions, including ‘heathen’ missions to indigenous African groups and freed slaves; the ‘Diaspora mission’ to Christian Europeans; and also the ‘Home mission’ to non-Christian European settlers. The historian Hildegard Johnson has commented that the saturation of South Africa with mission stations was due to the plethora of groups amongst whom the missionaries could evangelize, as well as to the favorable political conditions for Protestant societies.7 6 For history on this mission field in the nineteenth century see for example: Timothy Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, 1828-1928: Four Accounts of Moravian Mission Work on the Eastern Cape Frontier (Paarl: Paarl Print, 2004). 7 Hildegard Binder Johnson, “The Location of Christian Missions in Africa,” Geographical Review 57, no. 2 (1967), 172.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

43

As the previous chapter detailed, Moravians undertook work in locations that had favourable political conditions for them. For example, the Acting Governor of South Africa, Sir Richard Bourke, invited them to establish a mission there in 1828. As the Moravians were well aware of their “status as aliens on sufferance in a British colony,” they acted in a “deferential and politically conservative” way, winning them the support of the Government to expand their missionary activities.8 Yet political conditions could change rapidly, and when they did it left the missionaries at odds with the governing bodies, who themselves were influenced by public opinion and the hunger for land in new colonial environments. In 1823 for example, the Governor of Ohio, in the United States of America, Governor Cass, reclaimed the land which the Moravians had been granted to establish a mission in Tuscarawas country in order that the land, which was deemed valuable, would soon be brought to market.9 Five years later in the State of Georgia a similar situation occurred, demonstrating the governing bodies’ unfavourable stance towards the use of land for missionary purposes, and more broadly the political inclinations of the United States towards indigenous peoples. Until 1828, when the federal President Andrew Jackson was elected, the Georgian Government had tolerated missionary attempts amongst the Cherokee, yet the Federal Government actively tried to dissuade such work, due in part to the European settlers’ coveting of Cherokee land that had previously been protected by Federal treaties. Regarded by Jackson as ‘savages’ not “able to meet the standards required for equal citizenship,” the Cherokee were effectively turned into second-class citizens through laws passed in the Georgian legislature which took away all native title, abolished their tribal government, and denied them their right to testify in court – much the same treatment Australian Aborigines were subjected to under British colonial rule.10 The Moravians, as well as other missionaries, had difficulty in responding to these laws and political manipulations. Contemporary reports suggested that: “On the part of the Brethren there is no doubt that every thing possible will be done, not to abandon their little flock, even if obliged to emigrate.”11 Yet the situation was 8

Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, xix-xx. National Advocate, Monday August 25, 1823, col F. [no pagination]. 10 William McLoughlin, “Cherokees and Methodists, 1824-1834,” Church History 50, no. 1 (1981), 51. 11 “Extract of the Report of the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren, for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, Made to the Society at Its Annual Meeting, 21st August, 1829,” The United Brethren’s Missionary Intelligencer, and Religious 9

44

chapter two

highly political and, as the Moravians were instructed not to meddle in state politics,12 they turned to their governing body for advice, who in turn told them to vacate the mission field if they could not pursue missionary labours peacefully. They complied and left their small flock of 45 converts, rather than submitting to the will of the Government of Georgia, which would have required the missionaries to take “an oath prejudicial to the interests of the Indians.”13 At this time, Methodists were also working amongst the Cherokee as circuit riders, with their flock of over 1,000 being substantially larger than the Moravians. The Methodists’ reaction to the Act was informed by a key article of their Discipline declairing their duty of their missionaries to abide by the laws of the land in which they resided. Although the Methodists risked their personal freedom to support the Cherokee, the historian William McLoughlin concluded that they ultimately failed the Cherokee Nation on “the critical issues of dignity and patriotism.”14 Yet, as other historians have noted, the Government of Georgia was also to blame for hindering the mission stations, with the active interference of the United States Government on a more general level resulting in a relatively small and ineffectual mission to the midlatitude Native Americans.15 Such meddling in Moravian missions by North American governments was not uncommon.16 Conversely, some governments actively supported Moravian missionary fields and helped to nurture successful missions, in terms both spiritual and material aspects of a mission. The British Government’s support of the Moravian mission to the Inuit, for example, resulted in Miscellany; Containing the Most Recent Accounts Relating to the United Brethren’s Missions Among the Heathen; With other interesting Communications from the Records of that Church vol. III, no. III, Fourth Quarter (1829), 379. 12 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen, Zweiter durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837), 85-87. 13 George Loskiel, The History of the Moravian Mission among the Indians in North America from Its Commencement to the Present Time with a Preliminary Account of the Indians Complied from Authentic Sources. By a Member of the Brethren’s Church (London: T. Allman, 1838), 308. 14 McLoughlin, “Cherokees and Methodists,” 63. 15 See for example: Elizabeth Graham, Medicine Man to Missionary: Missionaries as Agents of Change among the Indians of Southern Ontario, 1784-1867 (Toronto: Peter Martin, 1975); Paul A.W. Wallace, “They Knew the Indian: The Men Who Wrote the Moravian Records,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95, no. 3 (1951); 290-5. 16 See for example: George Henry Loskiel, The History of the Moravian Mission among the Indians of North America.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

45

large and effective missions in both far North America as well as in Greenland, with there being four mission stations in Labrador, and six in Greenland.17 Yet the British support of the Moravian work in Labrador was not just a benevolent act, it also allowed the British Government to secure the landmass for the British crown, with the inhospitable landscape also deterring competing interests for the land.18 The success of the mission in Labrador was further aided by the fact that the Moravians had exclusive, crown-granted trading rights on the lands surrounding their mission stations. Although this mission was seen as successful by Moravian historians such as Adolf Schulze, it remains pertinent to remember that their success in conversions was depended critically upon their work as mercantile missionaries and agents of the State.19 Colonial governments invariably assumed control over land within their colonies, and often granted land as an act of favouritism. Missionaries were not immune to the whims of governments, with the active support or discouragement of missionary societies readily facilitated through the control of land. Within Australia, governmental control over land would strongly determine Moravian attempts. It was therefore of utmost importance to the Moravians that they were able to rely on the continued benevolence of governmental bodies, to avoid the loss of their investments in new mission fields through the political machinations of colonial states. Yet, it was to South Africa that large numbers of missionary societies, including the Moravians, flocked in the nineteenth century. According to Schulze, this move reflected broader social aspirations for the ‘salvation’ of African peoples in the post-slave emancipation era.20 William Wilberforce’s humanitarian efforts helped to bring about the cessation of the slave trade in 1807, and the subsequent abolition of slavery in 1834 in English, Danish, and Dutch colonies was seen as a very political act, reflecting humanitarian concerns. The emancipation of slaves led to a benevolent desire in some Christian circles to help 17 Annegret Nippa, Ethnographie und Herrnhuter Mission: Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut (Dresden: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, 2003), 42-82 & 98-111. 18 William H. Whiteley, “The Moravian Missionaries and the Labrador Eskimos in the Eighteenth Century,” Church History 35, no. 1 (1966): 76-92. 19 Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das Zweite Missionsjahrhundert, vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932), 45. 20 Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 1.

46

chapter two

the ‘heathen,’ who, although deemed to be uncivilized, were still potential converts and ‘Brothers in Christ’. Such humanitarian concern was inevitably directed towards indigenous peoples in British colonies, demonstrated by the 1837 report by the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlement) tabled in the House of Commons. This report was the culmination of almost two years inquiry into the conditions under which Aboriginal people throughout the British colonies lived. It explicitly noted the dispossession of indigenous lands at the hands of Europeans, and also demonstrated a humanitarian concern for the indigenous peoples of the colonies of Britain, including Australia. Indeed, the report was partly influenced by a desire not to repeat the atrocities committed against the Aborigines of Tasmania—in which British soldiers were employed to hunt indigenous peoples in a coordinated operation across the island called the ‘Black Line’21—in the newly formed colonies of New Holland. The report recommended the engagement of missionaries, in order to utilise piety and zeal in improving the moral and religious state of Aborigines. It also recommended that this was to be undertaken in combination with a “well-matured scheme for advancing the social and political improvements of the tribes,” demonstrating a benevolent concern for all aspects of Aboriginal people’s lives.22 In order to finance such a grandiose scheme, Recommendation VI of the report stated that the colonies themselves should be held financially responsible, for they were profiting from the acts of colonization. This recommendation argued that since land that the British crown obtained through the process of colonization was “worth a very large amount of money,” colonists owed a debt to the indigenous inhabitants of the land “which will be but imperfectly paid by charging the land revenue of each of these provinces with whatever expenditure is necessary for the instruction of the adults, the education of their youth, and the protection of them all.”23 Part of the compensation foreseen for indigenes who had been displaced was their introduction to a Christian God, which, in turn, was hoped would bring Aborigines closer to civilization. The Moravian Church, with its global reputation as a successful missionary Church, along with its

21 See for example: John Connor “British Frontier Warfare Logistics and the ‘Black Line’, Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), 1830)”, War in History, 9, no 2 (2002): 143-158. 22 Michael Cannon, ed. The Aborigines of Port Phillip 1835-1839, vol. 2A, Historical Records of Victoria (Melbourne: Victorian Government Printing Office, 1982), 66. 23 Cannon, The Aborigines of Port Phillip 1835-1839, 65.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

47

explicit desire not to meddle in politics, was well placed to enact these recommendations. Mission Stations in other Colonies within Australia Before the Select Committee of 1837, the conversion of the indigenous Australians had not been a high priority of the Colonial administration. No attempt was undertaken in the eighteenth century to proselytize the indigenous inhabitants, and it was only in the second decade of the nineteenth century that the first missionary, a Wesleyan by the name of the Reverend William Walker, arrived on the continent with a clear directive of working amongst the Australian Aborigines. By the time that the Moravians arrived some three decades later, several attempts had been made, none of which had been very successful. Seen through the lens of Enlightenment-influenced ideas, Aborigines were initially expected to be Noble Savages. It was this image that Captain James Cook perpetuated in his journal entries penned during his first encounters with indigenous Australians. Yet, as the historian Jane Samson has argued such images were destined not to last as scientists countered it through “their own observations [of indigenous people used] to explore the variety and development of human culture.”24 The historian Glyndwr Williams has further suggested that the imagery of the Noble Savage was more a critique levled at European culutre than an accurate portrayal of the conditions of indigenous peoples in extra-European lands.25 During the nineteenth century, new disciplinary fields in the study of ‘man’ were being developed. Anthropology and ethnography emerged, with a growing nationalism within Europe fuelling the desire for people to be classified, measured, and placed within European ideas of race. Very soon after European intrusion onto Aboriginal land, Australian Aborigines were contemptuously regarded as a ‘fallen race,’ partly due to the devastating effects of European diseases, punitive

24 Jane Samson, “Ethnology and Theology: Nineteenth-Century Mission Dilemmas in the South Pacific,” in Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, ed. Brian Stanley (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 103. 25 Glyndwr Williams, “ ‘Far More Happier Than We Europeans’: Reactions to the Australian Aborigines on Cook’s Voyage,” in Through White Eyes, ed. Susan Janson and Stuart Macintyre (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990): 51-64.

48

chapter two

actions, and displacement from their land. More extreme than this was a line of thought that held that Australian Aborigines did not belong to the same race as Europeans. The shift in British scientific circles from monogenism in 1800 to polygenism around the 1860s had been informed by public opinion, as well as scientific trends on the continent.26 Moreover, there were many racial hierarchies, which were themselves inspired either through religiously-motivated monogenist theories of man, in which white man was superior due to his belief in God, or through scientific-influenced polygenist theories, in which numerous species of man existed. Yet, as Samson has argued, “at the heart of the debate of human origins, as far as ethnologists and their missionary colleagues were concerned, lay the question of human unity.”27 For the Moravians, as with other missionary societies, Australian Aborigines were of ‘one blood’ with Europeans. Moravians believed that “all mankind [are] as equally involved in sin and ruin through the apostacy of the first Adam” and thus had the potential to be converted into the folds of Christianity.28 Yet, as we shall read later, Moravians also engaed in current scientific debated revolving around indigenous peoples. Amongst nineteenth century governments, indigenous peoples were often seen as ‘rural pests,’ creating a barrier to European expansion into indigenous lands.29 The colonies of Australia offered no exceptions, with the early Government of the Colony of New South Wales, for example, enacting policies to keep indigenous people away from the settlement of Sydney, thereby forcing Aborigines from their land. Aborigines, who had been the sole custodians of the land just years earlier, were seen by some Europeans as not much more than a curiosity that did not affect the lives of the industrious settlers and other inhabitants of the penal colony. Not all people, however, were resigned to following the politics of colonial governments in their stance towards indigenous peoples.30 26 Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800-1960 (Oxford: St Antony’s College/London: Macmillan, 1982). 27 Samson, “Ethnology and Theology,” 114. 28 John Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (London: Printed for the author, 1825), 215. 29 The term ‘rural pests’ is taken from the subtitle to Jean Woolmington’s 1974 book Aborigines in Colonial Society. See: Jean Woolmington, ed. Aborigines in Colonial Society: 1788-1850 from ‘Noble Savage’ to ‘Rural Pest’, Problems in Australian History (North Melbourne: Cassell, 1973). 30 For example, the Australian historian Henry Reynolds has described a number of humanitarians, including a number of missionaries, within colonial and post-colonial

“the most wretched and bleakest”

49

Amongst this group were missionaries from various denominations and nations. The historian of Australian Christian missions, John Harris, has argued that German missionaries—often with inperfect English and from non-Church of England backgrounds—were especially valuable in their role as missionaries to Aborigines, as they would be less likely to be ‘poached’ for work amongst European church congregations than English-speaking missionaries would have been.31 German settlers in the colonies also provided support for German missionaries, with individuals, such as the Lutheran Pastor Kavel, providing further support for German missionary work in the colonies.32 One of the first German missionary societies to work amongst Aboriginal people was the Berlin-based Goßner Missionary Society, which sent out missionaries to the Moreton Bay District (current day Queensland, in the north east of Australia) in 1837. These ‘godly mechanics’ established the Zion Hill Mission, which is now the site of the Brisbane suburb of Nundah.33 The early twentieth century Goßner historian, Karl Förtsch, suggested that the Goßner missionaries were morally superior to the British as they took on the task of Christianizing Aborigines, on which the British themselves were not willing to do.34 Despite such nationalistic claims, the eleven male and seven female missionaries failed in their task to convert the Aborigines. In attributing a cause for the demise of the mission, Förtsch only briefly mentions the instability of funding and low levels of support for the mission station from governmental and religious groups alike. Similar circumstances would plague many other missionary attempts to the Aborigines of Australia in the ensuing decades, including those of the Moravians. Förtsch’s account of the failure instead reflected the twentieth century belief in the inferiority of the ‘heathen’ temperament, which he Australia as examples of European resistance to the harshness of colonial rule within the colonies of Australia. See: Henry Reynolds, This Whispering in Our Hearts (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1998). See also: Woolmington, ed. Aborigines in Colonial Society, 74-84. 31 John Harris, One Blood. 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity: A Story of Hope (Sutherland: Arbatross, 1990). 32 Hermann Karsten, Die Geschichte der Evangelisch=Lutherischen Mission in Leipzig von Ihrer Entstehung bis auf die Gegenwart dargestellt. Erster Teil (Güstrow: Verlag von Opitz & Co, 1893). 33 W.N. Gunson, “The Nundah Missionaries,” The Royal Society of Queensland Journal 6, no. 3 (1960), 519. 34 Karl Förtsch, Kurze Geschichte der Goßnerschen Mission. Zum Fünfundsiebzigjährigen Jubiläum. den Missionsfreunden in Stadt und Land Erzält (BerlinFriedenau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Goßnerschen Mission, 1911).

50

chapter two

described as an unwillingness on the part of the Aborigines themselves to convert. After the mission was dissolved in 1851, the missionaries did not journey home, but remained in Australia, where many moved to work in the Home mission amongst the depraved Europeans. Described as “nicht viel besser als die Heiden” (not much better than the heathens),35 these Europeans were substitutes for the Aborigines the missionaries could not convert, thus allowing the Goßner missionaries to preserve their identity as missionaries, albeit to a different audience than first intended. In 1866, a second group of eight Goßner missionaries were sent out and they too met with no success in the Heathen Mission, with the result that Förtsch declared the entire mission to the Aborigines as “völlig aussichtslos” (completely hopeless).36 The Leipziger Missionsgesellschaft (Leipzig Mission Society) also actively established missions to indigenous Australians in the 1830s, some two decades before the Moravians arrived in Australia.37 Instead of being ‘Godly mechanics’ like the Goßner missionaries, the Leipzig missionaries were academically trained with a focus on linguistics. In 1838, two of them, Pastors Christian Gottlob Teichelmann and Clamor Wilhelm Schurmann, arrived in South Australia in an attempt to bring Christianity to two indigenous tribes—the Wirramumejunna and the Parnkamejunna people—around Encounter Bay (see Figure 1). Two further missionaries, Pastors Samuel Klose and Heinrich Meyer, followed in 1840. During their years amongst the Aborigines, the missionaries schooled some Aboriginal youth and learnt the local dialects. They wrote ethnographies drawn from their times amongst these people, codified the indigenous languages into a written system, and also compiled an ethnographical collection for German museums, all of which provided information for a German audience about life in the antipodes.38 Yet, despite these successes, the mission closed in 1846. In 1893, a history of the mission, written by Leipzig Mission historian 35

Förtsch, Kurze Geschichte der Goßnerschen Mission, 15. Förtsch, Kurze Geschichte der Goßnerschen Mission, 16. 37 The full name of the Society was Die evangelisch-lutherische Mission zu Leipzig (Evangelical Lutheran Mission of Leipzig). It was originally established in Dresden in 1836 and moved to Leipzig in 1848. Although known as the Dresden Mission Society during the establishment of the South Australian mission, to simplify matters, it will be referred to here as the Leipzig mission society. 38 H.A.E. Meyer, Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe; South Australia, Third ed. (Adelaide: Second Edition History, 2000); Günter Guhr, “Über alte Australiensammlungen,” Kleine Beiträge aus dem Staatlichen Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden 6 (1983): 21-25. 36

“the most wretched and bleakest”

51

Hermann Karsten, depicted pre-European-contact Aborigines in glowing terms—such as peaceful and friendly, pleasing, open, unaffected, and honest—despite the incognisable nature of such claims.39 Post-contact, the Aborigines were presented as deceitful, thievish, aggressive, and murderous, yet these traits were not seen as inherent; rather, they were a result of association with the corrupting influences of debauched, presumably non-Christian, Europeans. This train of thought was common throughout nineteenth-century missionary writings—including those of the Moravians—providing fodder for the missionary trope that indigenous peoples, as ‘sunken races’ needed missionaries for protection and salvation from the evil influences of colonisation. This contrast between descriptions of Aborigines preand post-European settlement reflected the binary oppositions evident in broader societal descriptions of Aborigines, with the failure of the Leipzig missionaries to Christianize the Aborigines offering little furthe hope to contemporary missionary societies that Aborigines could be converted. Early attempts to work amongst the Aborigines of Victoria The first missionary attempts towards the heathen natives within the Port Phillip District, which would become the Colony of Victoria in 1851, failed. The indigenous people of Port Phillip were the Woi Wurrung clan, who were one of five clams belonging to the larger indigenous nation called the Kulin nation whose territory surrounded the site of Melbourne and the land to the east. They had lived on this land for over 40,000 years, and through countless generations had created a rich and vibrant society in which they had learnt to live in the environment they inhabited as hunter-gatherers.40 They had their own religious beliefs and laws, customs and practices, yet these were deemed by Europeans as inferior to the Christian and European way of life. In 1835, the European colonization of Port Phillip began in earnest, ineluctably bringing attempts to Christianize the people of the Kulin nation. The Church of England established the first Aboriginal mission 39

Karsten, Die Geschichte der Evangelisch=Lutherischen Mission in Leipzig, 37. Ian D. Clark, Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800-1900, vol. 37, Monash Publications in Geography (Melbourne: Monash University, 1990); A.W. Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1996). 40

52

chapter two

in the District in 1837, which was separated from the main colonial settlement by a river. Just two years after its establishment the “Aboriginal Settlement” was disbanded. Different views as to why the mission closed down have been offered. The Melbourne historian, Gary Presland, for example, has argued that the Colonial Government deliberately hastened the mission’s demise through low funding levels, so that efforts could be channelled into the “more ambitious scheme” of the Aboriginal Protectorate, which will be discussed below.41 The Australian author Tim Flannery has argued that the land upon which the mission was based became too valuable as the settlement of Melbourne expanded, and the mission was closed with Aboriginal people being moved further away from the gaze of European eyes.42 Both of these arguments highlight different aspects of the colonizing process, with both funding and access to land remaining contentious issues for subsequent missionary attempts. For the Woi Wurrung clan, the application of British law in the colony heralded the demise of their own traditional law. The British law was administered by representatives of the Colonial Office in London, who in turn were responsible for the governance of the colonies of Australia. Yet from the beginning of their encounters with Europeans, the Woi Wurrung clan had reason to distrust the British laws and practices. This was evident in the ‘treaty,’ which John Batman, an ambitious Tasmanian-born grazier, signed with elders of the Woi Wurrung clan in June of 1835. Batman believed the treaty signified the purchase of a vast amount of land around Port Phillip Bay and his agreement to supply the clan with an annual payment for it. Since he did not have official sanction for his actions, however, this treaty was declared invalid by the Colonial Government, who believed that only they had the authority to sell land. A formal proclamation was issued to refute his treaty, which was reinforced through the 1837 Select Committee report (Clause IV) discussed above.43 As the Batman treaty was deemed void, the clan were denied any legal title to the land and pushed further back into the margins of colonial society. They were thus transformed from being the Aboriginal inhabitants to the ‘Aboriginal problem’. 41 Gary Presland, Aboriginal Melbourne: The Lost Land of the Kulin People, Third edition ed. (Forest Hill: Harriland Press, 2001), 94. 42 Tim Flannery, ed. The Birth of Melbourne (Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company, 2002), 11. 43 Robert Kenny, “Trick or Treats? A Case for Kulin Knowing in Batman’s Treaty” History Australia 5, no. 2 (2008): 38.1-38.14.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

53

This enigmatic term ‘Aboriginal problem’ was directed towards the ills that had befallen the Aborigines due to the detrimental effects of colonisation. It was as much a rhetorical question as to what could be done to ‘solve’ the problem - given that Europeans were not going to retreat from Australian shores, and that European diseases could not be quarantined from susceptible indigenous immune systems - as it was a response to the moral dilemma that Europeans faced in light of their benefit from the disposition of Aborigines from their land. In the early twentieth century, the phrase was often coupled with suggestions of ‘solutions,’ which often involved the assimilation of indigenous peoples into mainstream Australia through ‘breeding out’ any Aboriginality.44 Later in the century, it was often used in relation to the lower-life expectency of Indigenous people, alcohol problems within indigenous societies, poor housing, youth suicide, and a plethora of other social issues which indigenous people faced.45 In the early nineteenth century, it was evident that the ‘Aboriginal Problem’ was increasing, as the phrase was still growing in currency on the tips of the tongues of the colonizers. The contemporary feeling towards Aborigines was evident in a lengthy article published in Melbourne’s Port Phillip Gazette in 1838, which provided two alternative positions on the topic of Aborigines through a fictional conversation between a squatter—an Autralian term for a person who occupyed large amounts of land for grazing livestock yet did not hold legal deeds to the area—and a newly arrived philanthropist. According to the squatter, “everything [nature] gave us she gave in common, therefore the land is mine as much as it is theirs.”46 Yet, he continued, as Europeans had learnt how to cultivate crops, raise domestic animals, and put their mark on the land, they had more rights to the soil of this new colony than the original inhabitants. Within this article, the benevolent philanthropist was newly arrived and therefore portrayed as a naïve interloper into the colonial experience. The squatter, as a result of his time amongst the ‘problem,’ was deemed 44 See for example: Katherine Ellinghaus, “Absorbing the ‘Aboriginal Problem’: Controlling Interracial Marriage in Australia in the late 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” Aboriginal History 27 (2003): 183-207; Anthony Moran, “White Australia, Settler Nationalism and Aboriginal Assimilation,” Australian Journal of Politics & History 51 (2005): 168-193. 45 For 2006 statistics pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia see: “A statistical overview of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia,” Australian Human Rights Commission web-site, August 2006, [http:// www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/statistics/index.html#toc2] 46 Port Phillip Gazette, Saturday, November 10, 1838, 3.

54

chapter two

wise, and asserted his point of view as the only viable outcome for the European man on the land, thereby justifying the European incursion into indigenous land. Yet not all colonial Victorians were so quick to dismiss indigenous rights. There were a few voices which demonstrated against the local treatment of indigenous people. For example, in 1839 the Wesleyan Methodist missionary, Joseph Orton, complained to the London based Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society about the Colonial Government’s ‘Squatters Act,’ which displaced Aborigines from their land, without any adequate recompense: all this under a so-called Christian government.47 The views of a benevolent missionary were, however, not as valued as the commercial aspirations of squatters and settlers, a realization that the Moravian missionaries themselves were to gain. Initially the governmental tactics for controlling Aborigines involved placing the responsibility for Aborigines into the hands of benevolent organizations such as the Church of England, with their Village Mission Settlement; and the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, which had established a mission called Buntingdale to the south-west of Melbourne on the Port Phillip Bay. Yet this mission too was abandoned a decade later when its supporters could not pay the requisite governmental asking price for the land upon which the mission stood. As missions had obviously failed to adequately deal with the ‘problem,’ the Colonial Office in London decided to establish a Protectorate System for the Aborigines of the Port Phillip District, in which the ‘Protectors’ were to travel about the countryside looking after the welfare of indigenous peoples. In 1838, the British-born George Augustus Robinson was appointed as the Chief Protector within this system. Robinson’s credentials for the position were drawn from his experience of five years amongst the natives of the island of Tasmania. From 1829 to 1835, he was commissioned by that Colony’s government to ‘persuade’ Tasmanian Aborigines to relocate to Flinders Island, off the coast of Tasmania, and in doing so created the ‘Black Line’, thus helping the Colonial Government solve their ‘Aboriginal problem.’ This, in turn, had ensured that he was seen as an expert on Aborigines in the eyes of both the Colonial and British Governments.48 For his role in the 47

Flannery, ed. The Birth of Melbourne, 101. N.J.B. Plomley, Weep in Silence: A History of the Flinders Island Settlement, with the Flinders Island Journal of George Augustus Robinson, 1835-1839 (Sandy Bay: Blubber Head Press, 1987). 48

“the most wretched and bleakest”

55

Port Phillip District, he was instructed to establish reserves inland in order to accommodate indigenous people. Initially it was suggested that there be ten Assistant Protectors. At the outset, concern was raised within the Colonial Office at the lack of people willing or able to cover such a vast tract of land. Finances, eventually, dictated that only four men, Charles Sievwright, William Thomas, James Dredge, and Edward Stone Parker, were employed for the task. The background and experiences of these four men varied greatly: Sievwright had a military background; Thomas was a teacher; Parker was a printer and teacher with strong links to the Wesleyan mission; and Dredge was a teacher with some practical building experience. All were religious in nature and besides from ‘protecting’ the Aborigines in the districts under their care also had a desire to spread the word of God amongst the heathen Aborigines.49 The Protectorate system was abolished in 1850, less than ten years after its inception. Contemporary critics berated the scheme for its inability to instil a European work-ethic in the indigenous population, and for its expense. As Europeans moved onto more indigenous lands, greater numbers of Aborigines came to rely on the support of the Government as they themselves were unable to be self-sufficient without access to their traditional lands. The Protectorate system itself could only have been able to support more Aborigines if it had had access to more land, which would have required colonists to surrender newly obtained and fervently cherished land. Land-hungry settlers and new proprietors were not willing to voluntarily relinquish their recently acquired potential wealth for the benefit of Aborigines, who were deemed incapable of utilizing land to its highest—or any— commercial potential. According to the Australian historian Ian Maxwell Crawford, much of the blame for the failure of the scheme rested with the LieutenantGovernor of the Port Phillip District, Charles Joseph La Trobe, who was caught between the Colonial Office’s admonition to treat Aborigines as equals, and that of the settlers, who feared Aboriginal spears and their proclivities for ‘stealing.’50 Another Australian historian, Alan Gross, has argued that La Trobe had wanted the Protectorate to come to an end as early as 1841, with the Governor of New South Wales, Sir George 49

Cannon, ed. The Aborigines of Port Phillip 1835-1839. Ian Maxwell Crawford, “William Thomas and the Port Phillip Protectorate, 18381849” (M.A. Theis, The Department of History, The University of Melbourne, 1966). 50

56

chapter two

Gipps, concurring. Gipps suggested either a change in management or a change in the system, but “the Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Stanley, disagreed and hoped to make the wanted Protectorate more effective through wider powers.”51 Thus, the colonial administration and many influential colonists conflicted with the “spirit of philanthropic reform” in England, because the colonial officials in situ were especially sensitive to the views of the colonists.52 This is an important point, as this the disjuncture between British adminstrative regulations and local politics was destined to be repeated over the decades creating tensions and antagonism between the colonial state, enterprising colonists, missionaries, and imperial officials situated many thousands of miles away. The Protectorate was replaced by a greatly reduced system of Guardianships, with a greatly reduced territory, and also a system of local Commissioners to oversee the maintenance and administration of government controlled lands, known as Crown Lands. To fill the gap the Government had left, missionary organizations, including the Moravians, began once again to work amongst the Aborigines, providing men and means for a task in which the Government had failed time and again. As insufficient governmental funding had been a problem for the Protectorate, privately supported mission stations in the colonies of Australia—like elsewhere in the Empire—were seen by the Government as a more cost effective measure to support displaced indigenous peoples.53 To surmise, from 1835 until the Moravian missionaries arrived in 1849, the organizational structure that administered control over the lives of Aborigines in the colony of Victoria continued to change. The practice of dislocating and relocating indigenous Victorians within their own land, however, abided throughout. The Moravian interest in Australia By the 1830s, the Moravians had already had a century of missionary experience. They were receiving requests from many colonies around the globe to send missionaries to work with indigenous heathens. The requests from Australia often went to the British SFG, whose 51 Alan Gross, Charles Joseph La Trobe (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1980), 54. 52 Crawford, “William Thomas and the Port Phillip Protectorate, 1838-1849,” 83. 53 Norman Etherington, “Missions and Empire,” in Oxford History of the British Empire, ed. R. Winks, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999): 303-314.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

57

members included members of the La Trobe family, who were influential members of the British Moravian Church.54 Members of the La Trobe family were often schooled in German Moravian institutions, and many took on positions with the British Moravian Church, with, for example, Christian Ignatius La Trobe (1758-1836) becoming secretary of the British Moravian Church in the late eighteenth century.55 His first son, Peter (1795-1863), took over his father’s role in the Moravian Church; while his third son, Charles Joseph La Trobe (180175), as we have seen, went on to become the Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, and the first Lieutenant Governor of the Colony of Victoria from 1851. Through such familial networks, the La Trobe family would have significant impact on the establishment of the Moravian mission in Victoria, Australia. The first request from Australia for Moravian missions to be sent amongst the heathens came in 1839 from the other side of the continent. Governor John Hutt of the Swan River Colony (now Western Australia) asked if the Church would be willing to establish a mission station to the Aborigines, who had been forcibly removed to Rottnest Island some 17 kilometres off the coast. Hutt was well informed of the Moravian Church’s work, explicitly stating his respect for the older Moravian mission fields of Greenland and the Danish West Indies, the latter of which had 25 mission stations and over 36,000 converted heathens at this time.56 Depressingly, he intimated that although he regarded the Moravians highly, he “was averse to putting even your Brethren to this test,” such was his disrespect for Aborigines. After ten years of European contact, Hutt lamented that the Aborigines’ bodies were “as naked, their minds as unenlightened, - their souls as dark, as the day we first landed among them.” He believed, however, that it was worth the effort “to break thro[ugh] this corpus” and preach to the immortal souls of the Aborigines. He closed his letter with the hope of receiving a positive reply to his request within a year.57

54 John Mason, “Benjamin and Christian Ignatius La Trobe in the Moravian Church,” The La Trobe Journal 71, no. Autumn (2003): 5-16. 55 Charles Ignatius La Trobe, Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816 with Some Accounts of the Missionary Settlements of the United Brethren, near the Cape of Good Hope (Cape Town: C. Struik (Pty) Ld., 1969), i. 56 Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 2. 57 Lieutenant Governor John Hutt (Swann River Colony) to P. La Trobe (London), 1 September 1839, Unitätsarchiv (UA) [English: Archives of the Moravian Church], Herrnhut, Germany, R.15.A.63.

58

chapter two

When the letter arrived in London, the SFG also expressed the hope that the Unitätsältestenconferenz (UAC) would send out missionaries to the Australian Aborigines. They further noted that the London Association in Aid of the Missions of the United Brethren (London Association), which was a group on non-Moravian supporters of the Moravian mission, had made numerous attempts to invite Moravians through the SFG to mission amongst the “Aborigines of the Australian continent.” Nothing, however, had come of the London Association’s requests, despite the fact that the SFG had diligently passed on the messages to the Secretary of the Missionsdepartement in the Moravian town of Berthelsdorf, near Herrnhut, in Germany. This being the general case, the SFG was not optimistic of a positive outcome to this particular request, and held “slender hopes of the early accomplishment of the wish expressed by our valued Christian friends.”58 The SFG itself was unable to act on the request, nor was the Missionsdepartement able to establish a new mission station without the support of the UAC, and ultimately the approval of a synod. With so many layers of administration, it was painfully slow wait for the London-based SFG. These delays were not due to the UAC’s lack of interest. Indeed, they took the request very seriously, and spent a lengthy time discussing the options and issues surrounding a new mission field to the Colony on the Swan River. At the same time, however, they were also contemplating another request for missionaries which had been put forward by the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon, Phillip Anstruther.59 Both of these requests were passed over, as there were no suitable missionaries available for the task. In the following year, 1841, the UAC received another request to send missionaries to Australia. This time there was an extra monetary incentive of a large sum of £400, which was part of a deceased’s estate, and conditional on the establishment of a mission station in the Swan River Colony. The UAC continued to hesitate, partly due to concerns for ongoing funding of the station, and also hindered by the fact that Hutt could not offer satisfactory assistance for Moravians.60 Other Australian colonies besides from the Swan River Colony were vying to have the Moravians working amongst their heathen, raising

58 59 60

SFG Minutes, 8 February 1841, Vol VI, #185, no pagination. Protocoll der Unitäts Aeltesten Conferenz [PUAC], 31 March 1840, #2, 343. PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 173.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

59

Moravian interested in this potential new field. On 23 February, 1841, a correspondence from Brother Peter La Trobe of the SFG was tabled at a UAC meeting in Germany stating three reasons to send out missionaries to Australia. The first reason related to the Church’s own internal perception as a missionary church, with its raison d’être to bring the Word of God to such “poor, despised creatures, who are on the lowest level.”61 The failed work of the Goßner missionaries at Moreton Bay was cited as not only an indication as to the difficulty that the missionaries would face, but also as a call to arms for the society: the Australian Aborigines posed a challenge to the abilities and internal reputation of the Moravian Church. The second reason revolved around how the Moravians viewed their external reputation and identity. La Trobe claimed that contemporary English records—reiterated even by the Archbishop of Dublin—were of the opinion that only the Moravian Church could be successful amongst the degraded Aborigines. The third, and final, reason related to favourable outside influences, in respect to the support that the Church could hope to secure from the governmental authorities. The UAC reported: so many favourable conditions for the Mission concern come together and that is; that the Colonial government in England and besides from that, 3 of the 4 Colonial Governors of the same are completely interested and they are using their influence.62

For the Moravians it was imperative to have supportive governments in those colonies to which they sent missionaries, as they knew from experience that this support was important to their overall success: the contemporary situation in Georgia was a pertinent reminder. The colonial governments, however, also needed to be assured that any missionary in their jurisdiction would be amenable to the policies they pursued, and in this sense, relationships between governments and missionaries were generally mutually beneficial. Yet for indigenous peoples caught between the two forces, missionaries and colonial governments often combined to form a formidable and ultimately destructive force. The Moravian reliance on the favour of governments was not something specific to Australia. The historian of Moravians in England, John Mason, has argued that the Moravian Church’s development during the latter part of the eighteenth century was “highly 61 62

PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 176. PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 177.

60

chapter two

dependent on the attitude of governments and officials who needed to be satisfied that Moravians were neither sectarian at home nor seditious overseas,” a concept that continued well into the nineteenth century.63 To circumvent confrontation between the Church and the governments of countries where they wished to work, the Church stated its objectives in inter-confessional terms, and “members were consistently taught to hold in profound respect the laws of the land wherever they found themselves.”64 The Instructions stated it as such: The Bible teaches, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Rom. xiii: 1, 2.) The Brethren, therefore, demean themselves as loyal and obedient subjects, and strive to act in such a manner, under the difficult relations in which they are often placed, as may evince, that they have no desire to intermeddle with the politics of the country in which they labour, but are solely intent of the fulfilment of their official duties. So likewise, they exhort their converts, on every suitable occasion, to lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.65

In Georgia in 1830, the Moravian missionaries adhered to their Instructions and followed the orders of the colonial officials, even to the detriment of the mission itself. Thus, when a new mission field in Australia was being discussed, the assurance of colonial government support boded well. The establishment of a new mission, however, relied on much more than just a supportive government – God needed to give his approval. After La Lrobe’s three points were tabled there was a discussion amongst the UAC as to whether the Los should be used in deciding on a mission station to Australia. There was no clear consensus. One group believed that it was not necessary, as it was improbable that the mission would go ahead. The mission proposed was seen to not be an ‘actual’ one in the vein of previous Moravian missions, rather, it was seen to be a deployment of missionaries to a group of Aborigines

63 J.C.S. Manson, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England. 1760-1800 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press/London: The Royal Historical Society, 2001), 8. 64 Manson, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 8. 65 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, From the German, Second (Revised and Enlarged) ed. (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), 68.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

61

forcefully removed by the Government to a penal settlement on Rottnest Island. For the group against a Los, the argument was that the word of God should be willingly received by people able to come and go as they pleased and not forced to be submitted to the word of God. The counter argument for the Rottnest Island proposal was that the proposed site still offered missionary work, which would at a later stage move onto the mainland. The meeting closed with people wishing for more time to decide, yet ultimately no mission station eventuated in the Swan River colony.66 Undeterred by these failed attempts, the London Association sent another letter to Germany on the 8th of February, 1844, in which they suggested that many of the hindrances that had prevented the Moravian Church from setting up a mission station in Australia had since been overcome. These included the two major internal hindrances of lack of funding and suitable missionaries. The major external factor to change was that the proposed location for the mission was no longer the Swan River Colony, rather the Colony of Victoria, as the following excerpt reveals: The forceable objection urged to the situation of the Island of the Rottinest [sic], and to the changing character of its inhabitants, may, the Committee trust, be obviated by the very gratifying fact which they cannot but hope may be a providential opening for the promotion of the object in view viz. – the appointment of a member of the Moravian Church truly interested in the success of its mission to one of the Governments in Australia (Mr. Cha. Jos. La Trobe) who himself expressed a wish that Missionaries should be sent to the tribes frequenting the neighborhood of Port Phillip … These are circumstances more in favour of the measures than could have been anticipated and the committee are anxious that no time should be lost in reconsidering the question [underline in original] lest everything should occur to interrupt the advantages now existing for the prosecution.67

The idea of establishing a mission station amongst the Aborigines in Victoria, where Peter’s brother, Charles Joseph La Trobe, was Lieutenant Governor, was presented as an attractive alternative to the penal settlement of indigenous people on Rottnest Island. Attendees at the meeting raised the issue of the moral depravity of the Aborigines, with

66

PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 178-179. London Association Office (London) to UAC (Herrnhut), 8 February 1844, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV), Microfilm (MF) 164. 67

62

chapter two

much discussion of ways by which the missionares could lift these people up from their current state. The Moravians naturally saw Christianity as the only way to raise these indigenes from their “depths.”68 The invitation to establish a mission in Victoria came at the same time as one from the Governor of the South Australian colony, George Grey, who was noted as being a true friend of the Church. The UAC remarked that both men had promised their eager co-operation with the supply of the mission work. However, the fact that Charles Joseph La Trobe was himself a member of one of the SFG’s most prominent families led the UAC to favour his invitation over Grey’s. The funding issues, which had been such a deterrent to the previous attempts to establish a mission field in Australia, had also been allayed by the knowledge that the English public would be willing to support the missionary venture. The issue of staffing, however, was yet to be fully resolved, with the London Association suggesting that Moravian missionaries from South Africa could be enticed to Australia. Yet, as the Moravians had had some major losses of staff through retirement over the previous years, it was thought best to send only single men to Australia as they would initially cost less, and furthermore, women missionaries could be sent out as later as wives. As the UAC believed that “schon jetzt der rechte Zeitpunkt gekommen sey” (indeed now was the right time) [original emphasis] for the Moravians to send more missionaries into unknown lands, they lost no time in putting the Australian question to the Los. On the 9th of April, 1844, a Los was drawn with the following words, Thinking about the importance of the matter, … they gave a prayer to His heart, that He would display to them His purpose and His will, and they asked the question *: 1. The Saviour approves, that we now should take steps to set up a mission in Australia?* 2. The Saviour does not approve, that we now should take steps to set up a mission in Australia?* The Negative: No. 2*.69

The negative drawing of the Los stalled any discussion to send missionaries to Australia. It did not, however, stop the Moravians from thinking about Australia as a prospective mission field. The very use of the 68 69

PUAC, 9 April 1844, #9, 20-21. PUAC, 9 April 1844, #9, 19.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

63

Los dictated that it was likely only a matter of time before the idea to send missionaries to Australia was realized. In fact, only three years later, in 1847, the issue of sending missionaries to Australia was once again raised in England by the London Association through Peter La Trobe. In the interim there had been much Moravian interest in establishing new mission fields amongst the heathen. This was attested to by a £500 donation the London Association received from the treasurer of the Wesley Missionary Society, H. Farmer, for the establishment of new mission fields in Australia, West Africa, or Port Natal.70 A new field in Australia, as ever, was deemed to be a difficult task, with La Trobe noting in a letter to the Missionsdepartement that many other missionary organizations had not been successful in converting the Aborigines. Rather than seeing this as a deterrent for the Moravians, he urged the committee to remember the experiences of the first mission in Greenland and its eventual success.71 Thus, the Moravian’s history continually influenced its present. Although no direct invitation was current for the Moravians in the colonies of Australia at this time, they believed that their missionary attempts would be received favourably. They had external funding for the venture, public support, and any number of missionaries who might offer their services. Some of these potential missionaries belonged to the Australian Association, which had been formed in the 1840s in the Moravian town of Niesky some 40km north of Herrnhut. There the desire to engage in missionary work in Australia was growing in momentum.72 The ingredients were in place for a new missionary attempt – all that was lacking was a decision from a higher authority. After the unsuccessful 1841 Los, the UAC decided that any further developments in the decision to establish a new mission venture to Australia should be discussed at the next general synod. There was, however, no guarantee as to when that would occur as the timing was decided by a Los on an ad hoc basis, at the frequency of somewhere between every five and seventeen years.73 Fortunately for those anticipating an Australian venture, the next one occured in 1848. 70 71 72 73

PMD, 8 June 1846, #3, no pagination. PMD, 16 July 1847, #9, no pagination; PUAC, 17 July 1847, #6, 60-63. PUAC, 17 July 1847, #6, 60-63. Periodical Accounts, 1849, Vol XIX, iv.

64

chapter two

The previous synod had been twelve years earlier, in 1836; the one after followed nine years later, in 1857. The synod of 1848 was held from June to August and was attended by 54 delegates from Great Britain, Ireland, the United States of Northern America, the Russian province of Astracan, Germany, Holland, and Denmark. Delegates discussed various matters, including the examination of doctrine and practice, revision of order and discipline, and a review of relationships with other Christian Churches. Regarding the missionary activities of the Church, the delegates: came to an almost unanimous conclusion, that the time had arrived, for setting aside ordinary consideration, and once more venturing forth into the field, after the example of our forefathers; and that among the various proposals for the establishment of new Missions, some should be complied with, with as little delay as possible.74

Thus began the second period of concentrated Moravian missionary expansion. This year of 1848 was also marked by sweeping political unrest across Europe, when the failed German revolution indicated a hope for change in the old world order. For the Moravians it was the beginning of a change in the new world order, as they nominated Australia, Ceylon and the Miskito Coast (Nicaragua) as new fields for the expanding Moravian missionary world.75 Deciding on the missionaries In the March before the synod was held, four Brüder (Brothers, Brs) from the Moravian seminary at Niesky had together sent the UAC a letter expressing their desire to be missionaries in one of the potential new mission fields of New Holland, Miskito Coast or Guiana.76 One month after the conclusion of the synod, Bruder (Brother, Br) Gustav Röchling, who was in charge of the single men’s choir house in Niesky, attended a meeting of the Missionsdepartement to provide more detail about these four men. He stated that they wished serve the Lord together in a new mission field, and that they had their eyes on Australia, and for this purpose would give up all of their material goods and

74

Periodical Accounts, 1849, Vol XIX, xx. Bericht des Missionsdepartement, 1848, Beilagen der Synode, Unitätsarchiv, Herrnhut (UA), no. 134, #56, 65-68. 76 PUAC, 9 March 1848, #7, no pagination. 75

“the most wretched and bleakest”

65

money. Furthermore, it was of utmost importance to them that they were not to be separated, that they travel soon, and also that they be called through the Los. One of the candidates, Johann Habermeyer, was so keen to travel immediately that he had already arranged to have all of his funds transferred from the southern Kingdom of Bavaria. Röchling explained that this desire to expedite the travel was in order for them to beat the harsh European winter. Besides the offers from the four Niesky Brüder, Röchling also provided the Missionsdepartement with the names of three other men who were also deemed suitable for mission, indicating a willingness amongst many Moravians to be sent to the prospective mission field of Australia.77 Indeed, Australia was seen by the Moravians as not only a desirable place to send missionaries, but also a good place to create a settlement. In 1848, there had been some discussion amongst the Moravians residing in the township of Giersdorf regarding the establishment of a settlement in Australia. In light of this, the UAC believed that the idea of sending missionaries to Australia was more advantageous than sending missionaries to the Miskito Coast, as Australian missionaries could also be called to work for this Moravian settlement.78 Both the Scottish migration agent, William Westgarth, and the Hamburg migration agent, Edward Delius, were also actively courting the Moravians to travel to Australia.79 Westgarth professed a “Vorliebe” (preference) for Moravians as migrants, and travelled to Herrnhut in order to encourage the Moravians to settle in the British colony. Delius, who had for a time been a migration agent in Bremen, and had written a book on German migration to South Australia, personally approached the Moravians to provide religious support within South Australia. He made a good impression on the UAC and also the Missionsdepartement, with the UAC flagging South Australia as a potential site for a Moravian colony. This idea came into fruition in the mid-nineteenth century with the establishment of Bethel, a township north of the capital city Adelaide.80 In relation to the Niesky Brüder, the Missionsdepartement was unsure how best to proceed, and particularly noted that the desires of

77

PUAC, 5 September 1848, #1, no pagination. PUAC, 29 April 1848, #4, no pagination. 79 PUAC, 29 April 1848, #4, no pagination. 80 For information on Bethel see for example: “Bethel in Süd=Australien,” Das Brüder=Blatt 8ter Jahrgang, no. 3, März (1861): 277-287. 78

66

chapter two

the Brüder to be sent together and also to be put into the Los were unconventional. The Brüder themselves proposed that two of them, Habermeyer and Carl Feirich, could work on the outer conditions of the mission, while the other two, Friedrich Stürmann and Andreas Täger, could concentrate on proselytising.81 The fact that the Brüder wished to be considered together in a single Los had been a concern for the Missionsdepartement on a number of occasions.82 In order to circumvent potential difficulties, the Missionsdepartement raised alternative suggestions: for example, that one Bruder should be called formally and then others could willingly follow. The Missionsdepartement eventually decided to honour their wishes, and the UAC recommended that the Brüder be placed together in the Los.83 Yet the issue continued to be a concern thoughout 1849, for if the missionaries were to be called officially through the Los, then the Missionsdepartement would be personally responsible for them, including for supplying them with all of their needs. As there was only limited funding available for missionaries, to send four missionaries when only two were needed was an extravagance that could not be justified. The outcome of the Los in this scenario had the potential to become a financial liability. As the use of the Los was based on a rational but non-determinable decision-making process, it needed to be clearly thought out to avoid unwanted consequences. Finally, on the 24th of April, 1849, the four Nieseky Brüder were placed by the UAC into a Los in the manner they requested. The minutes for this read, 1. The Saviour approves, that the Brüder Andreas Friedrich Christian Täger, Johann Gottfried Habermeyer, Carl Ernst Eduard Feirich and Friedrich Theodor Stümann make a communal wish for a mission in Australia.* 2. The Saviour does not approve, that as above *. It was drawn: No.2 the Negative.84

Although this should have effectively put an end to the four Brüder being sent together, the Missionsdepartement reiterated on the following day the desire of all four Niesky Brüder to be placed in the Los again. This time the request explicitly stated that they did not wish to be financially dependent on the UAC; rather, they were willing to 81 82 83 84

PMD, 5 September 1848, #1, no pagination. PMD, 4 October 1848, #3, no pagination. PMD, 4 October 1848, #3, no pagination. PUAC, 24 April 1849, #3, 71.

“the most wretched and bleakest”

67

support themselves. Even though this outcome would have been much less expensive for the UAC, the proposal could not be acted on without a drawing of the Los. The persistence and determination of the Brüder required the Missionsdepartement to devise alternative outcomes in the event of another negative Los. The Missionsdepartement noted that if a Los was not cast in favour of the Niesky Brüder, then there would be nothing left to do but to call two Brüder in the hitherto normal way, and for the UAC to fully pay to equip them.85 As the Missionsdepartement itself did not hold the authority to draw a Los, the decision was left to the UAC meeting on the following day. At this meeting, Röchling’s letter of the 16th of April was read, which stated that the four Brüder wished to be put in the Los together, but were not concerned if they were to be sent to a mission field other than Australia. Moreover, they were willing to be sent as God decided. For the UAC, this then begged the question as to how many Brüder should be sent to Australia. This question was put to God in the form of a Vorfrage, or pre-question, which was drawn in favour of just two Brüder. This settled, the UAC placed the names of the two Brüder they had decided upon into the Los. The minutes read, 1. The Saviour approves, that we then offer, that the Brüder Andreas Friedrich Christian Täger u. Johann Gottfried Habermeyer should be called together for Mission service to Australia.* 2. The Saviour does not approve, that, as above * It was drawn : No. 2. the negative *.86

This negative Los required further drawings of the Los to meet the original conditions of sending two Brüder to Australia. To ensure a positive outcome, the design of the Los was changed from an interpretative yes/ no/blank format to a prescriptive format with the names of three potential missionaries. On the 1st of May, the names of three potential missionaries were placed into the Los, after a pre-Los had been drawn to decide who should be included in the actual Los. The actual Los drew the name of Täger: one of the original Niesky four.87 The UAC saw him as a fine candidate because of his “strong, energetic Character,” which was seen to be particularly useful in the establishment of a new

85 86 87

PMD, 25 April 1849, #5, no pagination. PUAC, 26 April 1849, #3, 77. PUAC, 1 May 1849, #9, 96.

68

chapter two

mission.88 As the Los of the 26th of April had decreed that two missionaries should be sent, another Los needed to be drawn to establish who would be accompanying Täger to Australia, with the name of Friedrich Wilhelm Spieseke being drawn from four alternatives.89 Thus, the process of chosing missionaries to send to Australia relied heavily on the use of the Los, and the devine Will of God, rather than purely financial or personnel concerns. In placing their trust in God through the Los, the Moravian adminsitration could effectively allow their own personal concerns to be diminished within the larger context of faith. After the long process of choosing missionaries for the Australian mission field, the process of getting them there moved quickly. The Missionsdepartement supplied Täger and Spieseke with travel goods, and just over four months later the men bade farewell to their families and friends, packed up their lives and travelled to London on their way to Australia. The Church had raised the question of whether the missionaries destined for Australia needed to spend extended time in England in order to learn the language of the colony.90 Yet, although both of the men called for service had some formal English training in Germany, as recommended by the Instructions, it was decided that they could pick up the nuances of the language on the long boat trip from England to Australia.91 This meant that their time in England was limited to only a few weeks, during which they attended a meeting of the SFG in London. At this meeting in September of 1849, they listened to a report of Heinrich Gottlob Pfeiffer, who had been sent to establish a new Moravian mission field in the Miskito Coast after 22 years of missionary work in the Danish West Indies.92 In contrast to Pfeiffer, the two missionaries destined for Australia were very inexperienced, and although the decision to establish these two missions had been made at the same time, the mission to the West Indies had already shown signs of progress in the dual aims of civilizing and Christianizing the natives.93 However, as the missionaries bound for Australia expected to “enjoy the support and co-operation of the brother of Br P. La Trobe,”

88

PUAC, 24 April 1849, #3, 71. PUAC, 1 May 1849, #9, 96. 90 PUAC, 28 June 1849, #5, 255. 91 Spangenberg, Instructions (1840), 15-7; PUAC, 19 June 1849, #14, 232. 92 SFG Minutes, 10 September 1849, Volume VII, #1, no pagination. 93 For a Moravian version of the Nicaraguan mission see for example: Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 192-243. 89

“the most wretched and bleakest”

69

the Governor of Victoria, the prospect for success in the new missionary field of Australia seemed favourable.94 This chapter has demonstrated that although some of the Moravian ideas of mission complimented the colonial politics of Britain, it was primarily the Church’s own practises that influenced the decision to establish the Australian mission field. Considered on a global Moravian scale, the Australian mission venture was only one of many, including the six other missions established between 1848 and 1857. The missionaries who came to Australia, although personally inexperienced, were inheritors of a rich and distinguished missionary tradition, which prided itself on an ability to work amongst “the most wretched and bleakest [people], who live on God’s earth.”95 It was this adherence to tradition and practice that would shape the Moravians’ Australian experience, as the next chapter will demonstrate. Past experience had provided the missionaries with firm notions of how to run mission stations, and how they themselves would be received by people of importance within the colonies. The experience in Australia, however, would prove to be unique. Globally, Moravians had support from many colonial governments, and had received praise for their work amongst various members of society. They had also faced resentment from settlers and inhospitable governments, yet they could not anticipate the difficulties that they would face within the settler colony of Victoria, where European desire for land, and colonial unrest in the early 1850s, would leave them with few supporters. Amidst this were also the responses of Aboriginal Australians to the invasion of European culture and religion, as well as the prior inability of any other missionary organizations to succeed in converting any indigenous peoples. Far from being the “lowest of the low,”96 as the Moravians claimed them to be, indigenous Australians were negotiating their own space within the new colonial landscape. The motivation behind the sending out of missionaries to Australia was based on Peter La Trobe’s three rationales, these being; the Church’s own perception of its aims; their perception of other people’s expectations of the Church; and their belief that the Colonial Government would provide them with material support. However, as the next 94

PMD, 31 January 1849, #5, no pagination. Missionsblatt, 1856, 3, 41. 96 Benjamin La Trobe, The Moravian Missions. A Glance at 164 Years of Unbroken Missionary Labours (London: Norman and Sons, 1896), 42. 95

70

chapter two

chapter will demonstrate, these rationales, especially the third, placed the missionaries in a precarious position, susceptible to the whims of the Government. The Moravians were also at the whim of the Los, as it regulated the timing and the personnel for the new mission field in Australia, despite the Moravians deciding on the location and size of the mission venture. In using the Los, “God remained passive, incapable of initiating or refusing contact, speaking only when spoken to and then decisively,”97 yet the Moravians also saw its use as a means to demonstrate their ‘child-like’ belief in God, and their absolute belief in His divine will. They were willing, however, to manipulate the interaction when they wished to have greater agency over their requests, such as providing a format which would result in an explicit answer, or providing Vorfragen. Indeed the use of the Los would have profound impacts on the running of the Moravian mission in Australia, and the next chapter will demonstrate its pervasive influence within this first mission attempt.

97 Christopher P. Gavaler, “The Empty Lot: Spiritual Contact in Lenape and Moravian Religious Beliefs,” American Indian Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1994), 216.

CHAPTER THREE

„ein fauler Fleck“: LAKE BOGA, A PUTRID STAIN At the beginning of the 1850s, the prospects for the first Moravian mission in Australia looked promising. Brüder Andreas Friedrich Christian Täger and Friedrich Wilhelm Spieseke had arrived in the new Colony of Victoria, and were expecting the support and help of the colonial administration through Charles Joseph La Trobe. By the end of the decade, however, there had been one failed mission attempt, three disgraced missionaries, and no Aboriginal converts. La Trobe had left the colony, and the new Government, which was busy dealing with the pressures of the gold rush, was not as supportive as the Moravians had hoped. The missionaries left the colony and returned a few years later, beginning a new their timorous attempt to establish a mission station. This chapter examines the ways by which the Moravian missionaries established the Lake Boga mission station, and the factors leading to their retreat back to Germany. It examines other mission stations within the colony, and the attempts therein to Christianize Aborigines. Finally, it will consider how the failure was received by the Moravian administration, especially in light of renewed missionary focus upon Victoria. The Moravian missionaries reach Melbourne The previous chapter detailed the protracted departure of Täger and Spieseke for the antipodes. When they finally arrived in Melbourne on the 25th of February, 1850, they were eagerly welcomed by Melbourne’s Protestant church community, including Bishop Charles Stuart Perry of the Church of England.1 The Moravian missionaries’ arrival heralded a new phase in the ‘Christianization and civilization’ of the “poor, despised creatures, who are on the lowest level,” as Peter La Trobe had described the Aborigines in 1841.2 As we read in the last chapter, all

1 2

Periodical Accounts, 1850, September, 412-413. PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 177.

72

chapter three

previous missionary attempts amongst the Aborigines of the Port Phillip District had failed. The Moravian Church were aware of this and knew that they would face difficulties in their attempt, with the self-perception of the church resting on the idea that the Moravians would succeed where all other missionary societies had failed. They also needed to find local funding for the new mission venture, and therefore fostered relationships with other denominations. The Church of England proved to be one of the Moravians’ most loyal supporters, commenting that the wealth of experience accrued by the Moravian Church through their global work amongst the “most ignorant and degraded of the human race” placed the Moravians in good stead to civilize even the Aborigines of Australia.3 Melbourne was only fifteen years old when the missionaries arrived, with the Port Phillip District on the brink of being transformed from an administrative district of the Colony of New South Wales to a Colony in its own right. It had grown substantially since 1835, when European incursion into indigenous land began in earnest. These incursions included ventures much further inland, leaving markers of European civilization in their stead. For example, by 1846, five squatting districts had been gazetted; a hospital had been established; newspapers were providing news to whet the colonists’ curiosity for local and foreign events; and there were a number of clergy to look after the spiritual well-being of the inhabitants. One aspect, however, that had not yet been successfully addressed in this flurry of new European settlement was that of the ‘Aboriginal problem.’ It was to take some time before the missionaries were able to form their own opinions on the state of the Aborigines, as they spent their first six weeks in Melbourne where few Aborigines lived. They journeyed to the Protectorate Station at Mt Franklin, on the Loddon River near Daylesford, about 75 English miles north of Melbourne. There they observed the workings of the Assistant Protector, Edward Stone Parker, and the English-language school that he ran for the station’s indigenous inhabitants. Parker, as noted in Chapter Two, had been a schoolteacher in England as well as a missionary of the Wesleyan Society. Despite these credentials, the station, and the whole Protectorate system was in decline. Like the Buntingdale Mission and the Aboriginal Settlement before it, the Protectorate was affected by a

3

Periodical Accounts, 1850, September, 414-415.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

73

lack of governmental funding. As we read in the last chapter, the Protectorate scheme had been forced upon the Colonial Government by the Colonial Office in Britain and was at odds with the attitudes in the colony, and consequently did not receive the local support assumed by the Colonial Office.4 Although the station was in decline when the missionaries arrived, indigenous people still lived there. The missionaries had an opportunity to learn a little of the local Djadja Wurrung language and culture, but their main aim was to find a place away from Europeans that would be suited to a mission station.5 Travelling inland was difficult. During their journeys they experienced many “embarrassing and difficult adventures,” including getting lost; their cart falling on top of Täger so that Spieseke had to dig him out; and having their horse run away on them.6 The difficulties that these two missionaries must have experienced in a foreign land cannot be underestimated, with a foreign language, climate and vegetation, and not knowing exactly where they were going, nor how they would be received. It must be assumed, however, that their religious convictions drove them throughout. Spieseke’s strength of faith was evident in his calling, through which he stated that as he owed his “life and limbs” to God, and that, although he would follow God’s calling “quiveringly and awkwardly,” it would be with a firm faith.7 From Mt Franklin, the missionaries continued their journey inland. On the 17th of October, 1850, they arrived at Lake Boga, 17 kilometres east of the newly established township of Swan Hill (see Figure 1). The lake was on the traditional territory of the Wemba Wemba people. Within indigenous naming patterns specific locations, rather than general areas, are named, therefore there were many indigenous names for the lake. Yet in 1836, Major Thomas Mitchell subsumed all of these under a single European name, as he, the first white man to traverse through these lands, made his exploratory journey through

4 Samuel Clyde McCulloch, “Sir George Gipps and Eastern Australia’s Policy toward the Aborigine, 1838-46” The Journal of Modern History 33, no. 3 (1961): 261269. 5 For a description of the commonality of indigenous languages in Victoria see for example: Ian D. Clark, Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800-1900, vol. 37, Monash Publications in Geography (Melbourne: Monash University, 1990). 6 H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882), 71. 7 PMD, 9 May 1849, #3, no pagination.

74

chapter three

the countryside. The Australian historian Ken Inglis has suggested that Mitchell’s expeditions were punctuated by bloody encounters with Aborigines.8 If the Wemba Wemba people did not experience violence at the hands of Mitchell in 1836, they soon experienced it at the hands of other Europeans who settled in the region shortly thereafter. Government bodies believed there to be a suitably large Aboriginal population around Lake Boga to warrant a mission station amongst the heathen there. The Moravian’s decision to work amongst “the most wretched and bleakest [people], who live on God’s earth,”9 was based on both general and specific conditions. The general decision to send missionaries to Aboriginal Australians in the Port Phillip Protectorate was based on the support of the administrators, while the specific decision to settle at Lake Boga was guided by local governmental officials. Yet there was some consideration as to the state of the indigenous people among whom they were to proselytize, as the Moravians wished for the people amongst whom they were to work to be willing participants in the ‘civilizing mission,’ and not a forced and captive audience, as would have been the case had they established a mission on Rottnest Island in the Swan River Colony of Western Australia. The Moravians needed the backing of both the Colonial Government and benevolent supporters. The latter they received in the form of a Christian sheep grazier of the area near the lake, Archibald Macarthur Campbell, who delighted in having the missionaries as his neighbours. In his enthusiasm he returned with them to Melbourne to help them transport their materials to Lake Boga. He also offered them accommodation at his 103,680 acre station, Gannawarra—which Spieseke often transliterated to ‘Gunpowder’—a term reminiscent of the violence of the frontier.10 The missionaries readily accepted his accommodation, being it was just a day’s ride from the proposed mission site. From Campbell’s station they visited Aborigines on other pastoral stations, administering medical treatment and learning some of the local language.11 The missionaries deemed Campbell’s treatment of the ‘Culli,’—a contemporary term for Aborigines—as being more generous 8 Ken Inglis, Australian Colonists: An Exploration of Social History, 1788-1870 (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1993), 188. 9 Missionsblatt, 1856, 3, 41. 10 See for example: ‘Die Eingeborenen von Neuholland,’ in Evangelisches Missions Magazin, 1860, 256. 11 Berichte der ersten Station am Boga=See, 1851-56, 1 January 1851, AAV, MF 165, 21. These reports suggests that Täger’s medical attempts were met with some success.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

75

than that of many other European squatters or graziers, yet, as the following mission diary extract of 1850 demonstrates, the standards set by other farmers were not very high: On the Island we met a Culli who warmly greeted us and said, this island is mine and I have only lent it to Mr Campbell. He, as well as all of the blacks, are happy to remain in these thoughts although they do not have the right to travel through a single place, or to camp there. Here at Mr Campbell’s [station] they have total freedom, not so though on all stations.12

Apart from describing Campbell’s benevolence, the excerpt also explicitly states the missionaries’ awareness of Aboriginal ownership of land. It was a theme that reoccurred in their diary entries, including the following one from 1853: On the 24th of December two Aborigines came here. They explained to us, that they were looking for those [other Aborigines] who belonged to Reedy Lake, but they could not find them, and they were now so hungry that they already ate wild cabbage on the way here. They phrased this in their English as follows: “Mine big one hungry, mine eat him warigel (wild, warlike) cabbage long(e) road.” We explained to them that it was not our way to give them anything without work or payment, since they, however, kept complaining about how hungry they were, they received something, which they prepared and consumed on the spot, after which they left our place and went to them at Lake Baker. One of them, who said that he belonged to the Lake Boga tribe, made it very clear, that since the land around Lake Boga belonged to him, he should receive food from us for nothing.13

This excerpt raises both the issue of the moral obligations to the original owners of the land, as well as clearly stating the civilizing role of European practices such as the waged work instated by the Moravians. Both these issues remained at the fore of Australian mission endeavours even after the Moravians had left in the early twentieth century. Indeed, as the historian of imperial Britain Jane Samson has argued in the context of the colonization of the Pacific, “in an age dominated by the idea of the dignity of labor, the Protestant work ethic formed a large part of the civilizing mission.”14 During the early stages of the 12 Berichte der ersten Station am Boga=See, 1851-56, 1 January 1851, AAV, MF 165, 1. 13 Berichte der ersten Station am Boga=See, 1851-56, 24 December 1853, AAV, MF 165, 75-76. 14 Jane Samson, Imperial Benevolence. Making British Authority in the Pacific Islands (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1998), 30.

76

chapter three

mission, the missionaries were willing to make concessions to the ‘civilizing’ aspect of the mission, and fed the hungry men from Reedy Lake without having them work for it. They were not, however, willing to make concessions for those who stated a birth right to the land, as this did not correspond to their European sense of propriety, nor to the so-called Protestant work-ethic. In latter days of the mission, this would change as the missionaries became more savvy in manipulating the European consciousness through citing the moral obligations that the whites owed to the Aborigines, and in thus doing so the missionaries were able to further their own aims of progressing the mission. These moral obligations were part of a broader concern of the missionary endeavour in the early-to-mid-nineteenth century, which was inspired both by ‘humanitarian’ concerns for indigenous peoples, including emancipated slaves and indigenous peoples under colonialism, as well as European notions of spiritual and moral superiority.15 Although missionaries, humanitarians, and members of the British Government were willing to uphold notions of indigenous sovereignty within colonial contexts, official responses from the Colonies were often ambivalent. Such ambivalence was evident in the lengthy wait the missionaries endured before the Government approved their land grant. During these five months, they resided with Campbell and continued to learn some of the local language. The learning of languages was an important part of the Moravian missionary endeavour, as prescribed in the Instructions, which stated: §19 The next object of a Missionary must be the acquisition of the tongue of the country. When the heathen have learnt an European language, this is comparatively easy. It is a much more difficult task, to master the native languages of barabarous tribes, such as the Greenlanders, Esquimaux, Indians, and Tambookies. Where these must be acquired, the help of an interpreter is indispensable at the outset. It is not, however, advisable to make use of one, who is unconverted, for the preaching of the Gospel, as such interpreters generally understand only those parts of an European tongue, which refer to common life, and have besides no terms in their own language, for the expression of spiritual ideas. They are, therefore, not in a condition to

15

See for example: Jane Sampson, Race and Empire, Seminar Studies in History (Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2005), 33; Henry Offley Wakeman, An Introduction to the History of the Church of England. From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Fourth ed. (London: Rivington, Percival & Co, 1897), 454-5.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

77

convey to others the truths of the Gospel, and might, not improbably, express the opposite of what was intended, either through ignorance, or even from disinclination to the new ways recommended to their countrymen. It is a different thing, when a native interpreter is truly converted, for his own inward experience will then suggest to him the proper expressions.16

The systematic collection and codifying of indigenous languages was a major occupation of Moravian missionaries across the globe, with the Instructions published by the Missionsdepartement reflecting the Church’s imperative that the learning of heathen languages was important in bringing the Christian religion to all of God’s people. In their work the Moravians did not, however, differ much from contemporary eighteenth- and nineteenth-century linguistic thought, which believed that languages were not created equal, rather they were the external markers of internal mental development.17 Thus, as the above excerpt demonstrates, a hierarchy of languages existed for the Moravians, with ‘barbarous’ people ascribed to the ‘peculiar’ and thus inferior, languages. The work of the missionaries with so-called primitive peoples, such as the Greenland Inuit, was seen to be much more difficult than the work amongst the perceived heathen who had already learnt a European language, and thus had to some extent been acculturated into the language and customs of the local European hegemony.18 Missionaries were instructed to learn indigenous languages as the quote above demonstrates, because it was believed that the ‘heathen’ especially those belonging to the “barabarous tribes, such as the Greenlanders, Esquimaux, Indians, and Tambookies [had] no terms in their own language, for the expression for spiritual ideas”—a statement which more fully reflected the denial of indigenous peoples’ spirituality. The monotheistic belief of the Moravians was also evident in this instruction, reflecting their inability to equally weigh the spiritual aspects of polytheistic or non-Christian peoples

16 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, trans. From the German, Second (Revised and Enlarged) ed. (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), 26-27. 17 Wilhelm von Humbolt, Über die Sprache: Reden vor der Akademie. Kommentiert und mit einem Nachwort Versehen von Jürgen Trabant (Tübingen und Basel: Francke Verlag, 1994). 18 For a further example of the derogative remarks against the Greenland language and thus the people see, The Little Missionary, No. 4, March, 1871, 15.

78

chapter three

against their own beliefs. In this respect, the Moravians did not differ substantially from many other nineteenth-century missionary enterprises.19 Furthermore, the Instructions noted that ‘heathen’ indigenous peoples who had had contact with Europeans were not to be trusted to translate properly, this being especially true for the languages of those ‘heathen’ who had been tainted by trade and commerce. These people were seen as particularly suspect, for although they may have learnt the language of the traders, they “either through ignorance, or even from disinclination to the new ways recommended to their countrymen” were not in a “condition to convey to others the truths of the Gospel.”20 Thus, there was written into the Instructions an unwillingness to appreciate the language skills and cultural dexterity of heathen indigenous peoples, as these people were seen as potentially unwilling, or unable, to use their language skills to help the missionaries convert their fellow ‘heathens’. This position can be seen as a fundamental shift in mid-nineteenth century Moravian policy from the first edition of the Instructions which was published in German and English in 1784, and included an item on learning “the language of those heathen, with whom they have to do.”21 Although the first version noted that it was unwise for a missionary to use an un-converted person to transmit the word of God, for this person might only be able to communicate “what occurs in common life and trade,” it made no specific reference to any particular language or the perceived “barbarous” nature of tribes, who themselves have “no terms in their own language, for the expression of spiritual ideas.” The shift from a general instruction, to an instruction which placed indigenous languages in a hierarchy, reflected more general trends in the nineteenth century, in moving from Enlightenment-influenced ideas that depicted indigenous peoples as examples of Rousseau’s Noble Savages, to ones which were shaped by the scientific culture of the time, including prevailing ideas of ethnology and hierarchies of races.22 As noted above, Australian Aborigines were seen by nineteenth century Moravians as low on this 19 Robert Hefner, ed. Conversions to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation (Berkely: University of California Press, 1993). 20 Spangenberg, Instructions (1840), 26-27. 21 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum, Who Minister in the Gospel among the Heathen (London: Brethren’s Society, for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, 1784), 16. 22 Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800-1960 (Oxford: St Antony’s/Macmillan Series, 1982), 1-5.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

79

hierarchy, being described as “poor, despised creatures, who are on the lowest level.” 23 Throughout the world, Moravian missionaries devotedly followed the Instructions, collected indigenous languages, and produced a myriad of Bible translations and other Christian publications. Yet although the Moravian missionaries in Australia faithfully attempted to learn indigenous Australian languages, the Church itself did not publish any works in Australian languages.24 Bruder Adolf Hartmann, a Moravian missionary stationed at the Ebenezer mission station in north-western Victoria (the second Moravian mission attempt in Victoria, and the focus of the following chapter), reasoned that no Aboriginal languages had been published by the Moravians due to the “poverty of [their] language for abstract ideas” and that since “most of [the] natives know English,” their own languages had become redundant.25 Colonial politics and practices, however, also played a part in the dearth of indigenous language publications, a point noted in broader Moravian commentaries. In 1870 for example, the Moravian author Gustavus Theodore Reichelt reviewed foreign language publications from mission fields and flippantly remarked in a footnote that in “the Mission in Australia the English language is used. There is no native missionary literature.”26 In other Moravian mission fields indigenous languages were often used as common languages on the missions, despite the official colonial language being a European language. In Suriname for example, indigenous languages were used to spread the gospel even though Dutch was the colonial language.27 Yet within Australia, English remained the dominant missionary language. One reason for this was that there was an enormous diversity of Australian indigenous languages. It is estimated that before European contact there were around 23

PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 176. Although the Moravians did not produce any Aboriginal Biblical literature they contributed to various grammars and word lists. See: N. Hey, An Elementary Grammar of the Nggerikudi Language, ed. Department of Public Lands, Bulletin No. 6, North Queensland Ethnography (Brisbane: Government Printer, 1903). They were also praised by other missionary societies for their collections of Aboriginal indigenous languages. See for example: Evangelisches Missions Magazin, Basel, 1860, 251-252. 25 Hartmann notebook, MAB, E. Hartmann Collection (1979), Box 2 of 4. 26 G. Th. Reichelt, The Literary Works of the Foreign Missionaries of the Moravian Church, Translated and Annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweiniz (Bethlehem: The Comenius Press, 1870), 21. 27 See for example: H.F. De Ziel, Johannes King. Life at Maripaston, Verhandelingen Van Het Koninklijk Instituut Voor Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973). 24

80

chapter three

40 distinct languages within Victoria alone, with each language having numerous dialects.28 Such vernacular diversity, and abilities for many Aboriginal people to quickly learn new languages made it convenient for colonists to use English as a common language in Victoria. Yet the use of English also reflected the belief that Aborigines were a dying race, and it was therefore not worth the effort to print in native Aboriginal languages. While actual numbers remain uncertain, the Aboriginal population certainly declined rapidly in the 1840s and 1850s, leading people to assume that there soon would be no Aborigines left.29 The missionaries themselves articulated their belief that the Aborigines were a dying race. In 1854 for example, Spieseke reported that a tribe of 300 people had six years later been reduced to only four people. This, he remarked, added weight to the view held widely in the colony that within ten years all Aborigines would be extinct. Furthermore, he attributed their demise to the introduction of venereal diseases, which had been spread through the exchange of sexual favours for European articles such as tobacco and flour. Although the diseases were European in origin, Spieseke did not implicate Europeans in the demise of Aborigines. Rather, he commented that Aborigines attributed all diseases to “mamammurack,” the devil, of whom they “only had a very vague conception,” thus simultaneously belittling indigenous knowledge of epidemiology and spiritual concepts.30 Spieseke’s belief in divine providence diminished any focus on temporal factors responsible for the extinction of the Aborigines, and as he did not see Aborigines as capable of surviving by their own means, he believed that it was only through the grace of God that they would be saved from extinction. This rendered him a ‘needed’ component in the salvation of Aboriginal souls, complicit in the colonizing process. At the beginning of the Lake Boga mission, however, the perceived impending death of the race did not stop the missionaries from attempting to become fluent in the local indigenous languages. Within two years, they reported that they had collected around 1,200 indigenous words from an unnamed language group. They had encountered 28

Clark, Aboriginal Languages and Clans. M.R. Christie, Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1835-1886 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1979), 164. 30 Missionsblatt, 1854, 8, 162. 29

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

81

unforseen difficulties in learning the language. For example, Täger noted in a letter to John Christian Breutel of the Missionsdepartement a curious interaction with the Aboriginal people on the Gannawarra station: We have not yet been able to make a start of spreading the word of God, because we are still missing too many words, and those that we do have, we are not totally sure of [their meaning]. Since we are mostly able to hit the nail on the head, we are totally convinced that some of the Aborigines are starting to speak a different language in our presence, when they are speaking about something that we should not know.31

Evident here was both Täger’s linguistic ability and the linguistic dexterity of the Aboriginal men. There was no speculation as to why this language shift occurred, nor any value judgements, rather, a simple statement that there were things that the Aboriginal men considered that the missionaries should not know. In December of 1851, this letter was published in the English-language Moravian publication, Periodical Accounts, with the emphasis removed from indigenous linguist skills and placed onto the linguistic abilities of the missionaries. The subtext was changed to suggest that the missionaries would soon master the Aboriginal languages: a sign of cultural conquering. After stating that they were not yet in a position to “converse with the natives on religious subjects,” as the excerpt from Täger’s letter indicates, the article in the Periodical Accounts continued with: However, we need not be discouraged, for we know already so much of it [the language] that the natives can no longer speak of matters in our presence which they do not wish us to know, but in such cases, employ another dialect.32

Although the core of both passages was the same – that a different language was used by the men when speaking in front of the missionaries about something that should remain private – the different reasons attributed in the two texts reflect their different objectives, which in turn stemmed from the differences in perceived audiences. In the broader context of missionary correspondence, the historian Andrew Porter has argued that “secretaries worked hard at editing the missionary correspondence” in order to tailor the message of missionary success for their audiences, and also to delete references to subjects which 31 32

Täger (Lake Boga) to Breutel (Herrnhut), 24 May 1851, AAV, MF 165. Periodical Accounts, 1851, December, 156-157.

82

chapter three

did not further the different societies’ aims.33 The Moravian Church also worked hard on translating missionary texts from German to English, and in doing so often transmuted the meaning, albeit subtly. It is, however, these subtle shifts of meaning and emphasis from the original to the published versions that allowed the image of Aborigines to be created to suit the expectations of the audience: that Aborigines were an inferior people without agency, who continued to remain under the dominance of European power structures. This differed from the original text where Aborigines were depicted as a people who were in control of their own communication networks. Ironically, years later at the Ebenezer mission station, the missionaries spoke German in front of the Aborigines, for they found it “useful to be able some times to speak in a language which the blacks do not understand.”34 They clearly believed that they were outwitting the Aborigines, possibly unaware that they were followers and not leaders in the trend. Täger’s consideration of Aboriginal language usage underscores the notion that language has always been more than just a means of communication: it is both a unifying and divisionary agent. As early as 1492, Antonio de Nebrija, in his introduction to the first grammar of a modern European language (Spanish), stated that language had always been the companion of empire.35 This sentiment was repeated within various European colonial empires across the ages: the British with their colonial structures and English language in India; the French with their language and their religion of the Roman Catholic Church in Haiti; and Columbus with the Roman Catholic Church and Spanish language in the Americas, being just three cases in point. In each of these situations, language was used as a tool of the conquerors to enforce their own political structures. The language of the Empire within Australia was English; the language of the Moravian missionaries was German; and the indigenous peoples changed languages according to their own needs and notions of inclusion and exclusion. The fact that the Moravian missionaries, however, wished to learn indigenous languages distinguished them from many other colonists around the world, and unified them with the aims of other nineteenth 33 Andrew Porter, Religion Versus Empire?: British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 173. 34 Mary Hartmann (Ebenezer) to Dan Hines (England), 21 July 1863, MAB, Box 1 of 4, E. Hartmann Collection (1979). 35 Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), 123.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

83

century missionary societies.36 The Moravian desire to learn the local languages of the people amongst whom they worked was based on their wish to translate the Bible into these languages, for the Bible was central to their faith. In a broader context, the Moravian desire to translate the Bible into local languages was sympathetic with the British and Foreign Bible Society, an ecumenical society founded in 1804, which worked to publish the Bible in many different languages, including the “Esquimaux” language of the indigenous people of Greenland amongst whom the Moravians worked.37 Other missionary societies, such as the Church of Scotland Mission, proposed that it should not be the missionaries, but “Christianized natives,” who should be given the task for translating.38 For the Moravians, it was the task of the missionary in conjunction with converted indigenous peoples. In the particular case of Lake Boga, the fact the Moravians wished to learn the local languages further distinguished them in the eyes of the indigenous men from many other colonists. Täger reported that Aboriginal men responded to his request for more words with: “ihr alles haben, ihr seid nicht wie die andere Weißen … wir Schwarzen haben noch viel Worte thausend” (you have everything, you are not like the other whites, we blacks have lots more words thousands [more]).39 Despite the Moravian’s desire to learn the language of the heathen, indigenous languages were often deemed inferior as they were seen to be void of terms “for the expression of spiritual ideas,”40 yet these of course only pertained to European understandings of spirituality and religion. In Australia, the combination of the belief that there was an inherent “poverty of language for abstract ideas” in indigenous langages,41 and a perceived imminent death of Aboriginal 36 For differences amongst German missionary organizations in the use of native languages see for example: Horst Gründer, Christliche Mission und deutscher Imperialismus, 1884-1914 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1982). 37 See for example: London Association in aid of the Missions of the United Brethren, commonly called Moravians, The Fifth Report in Aid of the Mission of the United Brethren, Commonly called MORAVIANS, for the Year 1822 With an Appendix, containing Interesting Intelligence from the Missionary Stations, A List of Contributors, &c. (London: Printed by F. Marshall, Kenton Street, Brunswick Square, 1823), 46. 38 Alexander Duff, India and India Missions: Including Sketches of the Gigantic System of Hinduism, Both in Theory and Practice; also, Notices of some of the Principal Agencies Employed in Conducting the Process of Indian Evangelisation, etc. Second ed. (Edinburgh & London: John Johnston, Hunter Square and Whittaker & Co., and Nibbet & Co., 1840), 410. 39 Täger (Lake Boga) to Breutel (Herrnhut), 24 May 1851, AAV, MF 165. 40 Spangenberg, Instructions (1840), 27. 41 Hartmann notebook, MAB, E. Hartmann Collection (1979), Box 2 of 4.

84

chapter three

Australians, led to the entire absence of Moravian publications of indigenous languages in Victoria. Land granted: the beginning of the mission In June of 1851, after spending five months at Gannawarra, the missionaries travelled back to Melbourne in order to finalise the land grant. Whilst in Melbourne they sought support for the mission, including by attending a public meeting along with the Governor of Victoria, the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, and many interested local supporters. Full of hope and excitement from this meeting, they returned to Lake Boga ready to build themselves a Governmentapproved log hut and begin their work in earnest. Their enthusiasm was hampered somewhat by the extreme weather and heavy flooding of the Loddon River. Once again they retreated to Mr Campbell’s Gannawarra station and stayed until the end of August. After spending many months as guests without a home of their own, they once again reached Lake Boga on the 21st of October. Even that short journey was not without its hardships. Their horse drowned in the flooded Pyramid Creek, and they lost a large proportion of their goods to the swollen waters. Campbell once again came to their aid in the form of another horse and a pre-fabricated shepherd’s hut, which the missionaries set to work putting together at the Lake Boga site.42 Finally, after two years in the country, Täger and Spieseke were able to settle on the land at Lake Boga and begin their dual aim of ‘civilizing and Christianizing’ the heathen. The provision of their domestic arrangements was very important to them, as it was upon all other Moravian stations, for these acted as an example for the heathen to follow. Once settled, the missionaries began to cultivate the land. The cultivation of souls for Christ, however, proved to be a very difficult task, as many Aboriginal people of the area—primarily the Wemba Wemba people, but also the Wati Wati (also known as Wadi Wadi) peoples—had had many negative encounters with European settlers. Some such encounters had occurred on the actual site of the mission, as Spieseke mentioned in a letter to the Missionsdepartement in January of 1852: 42

Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 73.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

85

The Aborigines were expelled a few years ago from Lake Boga, one of their main camping places, by the Colonists, because a few cattle were killed here and also a few Whites have been murdered here. As a result of this, the police came and a Black was captured as the culprit … Since then they have hardly visited their camping place at Lake Boga.43

Despite previous violent encounters at the site, the missionaries persisted with their choice of land, and eventually managed to gain the trust of some of the Wemba Wemba men. A man by the name of ‘Bonaparte’ became a particularly important informant for the missionaries. Prior to the missionaries’ arrival, he had had substantial contact with other Europeans and some local farmers entrusted with taking cattle to Melbourne. Bonaparte became an esteemed linguistic informant of the missionaries, and they valued their relationship with him. His life was brutally cut short in February of 1854 at the hands of local police, in substitution for a crime committed by another man. Bonaparte became yet another Aboriginal man convicted by white man’s laws before even seeing the inside of a court room;44 yet another bloody statistic in violent clashes between indigenous peoples and colonial invaders.45 His death affected the Moravian missionaries, especially Spieseke, who saw the murder of their informer as an example of the devastation wrought by colonization. His distress was apparent in a letter to Br Reichel of the Missionsdepartement on the 3rd of January, 1854: Recently two [Aboriginal] men were shot by the police near Campbell’s station, because of a murder that was commited - one of these men was Bonaparte. There is thus nothing more certain that that: they are dying out, so it happens on their own land and soil. Moreover these two Aborigines are now no longer in the way of colonisation.46

Spieseke’s letter was reproduced in the August edition of the 1854 Missionsblatt, the German Moravian missionary periodical. Notably 43

Spieseke (Lake Boga) to Breutel (Herrnhut), 5 January 1852, AAV, MF 165. Within colonial society, British law was foisted upon Aboriginal people without any chance of negotiations, nor recourse to indigenous law. This led to a history of convictions ruled against Aboriginal men. See for example: Susanne Davies, “Aborigines, Murder and the Criminal Law in Early Port Phillip, 1841-1851” Historical Studies 22, no. 88 (1987): 313-335. 45 The violence associated with European colonization of indigenous lands in Victoria was evident in the number of massacre sites within the colony. See for example: Ian D. Clark, Scars in the Landscape (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 1995). 46 Spieseke (Lake Boga) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 3 February 1854, AAV, MF 165. 44

86

chapter three

his cynicism towards colonialism was edited out. The report simply stated: “Recently close to Mr Campbell’s station two Aborigines were shot by police in relation to a murder committed. One of them was the earlier-mentioned Bonaparte.”47 The difference between the two versions is an example of how the Moravian Church controlled the depictions of the ‘heathen’ by omitting emotive material. In this instance, Bonaparte was relegated into the category of culprit, and a deserving recipient of his fate. Although the Missionsblatt version contained a much less politically charged statement, neither version questioned the missionaries’ or the Church’s specific roles in colonization. There was no discussion as to their position as white, European, civilized, Christianized ambassadors to the so-called depraved, heathen Aborigines. Although a level of analysis of the situation can been seen through empathetic statements, such as Spieseke’s above, a critique of the framework of the colonial mentality and practice was lacking. This was hardly surprising coming from a group of people whose selfdeclared role was to shape other people into their idea of ‘civilization and Christianization’ using the framework of colonial governments open to them. Without the heathen to work amongst, the missionaries would have been just like any other migrant trying to ‘tame’ the unruly Australian landscape. Yet by creating a unique relationship with Aborigines, for example by being interested in indigenous languages, they were able to distinguish themselves from other farmers and shape their own sense of identity. Conversely, the identities of individual heathen Aborigines were not distinguished, or, more pertinently, the humanity of a non-Christian Aborigine was not presented or described on the same level as that of a Christian missionary. In the excerpt above for example, there is no attempt to connect the reader to Bonaparte’s humanity, for doing so would destroy the division between heathen and Christian. Only those people who were seen as potential converts were personalized through the reporting of their names (albeit ones adapted for their own proprieties and a Europeanized audience). Indigenous people outside the sphere of Christianity were often subsumed within generic categories including ‘Black,’ ‘Papua,’ ‘Culli,’ ‘Aborigine,’ or ‘heathen,’ and were thereby denied individuality. To embrace non-Christian Aborigines as equals would question the notions both of mission and colonization. Thus, the death of Bonaparte

47

Missionsblatt, 1854, 8, 163.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

87

reported in the Missionsblatt reads as the loss of a potential convert to the mission, rather than as an example of colonial violence. Education, like language, was a way for the missionaries to access potential converts. For the Moravians it played an important part in aspects of their Church from the home-mission, to the diaspora, and the heathen missions. This had been the case since the mideighteenth century when the Moravian educational reformer, Johann Amos Comenius, applied his humanitarian-inspired pedagogical influences to Moravian educational practices, with similar pedagogical aspects applied to the heathen missions.48 The Instructions drew on Moravian experiences to state that the best way to get to the hearts of the Aborigines was through their children, especially within a school setting.49 Through schooling, the Moravians, like many other missionary organizations around the globe, hoped to instil a love of God, to inculcate the civilizing features of European civilization, and to distance the children from traditional ‘heathen’ practices.50 Unlike the other later Moravian missions in Australia, however, a fully functioning school did not eventuate at the Lake Boga mission station due in part to the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the indigenous visitations. Initially one solitary indigenous man would visit at a time, then occasionally in pairs, with the size of the groups increasing at every visit. When the missionaries inquired as to why no old men ever visited, they were told that it was the practise of the Aborigines that first “one young man visits, and if he gets enough rations then two or three follow, then the old men come later and lastly

48 For more on Comenius see for example: Arthur J. Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1998). 49 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen, Zweiter durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe ed. (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837), 56-58. 50 For examples of other missionary organisations’ relationship with education see: Jamie S. Scott, “Penitential and Penitentiary: Native Canadians and Colonial Mission Education,” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Missions, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); John Comaroff and Jean Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume Two: The Dialetics of Modernity on a South African Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Amanda Barry, “ ‘Equal to Children of European Origin’: Educability and the Civilising Mission in Early Colonial Australia,” History Australia 5, no. 2 (2008): 41.1-41.16; and Horst Gründer, Christliche Mission und deutscher Imperialismus.

88

chapter three

the women and children.”51 This awareness of the sequence of visitors and their expectations of receiving material returns produced dilemmas for the missionaries, for as the Instructions indicated, there was a fine line between handing out small incentives to entice people on to the mission, and creating a reliance on such gifts, viz: Many heathen tribes are in the habit of offering small gifts, for which they expect something in return.—While they should be remunerated for what they have given, there must be no endeavour to gain them by presents, as this would lead to insincerity and other dangerous consequences.52

The “dangerous consequences” of the “heathen tribes” reliance on material goods could, however, be circumvented by exchanging goods for Aboriginal labour. This tactic was used by the Moravians at Lake Boga, as well as by many other missionary societies and colonial governments the world over, for it helped train indigenous workers for the colonial economy.53 A more difficult problem to overcome was the presence of Aboriginal women on the mission station without corresponding female missionaries. La Trobe had foreseen this problem in April of 1848, when he expressed his wish for a married couple to be sent to Australia; however, as we have seen, financial constraints dictated that only single men were sent out.54 After these first positive signs of Aboriginal contact at Lake Boga, there was further discussion about the potential benefits of having the Australian missionaries married. This would enable pious Moravian Schwestern (Sisters, Srs) to work amongst Aborigines of their own sex and to set a good example for their emulation.55 The missionaries themselves offered the names of Schwestern whom they would gladly marry, and actively petitioned the UAC for wives. The UAC, however, was hesitant to send over brides, for the cost could not be justified in the face of lacklustre indigenous engagement.56 Without the support of wives, the missionaries minimized their contact with indigenous women and actively dissuaded them from participating in housekeeping duties in 51

Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 78. Spangenberg, Instructions (1840), 26. 53 See for example: Comaroff and Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution, Vol 2; Klaus Bade (ed), Imperialismus und Kolonialmission: Kaiserliches Deutschland und koloniales Imperium (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982), 20. 54 PUAC, 24 April 1849, #7, 82. 55 PMD, 15 June 1853, #11, 49. 56 PUAC, 16 June 1853, #7, 205-208. 52

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

89

the missionaries’ huts. These decisions were based on desires not to fuel the malicious rumours that, according to the missionaries, the neighbouring settlers had spread about the women’s role at the mission. These rumours were part of a larger attempt by local settlers to keep Aborigines from settling on the station, for if Aborigines did so, the squatters would not have ready access to indigenous labour.57 The missionaries’ decision not to be placed in a compromising position by such a canard, however, also led to the missionaries being unable to offer assistance when requested by Aboriginal women, as the following excerpt suggests: Eight Papus, five men and three women, came to sell fish, and as the forementioned were busy eating, the women asked the missionaries for clothes, as they had none, however, they then implored them that they should move the men, that they, the women, stay in the Block house, to be allowed to wash dirty clothes and to make themselves otherwise useful, since they were sick of constantly being ‘lent out.’ Unfortunately the Brüder could not comply with the wish … since otherwise, through such a step, they would have given fodder and an appearance of truth to the malicious rumours of the Whites, that they had designs on the women and children of the Aborigines.58

The quote portrays the Moravian missionaries as reluctant to interfere with Aboriginal sexual politics, lest it add grist to the settler’s rumour mill and thereby impinge on the missionaries’ own position within the colonial setting. For the missionaries their fear of being ostracized by the white community was greater than their desire to be perceived as effective in the conversion of Aboriginal women. In this instance, the missionaries privileged an indigenous patriarchal system, despite the reported cries for help from indigenous females. Without female missionaries to undertake the task of converting the heathen women, the missionaries were afraid that they would compromise their own position amongst the Europeans, upon whom they relied for support. Moreover, as the excerpt presented Aboriginal men as barbaric, in that they ‘lent out’ women for mere material gains, it thereby ascribed European moral codes onto indigenous people. Such sentiments were also found in the reports of contemporary missionaries. The Hermannsburger Lutheran missionaries of Lake Killalpaninna, in South Australia, for example, documented 57 58

PMD, 15 November 1854, #12, 95. Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 80.

90

chapter three

similar images of Aboriginal women being ‘lent out’ in the 1860s.59 These reports add substance to the historian Beverley Blaskett’s comment that in colonial Victoria Aboriginal “prostitution was prevalent,” and that sex became a bartering tool in the turbulent early years of the colony.60 However, the nineteenth century anthropologist Robert Brough Smyth, in his 1878 The Aborigines of Victoria, commented that: I cannot help thinking that these practices are modern- that they have been acquired since the Aborigines have been brought in contact with the lower class of whites. They are altogether irreconcilable with the penal laws in force in former times amongst the natives of Victoria.61

A.W. Howitt, a fellow influential anthropologist and Brough Symth’s contemporary, concurred.62 For the Moravian missionaries, however, the historical and anthological aspects of indigenous sexual practices were of no immediate importance; rather, their desire to negate any damage toward themselves from the local farmers dominated their interpretations. Consequently, indigenous women were left literally outside the domestic space, and symbolically outside the perceived sphere of influence of male missionaries. The malicious rumours that the Moravian missionaries reported to be circulating about them were not confined to their allegedly immoral relationships with Aboriginal women. Rather, these rumours were part of the local settlers’ broader systematic intimidation both of Aboriginal people and also the Moravian missionaries. Since the beginnings of the mission station, negative feelings had been brewing towards the missionaries from settlers and farmers of the area, which further deepened after 1853 when the effects of the gold rush began to be felt in the area. In the 1850s, Victoria was the site of the world’s largest alluvial gold rush, and many European labourers left squatting runs or farms for the 59

Jürgen Tampke, “ ‘Our duty to convert men-eaters and cannibals’: German Lutheran missionaries and their work in Australia and New Guinea before 1914” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 81, no. 1 (1995): 53-70. 60 Beverley Blaskett, “The Level of Violence: Europeans and Aborigines in Port Phillip, 1835-1850” in Through White Eyes, ed. Susan Janson and Stuart Macintyre (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990), 91. 61 R. Brough Smyth, The Aborigines of Victoria: With Notes Relating to the Habits of the Natives of Other Parts of Australia and Tasmania. Compiled from Various Sources for the Government of Victoria, vol. 1 (Melbourne: John Ferres, Government Printer, 1878), 86. 62 A.W. Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1996), 245 & 280.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

91

gold-fields. Office clerks working side-by-side with labourers in the diggings created a colonial labour shortage,63 which directly affected the missionaries, who were unable to employ any European workers to help them with the building of huts.64 This lack of European labourers led many neighbouring farmers to resent the missionaries’ presence and their potential for taking away Aboriginal labour from squatting runs. Farmers tried to deter the missionaries from their work with threats of physical violence and Aborigines were frightened off the mission by malicious rumours about the harm that the Moravians would cause to them. Such rumours included the suggestions that the Moravian missionaries had a big vat into which they would throw Aboriginal children and devour them once they were cooked. Furthermore, it was said that the missionaries would take the women away from the men and that the children would be sent to Melbourne. The scaremongering was also personally directed towards the Aboriginal men, who were told that the Moravian missionaries would chop off their penises.65 These rumours were aimed to deter the Wemba Wemba people from associating with the missionaries; three of these rumours were designed to break apart family groups, and one rumour directly threatened the masculinity of the men. Despite the efforts of the farmers, Aboriginal people continued to frequent the mission station. The mission diaries for the years 1851-1856 are sprinkled with interactions between the missionaries and indigenous peoples. They recount visits that indigenous people made to the mission, the missionaries’ travels to invite people to the station, ritualised clan ceremonies such as “corroborees,” tribal feuds, the building of huts on the station, gardening attempts, and the missionaries’ proselytizing. They also record aspects of indigenous spiritual beliefs, which were published widely, including the following extract from the Evangelisches Missions Magazine, Basel of 1860, concerning the same Bonaparte who was later to meet the untimely end described above: A black, who has received the name Bonaparte from the Europeans, has supplied us with the most words. As I (writes Br Spieseke) took a small tour with him, and he was very willing to share words, he said, amongst other things, with his finger pointing in the air ‘Kingka men Kirkatte.’

63

Stuart Macintyre, A Concise History of Australia, Cambridge Concise Histories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 86-87. 64 PUAC, 12 February 1853, #8, 114-116. 65 Diaries of the Lake Boga mission station, May-Dec 1852, AAV, MF 165, 34, 37 & 57.

92

chapter three After a bit of questioning, I found out that this meant: That is heaven. He tried to make it clear to me, that Pei a mei (God) lived in heaven. I asked him, what they thought about this. He said, that their Panghals (sourcers and doctors) taught them that Pei a mei had created everything, but was very easy to anger, so they had to appease him through dancing. He also gave ‘Pei a mei’ the name ‘Mahman=mu=rok,’ which seems to mean that he is the father of all. Once as we were in their camp and were viewing different figures that they had drawn on bark, one of the Aborigines pointed out to us a very dreadful figure to which he said ‘Kingke Natta,’ and to our question what ‘Natta’ was, he replied: ‘White people say devil, black people say Natta.’66

That such localized detail appeared in an international publication demonstrates a global interest in the Moravian’s work in Australia, and also in the Christinizing mission.67 Yet, in spite of the missionaries’ efforts, the Wemba Wemba people did not embrace Christianity at the Lake Boga mission. The response of one man to the Christian message was a dismissive “tirlkuk tjalle,” or “good story,” with another less hopeful response being “mellan„da noaenin” – “I’ve already heard it.”68 The lackadaisical uptake of the Christian message did not deter the missionaries from their quest to Christianize. The peripatetic habits of the Wemba Wemba people, however, made the missionary work difficult as the missionaries had to travel after them. The missionaries requested headquarters to send another Bruder to assist them in their work in order that two missionaries could work the station whilst the other followed the itinerate indigenes.69 The request was deliberated upon. Finally, after three Brüder were put into the Los, the name of the 26 year-old Paul Hansen was drawn and called to the Australian mission field. He arrived in Melbourne on the 17th of January, 1854.70 Melbourne had grown significantly since Täger and Spieske first arrived some five years previously. With the influx of wealth brought in by the world’s largest alluvial gold deposits, Melbourne was well on its way to “attain[ing] a degree of prosperity unexampled in the 66

Evangelisches Missions Magazin, Basel, 1860, 251-252. This article was itself cited in an anthropological scientific article on the ‘manner in which missionary teaching has shaped native belief in a supreme Being’ demonstrating the cross referencing of missionary and scientific texts and the scientific belief in the primacy of the scientific methods over those of missionaries. See: Edward B. Tylor, “On the Limits of Savage Religion” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 21 (1892): 283-301, 295. 68 Diaries of the Lake Boga mission station, April – December 1855, AAV, MF 165, 119. 69 PMD, 1 July 1853, #8, 45-46. 70 PUAC, 19 July 1853, #5, 38. 67

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

93

history of colonization.”71 Impressive buildings to house the institutions of law, both of the terrestrial and heavenly varieties, comforted the visitor in the knowledge that European traditions continued in the far-flung reaches of the empire. The “key institutions in the formation of the modern public sphere in Europe,”72 including a university, public library, and museum had, however, not yet been constructed in the colony. The institutions to govern and protect the people had preceded those which would mould and form the “rational and free civil subjects.” As the layers of European history were not yet thick enough to create their own landscape, the notion existed “both then and now, that for colonial Australians their country was without history.”73 The establishment of the Museum of Natural History, which opened on the 9th of March in the year Hansen arrived, was a testament to the fact that, although the country was ‘without history,’ it was not devoid of interesting objects, albeit those that resided in the realms of nature, rather than civilization. Although Aboriginal objects would form a large part of later Australian museum collections, the historian Chris Healy suggests that as “Aboriginal people were regarded by Europeans as a people outside of history,” the collection of indigenous artifacts was not deemed to be a scientific activity until after the ideas of Darwin and the broader academic field of ethnography had been accepted.74 The Moravians, however, were not content to leave Aborigines outside history without a pathway into the ‘civilizing and Christianizing’ messages that they brought with them, and so the addition of Hansen was designed to strengthen their mission, and to help them succeed where other missionary societies had failed before them. They had support from their friend, Charles Joseph La Trobe, who opened his home to Hansen whilst he waited for instructions, and also to be met by Täger.75 This would be one of the last interactions that the Moravians would have with La Trobe as Lieutenant Governor, as his resignation from the post took effect a couple of months later in May of 1854. La Trobe’s replacement, Sir Charles Hotham, was not as supportive of the

71

Inglis, Australian Colonists, 169. Chris Healy, “Histories and Collecting: Museums, Objects and Memories” in Memory & History in Twentieth-Century Australia, ed. Kate Darian-Smith and Paula Hamilton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 37. 73 Healy, “Histories and Collecting,” 37. 74 Healy, “Histories and Collecting,” 43. 75 Missionsblatt, 1854, 6, 107. 72

94

chapter three

Moravian aims as La Trobe had been. Hotham had to deal with many difficult issues during his two-year term, including a bloody uprising of miners in response to what they saw as the excessive gold licensing fees. Such arduous circumstances affected his ability to support the Moravian missionaries. The loss of La Trobe was thus keenly felt, and the lack of support from Hotham particularly rendered their work more difficult. In early March of 1854, Täger and Hansen journeyed to the Lake Boga Station. The pressure from the surrounding settlers for access to the mission’s land had exacerbated the tensions between the two groups, with the Missionsblatt reporting that the settlers around the district had their “Auge mit Neid” (greedy eyes) on the land that the Government had freely given to the missionaries.76 Yet in their letters back to headquarters in the previous year, the missionaries dismissed any suggestion to purchase land even though this would have given them some legal claim to the property. They suggested that such an act would have brought on more ire from the settlers, and that there was not much point in purchasing land around the district because the Government was willing to give them as much as they needed.77 Contrary to these comments, in June of that same year, the missionaries informed the Missionsdepartement that they could purchase land for £300, much to the dismay of the Missionsdepartement, who thought that this was exceedingly expensive—especially since there was no guarantee that the missionaries would stay in the area.78 The unknown situation of the missionaries regarding their claim to land also affected the ability of the missionaries to accept the Government’s support, including an offer of a flock of sheep. As the sheep would continue to belong to the Government, and not to the missionaries, the missionaries rejected the offer for they did not want to have to pay the Government for the sheep’s upkeep.79 This situation indicated the control that the Government imposed over missionaries, and although the relationship between the missionaries and the Government was symbiotic at Lake Boga, the missionaries needed at times to negotiate conditions such that they maintained some autonomy. 76 77 78 79

Missionsblatt, 1854, 6, 107. PUAC, 12 February 1853, #8, 114-116. PMD, 19 October 1853, #14, 79. PMD, 15 June 1853, #11, 49.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

95

The question of land at Lake Boga was further confused by the discrepancy over how much land the missionaries were allowed to lay claim to. As a large proportion of the initial tract that they chose was under water for six months a year, they requested more land from the Government. The missionaries erroneously interpreted the official documentation to suggest that they were allowed a further 640 acres on their original 363 acre plot, when in actual fact their land grant was for 640 acres in total. This misinterpretation, as we shall read below, was the cause of many problems as the missionaries tried to keep people off their land through the construction of a fence.80 In the situation in which the missionaries found themselves, their constant concern about access to, and the propriety of, land and governmental grants rendered futile any titular acquisitions of land.81 Commonality in failure: Yelta and Lake Boga The Moravians were not alone in believing that a Christian mission could ‘save’ the Aborigines. At a public meeting in Melbourne on the 31st of October, 1853, the Church of England established ‘The Melbourne Church of England Mission to the Aborigines,’ to provide for heathen Aborigines. Thomas Hill Goodwin, a 30 year-old widower from England, was their first missionary. He left Melbourne within a year of the Society’s formation and traveled to the Murray River to establish a mission station amongst the Aborigines living there. On his way he visited the Mt Franklin Aboriginal Station, where Parker still presided, and then onto the Lake Boga mission in the later part of 1854.82 After reaching Swan Hill he spent some time roving along the Murray River collecting information about Aboriginal numbers and suitable mission sites. On his return to Melbourne he submitted his report to the Church of England Mission, who in turn applied for and obtained a land grant from the Government for an area near the junction of the Murray and Darling rivers, some 250km north-west of the Lake Boga mission site (see Figure 1). He also gave a report of the findings of his trip at a public meeting, at which John Bulmer, a 22-year old Englishman, was inspired to become a missionary. In May of 1855, 80

PUAC, 8 January 1857, #13, 23. PUAC, 12 February 1853, #8, 114-116. 82 Berichte der ersten Station am Boga=See, 1854, September-December 1854, AAV, MF 165, 99. 81

96

chapter three

Goodwin and Bulmer were ready to set off with their dray, two horses and three months’ supplies.83 The two men established the Yelta mission station, which was named after the Aboriginal name for a small billabong on the site. Three years later, in 1866, the mission closed as a result, according to a twentieth century secular source, of the irregular supplies provided by the Government for distribution amongst the Aborigines.84 The mission historian John Harris has argued that the mission’s demise was caused by ‘debased’ Europeans, who encouraged Aborigines to indulge in European vices. Amongst the indigenous population there was a dramatic increase in alcohol consumption and prostitution after the establishment of a township, now known as Wentworth, on the New South Wales side of the river.85 In light of the contemporary disparaging reports, the Church of England decided to close the mission in 1866 in order to extricate itself from the mess created by the presence of these ‘debased’ Europeans. Some years earlier, they had established the Lake Tyers mission in Gippsland, in the south east of the colony (see Figure 1) and with the closure of Yelta they moved their attention to that mission. The Yelta site had originally been selected due to the paucity of European settlement in the area. However, once European influence seeped into the area the competition for resources—such as land and Aboriginal labour—undermined the effectiveness of the mission. When European disease and alcohol were added to the mix, the demise of the indigenous populations seemed unavoidable. As the Melbourne Church of England Mission to the Aborigines was established with the aim of proselytising exclusively to the Aborigines, they could not substitute ‘debased’ Europeans for ‘heathen’ Aborigines as the Goßner missionaries of Moreton Bay had done (see Chapter Two). Thus, they moved to potentially more fruitful areas for their missionary work. The Moravians at Lake Boga faced a similar situation in relation to competing European agendas, and were under no illusions by the mid-1850s that their mission would remain open for much longer. There had been a decline in the numbers of Wemba Wemba

83 John Harris, One Blood. 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity: A Story of Hope (Sutherland: Albatross, 1990), 166. 84 D.B. Caldere and D.J. Goff, Aboriginal Reserves and Missions in Victoria (Kew: Department of Conservation and Environment, 1991), 9. 85 Harris, One Blood, 165-173.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

97

people, along with an increase in hostilities between the missionaries and other groups of European settlers—including the neighbouring land-holders and transient gold diggers. Despite having the opportunity to move their mission to a more suitable place, the Moravians remained at Lake Boga. In 1855, the Reverend Septimus Lloyd Chase from St. Paul’s Anglican Church, Melbourne offered them the chance to establish a mission on an island on the northern tip of the ‘Colonie Sidney’ [sic], for which a £500 grant had been offered by the Government.86 According to Chase, it would have been a suitable place for a Moravian mission as there were many Aborigines living on the island. Another offer had been presented a couple of years earlier, in 1853, when the Moravians were offered a second mission site on the property of a Mr James, a settler on the lower Murray, some 320 kilometres from the Lake Boga site.87 Yet, neither offer was acted upon due, in part, to the Moravian practice of remaining at one place until it was decided otherwise through a drawing of a Los. So, despite potentially productive options for the missionaries, they stayed at Lake Boga in the midst of jealous neighbours and uninterested Aborigines. In 1856, the Lake Boga mission closed as a failure. There were no converts to Christianity and the Moravian missionaries left the site, and thence Australia, without permission from headquarters. This was in direct contradiction to the Instructions, which stated that “it is in no wise [sic] to be approved, that any one should leave his station of its own accord and pleasure,” rather he should ask permission from the UAC.88 As they contravened this instruction, the Lake Boga missionaries were in disgrace. The lack of converts in the five-year life of the mission, although not desirable, was not unusual in Moravian mission history. Br George Dähne, for example, lived alone in a forest in Dutch Guiana, present day Surinam, for two years before coming into contact with the indigenous peoples, and it took him six years before he converted anyone.89 And within the context of Aboriginal conversions in colonial Victoria, the historian Jean Woolmington has suggested that before 1850, it was uncommon for indigenous people to be 86

PUAC, 23 August 1855, not itemized, 153. PUAC, 12 February 1853, #8, 114-116. 88 Spangenberg, Instructions (1784), 41. 89 Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964), 238. According to Neill, the first convert was an elderly woman, which is quite unusual, since it was often men or children who were baptized first. 87

98

chapter three

converted to Christianity as many of the traditional practises were still intact, thus there was little incentive for indigenous people to convert.90 Why then did the Moravian missionaries at Lake Boga resign their post? There were a number of factors which may have led them to believe that the mission attempt was doomed. One was the negative attitude, detailed above, that many of the local settlers held towards the Moravian missionaries. Another was the persistent trespassing of men through the station on their way to the gold-fields. A third was the legal battle that ensued over a fence being constantly pulled down by people passing through to the gold-fields. Täger’s poor health also exacerbated the situation, as too did the lack of governmental provisions for the Aborigines. It was, however, the neighbouring settlers who perhaps contributed the most to Täger’s pessimistic outlook for the mission. The missionaries, as stated, had often indicated to the Moravian administration in Germany that the neighbouring settlers were less than supportive. On the 10th of November, 1855, Täger sent another letter to the UAC complaining that their neighbours had applied to the Government to use some of the mission station’s land. He and his fellow missionaries were in dispute with the surrounding settlers about access to the summer road that ran through the property. He complained bitterly about this issue to the UAC, yet these complaints fell on unsympathetic ears. The UAC were of opinion that, as the Government had made a gift of the land, the missionaries were in no position to hinder any governmental activity. Indeed, Täger’s desire to abandon the mission was foreshadowed in this correspondence, with the UAC commenting that “Br Täger does not seem to be the man for the job,” and he was seen as obstinate and unable to adhere to decisions.91 His complaints followed a number of events that resulted in the missionaries feeling that their claim on ‘their’ land had become less secure. Around the same time as the UAC commented negatively on Täger’s abilities, the Commissioner of Crown Lands ordered the missionaries to dismantle the fence that they had erected along the line where they believed the border of their land-holding to be. To make matters

90 Jean Woolmington, “Missionary Attitudes to the Baptism of Australian Aborigines before 1850,” The Journal of Religious History 13, no. 1-4 (1984-85): 283-293. 91 PUAC, 8 March 1856, #4, 247-250.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

99

worse, the fence, along with their garden—of which they were very proud—were both vandalized during a period of their absence. Suspicions were raised that it was the Swan Hill police who were involved in this malicious act, as they were the ones who later applied to have the mission station land given to them as a Swan Hill police station outpost. Tired of his inability to influence proceedings from the mission station, Täger travelled to Melbourne on the 26th of February, 1856, to see if he could personally sort out the legal battles over the fence. There had already been one court case, and the Government was reluctant to take the discussion to a higher court. Understandably Täger was upset and discouraged at the time-consuming legal battles. He was also impatient. According to published Moravian sources, Täger succumbed to food poisoning whilst waiting for the court battles to occur in Melbourne. The poisoning was so severe that on the 26th of April, Täger was at death’s door. He survived, but he gave up fighting and decided to abandon the mission station.92 An alternative history is disclosed in the minutes of the UAC, one that due to its irreverent nature was not publicized as openly. On the night of the 2nd of May, Täger twice drew his own personal Los, one that had been made for him by a friend the day before. One Los asked if it were the will of God for the mission at Lake Boga to continue, and another asked if it were the will of God that the missionaries stay in the country. Both times he drew the negative. This convinced him that it was God’s will for the mission to close.93 This was not, however, the will of the UAC. Through his insubordination, Täger was placed in disgrace. He had made use of the Los in a matter that affected the mission without the permission of the UAC. Furthermore, the “disbandment of a mission was a matter for the UAC, and not the matter for one whom they had employed.”94 Täger had further disgraced himself by not informing the UAC of his Los drawing until two letters after it had occurred, and also by not including his fellow missionaries in his actions. Instead, he took the opportunity whilst alone in Melbourne to do the deed.95

92 93 94 95

Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 85. PUAC, 11 November 1856, #8, 154. PUAC, 10 January 1857, #1, 33. PUAC, 11 November 1856, #8, 159.

100

chapter three The Moravian response to the failure

When the UAC ascertained that it was too late to stop the disbandment of the mission station at Lake Boga, the missionaries were instructed that they had to attend a meeting with the SFG upon their arrival in London. The aim of the meeting was to discern the real reasons behind the closure of the mission. It also acted as a preliminary disciplinary meeting, with the outcomes guiding the UAC towards possible measures to be taken against the missionaries. The meeting was attended by Brs Peter La Trobe, William Mallalieu, Thomas Badham and Charles Joseph La Trobe. They found the actions of the missionaries inexcusable, and concluded that there was no necessity to leave the Lake Boga site, and even less of a necessity to leave the Colony. Furthermore, the inquiry stated that the Colonial Government had “been well disposed to do as much as possible to support, and also to make an arrangement about the track that went through their land, which was the main reason for their [the missionaries] complaints.”96 Moreover, Täger’s privately drawn Los was seen as the height of insubordination and the focus of all blame. The willingness of the UAC to defer to the Colonial Government’s opinion of the matter by using one of their own as a scapegoat was indicative of the manner in which the UAC and the Missionsdepartement manipulated the words, deeds, and lives of the missionaries to satisfy their own aims. Just as the images of Aborigines were subtly changed to reflect the dominant paradigms of the Moravian Church, so too were the justifications of the missionaries themselves changed in order not to compromise the position of the Moravian Church in relation to the Colonial Government. This ensured that future missionary endeavours were not jeopardized. Although the minutes of the UAC mention other temporal matters that could have contributed to the demise of the mission, there was an underlying focus on the wrong-doing of Täger—a focus which was promoted through many of the Moravian publications of the day, including the Missionsblatt of 1857.97 The blame on Täger continued

96

PUAC, 8 January 1857, #13, 23. There was a lengthy discussion played out in the Protocoll des Missionsdepartement and the Protocoll der UAC, in which is was decided that the Lake Boga failure must be published in the Missionsblatt, for the “truth of this sad matter must be said. The Brothers cannot be spared this.” (PMD, 7 January 1857, #20, 7-9). The initial report, 97

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

101

even past the establishment of subsequent successful missions in Australia. In a German-language history of the mission work in Australia published in 1882 for example, H.G. Schneider described the demise of the mission and included many temporal reasons, for example that of the gold diggers traversing the property. His major focus when attributing blame, however, was on Täger. Schneider was very critical of the decision to abort the Australian mission field, for it was made without consultation of headquarters, and was seen as a breach of trust of the whole mission organization. Spieseke and Hansen were deemed to have had no choice in the matter other than to follow Täger’s decision, even though he was primus inter pares. According to Schneider, Hansen was not to blame for he had had only a comparatively short time of service. Spieseke was also not to blame, for: “when a small nick is found on his sword, as the following will show, this [nick] is honestly ground out in the many years of selfless service and true devotion,” a reference to Spieseke’s long-serving period at the subsequent Moravian mission in Victoria.98 For Täger, though, it was a completely different matter. Remembering that he was chosen to be put into the Los in Germany because he was described by a teacher at the seminary as having a “strong, energetic character,” it almost seemed as though Schneider was describing a totally different person when he stated that, [Täger was] a sick man. The editor of this publication has only seen him once in his life, but he will never forget the sight; since it establishes the key to the rash return. The skin colour of his hands and of his face, an indescribable bronze-yellow, was to such a high degree as a person suffering from a liver disease, as one would not easily find a second time; and the embarrassing, deplorable impression, that this sight conjured up, was even increased through the variegated colours of a posy of flowers, that the sick man coincidentally held in his hand—the whole spectacle was a snap-shot of his own life, a short flowering time in true service, then, however, a bitter, painful memory, of the hasty termination of it, which he, as he himself is aware of, could never be rid of.99 however, was decreed “too mild” by the PUAC, 29 January 1857, #3, 100, for if people, including La Trobe, were to read it, it should place the blame onto the missionaries. The report published in the Missionsblatt of March, 1857, expressed “deep pain” at the closure, and placed Täger as the instigator of the departure, but it also suggests that the missionaries’ actions should not be judged, rather it should be asked if the reader himself would be able to stand such a test, thereby shaping the experience to further the society’s aims. See: Missionsblatt, 1857, 3, 41-44. 98 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 88. 99 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 88-89.

102

chapter three

And indeed, Täger had spent most of the previous year uncomfortably ill with a vicious rash, which enveloped the side of his face and also affected his neck and shoulder.100 Täger’s health, however, was not taken into account in Schneider’s description, nor was the use of the Los. A later Moravian history, written by Adolf Schulze in 1932, also neglects to mention Täger’s use of the Los in his overview of the Lake Boga mission, yet frames its use as an historical curiosity when describing the initial decision to send missionaries to Australia.101 Thus, the Los was selectively mentioned in Moravian publications, but only when it was free of negative associations. A further omission from Schneider’s account was the inability for the missionaries to convert any Aborigines to Christianity, which marked the mission as a failure. The Eurocentric stance assumed that Aborigines wished to be converted and civilized. It could therefore neither be the fault of the Christian message nor an inherent fault of the Aborigines, for if it were either, it would render the mission to Aborigines futile.102 Thus, Täger became a scapegoat, although it was clear that the failure was not entirely his fault. By explicitly exonerating the Government through a petition to the Governor of Victoria, His Excellency Sir Henry Barkly—who was Hotham’s successor—and placing the blame elsewhere, the Moravian Church could continue their work in Australia without concern for their reputation. In the same year that the mission was abandoned, Chase edited a booklet entitled: The Moravian Mission at Lake Boga in the Colony of Victoria: A statement of the causes which led to its relinquishment… The purpose of the book was to raise the profile of the Moravians by “restor[ing] them to their proper place again, by showing that they deserve our sympathy.”103 The book focused on the dispute over the fence, and included many letters from all sides of the debate. It was scathing towards the Government, with the resounding message being 100

PUAC, 23 August 1855, not itemized, 153. Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das Zweite Missionsjahrhundert, vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932), 563. 102 Contemporary theories of evolution viewed the question of whether Aborigines could be converted with interest. It was thought that if they could not be that this would add fodder to the polygenic camp. As Christians, the Moravians believed in a common unity of man and a monogenic view of the world. See for example: Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science. 103 S.L. Chase, The Moravian Mission at Lake Boga in the Colony of Victoria: A Statement of the Causes Which Led to Its Relinquishment July 1, 1856 with Charts (Melbourne: Wilson, MacKinnon and Fairfax, 1856), 3. 101

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

103

that the Government had not been entirely fair in its handling of the land grant to the missionaries, and had changed its mind on several occasions. By 1860, Chase had changed his focus when appointing blame for the demise of the Lake Boga mission. He edited a booklet entitled Missionary Success among the Aborigines, which was published following the successful establishment in 1859 of the Moravian mission station, called Ebenezer, in the Wimmera district in the north-west of the colony. The booklet detailed a meeting, which was held with a purpose to “receive tidings from the Moravian missionaries on the Wimmera, and to express sympathy with their objects and efforts.”104 Held at St. Paul’s schoolroom on Swanston Street, in the middle of Melbourne, the meeting was chaired by the Governor of Victoria, His Excellency Sir Henry Barkly. Amongst the overcrowded room of interested public were many prominent clergy and laymen of the Anglican diocese. The Moravian missionaries themselves were not present at the meeting and, from the selected correspondence of theirs that was read out, seemed quite surprised at the level of attention that they were receiving. At the meeting, the Bishop of Melbourne gave an account of the failure of Lake Boga that had been formulated to place the blame on the depravity of the Aborigines, the European settlers, and the golddiggers. The failings of Täger were not emphasized, neither was the lack of support from the Government – a prudent move since the Governor of Victoria was chairing the meeting. The Bishop stated: The site first fixed upon had been Lake Boga, near the banks of the Murray, where for a time the missionaries had laboured amid many discouragements. Not only had they had to contend with the ordinary difficulties arising out of varied dialects, the wandering habits, and the natural depravity of the aboriginal population, but he feared he must say that some of the settlers in that district, at that time, had not been friendly towards the Mission or disposed to facilitate the efforts of the missionaries. Then again the Mission had been established directly in one of the main routes of the country, along and through which a stream of European population was constantly passing and repassing to one or other of the many diggings then a vigorous operation, which threw additional obstacles in the way of the missionaries. Under these circumstances the missionaries had been discouraged and the Mission abandoned. But as it was a principle of the Moravian Missionary Society

104 S.L. Chase, ed. Missionary Success among the Aborigines (Melbourne: W.M. Goodhugh & Co., 1860), 1.

104

chapter three at home never to abandon a Mission once commenced, unless further operations were impossible, the Central Board of Directors resolved that the Mission should be recommenced, which had accordingly been done.105

Täger’s insubordination was masked by the focus on the “depravity” of the Aborigines and the “additional obstacles” created by the presence of Europeans on the mission site. Since the focus of the meeting was to inform the public about the success of the Ebenezer mission station, it was not surprising that the failure of Lake Boga was attributed to Aboriginal depravity and the bad influences of European men with low morals, and not on a Moravian missionary. In light of the fact that the meeting was also a fund-raising opportunity, it was astute to place the blame on factors that could be controlled in order to entice the public to give generously. Twentieth-century analyses of the demise of the Lake Boga mission point to different factors. A slim late-twentieth-century governmental publication authored by D.B. Caldere and D.J. Goff suggest that it was the Governmental inability to supply regular rations that led to the demise, which is the same claim that they cite for the closure of many other mission stations and reserves in colonial Victoria.106 During the Moravians’ time at Lake Boga, the missionaries recorded that the Wemba Wemba people were still able to hunt, fish and gather, albeit in a limited manner. So although the claim of Caldere and Goff may have some validity, the closure was not just about rations. When reading the archival material, however, it becomes clear that disputes over the positioning of a fence and the area given to the missionaries were main causes for the disgruntlement of the missionaries, and perhaps the cause of the mission demise.107 Yet, if we believe Schneider, the blame should be put squarely at Täger’s feet. In actuality, there were a number of competing agendas at play which led to the demise of the mission. Although the mission was abandoned due to Täger’s drawing his own personal Los, it was a combination of lack of support from the Government, the hostility of surrounding farmers, and the ire over the fence which led him to take matters into his own hands, and to ask God directly.

105 106 107

Chase, Missionary Success among the Aborigines, 1. Caldere and Goff, Aboriginal Reserves and Missions in Victoria, 8. See for example: AAV, MF 165.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

105

The failure at Lake Boga had a very large impact on the next Moravian missionary endeavour at the Ebenezer mission station in north-west Victoria, with the UAC emotively reporting that the Lake Boga saga was a “fauler Fleck” (putrid stain) on the Church’s reputation in Australia, as we will read in the next chapter.108 The new venture at Ebenezer therefore needed to be successful in order to prove Lake Boga an exception in the history of the Moravian Church. Fittingly, the only object that the missionaries brought back with them, according to the records of the Protocoll des Missionsdepartement, was a piece of wood. It was deemed of little worth and suggested that the most suitable outcome for it was to be sold to a carpenter, with the proceeds going towards missionary activities.109 The piece of wood can be seen as symbolic of the experiences that the missionaries had at Lake Boga—of little worth other than for the narrative (or piece of wood) to be recreated (carved) into a form that would be more agreeable and suitable to the broader aims of the society. Alternative means and new beginnings In 1857, the synod decided that the mission to Australia should recommence, and by the decade’s end two missionaries, the experienced Spieseke and the novice, Bruder Friedrich August Hagenauer, had arrived in the Colony of Victoria to re-establish a Moravian mission. In this case it was in the north-west of Victoria, and was to be called Ebenezer.110 During the interim period between the failure of Lake Boga and this second attempt, correspondence continued between the Victorian Colonial Government and the Moravian Church, both in England and in Germany. Much of this related to obtaining monetary compensation for the improvements that the missionaries had made to the Lake Boga station.111 In October of 1856, the London Moravian Church through Peter La Trobe petitioned Barkly for the re-establishment of the mission in Australia.112 On the 23rd of June, 1857, Barkly remarked:

108

PUAC, 5 April 1862, #9, 27. PMD, 25 February 1857, #10, 18. 110 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 92. 111 See for example: ‘Verhandlungen und Memoranda über Aufhebung dieser Mission, 1856 und Anfang einer neuen Mission’, AAV, MF 165. 112 Petition to Barkly (Melbourne) from P. La Trobe (Secretary to the Church & Mission of the United Brethren, London), 17 October 1856, UA, R.15.V.no. 3.5. 109

106

chapter three I must after a careful perusal of all the papers on record in the Crown Land Office here, express my entire concurrence. I trust also, though you do not exactly say so, that you concur with me in exonerating both my Predecessors in the Administration of this Government and his official advisors, from all responsibility for a result so deeply to be regretted.113

With this declaimer Barkly’s Government invited the Moravians to reestablish a mission in the Colony of Victoria, and Barkly himself wished to be seen as a “true friend of the mission”.114 It was to be a number of months until a new mission venture could be realized. In the meantime, alternative means for the treatment of Aborigines in Australia were discussed and recorded in the minutes of the UAC. On the 17th of December, 1857, a letter from Peter La Trobe was tabled at a UAC meeting, which detailed a plan put forward by ‘Christian friends’ to the Colonial Government by which Aboriginal adults and children should be “vereinigt” (united) at “Sammelplätzen” (collection places) where they would be given “zweckmäßig” (suitable) things to do. The plan, although not specifically stated in the UAC minutes, was the 1856-7 Victoria Aborigines Petition, which was fashioned after the South Australian model.115 Through this scheme indigenous languages would be completely abolished, and it was further suggested that agents would be employed to assemble Aborigines on to these stations. La Trobe stated that the Bishop was not in agreement with the plan, however, he did not dismiss it outright. The UAC responded to this plan as follows: The UAC believe that we cannot join in on this plan, or offer a hand. Our free [emphasis in original] activity amongst the Aborigines is indeed the correct way. One cannot believe, that such a plan, to take the people off their land through this arrangement, can be suitable, it will probably also not be accompanied by success.116

The plan put forward by these ‘Christian friends’ did not deviate much from the failed Protectorate system, with the major differences being that Aborigines would be forcefully removed to the Sammelplätze and that missionaries were to oversee the reserves instead of Government

113 Barkly (Government Offices, Melbourne) to Peter La Trobe (London), 23 June 1857, AAV, MF 165. 114 Hagenauer (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 11 November 1860, AAV, MF 177. 115 1856-7 Victoria Aborigines Petition. Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed 24th June 1857, UA, R.15.V.No. 3.4. 116 PUAC, 17 December 1857, #8, 286-287.

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

107

officials. Furthermore, the plan included the deliberate intention to abolish indigenous languages: an act tantamount to cultural genocide. This aspect of the plan was presented as a natural and benign consequence of giving the Aborigines something ‘suitable’ to do. Such wanton destruction of cultural heritage was not compatible with Moravian ideals, for they believed that people had to want to freely settle on a mission station and have their hearts opened to the Lord, as indicated by the previous rejection of the offer to establish a mission on Rottnest Island (see Chapter Two). The active participation in the extinction of a language would also have served no purpose to the Moravians, for it would have been in direct contradiction of the Instructions, which stated that the best way to bring the word of God to ‘heathen’ people was through their own language. The disparity between the Moravian ideals of wanting the Aborigines to ‘freely’ come to their place—which actively discouraged them from taking up La Trobe’s Christian friends’ plan—and the realities of the later mission with their strict controls over the movements of Aborigines may seem fundamentally incompatible. Yet the outcomes of the later missions were a consequence of Victorian Colonial policy, which itself was driven by the needs and wants of the colonists, and not necessarily those of the Moravian Church, or of the indigenes, as later chapters will demonstrate. The next step In 1858, the Melbourne newspaper The Age predicted the imminent extinction of Aborigines in the colony, and suggested that nothing more could be done than to “smooth the pillow of a dying race.”117 In the face of this dire projection the Moravian Church began their second mission attempt in Australia in the very same year. Barkly had offered the Moravians the proceeds from the sale of the Lake Boga site for them to recommence a mission in Australia.118 The site itself, however, was seen by Barkly to be undesirable for a renewed attempt due to its unsuitable location and the dearth of Aborigines in the area. Moreover, the residual negative feelings of the neighbours towards the missionaries, as well as the proximity of the gold-fields, made it further undesirable. Instead, Barkly offered the Moravians the same amount of 117 118

Inglis, Australian Colonists, 195. PMD, 12 September 1857, not itemized, 87-89.

108

chapter three

land at a site north of Mount Zero, in the Colony’s north-west (see Figure 1 below Horsham), which was curiously noted as being “not far from the coast”, even though it lies some two hundred kilometers inland. Barkly considered it a good position, as it lay far from any large white populations, and around 300 Aborigines were said to live in the close vicinity, with a further 150 in the Loddon district, some 300 kilometers east. Both of the La Trobe brothers enthusiastically embraced Barkly’s suggestions, with the Missionsdepartement decreeing Spieseke an essential member of the new mission.119 By November of 1857, both the UAC and the Missionsdepartement agreed to re-establish the Australian mission. Spieseke had accepted the offer to return to Australia, and expressed his wish that the accompanying missionary be a carpenter.120 Although Täger loudly proclaimed his desire to be reinstated as a missionary, he was not re-sent due to his poor health and, more importantly, his poor conduct during the Lake Boga mission.121 Hansen was also not re-sent to Australia although he was considered for other missionary posts. In November of 1857, a second missionary was called to the position. He was neither a carpenter, as Spieseke had requested, nor an Englishman fluent in the languages and versed in the manners and laws of the Colony, as Peter La Trobe had suggested.122 Rather, Hagenauer was a son of a trader, former railway employee, and weaver.123 He had only become a member of the Moravian Church in his early twenties, subsequent to his moving to Ebersdorf after taking over a weaving factory. He soon partook in the Moravian community of Ebersdorf, and some five years after his arrival in Ebersdorf, in August of 1856, he was suggested for missionary service.124 His newly-found religious association became the defining aspect of his life.125 In December of 1857, Spieseke wrote to the UAC demanding to know which of the two missionaries was to be the lead missionary, citing his seniority in age as a factor in his favour. Early in the next year, he further requested detailed knowledge of who should control the 119

PMD, 12 September 1857, not itemized, 87-89. PMD, 4 November 1857, #4, 97. 121 PUAC, 19 February 1857, #3, 184. 122 PUAC, 28 October 1857, #7, 114-116. 123 UA, Herrnhut, Dienstlauf F.A. Hagenauer. 124 UA, Herrnhut, 19 August 1856, Zeugnis for Hagenauer, written by C.F. Bellartz, Ebersdort. 125 UA, Herrnhut, Dienstlauf F.A. Hagenauer. 120

„ein fauler fleck“: lake boga, a putrid stain

109

finances of the mission.126 The Missionsdepartement decided in his favour in both matters, and stated that in small, unimportant decisions his voice should be the deciding factor, however, in larger decisions the UAC were to be consulted.127 Peter La Trobe disagreed with this decision, as he did not trust that Spieseke would make sound decisions. However, his advice was dismissed, as the Missionsdepartement thought Spieseke to be of sound mind. La Trobe’s request for the Australian missionaries to be given more detailed instructions was also dismissed as the Missionsdepartement believed the Instructions to be detailed enough.128 The discussions over who had more authority amongst the Australian missionaries were not insubstantial, as they encapsulated the missionaries’ own interpersonal dynamics, and heralded the headstrong and idiosyncratic personalities that they would display in the field. As the following chapters demonstrate, disputes between these two missionaries would spill over on to the Australian soil, and become the source of many difficulties throughout the next phase of the Moravian mission to Australia. This chapter has traced the establishment and disbandment of the Moravians’ first Australian mission at Lake Boga in the context of the changing Colonial administration, land-hungry farmers, curious yet disengaged Aborigines, benevolent friends of the mission, and the missionaries’ own personal challenges. It has argued that despite specific local contributing factors, it was the general global history and self-perception of the Moravian Church that commentators focused upon when contemporary analyses of the failure were being made. This, in turn, led to one of the Moravian missionaries becoming a scapegoat for the failed mission attempt in Australia. As the blame was placed onto the shoulders of an individual, the collective organ of the Moravian Church could recommence the mission to Australia later in the decade without cause to suspect that they—as a group, not as individuals—would fail again. The situation created in the Colony of Victoria during the gold rush was unique within the 120 year history of the Moravian Church’s missions, and one not easily dealt with. Despite the failure, the Moravians returned to Australia to collect

126 127 128

PMD, 13 January 1858, #6, 2-4. PMD, 16 December 1857, #8, 110. PMD, 30 December 1857, #10, 120-121.

110

chapter three

Aborigines into their fold of converts, bringing with them their strong beliefs both in God and in their own abilities. With the taste of failure bitter in their minds, the missionary work at the second attempt within Australia was never going to be as naïvely undertaken as that of the Lake Boga mission. Despite Peter La Trobe’s understanding of specific factors unique to Australia, and his desire for these to be addressed in the second mission attempt to Australia, the UAC continued to replicate the general global history and selfperception of the Moravian Church in this second mission attempt. The long history of the missionary component of the Moravian Church was an underlying push in their willingness to return to the Australian mission field, yet it also hampered the ability of the Church’s administrative bodies to adapt to Australian conditions. The next chapter will demonstrate that at the next mission site of Ebenezer, consequences of the Lake Boga failure would manifest in a continued distrust of Government officials, and caution towards neighbouring settlers. There was, however, no recourse for the missionaries in Australia other than to trust in the will of God, and the authority of the UAC.

Figure 3. View of Ebenezer mission station, circa 1862.

Figure 4. View of Ramahyuck mission station, circa 1863.

CHAPTER FOUR

“I IS DONE: NO MORE”: THE FIRST CONVERTS The 1860s heralded a new beginning for the Moravians in Australia. This chapter will examine their renewed work in the Colony of Victoria. It will follow the establishment of the Ebenezer mission station in north-west Victoria, as well as the subsequent establishment of the Ramahyuck mission station in Gippsland, in the east of the colony. At these new mission stations, the hierarchy to which the missionaries ascribed remained intact. Thus, they continued to deem their religious and spiritual knowledge, usages of land, and family interactions superior to those of the Aboriginal people amongst whom they worked. Through their continuing personal engagement with Aboriginal people, however, some of the assumptions that they had arrived with were challenged. This chapter will examine how the missionaries expanded their sphere of influence within the colony in the wake of the failed Lake Boga attempt. The establishment of Ebenezer On the 14th of May, 1858, Friedrich Wilhelm Spieseke and Friedrich August Hagenauer set foot upon Melbourne soil after a 78-day ocean voyage on the Black Swan and seven days in quarantine.1 Amongst their possessions they each had a copy of the Instructions to guide them in their work, and a letter of introduction intended for Henry Barkly, the Governor of the Colony.2 The author of the letter was the Secretary of the Moravian Church in England, Peter La Trobe, whom the missionaries had met prior to sailing out from England. During their time in England, they also met Peter’s younger brother, Charles Joseph, who had been the first Governor of the Colony of Victoria and was known to Spieseke from his previous work in the colony.3 The letter of

1 2 3

Missionsblatt, 1858, 10, 194-197. PMD, 30 December 1857, #10b, 120. PUAC, 7 January 1858, #7, 16.

114

chapter four

introduction to Barkly was handed to him personally a few days after the missionaries’ arrival. Barkly was notionally supportive of the Moravians’ aims, yet dismissive of them personally. He stated that they: “were as helpless as children and would have stayed in Melbourne had the Bishop not have sent them away.”4 The missionaries, for their part, knew that they could not place as much trust in Barkly as they could in his predecessor and their friend, Charles Joseph La Trobe. This was deemed especially so since Barkly’s Chief Secretary was a Catholic.5 Although caution was exercised on both sides, the missionaries found more enthusiastic support for their work amongst other friends, including the Church of England’s S.L. Chase. In their first few weeks in the colony, they often visited him, as well as others thought to be of importance for their work. At the end of the 1850s, the effects of the Victorian gold rush, which had severely disrupted the functioning of the previous Moravian mission attempt at Lake Boga, were still apparent. The missionaries were approached to preach to the diggers on the gold-fields, who, it was suggested, would benefit from the Christian word. Unlike the Goßner missionaries at Moreton Bay (see Chapter Two) however, who changed their goal and preached to Europeans, the Moravians were steadfast in their commitment to work amongst the ‘heathen’ Aborigines, and declined this offer. A month after they arrived in Melbourne, the two men journeyed 140 kilometres north-west to Ballarat, the largest inland town in the colony (see Figure 1), which had been made populous and wealthy by the gold rush. There they met with a Crown Lands Commissioner, Mr Wright, who promised them all of his support in obtaining a mission station in the Wimmera. Barkly had suggested the Wimmera district, as there were still a number of Aborigines living there and the area was not as densely populated by Europeans as other areas of the colony.6 The missionaries travelled further west to Mount William, which lay in a mountain range named after the Grampian Mountains in Scotland, to Mr Archibald Macarthur Campbell’s station. Campbell, who had been the owner of the Gannawarra station near Lake Boga, was overjoyed to see Spieseke again. He had wanted the missionaries

4 5 6

PUAC, 3 September 1859, #5, 205. Missionsblatt, 1858, 10, 195. Barkly (Melbourne) to Peter La Trobe (London), 23 June 1857, AAV, MF 165.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

115

to go to the north of the colony to the Murray River, as there were still many Aboriginal people there. Yet despite their friend’s insistence, the missionaries stood by the Government’s decision to establish a mission in the Wimmera district, thereby retaining their good favour.7 After rejecting two potential sites near Mount Zero due to the proximity of gold-fields and uncooperative neighbours, Spieseke and Hagenauer ventured further inland. They rejected a third site near the township of Horsham (see Figure 1) as it was deemed too close to white settlement.8 Travelling even further inland, they were shown a fourth site on the Wimmera River, known as Bunyo budnutt by the traditional owners, the Wotjobaluk people. This significant ceremonial site, which was nestled in a bend of the Wimmera River, had been subsumed into the squatting run of Horatio Ellerman, a native of Belgium, who had lived in the Wimmera since 1839. The missionaries decided that it was the site to establish their mission. They saw Ellerman’s offer of land as an act of God. The nineteenth-century Moravian historian H.G. Schneider described it thus: [Ellerman] showed them different places that would be suitable for a settlement. The nicest—high-lying and not in danger of flooding, but yet plentifully supplied with water—was not quite on the land that had been suggested by the government, rather closer to Ellerman’s leased ground, the Wimmera river did, however, flow around it in a semi-circle; big and small trees, spruces and gum trees from 16-18 feet circumference covered the place, being an English square mile large, it offered room for a whole village, and in the hearts of the two there was only one thought: Here is the place, we want to stay here, God has led us to this place!9

For Hagenauer it was as if he could already see “die Straßen des Ortes, Kirche, Schule, Gottesacker, Gärten, Felder und die schwarze Gemeine” (the streets of the village, church, school, graveyard, gardens, fields, and the black congregation), demonstrating his desire to map onto the Australian landscape a model European village, and to entice the Aborigines away from their itinerant lifestyles by converting them into model Christians leading ‘civilized’ lives in European houses.10

7

Ebenezer Mission Diary, 18 June 1858, AAV, MF 171, 22. Ebenezer Mission Diary, 26 June 1858, AAV, MF 171, 26. 9 H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882), 95. 10 Missionsblatt, 1858, 12, 244. 8

116

chapter four

The Australian historian Bain Attwood has argued that the broader desire amongst missionaries to create mission villages reflected a Foucaultian notion of the “bourgeois strategy of social and cultural reform designed to reshape and control both themselves and various social groups defined as ‘other.’ ”11 Furthering Attwood’s argument, it must be noted that the Moravian’s desire to establish a Herrnhut-esque community also followed Christian notions of inclusion into the greater family of God, and not just the secular control over the ‘other.’ The missionaries themselves were concerned that the secular aspect of society would impact on the mission, as the site was situated between squatting runs. The Lake Boga experience had cautioned them to surround themselves only with supportive neighbours. Ellerman saw himself in this light. In December 1859, he wrote to Peter La Trobe stating that he “wished that [the Moravians] would like to begin in his neighbourhood, as he believed that the area was very well suited.”12 Ellerman himself had not always been the benevolent figure that his acts in later days suggested. Although there is no consensus as to Ellerman’s role in the murder of an Aboriginal woman at Bunyo budnutt in 1846, he had been more generally seen in the 1840s to be “notoriously hard on the Aborigines.”13 The death of the Aboriginal woman in 1846 reportedly affected his change of attitude towards Aboriginal people, a suggestion underpinned by the claims that he took the child, who clung to the dead woman’s neck, with him to raise him on his station.14 The child was converted to Christianity, at which time he was given the name William Wimmera; with the surname Wimmera, referring to the geographical area from whence the child came. His story was immortalized in 1853, and would have ramifications for the missionary work at Ebenezer, and will be discussed below. Ellerman had shifted his attitude towards Aborigines so substantially by the late 1850s that he had been recommended to the Moravians by Fanny Perry, the wife of the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne.15 Ellerman had put down his gun and picked up his bible, becoming a much needed ally for the Moravians. 11

Bain Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989), 8. PUAC, 3 March 1860, #6, 267. 13 Aldo Massola, Aboriginal Mission Stations in Victoria (Melbourne: The Hawthorn Press, 1970), 32. 14 Ian D. Clark, Scars in the Landscape (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 1995). 15 Missionsblatt, 1858, 10, 196. 12

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

117

The official wheels of the colony turned slowly, and it was five months before the missionaries’ application for land progressed through the bureaucratic channels. Even though this waiting period was “unerwünscht” (undesirable),16 the missionaries used it to make more contacts in the colony. Some of the people with whom they involved themselves were fellow Germans to whom the Moravian missionaries preached. These including members of the German-language parish of the Trinity Lutheran Church in Melbourne, who would in later days support the mission financially. There were, however, a number of other Germans from whom the Moravians kept their distance, including those who were drunk and rowdy on the streets of Melbourne.17 One group of Germans the missionaries kept a distance from were those associated with a “Schwärmer” (fanatic) by the name of Johann Friedrich Krummnow, whose commune in the western part of the colony was named ‘Herrnhut,’ despite bearing no formal connection to the Moravian Church.18 Hagenauer actively distanced himself and his Church from such ‘fanatics’ by travelling to these people to tell them that, as they were not Moravians, they had no right to the name ‘Moravian Society Herrnhut.’19 He also wrote to the Germanlanguage papers in Melbourne and “cautioned new German arrivals to have nothing to do with this man.”20 Hagenauer’s actions expressed his desire to keep the name of the Moravian Church in good repute, and by informing the Lutherans of the colony against imposters he maintained a good standing amongst potential supporters. The Moravian missionaries also actively sought support amongst members of the Melbourne missionary scene. In their early days in Melbourne they met many other missionaries, including a previous Goßner missionary from Moreton Bay, Pastor Hausmann, as well as a missionary to the Chinese, the Reverend Young, and also some members of the City and Jewish missions, who were not named in the reports. They were present at a missionary meeting on the 20th of July, 1858, which aimed to bring Christianity to the 50,000 Chinese of the colony,

16

Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 107. Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 108. 18 See for more information: W.J. Metcalf and E. Huf, Herrnhut (Carlton South: Melbourne University Press, 2002). 19 PUAC, 5 July 1859, #5, 17. 20 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to B.C. Hariman Esqu. (Crown Law Offices, Melbourne), 22 December 1880, National Library of Australia (NLA), Manuscript (MS) 3343, 798. 17

118

chapter four

the majority of whom had arrived during the gold rush.21 Within the British imperial world, the esteem in which the British held the Chinese had diminished greatly after the Opium war of 1839-42, with a negative and dismissive attitude towards the Chinese replacing earlier more positive attitudes. For the Moravian Church, which itself first sent missionaries to the West Himalayas in the 1850s to establish a mission on the Chinese border into Tibet, the Chinese were “an obstinate, selfrighteous, and hard-hearted people,”22 seen to be “selfish, closed, prone to falsehood and deceit, proud and obstinate,”23 with no person living under the “darkness of Buddhism”24 converting to Christianity until 1865. The heathen Aborigines were seen by Hagenauer as being even more depraved than the so-called obstinate Chinese of the colony. In an excerpt from the Missionsblatt of 1859, he stated: As already mentioned, the Chinese are mostly gold diggers. In contrast how poor and inferior are the people to which we are sent, these lost sheep, whose numbers are perhaps still 2,000 souls, spread throughout the whole province and wandering homeless amongst the whites! All the more, however, is our lamenting for these people and we discover that there are many other dear Christians here, who lament the same.25

Hagenauer’s negative statement in relation to the spiritual and temporal states of the Aborigines differs from an earlier, more positive statement published in the Missionsblatt in the previous year. During his initial visit to the Wimmera, he spent much time talking to one of Ellerman’s Chinese servants as well as the local Aboriginal people, and reported: “Der Eindruck, den diese Schwarzen auf mich machten, war ein hoffnungsvoller” (The impression that these Blacks made on me, was one full of hope).26 As Hagenauer’s own experience with Aborigines was limited, his opinion may have been influenced by others, such as his colleague Spieseke, or more generally by the dominant cultural paradigms which were manifest in the racist views of colonialism.

21

Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 107. The Little Missionary, 9 August 1871, 35. 23 Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das Zweite Missionsjahrhundert, vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932), 532-533. 24 E.R. Hassé, Women’s Work in the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church: Paper Read at the Free Church Council March 9th, 1879 (Ashton-under-Lyne: Griffin & Sheard, 1897), 6. 25 Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 108. 26 Missionsblatt, 1858, 12, 243-245. 22

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

119

His comments in the Missionsblatt, however, also indicated to the reader that success in bringing God into the hearts of the Aborigines would require patience. At the end of 1858, the Government granted the Moravians one square English mile for the mission station. Ellerman and other neighbours also relinquished land from their leases, increasing the area to three square English miles. Spieseke, in particular, was delighted by the support of local farmers, and stated: Since this land has freely been transferred to us, we won’t suffer from jealousy and envy, as the case was at Lake Boga. The neighbours are in fact very friendly, have invited us to visit them and want to take part in our Sunday church service.27

There was much hope for this new beginning, especially with Christian neighbours willing to participate in religious services on the mission. The missionaries called the new station ‘Eben=Ezer’ (stone of help),28 with the name marking another European intrusion into the indigenous landscape, and the missionaries themselves implicated in the broader colonial incursion into indigenous land.29 When the missionaries arrived at the end of 1858 there were twelve indigenous people residing on the land. Two men, Young Boney (also written Bony) and Old Charley, were particularly helpful in constructing a wooden hut for the missionaries to live in.30 Yet there is no mention in the reports to the Missionsblatt as to why these two men were so cooperative—reflecting yet another implicit paternalist attitude held by the Moravians. In Hagenauer’s description of the Aboriginal men’s work habits he mentions how the men were affected by the hot summer conditions:

27

Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 113. The name “Eben=Ezer” appears thrice in the King James Gospel: 1 Samuel iv:1, 1 Samuel v:1 and 1 Samuel vii:12, with 1 Sam vii:12 reading: “Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto hath the LORD helped us”. 29 Although the name “Eben=Ezer” had been raised by the missionaries in Australia in 1859, it was suggested that the locals thought that the name was not suitable, since it sounded like a common English, male Christian name. The alternative name of “Hephata” was put forward, to which the UAC agreed. See: PUAC, 3 September 1859, #6, 205. However, the name “Ebenezer” was accepted in 1860. See: PUAC, 3 March 1860, #6, 267. 30 Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, eds. Facts Relating to the Moravian Mission. First Paper (Melbourne: WM. Goodhugh & Co., 1860), 4. 28

120

chapter four [14 Jan, 1859] Today it was once again exceedingly hot to work in the sun. Because of this the Blacks occasionally sprang into the Wimmera River, which is meant to be 20 feet deep there, which suits them well, as they swim like fish.31

In a similar description from Spieseke’s diary printed also in the Missionsblatt, the Aborigines’ desire to cool off in the hot, dry conditions of a Wimmera summer was seen as an indication that they were intellectually inferior to the missionaries, and “must be handled like children.”32 A subsequent version of this event was reproduced in a history of the Moravian mission in Australia written by Schneider in 1882: one had to always cheer along the black helpers; they were not clumsy, but needed much patience, since they were like children and found it obvious, that they could suddenly leave the work, to smoke a pipe of tobacco or to dip into the twenty foot deep Wimmera [River], in which they swam around like fish.33

Schneider’s description conflated those of the two missionaries. In Hagenauer’s version, Aborigines sprang into the Wimmera River because the weather was oppressive, whereas Spieseke’s version suggests it was because the Aborigines were child-like. Spieseke’s version was privileged in Schneider’s version, indicating a simplistic notion of the mental and physical capabilities of the indigenous peoples amongst whom Moravian missionaries worked. The difference in the versions indicated that the prevailing stereotype of Aborigines was manipulated into a narrow one, which would continue to proliferate through Moravian publications of the ensuing decades. Moreover, the omission of Hagenauer’s more sympathetic description indicated that the experiences of the missionaries in the Australian field did little to change the simplistic view promoted by broader Moravian publications. As we have read in the previous chapters, within the broader Evangelical enterprise, education had often “been seen as a masked attempt at social control,”34 and within the missionary efforts it was seen as a way to mould the indigene after the colonisers and missionaries, as well as to take control over the children. For the Moravians too, the moulding of indigenous people was thought best undertaken through 31

Missionsblatt, 1859, 10, 211. Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 115. 33 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 98. 34 D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 69. 32

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

121

schooling, especially of the young.35 At Ebenezer, the Instructions were adhered to, with a school commencing before church services did. On the first day of classes, the 17th of January 1859, the school began with just one student: Young Boney. He and subsequent Aboriginal students were taught to respect the European institution through the compulsory “gründlich waschen und reinigen” (thorough washing and cleaning) before entering the school hut.36 In this act the ‘dirt’ which was associated with the Aboriginal way of life was symbolically washed away before entering a European institution, thus forcefully instilling ‘respect’ for European institutions in Aboriginal people. When it opened, the Ebenezer mission school was the only school between the township of Horsham and the border between the colonies of Victoria and South Australia, some 100 km to the west.37 The students were taught reading, writing, Bible history, counting and singing, with the level of education pitched at elementary schooling: more aimed at potential labourers than public servants. This in turn demonstrated the contemporary belief that Aboriginal people were to be trained to serve the white populace.38 The Moravians were not alone in the practice of providing limited education for ‘natives.’ It was common throughout the British colonial world to provide elementary education to indigenous peoples and the working classes, thus demonstrating the inherent belief that non-Europeans and the proletariat were not of the same academic ilk as the bourgeois and noble classes.39 Yet the schooling at Ebenezer was further advanced than that received by many other people of the area and time, and free, compulsory, secular education was introduced by the Colonial Government only in 1872. Another institution that was quickly established was the church service, which commenced six days after the school opened. Initially,

35 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern Welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio Dienen, Zweite durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837), §39, 56-8. 36 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 99. 37 L. Blake, “Education at Ebenezer,” The Educational Magazine 24 (1967): 37-48. 38 Amanda Barry, “ ‘Equal to Children of European Origin’: Educability and the Civilising Mission in Early Colonial Australia” History Australia 5, no. 2 (2008): 41.1-41.16. 39 Jamie S. Scott, “Penitential and Penitentiary: Native Canadians and Colonial Mission Education” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Missions, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005): 111-133.

122

chapter four

only the men attended. In scenes reminiscent of the Lake Boga mission, the women were, according the missionaries, too afraid to come “lest some harm should befall them.”40 For the missionaries, this posed a challenge as well as welcome distance between themselves and indigenous women, as they were reluctant to spend time with these women without female missionaries in attendance. Through the instigation of different institutions, including schools, boarding houses and public buildings, Attwood has argued that the missionaries “sought to make each [person] an integrated centre of consciousness” where “the individual was to replace the group as the crucial moral or ethical unit, a strong sense of sin and responsibility for their own salvation replacing notions of shame.”41 The pietistic tradition of the Moravian Church indeed focused on individual agency and responsibility. Yet the Moravian tradition, similar to that of Aboriginal communities, also had a strong focus on communial responsibility. In examining the Moravian missions in Africa, Timothy Keegan has argued that Moravian missionaries, with their focus on “discipline and dedication, obedient to the missionary mentors and rules and regulations they imposed insisted on adherents residing in tightly knit village communities, where discipline could be maintained.”42 For the Moravians, the Christian moral code was a uniting feature of the group in which people were publicly shamed by the missionaries, and refused communion if they strayed from the strict Christian moral codes.43 Thus, there were aspects of the Moravian religious understanding which were transposed on to their understandings of indigenes, and which indigenous peoples transposed on to their own understandings of the world, as detailed below. The obverse, however, was not possible in light of the blinkered approach to indigenous religious understanding that the Moravians carried with them. Within both the school and the church the dominant language was English. The broader colonial belief was that Aborigines were dying out44 For the missionaries it was deemed pointless for the indigenous

40

Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 5. Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines, 19. 42 Timothy Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, 1828-1928: Four Accounts of Moravian Mission Work on the Eastern Cape Frontier (Paarl: Paarl Print, 2004), xxiv. 43 Four members of the Ebenezer congregation for example, were temporarily excommunicated for alleged prostitution. See: PUAC, 4 July 1867, #4, 25. 44 PUAC, 9 January 1862, #11, 39. 41

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

123

languages to be propagated within the school environment for they believed that “the Papu”—a term they sometimes used to refer to Aborigines—“must by all means learn English,” for “he is surrounded by the English, [and] English is the language of the Colony,” as it was also the language of commerce in the colony.45 Despite the emphasis on English, indigenous languages continued to be used in the private conversations between Aborigines outside the commercial and colonial realms of their lives. Yet their usage decreased over the years as numbers of people from different linguist groups congregated on the missions, and were forced to use English as the lingua franca. In spite of this, the missionaries at Ebenezer, as at Lake Boga, attempted to learn the indigenous languages as the Instructions had taught them with examples of the Wotjobaluk language being sent back to Germany.46 The aim of collection, however, was not to preserve or understand indigenous culture, rather to use the indigenous languages as a means of more effectively conveying the word of God through the translations of Biblical texts and religious tracts.47 As the missionaries were ignorant and naïve in the ways of indigenous cultural practices, they often lacked understanding. For example, they were bewildered when approximately sixty Aborigines who had resided on the station abruptly left after at the end of March of 1859 following an evening ‘corroboree’—a generic term for an Aboriginal ritualised tribal ceremony in which clan members gathered, and at which dance and song form part of the proceedings. The missionaries continued to hold their regular morning and evening church services in the absence of the Aborigines.48 It had not been the first corroboree on the station since the missionaries had arrived on the land; however, it would be one of the last. Around eighty Aborigines returned to the mission in August, after which another corroboree was held in honour of Hagenauer, who was the only missionary present on the station at that time.49 He was appalled and tried in vain to stop it. Another corroboree was held in September, after which Hagenauer arrogantly informed the Aborigines that the “place belonged to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that ‘corroboree’

45 46 47 48 49

Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 143. PUAC, 3 March 1860, #6, 267. PUAC, 3 September 1859, #6, 205-206. Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 107-117. Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 6.

Figure 5. Lithograph of a Corroboeee, 1859.

124 chapter four

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

125

ought not to be made there.”50 Indigenous activities such as corroborees were deemed unsuitable as they were seen as not aligned to the Christian world-view. However, the ritualised Christian activities were similarly deemed as being unsuitable by some indigenous men. They responded to Hagenauer’s invitation to pray with him with the defiant: “Pray, tomorrow” and “No more prayer.”51 One of the missionaries’ responses to the Aboriginal resistance of Christianity was to embellish the descriptions of indigenous practices, such as corroborees, to demonstrate the inherent evilness of Aborigines. The Missionsblatt for example, published a lithograph of a corroboree (see Figure 5) which was, according to Hagenauer, “carried out in the forest, by moonlight, with shocking gestures in satanical excitement, and is really a festival of the enemy of the soul, in that all sorts of frightening acts are offered for the cause of darkness.”52 This excerpt is a poignant demonstration of the missionaries’ inability to see indigenous practices in any way other than through their own spiritual and cultural paradigms. Further corroborees persisted with no change in the way that the missionaries reported them. For example, according to the missionaries at one such corroboree the sight of Hagenauer caused many Aborigines to hide under their blankets, an image that conjures up a childish response to discipline and authority. Hagenauer chastised them for practising such habits on land that belonged to God. According to the missionaries’ reports the defiant response from Charley, who would take the name Phillip Pepper on his baptism, was: “ ‘I see nothing wrong in that, and white fellow does the same.’ However, the grand corroboree was stopped and some took the boughs from their legs with these words- ‘I is done: no more.’ ” 53 Although this is not the moment that the Moravian missionaries pointed to as the beginnings of the spiritual change amongst the Wotjobaluk people, it does mark a moment of change: a moment in which cultural practices were shifted and suppressed in light of the domineering notions of spirituality and civilization that the Moravians brought with them. The increasing control over Aborigines’ lives was in contrast to the statement made by Spieseke: “You know we never keep you, each one can do in this as he pleases.” Moreover, this quote is all the more striking when one notes that it appeared on the very same page of 50 51 52 53

Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 7. Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 9. Missionsblatt, 1859, 10, 213. Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 11.

126

chapter four

the publication from which the previous quote from Charley was taken, thus demonstrating the competing notions of active control over Aborigines on the one hand—in the form of stopping a corroboree—and a perceived sense of fairness towards them through virtue of the alleged choice given to them to come and go as they chose. It must, however, be kept in mind that the land upon which the missionaries purported to have control over, was land that the Wotjobaluk people themselves had come and gone for millennia, rendering Spieseke’s above offer an empty farce. The missionaries’ increased control over the movements of Aborigines was on par with the increasing governmental control over Aborigines from the 1860s onwards, which resulted in harsh legislative control over all aspects of indigenous people’s lives (see Chapter Six). Charley’s cultural dexterity was expressly stated through his ability to map European cultural practices on to Aboriginal ones (“white fellow does the same”), yet the missionaries were blinded to the nimbleness of Charley’s thinking, which is evident in the fact that they did not comment on his statement. This is not the only example of the cultural dexterity of the Wotjobaluk people which can be read throughout Moravian texts, albeit often in the subtext. As such texts were written to demonstrate the success of the Australian mission field and the superiority of the Christian worldview they reflected a Euro-centric worldview that did not engage with indigenous spirituality. For example, in Schneider’s 1882 account of the Australian mission, he commented on the fact that the missionaries had to work hard and to have much patience in the task of awakening the Aborigines to a concept of a spiritual world. Yet within Schneider’s account the following text appears: ‘Give me something to eat, give me clothes’ was the answer in the initial period, when one wanted to tell them something about the Evangelical message; nor should one wonder when Old Charley, after a long, serious discussion with Hagenauer on Epiphany, and after the latter mentioned prayed with him, pointed towards heaven, made a jump of joy and came out with the question, if up there there were also many sheep and oxen. For he could only think of the dear Lord first of all in the picture of a white, distinguished, and rich man, whose power and authority were evident through the good Australian [analogy of having] the possession of uncountable flocks, from which there would also be an occasion for there to be something in it for him.54

54 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 101; A similar account is given in Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 115-116.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

127

In this passage, Old Charley was portrayed as a man who could only reckon in simplistic terms, substituting an Australian farmer for God. However, the text does not give credit to the insightfulness of the situation through which Old Charley mapped a foreign concept onto his own worldview. Schneider depicts Old Charley’s comments as an indication of the opportunistic behaviour of the Aborigines, whereas it could also be read as not only a complex cultural mapping, but also of a proclamation of the rights of the indigenous peoples to the spoils of the land due to their traditional connection with it. The supplantation of indigenous belief systems with a singular Christian one was described as a struggle between the binary concepts of ‘lightness and darkness,’ ‘good and evil, ’ and ‘Christian and heathen.’ In describing a fight that had broken out in the camp for example, Hagenauer makes particular reference to “the power of the Prince of Darkness” and how “in his fury [this power] comes to battle.” He suggests that the fight between ‘light and darkness’ occurred when one man wished that all members of the tribe would go to another station, “but some others who are seeking the light, made opposition, and took at last their weapons against the old, because they will not go away.” The weapons that Hagenauer mentions became symbolic of the clash within cultures as well as the clash between cultures. The section of his letter ends with the comments: The shield and waddy of one who wants to know the Lord, and took part in the fight, now lies under my table, and during the writing of this little note, are my feet resting on it. It is very late at night now. We hear even Pepper praying in his hut with some young men, Bony and Corny.55

That his feet were ‘resting on’ Aboriginal weapons symbolises, within Hagenauer’s world-view, that indigenous people had relinquished cultural objects in deference to Western practices: his feet are literally ‘resting on’ top of the cultural objects, symbolising that Western Christianity had ‘conquered’ the heathen habits, with the relinquishing of weapons signifying the inner and outer peace that Christianity had brought to the heathen Aborigines. Needless to say, Aboriginal motives were not questioned within the Moravian hegemony. Spieseke also attempted to debunk what he saw as indigenous superstition by actively requesting a ‘sorcerer’ to place a death curse on him

55

Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 14.

128

chapter four

in the early days of the Ebenezer mission. Within traditional Aboriginal belief systems a ‘sorcerer’ was, according to nineteenth-century Australian anthropologist A.W. Howitt, more accurately described as a medicine-man “who in the native tribes profess[ed] to have supernatural powers.”56 The Wotjobaluk name for a medicine-man was Pangal (or Bangal). He had knowledge of herbal medicines, and knew how, for example, to treat broken arms or wounds. His skills were also used to hex a member of a rival tribe in response to a sudden death of a member of his own tribe, something that the missionaries regarded as superstition. Spieseke had a preconceived notion of indigenous sorcerers that conflicted with his ideas of Christian spirituality. To demonstrate the power of his beliefs over that of the Wotjobaluk people, in February of 1860, Spieseke requested that sorcery be incanted upon him, and promised a reward for whom ever did so. Eventually a man called Old Poly agreed to do so, and, with some Aboriginal witnesses present, gave Spieseke two small pieces of an unknown substance to hold in his hand, with which he was to stir a glass of ‘magic water,’ and then drink it. Spieseke reported that Old Poly believed that the ill effects of the magic would occur in three days: transposing the significance of the length of the Christian Holy Triduum into a colonial environment. Spieseke was not, however, affected by the sorcery. He wrote to the UAC in the following June asking if it did a missionary good to engage in such things. The brief response within the UAC minutes was: “The UAC is of opinion that, this surely cannot hurt, when it is done with the right courageous faith, without fear of possible poisoning or the like.”57 Christian faith was believed to overcome any superstitious practices of heathen cultures. Drawing on hindsight, Schneider’s 1882 account provided an even more simplistic reading of the event. He noted that Spieseke had proven that indigenous spiritual beliefs were nothing more than “fraudulent and imaginative.” He further suggested that the Aborigines shrank away from Spieseke’s request and offered all sorts of excuses as to why they were unable to satisfy his wishes, thus questioning the validity of Aboriginal claims to sorcery. According to Schneider, one man, who

56 A.W. Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1996; reprint, 1996), 355. 57 PUAC, 2 June 1860, #3, 253-254.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

129

remained nameless and thus without identity, finally indicated that he was willing to practise his craft, in the following way: With all sorts of gestures, he gave the missionary, whom he had convinced that no harmful ingredients had been mixed in, a glass of water in his hand and two cubes of sugar, which he [the missionary] had to dissolve in it. So Spieseke drank without hesitation, as the bystanders made their consternation known; as in three days’ time, so the sorcerer assured, his victim would be gravely sick. The time passed, however, without any sort of effect being shown, and the conjurer became the object of the young people’s mockery, until he finally confessed that he was a liar.58

Within both accounts, Spieseke’s undermining of the Aborigines’ own spirituality relied on the disparity between the sorcerer’s promised and actual outcomes. The responses of the younger members of the community acted as the catalysts for the sorcerer’s recanting of his previously held beliefs, thus shaming him in front of the younger generation. One can only imagine the indignity suffered by this man, who traditionally held respect within the community. In summarising acts of sorcery practised by Aborigines against the European invader, the historian Beverley Blaskett has argued that: “perhaps the failure of Aboriginal sorcery to affect whites gave further support to the myth that whites were supernatural and this may have further intimidated Aborigines.”59 Although Spieseke himself would not have claimed to have been a supernatural power, he used the inefficiency of Aboriginal sorcery on him to demonstrate the power of his alternative world-view, which simultaneously weakened the traditional lines of authority. Within the two Moravian descriptions of the event presented here there is a difference in the semantics as well as the subtext: the UAC description placed emphasis on the faith of the missionary, whereas in Schneider’s text the faith of the indigene was questioned. In both descriptions, however, there was an underlying assumption that the beliefs of the Aborigines were less valid than those of the Europeans, as reflected in broader contemporary discourse about race, culture and spirituality. Aboriginal claims to land were also seen as less valid than those of Europeans who ‘improved’ the land. As the missionaries used land for 58

Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 105. Beverley Blaskett, “The Level of Violence: Europeans and Aborigines in Port Phillip, 1835-1850,” in Through White Eyes, ed. Susan Janson and Stuart Macintyre (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990), 95. 59

130

chapter four

the benefit of Aborigines, their claims for land were seen as less valid by some farmers than those claims made by fellow farmers. As with the Lake Boga mission site, the Colonial Government dallied over giving the Moravian missionaries title over the land at Ebenezer. The supply of governmental provisions for Aborigines was also not certain, leaving the UAC to doubt that the missionaries would be able to attract suitable numbers of Aborigines to settle on the mission site. Such views suggest that not only was the land on which the Wotjobaluk people had hitherto lived becoming increasingly unavailable to them, but also that the UAC regarded the Government as a secular organization that did “not seem to have the slightest interest in the affair.”60 As the UAC relied on governmental support and land, they could not afford to protest too much, especially since other forms of funding, such as those from other Church groups, could not be relied upon.61 The failure of the Lake Boga mission saw the UAC enter the new mission attempt at Ebenezer very cautiously. They even considered setting a date to recall the missionaries if the mission was not able to obtain a certain prospect for a meaningful success. After only a couple of months at the new mission site, a spiritual awakening amongst the Aborigines was evident, leaving the missionaries free from the threat of recall. The missionaries were much encouraged by the interest that Pepper, a young Aboriginal man, showed in the religion that they had brought with them from far over the oceans, and believed that his heart was opening to God.62 As the progress at Ebenezer slowly gained momentum, the missionaries requested wives to help them, especially in the work with female Aborigines.63 Ellerman suggested to Peter La Trobe that wives were needed to help in the domestic sphere, allowing the male missionaries more time to concentrate on the work of proselytising. The UAC, however, was not willing to send out wives until the missionaries received formal notification from the Government that the land grant had been secured.64 They were also concerned about the

60

PUAC, 4 April 1860, #9, 8. The Presbyterian Church had offered a donation of £50 for the Ebenezer mission, but as they themselves were in the process of establishing a mission, this was a source of funding that could not be relied upon. See for example: PUAC, 3 March 1860, #6, 267. 62 PUAC, 10 May 1860, #7, 171. 63 According to the missionaries, Old Charley would have liked to bring his daughter to the mission so that she can be schooled by the missionaries. As they were single, however, they did not feel able to teach her. See for example: Missionsblatt, 1859, 6, 116. 64 PUAC, 4 March 1860, #6, 268. 61

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

131

expense of supporting married men, and had denied the missionaries at Lake Boga their requests for wives due to financial constraints.65 Ebenezer was deemed to be in a better financial and spiritual position than Lake Boga, and the advancing ages of the missionaries – Spieseke was 40 and Hagenauer was 31 years old – was another reason in the eyes of the UAC to give the missionaries’ request due consideration.66 Calling wives to the Australian mission field Over a century of experience demonstrated to the Moravian Church that missions were best placed to be successful if they were run by married couples. According to the nineteenth-century British Moravian Mrs. E.H. Hassé: not only is it not good for a man to be alone, but that this is especially so in the polluted moral atmosphere of heathendom, and further, that man’s work is best done when according to the Divine ordinance, it is with women as his helpmeet.67

The role of women within nineteenth century missionary organizations differed according to the society: some missionary societies did not allow missionary’s wives to be considered as missionaries; some did not allow female missionaries to be wives; some only allowed women to be called ‘lay-missionaries’; and some—such as the Basel Mission—saw women as Missionsbräute (wives of the mission) and helpmates and wives for males missionaries.68 Within the Moravian Church, a woman who married a missionary was seen as holding “equally with her husband an official position, and has a spiritual charge committed to her [original emphasis].”69 Furthermore, when the UAC wrote to Moravian Schwestern (Sisters, Schwn) in regard to a potential marriage with a missionary, the letter was formulated to offer them a posting as a missionary first, and only second as a wife. In 1863 for example, Bruder L.T. Reichel of the Missionsdepartement wrote to 65

See for example: PMD,1 June 1853, #8, 45; PMD, 15 June 1853, #11, 49. PMD, 8 February 1860, #17, 28. 67 Hassé, Women’s Work in the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church, 4. 68 Mary Taylor Huber and Nancy C. Lutkehaus, eds. Gendered Missions: Women and Men in Missionary Discourse and Practice (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999), 13; Dagmar Konrad, Missionsbräute. Pietistinnen des 19. Jahrhunderts in der Basler Mission (Münster: Waxmann, 2001). 69 Hassé, Women’s Work in the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church, 4. 66

132

chapter four

Sister Mary Hines that the UAC had “sent You a call to enter into the Missionary service of our Church in Australia as the partner of Br. Adolphus Hartman, who has received and accepted a call to the mission in Victoria.”70 Thus, Moravian women were seen primarily as missionaries in their own right. They were also wives, mothers, and role models and confidants for indigenous women on mission stations. At home in Europe, the Schwestern played an important part within the Moravian community often taking leading roles in the administration of the Church.71 It was from this pool of women in the Moravian community that wives were drawn ensuring, as Timothy Keegan has argued, that any “entanglements with colonial society” were avoided, for as Moravian missionaries’ wives were themselves indoctrinated in Moravian culture and practices, the missionaries did not have to search for wives within colonial settings, who, due to their own social standing in the colony, may have had the potential to change the social standing of a missionary, or, allow him to influence colonial politics.72 The decision as to which of the Moravian Schwestern should be called for the dual purpose of working with the Australian Aborigines and becoming wives of the missionaries was a matter not taken lightly. The Brüder in Australia were asked to provide the UAC with names of Schwestern that they would like as desirable life partners. In conjunction with these requests, the UAC itself selected a number of suitable candidates for the positions. The final decision, however, was left to the will of God, as decided through a Los. For each of the missionaries in Victoria, six women were considered. As the eldest missionary, Spieseke had his needs attended to first. He had not supplied the UAC with a list of names, rather relied on the wisdom of the Elders to find him a wife. His reason for not supplying any names was that he had spent most of his time away from Germany since being called to the Australian mission field in 1849. He did, however, provide the UAC with a list of desirable qualities for his future wife, these being: “an ability and the willingness to serve the Saviour; to be skilled in needlework; to be between the ages of 28-30; and to be in possession of some 70 L.T. Reichel (Berthelsdorf) to Mary Hines (Berthelsdorf), 26 September 1863, MAB, E. Hartmann collection (1979), Box 3 of 4. 71 Arthur J. Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1998), 276-277. It must, however, be noted that there were no women on the UAC or the Missionsdepartement during the nineteenth century. 72 Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, xxiii.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

133

education and culture in order for her to be able to engage in social intercourse with visiting Europeans.”73 The UAC saw Spieseke’s requests for specific age requirements as too restrictive considering his circumstances, with his other requests to be considered once Hagenauer had sent his list.74 At the UAC meeting of the 4th of October, 1860, the names of three Schwestern were put into a Los to decide whether or not they each should be called. The phrasing of all three instances of the Los was in a yes/no division. When the question was put to the Los whether Emma Hallbeck should be called to be the wife of Spieseke, a negative was drawn. This was the same outcome for the name of Christine Louise Knobloch. The third name, that of Elisabeth Strecker, was drawn positive. However, she declined the offer of marriage as she respected the wishes of her parents for her not to go to Australia.75 Five days after Strecker’s rejection had been recorded, another name was placed in the Los for a potential bride for Spieseke, that of Auguste Hollack from Herrnhut. The negative was also drawn. A further Schwester, Schw. Bicket, was considered by the UAC, yet her eyes were deemed too weak for her name to be put in the Los. Finally, the name of Christine Fricke from Gnaden was placed in the Los, to which the affirmative was drawn. She agreed to the offer of marriage to Spieseke.76 For Hagenauer, the process was equally as drawn-out. He had supplied the UAC with a list of three women, whom he deemed suitable partners for marriage. The first, Schw. Ernestine Meyer, was no longer a single woman. His second choice, Schw. Natalie Hamel, was not put into the Los, for she had not been recommended for missionary work, as she was not seen to be sufficiently collegial. His third choice, Schw. Mathilde Sondermann, was put into the Los, however, the negative was drawn.77 Similar outcome occurred for the names of Schw. Louise Henriette Warr, and Schw. Sophie Amalie Hopf, a teacher.78 With so many names circulating within the UAC, and so many rejected, the UAC returned to Louise Knobloch, who had previously been rejected in the Los for Spieseke. The UAC stated that since she was brought up on the land, she was perhaps not as well educated as 73 74 75 76 77 78

PUAC, 30 August 1860, #15, 240-241. PUAC, 25 September 1860, #12, 343. PUAC, 4 October 1860, #7, 14-5. PUAC, 16 October 1860, #7, 65. PUAC, 23 August 1860, #10, 93-95. PUAC, 25 August 1860, #9, 110-112.

134

chapter four

Hagenauer would have liked. However, since she had been in the Schwestern Choir since she was 14, she was seen to possess some ability to learn, as she had also managed to catch up on the education that she had missed. She was placed into the Los, with the question being whether she should be called as the wife of Hagenauer. The affirmative was drawn, and she accepted the offer of marriage.79 First-fruits: The baptism of Nathanael Pepper The manner in which the missionaries had wives chosen for them, namely the deferment of the ultimate decision into the hands of God, differed substantially from the process involved in the Christian marriages of Aboriginal people, as the case of the first Christian convert— and first-fruit—Nathanael Pepper, demonstrates. Pepper’s marriage to Rachel Warndekan, which shall be discussed below, was organised by the missionaries at Ebenezer in order to ensure the continued Christian way of life for their first convert. Pepper was one of the first Aboriginal youths to spend substantial time with the missionaries, and they saw him as the potential ‘first-fruit’ of the mission. As evangelical missionaries, the Moravians were impressed when Pepper indicated his desire to “speak to you about my state,” and his declaration that he had “wept about my sins,”80 for this demonstrated the deep personal introspection characteristic of the evangelical movement.81 His interest, according to the missionaries, had been solidified when Hagenauer read a story about the indigenous boy, William Wimmera (mentioned above), whose mother was killed on the Ebenezer mission site prior to the Moravians’ arrival, and whom Chase took in after the boy had been lost on the streets of Melbourne. Wimmera converted to Christianity, and later died whilst in England, professing to believe in Jesus whilst in England. The subsequent booklet detailing William Wimmera’s life was given to the missionaries whilst they were in England on their way to Australia. When Hagenauer read the story to four boys—Tallioh, Pepper, Mark, and Corny—their excitement rose, with Hagenauer reporting that: “The sensation among the boys I can not describe. They exclaimed ‘Jim Crow’s mother was killed here on your place.’ ”82 The

79 80 81 82

PUAC, 30 October 1860, #2, 124. Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 10. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 5. Committee of the Melbourne Association, Facts, 4.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

135

reading of the story about Jim Crow,83 otherwise known as Willie Wimmera, was seen by the missionaries as the ‘mysterious beginnings’ of the mission, and a step in the conversion process of Pepper. As Pepper showed the most interest in Christianity, the missionaries cultivated his spiritual curiosity. In February of 1860, they confidently heralded his progress in a letter sent to headquarters.84 Later that year, on the 12th of August—the closest Sunday to the anniversary of the establishment of Herrnhut—Pepper was baptised in front of 110 Aborigines and 40 Europeans, or as Hagenauer chose to remember the event: “[many] fashionable ladies and gentlemen from the surrounding stations, shepherds and labouring men, together with the poor aborigines”85 were present. Pepper himself symbolised his new Christian identity by choosing a Christian name for himself, as all subsequent converts also did. Pepper took on the name Nathanael, which itself has a venerable history within the Moravian Church.86 Yet it must be noted that ‘Pepper’ was a name which the Wotjobaluk youth had already received from the Europeans, and thus he was trading one European name steeped in symbolic meaning for another. Furthermore, within traditional Aboriginal societies names were fluid, whereas for the missionaries the choosing of the name Nathanael represented a desire for this man to remain in the converted state.87 Nathanael Pepper was the first of the Moravian converts in Australia and one of the first Aboriginal people in the Colony of Victoria to be baptised. The historian Jean Woolmington noted that before 1848 “only a handful of Aborigines, mostly infants, were baptized”—with the low figure mostly due to the reluctance of Europeans to baptise Aborigines.88

83 The name ‘Jim Crow’ itself conjours up associations with the racial caste system operating in the USA from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. 84 PUAC, 10 May 1860, #7, 171. 85 F.A. Hagenauer, Mission Work among the Aborigines of Victoria (Melbourne: Diocesan Book Society, 1880), 6. 86 Nathanael and the variation thereof, Nathaniel, are names of both bishops and native converts in the Moravian Church. See for example: J. Taylor Hamilton, The Moravian Manual Containing an Account of the Moravian Church, or Unitas Fratrum. Published by Authority of the Provincial Synod of the American Moravian Church, North (Bethlehem, P.A.: Times Publishing Co, 1901), 100; and, Allen Schattschneider, Through Five Hundred Years: A Popular History of the Moravian Church (Bethlehem and Winston-Salem: Comenius Press, 1956), 64. 87 On the fluidity of indigenous names see for example: Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia, 736-740. 88 Jean Woolmington, “Missionary Attitudes to the Baptism of Australian Aborigines before 1850,” The Journal of Religious History 13, no. 1-4 (1984-85), 283.

136

chapter four

This, she has argued, was due to the inability of Europeans to understand “what they were up against in trying to introduce Christianity” to Aborigines, as well as European unawareness of indigenous spirituality, which in turn led Europeans to believe that Aborigines were depraved and “that they rejected Christianity because they were so far removed from Grace.”89 Conversely, the historian Michael Christie places the agency with Aborigines, as he has argued that Aborigines did not convert to Christianity for they “found [missionaries’] fundamentalist version of the gospel unpalatable.”90 However, Old Charley’s willingness to morph the Christian God into a figure which resonated in his world-view belies Christie’s claim, as too do the mentions within Moravian writings of Aboriginal transpositions of Biblical stories onto local landscapes. An example of this was cited in the Missionsblatt of 1878, when two Aboriginal men transliterated the Biblical story of Moses’ hitting the rock with his staff to release water onto an Australian landmark (Numbers xx:11).91 The fusing of indigenous religious worldviews with Christian one was evident within the conversion of Nathanael Pepper as, according to the historian Robert Kenny, “there is no reason to assume that Pepper could not nor did not differentiate between the symbolic realm of the Wotjobaluk and the symbolic realm of the Moravians.”92 Other scholars have framed Pepper’s and other indigenous people’s conversions in terms of necessity due to the invasion of Europeans into the landscape, and their need to find some way to survive within the severely changed social and environmental landscape. Attwood, for example, has suggested that Aborigines were “prepared to fake interest in the missionaries and their spiritual message” in order to gain material benefits from the missionaries.93 The changes in indigenous lives that were affected by the invasion of Europeans into Aboriginal spaces cannot be underestimated, yet by suggesting that Pepper’s change in belief systems was only due to economic situations is to deny him, or any other indigenous person, agency over their own spirituality. Nathanael Pepper and other Aborigines, including Boney, 89 Jean Woolmington, “Missionary Attitudes to the Baptism of Australian Aborigines before 1850,” 292. 90 M.R. Christie, Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1835-1886 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1979), 171. 91 Missionsblatt, 1878, 7, 148-149. 92 Robert Kenny, “The Conversion of Nathanael Pepper: Human Unity and the Lamb of God” (PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, 2003), 205. 93 Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines, 6.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

137

actively catechised members of their language group. Pepper was also found to do this in the absence of the missionaries. Although it could be argued that Pepper’s preaching to his fellow men was fabricated or embellished by the missionaries to promote their good work amongst the heathen Aborigines to interest groups in the colony and at home, it could also be seen as an indication that the spiritual message that the Moravians brought with them appealed to Pepper, especially in the light of the European destruction of Aboriginal society that itself was so embedded in spirituality.94 Thus, the conversion—or not—of indigenous people to European Christianity has been read in many ways. It has alternatively been read as the European inability to see indigenous spirituality; indigenous disdain for the Christian God; indigenous acceptance of seemingly similar spiritual world-views; and economic necessity.95 For the Moravians, Nathanael’s conversion was important for, it indicated that God was almighty, and that they, as Moravians, were part of a global project bringing Christianity to heathen people. Success begets success With the conversion of Pepper in 1860, the Moravians received much attention within Victoria, as they had succeeded where many other missionary societies before them had failed. Their success led the Government to request in the same year for the Moravians to contemplate a proposal to establish a mission station to the Aborigines of Gippsland in the colony’s east, which would be realised through the funding of the Presbyterian Church. A further committee of great financial importance to the Moravians was the ‘Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the 94 For an extension on this argument see for example: Richard Broome, Aboriginal Victorians: A History since 1800 (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 139. 95 The rationale behind indigenous conversion to Christianity is a topic that has received much international attention from scholars from a number of different disciplinary backgrounds, including theology, anthropology, history and cultural studies. See for example: John Comaroff and Jean Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume Two: The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Robert Hefner, ed. Conversion to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Kenneth Mils and Anthony Grafton, eds., Conversion. Old Worlds and New (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2003); and, John C. Hawley, ed. Historicizing Christian Encounters with the Other (Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1998).

138

chapter four

Aborigines of Australia.’ Initially known as the ‘Melbourne Association,’ this Committee was established in 1860, and changed its name to be more inclusive in 1862, thence to be known as the ‘Victorian Association.’ It comprised members from various denominations, including the Lutherans, and received donations from many different organizations both religious and secular. As the Ebenezer mission was seen to be “exceedingly burdensome to the Moravian Mission Board in Europe” the Committee was formed “for the purpose of collecting sufficient funds to enable the Mission to proceed without drawing on Europe.”96 The Victorian Association was to become an important catalyst and partner in the establishment of further Moravian missions within Australia, as it provided the funds for the missions, which the Moravians would staff. This was in line with the global Moravian Church’s historical precedent to obey “the great command” as “the handmaid of the other larger Churches, or of Christians at large in their efforts for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom.”97 It also reflected the growing ecumenical tendency in the modern missionary movement, which was evident in the numerous international and domestic networks, as well as through missionary publications.98 Furthermore, international ecumenical relationships were strengthened from 1846 with the establishment of the Evangelical Alliance formed in England.99 This Alliance saw its zenith at the 1847 Conference in Berlin, at which 974 Germans,—including Moravians—165 English Protestants, and 113 other delegates from around the world attended with the aim of creating closer ties between Protestant Churches, especially those between Germany and England.100 Within Australia, there had been a close collaboration between evangelical Protestantism since the beginning of white settlement, with the collaboration between other protestant churches and the Moravians part of this trend.101 96 Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia, ed. Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Second Paper (Melbourne: WM. Goodhugh & Co., 1861). Back page. 97 John Libbey, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869), 7. 98 See for example: Andrew Porter, Religion versus empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 116-135; and, Rebekka Habermas, “Mission im 19. Jahrhundert- Globale Netze des Religiösen” Historische Zeitschrift 287 (2008): 629-679. 99 Nicholas M. Railton, No North Sea. The Anglo-German Evangelical Network in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000). 100 Railton, No North Sea, 169-193. 101 Stuart Piggin, Spirit of a Nation: The Story of Australia’s Christian Heritage (Sydney: Strand Publishing, 2004), 4.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

139

An example of this was the major financial support that the Presbyterian Church provided for the Moravian mission, especially for the Ramahyuck mission station in Gippsland (established in 1862, and examined in detail in the following chapters, see Figure 1) and the Moravian missions in Queensland from the 1880s (see Chapter Six). Furthermore, the Victorian Association, which itself was comprised of many members belonging to the Church of England, provided financial support of the Moravian mission into the ‘Interior’ of Australia from 1866 to 1868 (see Chapter Five, and Figure 1)—with the ‘Interior’ being the arid area of land in the middle of the continent far away from European settlements. Nathanael Pepper’s successful conversion led the missionaries to desire to find him a wife in order for him to live a good Christian life, and provide a good example unto others. In later years the missionaries, dismissive of Aboriginal customs, would bemoan the unwillingness of Aborigines to marry in a Christian fashion, as they believed the absence of Christian marriages contributed significantly to the ‘demise’ of the Aboriginal race.102 In the case of Nathanael, however, it seems that he was amenable to their plans for his marriage. Unlike their own marriages, where brides were chosen through the drawing of the Los, Nathanael’s Aboriginal wife was chosen for him by the missionaries, reflecting the innate power structures embedded in the mission station—that of the missionary controlling the destine of the indigene. As there was not one suitably baptized Aboriginal woman in all of Victoria, an orphaned woman, Rachel Warndekan, was sent over for him from Western Australia. She was raised by Mr and Mrs Camfield at their ‘Institution for Native and Half-Caste Children’ at King George Sound, near the present-day town of Albany in the south of Western Australia, and was deemed pious and Christian in nature: ideal for the civilising project. Nathanael and Rachel were married in 1863, with the importance of their marriage, according to the Melbourne Association: not to be measured by the amount of happiness it may confer on the young convert and his wife; but as they are living happily together, and setting a good example to the Blacks, it may well be anticipated that the words of Holy Scripture will be forcibly illustrated in the eyes of the heathen.103

102

Spieseke (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 26 January 1869, AAV, MF 179. Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia. Read in Connection with the Report of the Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Held August 17, 1863, ed. 103

140

chapter four

Nathanael and Rachel were married to provide a good role model for their own people—except Rachel was not of Nathanael’s people, and her own tribal associations were severed when she was a child, her identity to be replaced with that of ‘Christian Aborigine.’ After working on the mission for a number of years, she died in 1869. Her legacy lived on through the fact that the perceived success of her translocation from Western Australia to Victoria resulted in further indigenous women being sent from Western Australia to marry indigenous men at the Ramahyuck mission station in Gippsland.104 One of these men, Jimy (also written Jimmy), who took the name James Mathew as the first convert at Ramahyuck on 18 March, 1866, seemed, according to Hagenauer, “already greatly in love” with the woman whom Mrs Camfield would send to him, even though at that stage it was not certain as to “who’s is Jimmys” [sic] wife of the two women sent over. Jimmy was anxious to separate his imminent Christian conversation from his desire to gain a wife, for according to Hagenauer “he declares, however, that he always stopped here [at the mission] for Jesus sake and not for the sake of getting a wife.”105 Although Hagenauer “willingly believed” Jimmy’s claims, the association between Christianization and obtaining material goods or wives was one made by indigenous men themselves, demonstrating an ingenious dexterity in dealing with the new social system evolving around them. Following Nathanael Pepper’s conversion at Ebenezer in 1861, the mission continued to enjoy success with more people moving on to the mission station and some Aboriginal people showing interest in the Christian message. Both missionaries and the Colonial Government saw in the success the work of God, and the triumph of Christian principles over the heathen. The pragmatic reality was that the growing number of indigenous peoples on the station was in part caused by their dislocation from their traditional land, and their need for alternative means of obtaining sustenance in the wake of the European invasion. The missionaries actively sought out Aboriginal people to live on Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Fourth Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1863), 4. 104 For example Annie and Caroline were sent to the Ramahyuck Mission Station in 1866 to marry Jessy, the first convert of that station, and Charley respectively. Sadly, Caroline died in Melbourne before reaching Ramahyuck. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Chase (Melbourne), 19 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 56. 105 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Chase (Melbourne), 23 February 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 24-25.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

141

the mission site, as the missionaries saw it as their duty to convert these “wretched savages … into civilized Christians.”106 For those Aborigines who chose to live on the missions there were costs involved. These included the increasingly strict regulation of Aboriginal lives, which was especially felt after the passing of ‘An Act to Provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria,’ by the Victorian Government in 1869, which shall be explored in more depth in Chapter Six. The missionaries also tried to shape Aborigines into model ‘Christian citizens’ through paternalistic control. They believed that the ‘heathen’ needed to be saved from traditional lives and kept away from debauched European customs and people, and should instead have been moulded into replicas of the morally upstanding missionaries. With these increasing numbers of indigenous people moving to the mission, the Moravian Church saw the need to supply another male missionary to Ebenezer. In 1860, Brother Job Francis, a 22-year old Moravian from Bedford in England, was drawn from a Los and accepted his call.107 Francis was in no hurry to begin his work in Australia. He requested and received permission from the UAC to reside in Fulneck, a Moravian town in England, to continue his studies for a further six months.108 His appointment belatedly satisfied both the suggestion made by Peter La Trobe in 1857 to send out an English-speaking missionary to the Australian field, and Spieseke’s desire for a carpenter.109 In the period before Francis finally arrived at the end of 1861, the numbers of mission personnel had grown as the two missionary brides had arrived in Australia and had both been married to their respective husbands by Chase in St Paul’s Church, Melbourne; Spieseke to Fricke on the 29th of May, and Hagenauer to Knobloch on the 15th of June.110 During their absence from Ebenezer, Nathanael was entrusted with the running of the mission and leading the Church services, demonstrating the respect that he had gained in the eyes of the missionaries, as well as his willingness to proselytise amongst his own people.111 As we have read, his conversion had enthused other missionary societies to establish missions to the Aborigines, with the General Assembly of 106 107 108 109 110 111

“Native Australians”, Little Missionary, 1871, Number 9, August, 35. PUAC, 4 October 1860, #6, 13. PUAC, 14 March 1861, #4, 239. PUAC, 28 October 1857, #7, 114-116. PUAC, 8 October 1861, #20, 130. PUAC, 22 October 1861, #7, 80.

142

chapter four

the Presbyterian Church reiterating its desire to establish a mission to the Aborigines of Gippsland with Moravian personnel. Spieseke took the Presbyterian’s offer seriously and reported to the UAC that it was important for Francis to be sent out as soon as possible, lest the Presbyterians withdraw their support.112 Gippsland, or Terra Incognita, as it was originally called by Europeans, had felt an increased European presence in the early 1840s as they trespassed through the land of the Gunai (or Kurnai) nation, which comprised of five clans, in order to rescue a ‘lost white woman,’ who was supposed to be a captive of the Gunai nation.113 As the parties ventured further east from Melbourne, they traversed fertile land that was soon taken up by farmers. As more Europeans settled in Gunai country, the Government saw the need to encourage missionaries to work amongst heathen Aborigines, with the Presbyterians joining the Church of England in taking up the call to mission to the Aborigines. Yet, the Presbyterians did not have any suitable personnel themselves and requested the Moravian Church to provide missionaries for the proposed station. The UAC did not receive clear details of the Presbyterians’ support for the mission, and assumed that the letter detailing the “definite proposal” had been lost in transit from the colony to Germany.114 The Missionsdepartement reported that the Presbyterian Church was willing to fund the venture, and as such the “whole thing would be seen as [just] an attempt [and not a new mission venture], and for this reason from our side it would not yet be offered as a question for the Los.”115 The scheme was not, however, without detractors. T.L. Badham of the English Moravian Church was, for example, pleased with the idea, yet sceptical of working together with the Presbyterians stating: I am glad that you have seen your way so clearly to the acceptance of the offer of the Presbyterian Synod in Victoria. … I must confess I have my doubts of the success of the scheme. Still the experiment is worth trying. …. In reference to this subject it has struck me, that it would have been well, if some information had been given in reference to the relations of Christian parties in the colony one to another, and the view taken of the proposal in question by kind friends of the existing Mission, such as Mr. Ellerman, Mr. Chase … and others. Of course it would never 112

PUAC, 13 June 1861, #5, 287-288. Julie Carr, The Captive White Woman of Gipps Land: In Pursuit of the Legend (Carlton South: Melbourne University Press, 2001). 114 PUAC, 13 July 1861, #7, 52-53. 115 PMD, 26 September 1860, #17, 152-153. 113

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

143

do to sacrifice an opportunity for usefulness, out of deference to narrowminded prejudices (if such exist.) Yet on the other hand, it would be well to consider the possibility of diminishing the support accorded to our existing undertaking for the sake of another which is still doubtful.116

Thus, the decision to establish this mission station was therefore necessarily hesitant, for despite the Moravian’s concept of being the “handmaid of the other larger Churches,”117 the concept of working so closely with other denominations, and for the missionaries to be beholden another church was novel and not much was known about the interreligious situation between local potential funding bodies. Furthermore, on a global scale the historical precedents of the Church did not allow the abandonment of a mission once God had decreed its establishment through virtue of the Los. The decision not to draw the Los was also a tactically cunning act that circumvented the possibility of a ‘no’ being drawn, and assured the funding of the Presbyterians. It was thought that only one married couple would be required for this new missionary attempt, with the Missionsdepartement putting forward the Hagenauers as candidates. The Missionsdepartement also speculated that if the Presbyterian Church was unable to fund the venture, then the missionaries would be recalled with no great financial outlay or loss of reputation to the Moravian Church. Hagenauer was keen to establish a new mission, and after his wedding he travelled to Gippsland to search for a suitable site for a new mission station. In his description back to the UAC, however, he disappointed them by not providing much detail of his trip to Gippsland. The UAC was also disappointed with Hagenauer for he had provided both the Colonial Government with the “necessary reports” and the Presbyterian Church with recommendations before supplying either to the UAC, “the organization, which sent him out.” In the eyes of the UAC, he had not gone about it in the “correct manner.”118 Hagenauer’s actions and the UAC’s response to them demonstrate the difficulties that the missionaries faced in reporting to an organization half-way across the world, as it took three months for a letter to arrive in Europe from the colonies. If Hagenauer had waited for the UAC’s response in this case, it would have been at least six months from request to response, which 116

Badham (London) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 10 October 1860, UA, R.15.V.I.b.6.a (1860). 117 Libbey, The Missionary Character of Moravians, 7. 118 PUAC, 12 November 1861, #7, 155.

144

chapter four

may have been beyond the window of opportunity that the Presbyterian Church had first offered in May of 1860. The establishment of a second mission station in Victoria continued to be discussed by the UAC during 1862, with Hagenauer continually being touted as the missionary for the job. After his exploratory tour of Gippsland late in 1861 he reported back to headquarters three reasons for and three reasons against the establishment of a second mission. The reasons for the establishment of a new mission were: the willingness of the Aborigines; the good quality of the land; and that the Government was willing to support supplies for the Aborigines. The poor health of the Aborigines, the increasing number of European settlers, and the possibility that gold could be discovered in the area, were all reasons, according to Hagenauer, against the establishment of a new mission.119 Hagenauer was not alone in his concerns, as Reichel of the UAC also questioned the validity of establishing a second mission station “among a people who were dying out, and which they would have to perhaps close in a few years time.”120 The Missionsdepartement’s response to this was that a few souls could still be won before the inevitable occurred, reflecting Spieseke’s optimism that “God can do anything, He can make a [believer] out of a little devil.”121 The Missionsdepartement further believed that as the risk for the Moravian Church was not so great as for the Presbyterian Church, who were to provide all costs for a second mission station, and so “man sich freuen müsse in diesen Werk mit der Presbyterianischen Kirche Hand in Hand zu gehen” (one should be happy to go hand-in-hand in this work with the Presbyterian Church).122 Such a response indicates the abiding primary concern of the Moravian Church was for the saving of souls rather than minimizing the disruption, or maximising the wellbeing, of their own missionaries. This point of privileging the larger concept of mission over that of the individual missionaries can further be seen in the matter of Job Francis, the 22-year old unmarried missionary, who arrived at Ebenezer on the 2nd of November, 1861, to help with the school and mission at Ebenezer.123 Francis complained bitterly about the

119 120 121 122 123

PUAC, 9 January 1862, #11, 37. PMD, 8 January 1862, #12, 7. Spieseke (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 26 January 1869, AAV, MF 179. PUAC, 9 January 1862, #11, 39. PUAC, 25 January 1862, #14, 94.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

145

“adulterous eyes” of the indigenous women in the camps, adding that he could not work with them. Given that most of them “had connections with white men,” he said they were “repulsive to my nature.”124 If only he were sent a wife, he continued, he would be able to break through this ‘hindrance.’ He thoughtfully gave to the UAC the name of a woman whom he thought would be well placed to be his wife, Eliza Swanson from Bedford, England.125 Francis’s description of indigenous women, and his subsequent request for a wife of his own, reflected the binary positioning of women in his world-view, as either that of bastions of moral virtues in the form of wives or, in Francis’s descriptions of indigenous women, as women of loose morals. As missionaries were only allowed to marry Schwestern known to the Church, there was no chance of an indigenous woman being a wife of a missionary, and they therefore occupied the role of immoral whores. His confessed inability to work amongst them as a single man speaks of his awareness of his own sexuality, and the threat that he believed indigenous women posed towards it. Yet it also reflects the views voiced in the Instructions (§41, 1784): “If a Brother have [sic] to speak with one of them [single female ‘heathen’] alone, it should always be in presence of his wife, otherwise harm might easily ensue”—what this harm might be was not explicitly stated.126 Francis was wary and asked for a wife. The UAC refused him his request as they believed that one married pair on the station was enough, that Schw. Spieseke could work amongst the women, and besides, that Francis was too young for marriage.127 Francis did not agree with the UAC’s views and “engaged himself to a young lady in that District [around Ebenezer] and in consequence of it had to leave the mission.”128 He left Ebenezer, and Moravian mission work, as a “matter that affected his own welfare,” as the Melbourne Association described it, had not been resolved in his favour.129 This ‘matter’ is not expanded upon in any of the official Moravian printed materials, but was influenced both by Francis’s

124

Francis (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 10 December 1861, AAV, MF 177. PUAC, 24 July 1862, #15, 52. 126 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum, Who Minister in the Gospel among the Heathen (London: Brethren’s Society, for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, 1784), 35. 127 Spangenberg, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum, 35. 128 Reichel (Herrnhut) to Hagenauer (Ramahyuck), 13 February 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 27-28. 129 Further Facts (Fourth Paper), 3. 125

146

chapter four

desire to be married and his dislike of, and inability to work with, Spieseke. The whole incident exemplified the fact that the UAC were more concerned with the well being of the mission as a whole than with the individual missionaries who worked for it. Francis did, however, remain as a missionary to the Aborigines, and was subsequently employed in Victoria by The Church of England Missionary Committee in 1864. He was appointed first to the Framlingham mission in the Western District of Victoria, then to the Lake Condah mission station in 1867, however, he left the service of the Church of England in 1869.130 His appointment by another missionary society within the Colony of Victoria reveals the fluidity of movement of the missionaries between stations, which, in turn, demonstrates the lack of suitable candidates to undertake these positions. A similar turn of events would face a later Moravian missionary, Bruder Johann Heinrich Stähle, who, like Francis, left Ebenezer and subsequently the Moravian Church (see Chapter Six). Francis was never reinstated by the Moravian Church, nor was the woman whom he chose for his wife ever recognized as a Church member, despite Francis’ frequent pleas for the UAC to accept his wife into the Church.131 Francis also left Ebenezer because he was unable to work with Spieseke. He complained that there was no “freundschaftliches Verhältniß” (friendly relationship) between Spieseke and Hagenauer, and this had been the case since the two men had landed in Australia, as epitomised in Spieseke’s control over when Hagenauer could have a coffee break.132 According to Francis, Spieseke took over all official correspondence of the mission without asking for input from the others, and was tight-fisted with the missionaries’ rations. Spieseke had 130 Keith Cole, The Lake Condah Aboriginal Mission (Bendigo: Keith Cole Publications, 1984), 16. 131 PUAC, 14 September 1867, #17, 245. 132 Coffee formed a major issue in many of the correspondences between the missionaries and the UAC, for Spieseke was controlling of when and where Hagenauer and Francis could have coffee, demanding them to state from where they had received the rations for their coffee. The UAC stated that stinginess was not correct, but thrift was good and reported this to Spieseke. In further correspondences they stated that it was deemed acceptable “for the missionaries to have coffee and sugar as they wished, when they wished, like they do in Labrador”, with the reference to a long standing mission station, being an indication to the missionaries at Ebenezer that they were part of a larger organization, and placing the petty disputes into context. See: PUAC, 25 January 1862, #14, 99-95; PUAC, 5 April 1862, #9, 24; Francis (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 10 December 1861, AAV, MF 177.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

147

asked for clear instructions from the UAC on these two points before being sent to Australia (see Chapter Three). Once the UAC was aware of the seriousness of the matter, they requested Hagenauer to take detailed notes of the relationship and to report back to Germany. Hagenauer had been reluctant to write to the UAC in November of 1861, as he noted that Spieseke did not like him doing so. He changed his mind in January of 1862, after he was scalded by the UAC for not reporting to them about his trip to Gippsland, which, he reported back to the UAC, “tat ihm wehe” (hurt his feelings). In this letter he defended his position as a hard-working and diligent missionary, underscoring this point by suggesting that he had compromised his health for the missionary work: I have done what I could to clear our very black name from Lake Boga, as it happened to me recently that I was asked if the little missionary still, as was the case on the Murray [River, near Lake Boga], went to bed with the black Lubras [female Aborigines] and so forth, and if many half-caste children are born here? I requested Br Spieseke to write to you, as these things were also said to him. I won’t mention other things, yet will add here: I have done what I could, and perhaps at the cost of my health, so that another view of the Moravian missionaries is put forth before the Government and the public. Blessed be always the true Redeemer. To him alone belongs the glory. I can completely account for Br Spieseke’s willing silence [in matters pertaining] to Australia when he was in Germany, and I am afraid that Br Francis will not get along with Br Spieseke. Here is a sentence from a letter from P[astor]Chase to me about my leaving Ebenezer: “How different is the scene of your leaving Ebenezer to the scene of the missionaries leaving Lake Boga, and who made the difference? Not unto us, oh Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be all the glory!” Enough now about this, it hurts me greatly!133

Within this emotive letter it is evident that Hagenauer believed himself to be a bastion of Moravian integrity, and was thus indignant at being scalded by the UAC. Yet, when the UAC reported on the letter in their minutes, they extracted only the following: Br Hagenauer described in his letters in relation to the earlier Lake Boga Mission: with their going away from there the brothers did not leave behind a good Name, this is [according to Hagenauer] a putrid stain [on their and all our reputation].134 133 Hagenauer (Ballarat, Australia) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 20 January 1862, UA, R.15.V.I.a.5.2. 134 PUAC, 5 April 1862, #9, 27.

148

chapter four

The transcription from Hagenauer’s relatively tempered term, “unser sehr schwarze Name” (our very black name), to the UAC’s explosive “fauler Fleck” (putrid stain) is itself an indication of the frustrations and passions which abounded when the UAC were dealing with missionaries in remote locations. As the above quote from the UAC includes a mixed metaphor, combining aspects from the images of a “ein fauler Apfel” (rotten apple) and that of “dunkler Fleck” (dark stain), it further suggests that the situation was full of emotional intensity, and that the scribe was unsure of how best to describe this difficult situation, especially since it had the potential to affect how the Church was seen in a more global context. Moreover, the UAC’s choice of words hints at their concern that the situation in Australia had the potential to affect and infect the global Moravian mission. The term “faul” conjures up images of decay which cannot be reversed, unlike Hagenauer’s term “Schwarz,” which itself had the potential to be cleaned, or repaired. The term “faul” can also be used as an adjective for a geographical space, such as in the term “etwas ist faul im Staate Dänmark” (something is rotten in the State of Denmark; in Shakespeare’s Hamlet). The term “Fleck” is a noun which can refer to either a place or a stain. To further complicate the issue, if the author mixed the two metaphors, the plural of “Fleck”, “Flecken”, can also refer to sins, as in the German phrase: “Die dunklen Flecken auf der weißen Seele” (the dark stains on the white soul). Within this text it could also be read that Lake Boga was a rotten place, which had the ability to infect other mission attempts in Australia. Despite the multiplicity of meanings which could be derived from this phrase, the abiding theme was that the UAC were concerned about the lingering harm that the Lake Boga affair had had on the reputation of the Church. The response to Hagenauer’s claims in the continuation of the UAC minutes, however, was more administrative than religious, as both Hagenauer and Spieseke were told “to report more closely on the matter, so that one will know if it is just empty talk, or if there were reason behind it.” The UAC seemed not only hesitant in pitting the words of one missionary against another over a matter relating to their global reputation, but also unwilling to take decisive action in response to such claims. Thus, instead of reminding the missionaries of their Christian duty to get along with each other, the UAC enacted control of the missionaries through requiring them to contemplate and analyse their actions through the act of reporting on them. The tension between all three missionaries at Ebenezer was obvious, with Peter La Trobe suggesting that Spieseke and Hagenauer lived in a

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

149

“state of disharmony,”135 with the UAC minutes reporting that the pairing was an “unlucky combination.”136 The challenges the missionaries faced working in a foreign land, in a foreign language, and with scant governmental or administrative support showed through their strained relationships. All this occurred thousands of miles away from family and friends, whom they may have never seen again, amongst a people they deemed “the most wretched and bleakest, who live on God’s earth.”137 It was not surprising that strong-willed, disciplined, selfmotivated, and authoritarian people would clash and fight for control amongst themselves in a situation where they could not control the Aborigines. It would be a theme that would continue throughout the Moravian missions in Australia, with missionaries complaining to headquarters about the difficulties that they faced in working together with their fellow missionaries amongst the Aborigines (more about this in the ensuing chapters). However, such disputes between missionaries were not often published in the public arena, and thus in later histories of the Moravians in Australia the relationships between the missionaries have not often been examined which has resulted in a distorted and incomplete picture of their work. Moreover, the self-serving nature of many Moravian historical publications has proved a dominant historical narrative in which the disharmonies between missionaries have been written out, and in which any negative relationship between German Moravian administration and missionaries in the field is smoothed over. The Moravian Church, through the UAC and Missionsdepartement, did not unquestionably support their missionaries in Australia. Once they had received word of them through their correspondence, they often criticised both the missionaries and their actions. In the case of Spieseke and Francis for example, Peter La Trobe commented that Spieseke “had something in his heart, but he did not have the courage to say it,” and the UAC suggested that Spieseke was “controlled by a small jealousy.”138 Francis was, according to La Trobe, a “schwacher und unbeständiger Mann” (weak and fickle man), and according to the UAC, too “anmaaßenend” [sic] (arrogant) and “anspruchsvoll” (demanding). The personalities of the missionaries, plus the vast 135 136 137 138

La Trobe (London) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 2 July 1862, UA, R. 15.V.i.b.6.a. PMD, 23 September 1863, not itemised, 64. Missionsblatt, 1856, 3, 41. PUAC, 5 April 1862, #9, 25-26.

150

chapter four

distances between administration and mission, created difficulties for the Moravian Church in controlling and directing missionaries so far away.139 Despite the unexpected changes of personnel at Ebenezer, the Moravian Church continued its work amongst the Aborigines, and further expanded its mission field. The Spiesekes remained at Ebenezer to work alone amongst the Aborigines for many months until John Adolfphus (Adolf) Jerome Hartmann and his English wife Mary (née Hines), who was known as ‘Polly,’ were called to assist at the school. This young married couple arrived at Ebenezer on the 7th of May, 1864, by which time the Hagenauers had already moved to Gippsland to establish the Ramahyuck mission station to the Gunai people of Gippsland. For the first couple of years of the second mission attempt to Australia, the missionaries followed the rules and Instructions from home, desiring to erase the ‘putrid stain’ of the Lake Boga experience through their good work. Within a couple of years, Ebenezer was deemed a success. Nathanael Pepper had been baptised, had built a hut, and had married in a Christian fashion. He was seen as a role model for other Wotjobaluk people, as well as an indication that Aboriginal people could be converted. With this success in mind, the Presbyterian Church wished to join forces with the Moravian Church and establish another mission station to the dying race of Aborigines in Gippsland. For the Moravians, this success was an indication that Lake Boga was an aberration and that God’s Will was being done. The identity of these Moravian missionaries was centred on their belief that their Christian world-view was privileged knowledge, and 139 The UAC themselves realized the impractical nature of the missionaries awaiting instructions from letters from Germany. For example, in May 1862 the UAC commented on a request from Spieseke that he had placed with the UAC in January 1861 in relation to whether the missionaries should pay back £93 to the colonial government, which was left over from the money that the government had given them in 1860 for the costs of material goods for the Aborigines. The UAC noted that if such delays in communications continued then payments would always be late. They suggested that Spieseke ask the advice of friends in the colony, for example Ellerman, if further such situations came to light. This example highlights the difficulties that faced the Australian mission in relation to the great distances between the missionaries and the administrative body of the Moravian Church. It also demonstrates that in administrative matters relating to colonial control that the UAC were happy for an ‘outsider’ to be consulted, but this was not apparent in spiritual matters. See for example: PUAC, 9 April 1861, #16, 38; PUAC, 10 May 1862, #17, 149.

“i is done: no more”: the first converts

151

that no belief system could or would supplant this knowledge. Their faith was not negotiable. It could be questioned, but it was never discarded, nor was it ever compared in the Australian mission field to indigenous world-views. The missionaries actively tried to suppress and disprove indigenous knowledge in order to prove the omnipotence of their omnipresent Christian God. This chapter has argued that the larger Moravian traditions and history impacted on the establishment of the mission to a greater extent than other histories have given them credit for. The peculiarities of the Moravian Church led to the establishment of a mission station which was not adapted to the Australian situation, but rather reflected the model which the Church had applied throughout its history. As the missionaries had to report back to Germany, the tyranny of distance affected their choices, with the personalities of the missionaries adding to an explosive mix. By the end of the 1860s, the missionaries were becoming more autonomous in running the mission stations, as they became more confident of their place within the colonial environment, and also realised the limited support that the UAC could—or would— give. The missionaries remained, however, under the direction of the UAC and Missionsdepartement. The next chapter will recount the Moravian missionaries’ expansion to Ramahyuck and the ‘Interior,’ and the influence that the Moravian administration had on the establishment of these missions. It will also demonstrate the ways by which, with the establishment of these two new missions, the missionaries became more knowledgeable of the colonial environment and were able to become increasingly more sophisticated in their manipulation and negotiation of it.

CHAPTER FIVE

„ALLES GEHT SEINEN SCHLEPPENDEN GANG“ EXPANSION, MOVEMENT AND SLUGGISH PROGRESS Following the success at Ebenezer, the Moravian mission in Australian continued to expand in the 1860s. At Ramahyuck in Gippsland, the Moravian missionary Friedrich Hagenauer gained increasing influence in the Colony of Victoria through his connections to other religious societies and the Colonial Government. This chapter examines some of these relationships, and explores how Hagenauer manipulated events and people in his running of Ramahyuck, as well as in the establishment of the mission to the ‘Interior,’ demonstrating the power which he was starting to accrue not only within the Moravian Church’s mission to Australia, but also within the broader colonial religious scene. Ramahyuck, our home Free from the immediate working relationship with the Spiesekes, the Hagenauers established the Ramahyuck mission station in Gippsland (see Figure 1) with the financial support of the Presbyterian Church. The site was not the first choice for Hagenauer. He had to move from the original site—Green Hills, which was also in Gippsland—when the land was revoked by the Government after local farmers complained. The second site he chose, on the Avon River near Lake Wellington, was also contested by local settlers, and only after a long, drawn-out process was the land finally made available for a mission in July of 1863.1 As with the Ebenezer Mission site, the Ramahyuck site had also witnessed Aboriginal murders at the hands of Europeans. The Church of England missionary, John Bulmer, noted that the place was called Boney Point because many Aborigines had been killed on the spot, and their bones scattered there.2 Despite this horrific history, Hagenauer was able to 1

Aldo Massola, Aboriginal Mission Stations in Victoria (Melbourne: The Hawthorn Press, 1970). 2 M.R. Christie, Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1835-1886 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1979), 166.

154

chapter five

establish a mission station, which by the 1870s had outshone Ebenezer as the role model for all other mission stations within the Colony of Victoria. It had many converts and markers of European civilization, such as gardens and houses. The name of the station was a concatenation of the biblical name ‘Ramah,’ which had been suggested by the Reverend Alexander James Campbell of the Presbyterian Missionary Committee, and the word ‘yuck’ meaning ‘our,’ from the traditional indigenous inhabits of the area, the Gunai people.3 The incorporation of a Gunai word has subsequently been read by twentieth-century historians as a subversive act on the part of the Gunai people, however, it could also be argued that for the Moravians the addition of an indigenous suffix would have been an indication that indigenous people were interested in contributing to the new mission venture.4 The beginning of the new Presbyterian-Moravian venture in Gippsland coincided with the establishment of the Church of England’s mission in the same district. John Bulmer, who had previously been at Yelta, established the Lake Tyers mission station, one hundred kilometres northeast of Ramahyuck (see Figure 1). There was a good relationship between the two missionaries. In 1863 for example, Hagenauer reported—in the characteristically possessive language of the missionaries—that “Mr Bulmer’s Blacks are in considerable advance of my own, and some of them set a good example to my Blacks.”5 Although Lake Tyers was the closest Aboriginal mission to Ramahyuck, it would be a Government Aboriginal reserve, and not a mission, that would have the greatest impact on the running of Ramahyuck well into the next century. This reserve, called “Coranderrk,” was established after Wurundjeri people protested to the Colonial Government for their own piece of land. The Wurundjeri were members of the larger Kulin nation residing in and around Melbourne, and who were traditionally on un-friendly terms with the Gunai nations 3 The two Moravian mission names are taken from adjacent biblical passages “Rama(h)” is mentioned in 1 Samuel vii:17, and just before it “Eben=Eser” is mentioned in 1 Samuel vii:12. As to Campbell’s influence on the Ramah name choice see for example: H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882), 130. 4 Bain Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989), 4. 5 Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia. Read in Connection with the Report of the Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Held August 17, 1863, ed. Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Fourth Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1863), 6.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

155

who resided in the area of Gippsland. Coranderrk itself would later be the chosen residential place of refuge for many of Victoria’s indigenous peoples, situated some 50 kilometres north-east of Melbourne it was an easy distance for day-trippers from Melbourne. It was also an accessible distance for the Wurundjeri people to walk to Melbourne to petition the Government in matters concerning their welfare. The protesting and politically active residents of Coranderrk received a reputation as ‘rebellious’ and troublesome – two attributes that both Hagenauer at Ramahyuck and Spieseke at Ebenezer actively discouraged in ‘their blacks.’ They asserted the Moravian model of missions in which stations were “ideally self-sufficient, hierarchically ordered communities of the converted, living lives of discipline and dedication, obedient to the missionary mentors and the rules and regulations they imposed.”6 Within such ideals there was little place for dissent, and certainly none for ‘rebellion.’ Global and local Moravian mission expansion: The beginning of the mission to the Interior, ‘Kopperamanna’ From 1848 to 1857, the Moravian Church established only seven new stations across the globe, including Lake Boga in Australia. This contrasted greatly with their expansion between the years 1857 and 1869 during which time twenty-one new mission stations were opened, resulting in a total of eighty-seven mission stations in fifteen mission districts around the globe by 1869. For the Moravians, the mission to the Aborigines of the ‘Interior’ of Australia was seen as the “one really new mission” to a people hitherto unknown to the Church.7 The costs for such global expansion were immense and could not be carried by the Church itself, rather such costs were defrayed by the benevolence of supporters, including colonists in the areas in which they worked.8 In the 1860s, the benevolence of colonial Victorians did not stop at their borders, with their concern for the state of indigenous peoples

6 Timothy Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, 1828-1928: Four Accounts of Moravian Mission Work on the Eastern Cape Frontier (Paarl: Paarl Print, 2004), xxiv. 7 John Libbey, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869), 14. 8 H.E. Shaw, The British Province of the Unity in Its Relation to Our Foreign Missionary Work: A Paper Read at the Provincial Synod, Held at Fairfield in June and July 1874 (Derby: T.L Hadham, 1874).

156

chapter five

spilling over into other parts of the continent. A group of Aboriginal people who had captured the imaginations of Melbournians were the Diyari people of Central Australia. The Victorian Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia (Victorian Association) saw them as good candidates for the Word of God, and also as being in need of protection from “extermination” at the hands of “the settlers and their servants” who were moving further into the centre of the continent following explorations of the 1860s.9 The missionary attempt to the Diyari people of Central Australia was based on a notion of honouring the pathetic deaths of the explorers Robert O’Hara Burke and William John Wills. These two explorers were the leaders of an expedition that left Melbourne on the 20th of August, 1860, with the goal of becoming the first Europeans to traverse the vast and unknown centre of the continent. The expedition was organized by the Committee of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria, which later became the Royal Society, and whose president was the German botanist Dr Ferdinand von Mueller, a well-known figure in nineteenth century Melbourne. It was an act of inter-colonial rivalry, in which Victoria saw it as its duty—as the wealthiest and most politically ambitious colony—to boldly go and traverse the centre; an act in which the colonies of New South Wales and South Australia had failed. The South Australian Government had offered a prize for the first person to travel overland to the north-west coast of the continent, and the Victorian Government, with the support of the Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, upped the stakes by providing £4000 for any such expedition. Such developments were anxiously anticipated by German scientific journals such as the Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt, thus demonstrating the international significance of the venture, for if the interior of Australia were to be habitable and had enough water, this would have lead to further potential migrations.10 The failed attempts of the Burke and Wills party have been written into Australian folklore, with the unlucky timing of the retreat of the base camp adding to the tragic nature of the explorers’ deaths.11 9 A.J. Campbell (Geelong) to La Trobe (London), 24 December 1862, UA, R.15.V. no. 5.1. 10 See for example: Dr A. Petermann, Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1859), 485. 11 Tim Bonyhady, Burke and Wills. From Melbourne to Myth (Sydney: David Ell Press, 1991).

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

157

Contemporary German reports suggested the failed attempt was in part the fault of the Victorian Association, who insisted that the explorers begin their journey from Melbourne and not nearer to their goal, and which was seen as “ein ganz unnöthiger Aufwand von Kraft” (a completely needless expenditure of energy).12 German reports particularly condemned Burke for not taking the party’s geometer north with his smaller sub-party. The base party broke up camp shortly before the sub-party, exhausted and low on food, returned. Despite their predicament, the sub-party refused help from indigenous people and as a result Burke and Wills starved—a slow, wasting death—in a landscape full of nutrition. In 1861, the news of the subsequent rescue of a member of Burke and Wills’ party, John King, was applauded by many on the streets of Melbourne. King had been kept alive by local Aborigines and found by the Victorian explorer and geologist A.W. Howitt, who had been sent out to find the Burke and Wills sub-party. After his rescue, there was a call for missionaries to “do something [original emphasis] for the poor heathen in the interior, now sitting in the darkness and in the shadow of death.”13 The Victorian Association took up this action. It resolved at its 1863 annual meeting that: in the opinion of this meeting strenuous efforts ought to be made to send the gospel to the Aborigines at Cooper’s Creek and other places in the interior; that the Moravian Church has proved admirably adapted for the work of bringing degraded nations to the knowledge of Christ; and that it is desirable a sum of money be placed at the disposal of the Moravian Mission Board, sufficient to enable them at once to commence a Mission.14

Through the Reverend A.J. Campbell, the Victorian Association suggested to Peter La Trobe in London that “the only effectual barrier between the Black man and his white Assailant would be a band of Moravian Missionaries planted along the frontier and keeping always in advance of the line of settlement.”15 These remarks point to 12 George Neumayer, “Zu O’hara Burke’s Expedition durch das Innere von Australien,” in Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie, ed. Dr A. Petermann (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1862), 433-434. 13 Further Facts (Fourth Paper), 11. 14 Further Facts (Fourth Paper), 2. 15 A.J. Campbell (Geelong) to La Trobe (London), 24 December 1862, UA, R.15.V. No. 5.1.

158

chapter five

the wanton extermination of indigenous peoples at the hands of profit hungry settlers, and also to the lack of response from a perceived ‘indifferent government.’16 In a situation where missionaries were seen as the “only effectual barrier” to prevent annihilation of a people, the Association’s notion was not to challenge the validity of governmental policy, but to suggest that “the whole of the Blacks should be placed under the care of the Moravians; that they should be made a first charge upon these lands, and that so much [money] a year should be allowed per head, from the proceeds of these lands,” for the Government itself “may not be willing to make such provisions as would be necessary for upholding the mission.”17 The Victorian Association kept the Moravian Church informed of developments, sending them copies of minutes from the Victorian Association’s meetings, as well as maps and newspaper clippings. The Moravians were keen to be part of a new adventure, with the UAC agreeing to the proposal for a new mission station on the 29th of October, 1863. The Moravians were sympathetic, not because they felt the need to go to these ‘heathen’ people, but because they “were too heavily indebted to the mission friends, that a withdrawal from our side could be an unfavourable impression on our current mission work in Australia.”18 Thus, the current mission work was placed as a higher priority than the possible fate of the missionaries who were to come out and work in the interior of Australia amongst ‘heathen’ Aborigines, who themselves were in turn seen as expendable within the colonial framework. In other words, the success of the broader Mission was privileged over the fates of individual missionaries. As with the establishment of the Ramahyuck mission, no Los was needed in the decision to establish the mission to the Interior, as the UAC felt obliged to supply missionaries to the Victorian Association and did not need any divine input for the decision. A negative Los would have been counterproductive to the Moravians’ aims for they had already decided to undertaken the mission. A positive Los, too, was not desired, for it would have solidified the commitment that the Church was undertaking. Indeed, given that the UAC was only

16 A.J. Campbell (Geelong) to La Trobe (London), 24 December 1862, UA, R.15.V. No. 5.1. 17 A.J. Campbell (Geelong) to La Trobe (London), 24 December 1862, UA, R.15.V. No. 5.1. 18 PMD, 21 October 1863, #3, 77.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

159

attempting the venture to keep the financiers of the Victorian missions in good stead, drawing a Los for the mission to the Interior would have made it very difficult for the Moravians to extract themselves, and may well have placed a great financial burden on the organization. Despite the lack of guidance from the Los for the larger scale directions, one was drawn to decide if more than three missionaries should be sent, with a positive outcome drawn for the number four.19 The Missionsdepartement decided to call missionaries through a supplement in the Missionsblatt. It appeared in the December 1863 issue, and included German translations of all pertinent English-language papers.20 The call for missionaries in a German-language periodical can be understood in light of the fact that after the disastrous Francis incident—where he had left the mission after being denied a Moravian wife (see previous chapter)—Peter La Trobe had suggested that only German men should be sent out into the Australian mission field.21 Moravian missionaries around the globe, including most of those in Australia, avoided “entanglements with colonial society” through marrying only Moravian women and sending children back to the ‘homeland’ for education.22 Indigenous converts themselves were not seen as suitable wives. Thus, the decision to send out German-speaking missionaries to a British colony ensured that these men would maintain a distance from the English-speaking colonists, and better focus on their aim of converting the heathens. The publication of the supplement was rewarded with four single Brüder chosen for the new field in a matter of less than three months. They were Heinrich Walder, Carl Wilhelm Kramer, Wilhelm Julius Kühn, and Gottlieb Meissel, all of whom came from German Moravian settlements. The Moravians agreed with the suggestion put forward by the anthropologist A.W. Howitt to settle at a site on Coopers Creek, which Howitt named Camp 25, and which the local people called Calliowmarou. This site was then, as now, miles away from any township or settlement, and was the site of Burke and Wills’ death.23 In order to prepare for their journey, Walder and Kramer were sent to England

19

PUAC, 29 October 1863, #3, 143. PMD, 21 October 1863, #3, 78; Missionsblatt, 1863, 12, 304-308, for the supplement. 21 PMD, 23 September 1863, not itemised, 64. 22 Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, xxiii. 23 Missionsblatt, 1864, 3, 66. 20

160

chapter five

for several months to learn English, indicating that the UAC had learnt from previous experiences in Australia. The other two men stayed in Germany to be instructed in useful subjects such as surgery.24 It took some time for the four missionaries to finish their preparations, and for their supplies to be sourced. In the meantime, the Missionsdepartement was already being asked to consider establishing another mission in Australia. In 1865, the Colonial and Continental Committee of the Free Church of Scotland conveyed a wish, through a Mr Lewis Irving in South Australia, to the London Moravians for a mission to be established at Lacepede Bay in South Australia (see Figure 1). They offered an initial £200 for the establishment and an extra £150 per annum. After consulting a map, the Missionsdepartement—in their characteristically unwieldy language—suggested that the geographical location “[würde] noch nicht unzweckmäßig sein” (would not yet be unsuitable) for a mission.25 However, as they were just about to send out their four missionaries to the ‘Interior’ of Australia, they suggested that if that mission were not successful after some time then maybe one of those missionaries could go to Lacepede Bay. With this outcome, the UAC successfully avoided having to make a decision, and instead placed the onus of responsibility onto the missionaries for establishing another mission if they failed in the ‘Interior.’ These examples of Ramahyuck and the mission to the Interior demonstrate that the administration of the Moravian Church privileged the founding of missions over the individual considerations of the missionaries. The sending out of four missionaries with no experience of the Australian climate, and little grasp of the English language, into one of the most inhospitable landscapes on the planet may have served to glorify the Moravian endeavour, buy only at extraordinary risk to the lives of those missionaries. Moreover, through these examples we can observe the tight control the Church extended over its external self-image, by manipulating, shaping and translating the letters and diaries of missionaries to ensure that the printed version was the voice transmitted to the broader Moravian readership. Dissenting voices were often not published. For example, in the unpublished diary entries of Meissel of January 1865, one of the four missionaries to the ‘Interior’, an alternative view of Aborigines at Ebenezer was presented: 24 25

PMD, 27 May 1865, #14, 34. PMD, 26 July 1865, #8, 55-56.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

161

Figure 6. A portrait of Kühn, Meißel, Walder and Kramer-the four missionaries sent to the interior of Australia. Taken before they left Germany for Australia, 1864.

162

chapter five The blacks seem to be quite different from how they were described to me and also how I imagined them to be. Instead of being badly or only half clothed, or even naked, I saw, to my amazement, that most of the blacks are very clean, with handsome, black, well-cut hair, which had been carefully combed, big really splendid beards, high foreheads and deep set eyes. The females are very ugly, with the exception of the halfwhites. They appear in long, clean dresses, one even with a crinoline. The women are less unhealthy and not as striking as the men, they usually sit around on the ground smoking and chatting with their legs tucked under them like the Turks. Their native language sounds very lamenting and whiny. As a rule there is usually a pack of dogs that sits around the women in the camp. The last bit describes only the blacks that live in the camps.26

Thus, the discrepancy between Meissel’s preconceived notions of Aborigines and his actual observations elucidates the differences between the Moravian Church’s constructed view of Aborigines, and the reality within the antipodes. As this diary was not published, an opportunity was missed to provide an alternative to the dominant views that had previously been promoted of Aborigines. The diary entry, however, only presented a positive image of Aborigines inasmuch as they embraced European culture, and accordingly demonstrated to headquarters that there was potential to Christianize partly civilized Aborigines. With phrases such as “handsome, black, well-cut hair,” “really splendid beards” and “high foreheads,” the text also reflected notions of a ‘noble Savage,’ which had a considerable influence on the European construction of Aboriginality. A further contrast within the text exists between the positive images of the men as ‘noble savages’ and the negative images presented in relation to Aboriginal women. Women of pure Aboriginal blood were deemed “very ugly,” whereas the admixture of European blood was seen as a positive influence. In contemporary discourses, European women were either constructed as the bastions of (European) morals and virtues (especially within the realms of family), or as whores and corruptors of men, as Francis’s view demonstrated (see Chapter Four). Neither of these positions allowed women from any cultural background to enter into equitable dialogue with men. In this excerpt, part-Aboriginal women were raised within hierarchies of European social constructions by virtue of their partEuropean heritage. Meissel’s comments demonstrated the fluidity 26

Meissel’s Diary (1864-8), 9 January 1865, AAV, MF 166.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

163

in the construction of Aboriginality within Australian discourse, for although he did not entirely displace the dominant views about Aborigines to which he was exposed before reaching Australia, he was able to construct an alternative reading of Aboriginality in which competing notions could coexist. And yet it remains unpublished. Meissel’s diary was written during his enforced period at Ebenezer, while he and his three colleagues waited for the drought in the ‘Interior’ to break. The site they wished to travel to was on Coopers Creek, which is truly remarkable as the most hydrologically variable river system in the world.27 In 1865, the water levels were very low, and with summer approaching it was deemed necessary to wait until a water supply could be assured. The men were anxious to begin their work, with Meissel suggesting that he: wish[ed] wholeheartedly that instead of writing the name “Ebenezer” at the top of my letter, that I could instead write the name of a place at Cooper’s Creek, or any other name of a place far from here.28

It was not because of the people at Ebenezer, for he enjoyed their company, rather it was that he felt like a ‘visitor’ with no place of his own. Restlessly, the men continued to wait until the orders were given to commence their journey inwards. At Ramahyuck, where Kramer had been sent, the waiting for orders was also causing strains. Kramer was successfully running the mission school, yet Hagenauer was concerned that Kramer would be taken away from him at any time, so he requested the UAC to send another missionary for Ramahyuck. Hagenauer needed more help to realise his ambitious vision for a five-teacher boarding school. This was in spite of the fact that he believed the Aborigines of the area to be still living a Wanderleben (itinerant life), and that their numbers on the station fluctuated greatly.29 The Moravians at Ramahyuck were beholden to the Presbyterians, however, and therefore the decision for more staff was thus beyond the control of the Moravian administration.30

27 J.T. Puckridge et al., “Flow Variability and the Ecology of Arid Zone Rivers” Marine and Fresh Water Research 49 (1998): 55-72. 28 Meissel (Ebenezer) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 20 February 1865, AAV, MF 166. 29 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 1 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 52-54. 30 Copy of Reichel (Herrnhut) to Hagenauer (Ramahyuck), 13 February 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 27-28.

164

chapter five

When the call finally came through in May of 1866 from the Victorian Association for Kramer to leave for Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, Hagenauer was particularly incensed. He sent a letter to the Secretary of the Association, W.E. Morris, stating that he was of the belief that Kramer was not wanted for the journey to Lake Hope (see Figure 1)—the missionaries’ initial destination on their journey into the ‘Interior’—and that he had permission from the Committee to stay at Ramahyuck. He stated, [a]cting according to our conversation that Mr. K. should stay here we opened a boarding school which is under Mr. K’s care and make’s [sic] good progress, if he were to go, I must give it up.31

Hagenauer was determined to keep Kramer with him and continued the letter in an emotive tone whilst trying to provide as much evidence as possible for the continued employment of Kramer at Ramahyuck and not in the ‘Interior.’ He suggested to Morris that “you are aware how much I aim to see the work among the poor Blacks extended” and would go himself if he “felt it was actually needed.” Furthermore, as the expedition was “not at all the permanent settlement of the Brethren but only our investigation of the possibility of such a settlement,” he surmised that it would be of no real consequence if Kramer stayed with him. After a couple of days reflection, however, Hagenauer changed his tone considerably. He stated: My dear Mr Morris Since my return from Sale yesterday I have thought much over the importance of the great undertaking of the new Mission to Coopers Creek, and as it would seem from my letter of yesterday that I had my own self and this mission here more in view than the other for which Mr. Kramer came out with the other Brethren, I thought it right to have a first consideration with Mr. Kramer over the whole case, and we both have come to the following conclusion. I. That, as the Missionary Board at home has given all the arrangements and guidance of those Brethren into the hands of your Comite [sic] we here at Ramahyuck would in our own way use any influence in reference to Mr. Kramer, nor place this Station here before the greater undertaking of Coopers Creek, and that the claims of the Brethren at Adelaide to be considered above any other.32

31

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Morris (Melbourne), 1 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 46-48. Hagenauer & Kramer (Ramahyuck) to Morris (Melbourne), 4 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 49-50. 32

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

165

Hagenauer further asked for Kramer to receive notice if he were needed, and more money for his support if he were allowed to stay. If he were not allowed to stay “then that Mr. Kramer would started they [sic] directly under the Board at home, and less under the Presby. Comette[sic].” After battling through Hagenauer’s appalling grasp of the English language displayed in this letter—which itself reveals his heightened emotional state—a tale is revealed of the conflicting emotions of the missionaries and the politics which they had to negotiate with various stakeholders. (Chapter Six will expand on this theme). As a Moravian missionary, Hagenauer was hoping to secure the employment of another Moravian at ‘his’ mission station that was beginning to show potential in converting Aborigines. Yet he was also beholden to a different missionary organization, which ultimately controlled his own mission. His first defensive letter was tempered by his second, more reasoned letter, which harkened to broader missionary aims, and refuted personal politics. Meanwhile, Walder and Meissel had travelled via ship to Adelaide. They had spoken to John King, the only surviving member of the Burke and Wills party, in Melbourne in May, 1865, about the indigenous peoples of Coopers Creek, and taken notes of some indigenous languages from his lecture.33 Once in South Australia, they went to Bethel, a Moravian community north of Adelaide (see Figure 1). The leader of this community, Christoph Samuel Daniel Schondorf, had arrived for South Australia in 1854. His arrival was in response to the community’s request of the UAC to send out an ordained Moravian minister. The community was disgruntled over their sufferance under the spiritual care of “strict Lutheran” pastors, who would not baptize the Moravian children without the promise from the Moravian parents that the children would remain Lutheran and not become Moravian.34 In response to this obvious affront to their beliefs, the UAC complied with the communities’ request and appointed Schondorf.35 The UAC had, however, denied Schondorf his requests to study both theology and English before travelling to Australia, as “the amount of theology that he needed he could learn with the simplicity of [his] heart from the Bible and in [Spangenberg’s]

33 34 35

Meissel’s Diary, 28 April 1865, AAV, MF 167, 31-32. PUAC, 29 January 1853, #6, 75-77. PUAC, 20 August 1853, #2, 108.

166

chapter five

idea fidei fratrum,”36 a statement which reflected the Moravian theological dictum that the Bible alone is the spiritual text (see Chapter 1). Furthermore, they commented that “he did not need to hold sermons in English” for he could learn what he needed once there.37 The response was similar to that received by the first Moravians who went to Lake Boga in relation to their need to learn English—and was also typical of the inward looking community of Moravians. After 15 months of waiting, it seemed likely that the four missionaries would finally be able to start their trek into the ‘Interior.’ They were joined by an indigenous youth called Boney, who had chosen the name Daniel when he converted to Christianity at the Ebenezer mission station in 1862. Daniel was the first boy to attend the inaugural school lesson at Ebenezer and, after a heartfelt conversion, was baptized in December, 1862. He requested to go with the missionaries as “the first native missionary in Australia” to Central Australia, as he was extolled in his obituary.38 Daniel did not reach the ‘Interior,’ for he died in an Adelaide hospital on the 11th of October, 1865; dreaming the night before he passed away of things in heaven that “he could not describe.”39 His last moments are reminiscent of those of William Wimmera, who died in England and before his death spoke of heaven in terms of a big gate and numerous flying angels with Jesus having a halo around his head. Hell, on the other hand, had devils that were all red. Unlike Old Charley (see Chapter Four), who envisaged God as a farmer, the iconography which both Daniel and William articulated were images popular in Christian children’s books, which indicated a wholesale integration of these ideas into

36 The first edition of Spangenberg’s “Idea Fidei Fratrum” was published in 1779, with the text informing generations of Moravian on the Church’s doctorial stance. Numerous editions and translations of this monograph were printed. See for example: August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Idea Fidei Fratrum oder kurzer Begriff der christlichen Lehre in der evangelischen Brüdergemeinen, Neue Auflage. (Gnadau: Buchhandlung der Evangelische Brüder=Unität, 1824). English-language versions include: August Gottlieb Spangenberg, An Exposition of Christian Doctrine, as Taught in the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or, Unitas Fratrum. Written in German, by August Gottlieb Spangenberg; with a Preface by Benjamin La Trobe, Fifth Edition (Bath: S. Hazard, 1796); and, August Gottlieb Spangenberg, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren Adhering to the Confession of Augsburg, Translated from the Fifth Improved German Edition (Philadelphia: McCarty & Davis, 1833). 37 PUAC, 6 September 1853, #2, 15. 38 Australischer Christenbote, 1866, 2, 6. 39 Australischer Christenbote, 1866, 2, 7.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

167

their own spiritual world-views. This, no doubt, pleased the missionaries, who wished for the Aborigines to have a ‘child-like’ belief in God, such as they themselves professed to have. The death of Daniel also held negative portent, however, and was seen by Schondorf in Bethel as a “noteworthy sign from God in relation to the intended mission work in the Interior.”40 The UAC dismissed his comments and suggested that he was obviously not very supportive of the new venture. This stance reflected the UAC’s inability to incorporate advice that contradicted the Church’s hopes for the new mission venture. Walder moved from Bethel to Kadina on the Yorke Peninsula (see Figure 1) where Kühn was working with the Congregational Minister William Wilson. According to both Kühn and Wilson, the Christians of the Yorke Peninsula wished to establish their own mission station with a teacher. In February of 1866, Kühn established a school with twelve children, who had, according to Kühn, in a matter of months learnt to read. Wilson, mirroring Hagenauer’s ambits in relation to Kramer, sent a request to the UAC for Kühn to remain on the peninsula, and offered to find the finances for such work. The UAC agreed that Kühn, like Kramer, could stay in his position ‘serving God’ until they were both called into the ‘Interior,’ ensuring that their positions remained unsettled. It was important for the UAC to make Wilson aware of the fact that they did not have total control over the four missionaries as they “also stand under the Melbourne Committee,” and without the Association’s agreement the UAC could not dictate anything.41 This clause ensured that the UAC were not fully responsible for the mission, and would have ready a scapegoat if anything were to go awry; a practice that had become more prevalent after the Lake Boga affair. When, however, the Victorian Association decided that Kühn should stay at Kadina whilst the other three went to Coopers Creek, the UAC spoke out. Kühn, they declared, “could not stay at Kadina,” for the Los had decided that four Brüder, and not three, should travel to the ‘Interior.’ Again, this outburst was indicative of the UAC’s commitment to policies and protocols above personnel or practicalities.42

40 41 42

PUAC, 16 January 1866, #19, 64. PUAC, 2 June 1866, #10, 257-258. PUAC, 5 January 1867, #4, 5.

168

chapter five

Walder, Meissel, and Kramer reached the Lake Hope Station on the 5th of December, 1866, shortly before the German-speaking Lutheran missionaries from the German-based Hermannsburg Missionary Society reached the same location, intent also on converting the Diyari people.43 The Moravian Church had long anticipated that a situation may arise in which other missionary societies might establish missions in the same location as the Moravians, and therefore had made provision in the Instructions.44 Moravian missionaries were to work hand-in-hand with other societies, and not to attempt to draw away converts from other missionaries, rather to become friends with the members of the other missionary societies, in order to follow the “dying request of Jesus, John xvii., ‘that they all may be one,’ might be fulfilled in them and by them.”45 According to Moravian sources, the missionaries followed this Instruction and established good relations with the Hermannsburg missionaries, and even allowed them to be the first to choose the site for the mission.46 The Lutherans settled at Lake Killalpaninna, whose name was derived from the local Diyari language word ‘kirlawirlpanhinha,’ with the Moravians settling not far away at Lake Kopperamanna, which was derived from the Diyari word ‘kaparrhamaranha’ (see Figure 1). As more and more Europeans settled in the area, tensions between the indigenous inhabitants and the new arrivals amplified, which created a hostile environment for the missionaries. The Lutherans were told that the so-called ‘Perigundy Blacks’ were going to kill all the whites in revenge and that other Aborigines had conspired to kill the Moravians. A tense balance was held, with several men from the socalled ‘Manu Blacks’ coming to the Moravian station to work in return

43 For a history of this missionary society see for example: Ernst-August Lüdemann (ed) Vision: Gemeinde Weltweit. 150 Jahre Hermannsburger Mission und Ev.-luth. Missionswerk in Niedersachsen (Hermannsburg: Verlag der Missionshandlung Hermannsburg, 2000). 44 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio Dienen, Zweite durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837). §59, 84-85. 45 Spangenberg, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 33. 46 For a history of this mission see for example: Lüdemann, Vision: Gemeinde Weltweit, 454-467; and, Christine Stevens, White Man’s Dreaming. Killalpaninna Mission 1866-1915 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

169

for tea and damper. Despite the potential for violence that surrounded them, the missionaries reported on occasion back to Germany that “alles ging seinen gewöhnlichen Gang” (all went its normal way)— Kramer was busy collecting indigenous words and teaching in the day school, while Meissel established a Sunday school and also interacted with the Lutheran missionaries.47 The uneasy peace did not, however, last. A corroboree was held in March of 1867, at which Aboriginal men threatened the missionaries with the words “Blackfellow big one growl longa you.”48 The missionaries were scared and kept watch over their camp, expecting at any moment to be overthrown. When ‘their workers’ turned up the next day as if nothing had happened, the missionaries’ mistrust was raised, and their fears of threatening actions on behalf of the Aborigines were not allayed. The Aborigines, however, had grounds for mistrust, as white settlers began to take possession of indigenous lands and perpetrated violent acts against the Aborigines. In September of 1868 for example, it was reported that a settler of the area, Mr Woodford, “shot a number of Blacks” for sheep stealing. He justified his actions by claiming that the ‘Blacks’ were going to attack him and rape his wife. In the following month, it was claimed that two Aboriginal men were killed by another settler, Mr Debeny, with a revolver as he scuffled with them over their daily stealing of between four and seven of his cattle. The missionaries claimed that “it is known that settlers such as these men [Woodford and Debeny] also don’t do any better with the women of the Blacks”49 – a reference to the raping of indigenous women by white settlers. Yet this sentence hung at the end of the paragraph, unable to effect any contemporary action, with the bulk of the descriptions reinforcing the Eurocentric stance that indigenous peoples were violent, brutish, uncivilized people. Therein lay no self-reflection or consideration of the violence by which colonisation and its institutions were forced upon these people. The police at Lake Hope added to the unsettled mix as they were occasionally called to protect the missionaries, yet were themselves known for their violent actions. For example, the Lutherans needed police to protect them from the Aborigines on the 14th of March,

47 48 49

Australischer Christenbote, 1867, 5, 18-19. Stevens, White Man’s Dreaming, 53. Missionsblatt, 1869, 3, 49-55.

170

chapter five

1867, with the Moravians needing their protection the following day. Relations between Blacks and Whites became so strained that the Victorian Association planned to have the mission combined with a police station to protect the missionaries.50 Understandably, the Diyari people saw no reason for the missionaries to be on the place and, according to the missionaries: “wollen uns hier nicht haben” (do not want us here). In order to demonstrate to the missionaries how much they were not wanted, the Diyari people coordinated a large-scale offensive. Kramer conceded that neither the time nor the place was right for the mission at Lake Kopperamanna, stating, “for a mission here it is many years too early, since indeed the hostilities have broken out, and at present the Blacks must first be made aware of the law of the whites.”51 The work was more fraught than first anticipated, and in 1868, Walder described the work at the mission as “alles geht seinen schleppenden Gang” (everything going its sluggish way), a less enthusiastic description than the “gewöhnlichen Gang” of 1867.52 Meissel, in turn, described the Aborigines at Lake Kopperamanna to the readership of the German –based Moravian, monthly journal, Das Missionsblatt, in a negative light, reflecting the negative experiences the missionaries themselves were having: At Hermannsburg a big Corroboree was held during the night and there a young man was cut in the most gruesome manner. A small child, who was born in the area, was most probably eaten. The Blacks only say that it was dead and cannot, however, indicate the place where it was buried. In this case one can be quite certain that a body like this was devoured.53

By casting aspersions on the character of indigenous peoples and assuming the worst with no evidence, Meissel helped to create an image of a doomed and hopeless race, which differed from his positive descriptions of Aborigines at Ebenezer. There were many accounts collected and published during the nineteenth century that claimed infanticide was a traditional Aboriginal practice and in this light Meissel’s

50

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 2 July 1867, NLA, MS 3343,

178. 51 52 53

Australischer Christenbote, 1867, 5, 19. Missionsblatt, 1869, 3, 53. Missionsblatt, 1869, 4, 78.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

171

comments were not anomalous.54 Yet for Meissel to assume without proof that a missing body was evidence of cannibalism indicated a desire on the part of the missionaries to play on the Victorian-era fancy for the grotesque amongst the Christenbote’s readership. Meissel’s fellow missionary, Kramer, had indicated that the brutish ‘Blacks’ were not ready for white-man’s laws, and connected Aborigines with innocent deaths and inhumane practices. Through such comments, the blame for the failure of the mission could be placed on the heathen Aborigines, and as such allowed the Moravians to withdraw from the venture with no impact upon their own ability to convert. Hagenauer, for his part, was manipulating an effective campaign of propaganda from Ramahyuck. He instructed Kramer that, as there were always two sides to every story, he should write to the conservative Melbourne newspaper, The Argus, to promote the missionaries’ side. This, Hagenauer counselled, would do “sehr viel für Eure Sache” (much for your affair).55 Hagenauer provided further support by preparing Kramer’s journal for “publication in Mr. Göthe’s little German paper,” by which he meant the Der australische Christenbote. In his correspondence with the Reverend George Mackie, the Convener of the Presbyterian Church’s Chinese and Aborigines Mission Committee, about the matter, Hagenauer stated: I am anxious to learn what the Comette [sic] will do with them under the present circumstances? I am afraid that their prospect for a number of years toward Coopers Creek and even Lake Hope will be [such] as that it would be better to recall them altogether. Perhaps if so, I may get Mr Kramer got [sic] to my school.56

Hagenauer’s constant request for his “old young friend Kramer” to return to help at the Ramahyuck school motivated him to manipulate the information presented to the public in regard to the Lake

54 See for example: A.W. Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1996), 748-750; Richard Oberländer, Australien. Geschichte der Entdeckung und Kolonisation. Bilder aus dem Leben der Ansiedler in Busch und Stadt. (Leipzig: Verlag von Otto Spamer, 1880), 308-309; and, Hermann Karsten, Die Geschichte der Evangelisch=Lutherischen Mission in Leipzig von Ihrer Entstehung bis auf die Gegenwart Dargestellt. Erste Teil (Güstrow: Verlag von Opitz & Co, 1893), 37-38. 55 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Kramer (Kopperamanna), 20 March 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 151. 56 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), 1 April 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 159.

172

chapter five

Kopperamanna mission.57 He even went so far as to send Kramer money so that he could return to Melbourne, but eventually bowed to Mackie’s authority and requested the money back from Kramer. In 1867, Kramer reported that the Lake Kopperamanna mission was already £150 in debt with no progress in converting the ‘heathen.’ In the following year, the UAC moved closer to a decision to close the mission, partly because they had had word that if they wished the mission to continue then they would have to cover all costs themselves.58 The Victorian Association had been concerned about funding the mission since 1866, and no longer wished to support it.59 They suggested that they would rather “take over the Wimmera mission,” with the Moravians suggesting that if this were to occur, it would free up more funds for the Coopers Creek mission.60 Walder was considerably upset by this decision and, against the advice printed in the Instructions,61 expressed his displeasure at the Committee’s decision, a move that was seen as “zu bedauern” (regrettable) by the UAC; however, given the circumstances it was “zu entschuldigen” (forgivable). The UAC distanced themselves from the mission by suggesting that they had not “begun this mission of their own will.”62 From the beginning, there had been caveats placed on the establishment of the mission, ranging from the decision not to draw a Los, to the discussion as to whether it were to be merely an exploratory venture or an actual new mission station. The UAC had gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure blame would be laid elsewhere should the endeavour fail. However, the UAC were not the only organization deflecting blame for the failed attempt. For example, when the mission did close, I.W. Cox, of the Aborigines Friends’ Association in South Australia, which was established in Adelaide in 1858, laid blame on the Victorian Association for its part in the venture. Cox charged the Victorian Association with interfering in another colony’s affairs without first consulting the [European] people affected, and for not sustaining the public’s enthusiasm for such a venture.63

57

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), [date illegible] 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 163-165. 58 PUAC, 8 August 1868, #10, 75. 59 PUAC, 13 March 1868, #9, 314-315. 60 PUAC, 20 August 1868, #5, 108. 61 Spangenberg, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen, §61, 85-57. 62 PUAC, 20 August 1868, #5, 109. 63 Cox (Adelaide) to Walder, 6 August 1868, UA, R.15.V.I.A.5.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

173

With the closure of the Coopers Creek mission in 1868, the missionaries disbanded. Kramer returned to Ramahyuck, much to Hagenauer’s delight. Kühn remained at the Point Pearce mission on the Yorke Peninsula, much to Wilson’s delight. Kühn’s membership of the Moravian Church was, however, under question as he had followed Francis’s example by marrying outside the Church without permission from the UAC.64 The two remaining missionaries, Meissel and Walder, were at the whims of the Victorian Association, yet they were both called by the UAC to the Moravian mission field of Jamaica (Meissel via Surinam).65 Ramahyuck and fate of Bessy Flower Throughout the 1860s, the Moravians had been offered many opportunities to expand their missionary work within Australia. There had been requests to establish mission stations in Gippsland and at Portland in Victoria. There had also been requests to establish mission stations in South Australia on the Yorke Peninsula, and in the ‘Interior.’ Of these, only Ramahyuck remained at the end of the decade. Yet even there, progress was sluggish. In 1865, Hagenauer reported that “750 religious services were held” there – an average of almost two per day for the whole year, and almost 300 more than Ebenezer was able to provide with two missionaries in 1870.66 Even with so much attention to catechising, it took three years for Hagenauer to convert the first person from the “wild and bad tribe” of Gippsland, as he called the members of five clans in the areas, which together are known as the Kulin nation.67 The first baptism at Ramahyuck occurred on 18 March, 1866, when Jimy (sometimes written Jimmy) took the name James Mathew and professed his belief in the Christian God.68 In scenes reminiscent of the first Moravian baptism at Ebenezer, it was not a Moravian, but rather a Presbyterian patron of the mission, A.J. Campbell, who presided over the baptism and also the opening of the Church. The event drew a crowd of some 200 people including many European 64

PUAC, 19 November 1868, #13, 181-182. PUAC, 17 December 1868, #4, 286-287; PUAC, 2 June 1868, #11, 188. 66 Report. Mission Station, Ramah. [sic] Lake Wellington, 15 November 1865, NLA, MS 3343, 8; Ebenezer Diary, 29 March 1870, AAV, MF 171, 26. 67 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Badham (London), 16 April 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 42. 68 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Chase (Melbourne), 1 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 45. 65

174

chapter five

settlers of the area. Hagenauer drew attention to the event by advertising it in the local paper, a medium which he would use more and more frequently for publicity of his work.69 The second baptism followed quickly with Charley, who took the name Charles Jacob, becoming a child of God in the next month. In reporting the spiritual state of the mission back to Germany in July of that year, Hagenauer was less than enthusiastic about his two converts and a third man who showed some spiritual promise. James Mathew, he stated, had left many weeks ago for a missionary trip to entice the ‘Blacks’ at Tarraville to come to Ramahyuck, yet he was overdue for his return. Furthermore, he said that Charles Jacob, although a good Christian, was always sick, and Jack, although showing promise, was “so dumb” that nothing was thought to be able to be made of him.70 Thus, as Hagenauer stated in his letter, ‘his’ three men were either on walk-about, invalid, or moronic—statements which reflected his pessimistic outlook for the conversion of the heathen Aborigines. Initial prospects for the school were not much better. After Kramer had left Ramahyuck for the Lake Kopperamanna mission in 1866, his post as teacher was filled by Bessy Flower. She was one of a number of Aboriginal women sent over as potential brides for the Christianized Victorian Aboriginal men from Anne Camfield’s ‘Institution for Native and Half-Caste Children’ at King George Sound in Western Australia, some 430 kilometres south-east of Perth, near current day Albany. Three women arrived at Ramahyuck in July of 1867. Initially, Flower wrote to Anne Camfield that Mrs Hagenauer was “such a dear lady,”71 and that Hagenauer himself was “so kind to us all,”72 yet Flower herself was seen to be out of line with the missionary order. Hagenauer’s solution to her rebellious nature, or as he euphemistically wrote “this

69 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Campbell (Geelong), 22 February 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 23. 70 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 28 July 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 84. 71 Bessy Flower (Ramahyuck) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), August 1867, cited in: Elizabeth Nelson, Sandra Smith, and Patricia Grimshaw, eds., Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1926 (Melbourne: The History Department, The University of Melbourne, 2002), 199. 72 Bessy Flower (Ramahyuck) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), 24 July 1867. Cited in Nelson, Smith and Grimshaw, Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1927, 197.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

175

present temptation,” was to have her wed.73 Camfield herself had hoped that Flower would wed one of the young Moravian missionaries. In responding to her suggestion, Hagenauer commented that this: speaks highly for the character and abilities of Bessy, but I am sorry to say that all our Missionaries are compelled by the rules of the Society to marry young ladies only known to the Board at home and trained especially for that purpose in our instructions. This rule even forbids them to marry any other young lady, but that mentioned above.74

By adhering to the Moravian Instructions, Hagenauer did not have to enter into a debate about cross-cultural marriages, and consequently Flower was denied access to the Moravians’ inner realms. Although she was a Christian, she was not, and could never be, a Moravian of equal standing or of equal responsibilities. Hagenauer wished that he “had a good educated young Black man suitable for her, [for] she would be of very great use here in my school and also in our native church to play the instrument [sic].” Her usefulness to the mission was seen in relation to her European training in deportment, and not to her abilities in areas in which the missionaries themselves were trained. Therefore, Hagenauer could tell Camfield that Flower would be very useful in the school, and “shall be as a member of our own family,”75 yet at the same time could be sending letters to Mackie, the Convenor of the Presbyterian Church’s Chinese and Aboriginal Mission Committee, stating that there “is therefore prospect for a school, only I want my old young friend Kramer to do it.”76 Flower was thereby denied the ability of being an integral part of the mission, rather, she was in Hagenauer’s eyes a temporary substitute until the order of the mission, as he saw it, was restored with Kramer returned to his rightful place as the school teacher. Hagenauer also interfered with Flower’s love-affair with a white labourer who worked on the mission. In reporting this liaison to Camfield, he stated that:

73 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), 21 December 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 220-221. 74 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to My dear Madam [Anne Camfield] (King George Sound), 17 January 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 128. 75 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), 23 March 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 149. 76 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), [date illegible] 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 163-165.

176

chapter five He has nothing in the world and poor Bessy would be worse off than if they were in the bush in the original state. Bessy is likes [sic] here very much and among the blacks she would always be in high estimation and for the best position but with such a man she would become a castaway. In school she also has done well and I miss her much. But what will we now do in the matter? To let her [go] back to you at once, would be some help for a little time, but as she evidently wishes to marry, seeing the others so happy. I believe you would get a good deal of anxiety yourself and the future would be darker still … It is true that there will not be one native in all Australia of her education, still if the man would be good [emphasis in original] it would be better for her to keep such a position and have the high esteem of all good Christians and people at large than to look to a white man, who may get tired of her any moment and deal badly with her.77

Hagenauer’s desire to shield Flower from the potential neglect of a white man also reflected his desire to keep Flower on the mission station as an example to the other residents. If she where to marry a white man she would have to leave the station, and thus his model Aboriginal woman would be lost. In 1868, Flower was eventually wed to Donald Cameron, a man of mixed descent, whom Hagenauer rated “of superior character and fair education.”78 He was, however, below her own educational standards. Flower’s marriage to a Victorian man ensured that she remained connected to Aboriginal Victoria. Bessy Flower was seen as a female role model for Aboriginal women on the mission as she exemplified Aboriginal progress in the civilizing mission, however, the progress came at a large personal cost to Flower, as the strict nature of the missionaries’ routines and the restrictions placed upon her led Flower to lose confidence in herself, lowering her self-esteem, and leading to her becoming “deeply depressed.”79 In the dual aims of Christianization and civilization she had been a ‘success’; she believed in the Christian God and expressed her gratitude to Camfield “for taking us out of the bush making us what we are,”80 yet she was never fully allowed to be part of European society. She would move on and off different mission 77 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), 20 November 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 211-215. 78 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), 27 April 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 253; Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Chaunery Esq. (Ballarat), 16 October 1877, NLA, MS 3343, 348. 79 Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines, 48. 80 Bessy Flower (South Yarra) to Anne Camfield (King George Sound), 17 June 1867. Cited in Nelson, Smith, and Grimshaw, eds., Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1926, 195.

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

177

stations for the rest of her life, remaining in the ‘waiting room,’ not only of history, but also of Moravian Christian belief systems. Educating the ‘natives’ In 1866, Hagenauer had an ambitious plan to establish a small boarding school at Ramahyuck “for the young, wherein they not only could receive instruction, but also be brought up in a Christian manner.” The children, he suggested, “would be very happy to live here, and the parents are willing to leave them here.”81 In the nineteenth century, boarding or residential schools were established for the ‘natives’ in many British colonies. This reflected contemporary educational theories, where ‘natives’ came under colonial and other institutional aegis, to be “turned into useful members of society.”82 The specific boarding schools at Ramahyuck, and the similar one which Spieseke established at Ebenezer, have been criticized by twentieth-century historians for actively discouraging the dissemination of Aboriginal cultural knowledge and language from older generations to the children. Indeed, in Moravian boarding schools and other institutions, Aboriginal children were provided an alternative reality to the traditional lifestyles that many of their parent’s had been raised in. Hartmann’s 1863 diary entry from Ebenezer revealed this, viz: We were very much disturbed today by Paddy asking for his little daughter Emma, a nice gentle little girl of about 7 or 8 years old, who has lived in the Mission-house for some time. We spoke to him about the good she was getting here in every way, shewed him her work, books, doll, the picture books we have to shew her, but I do not think all these would have availed, had the child herself been willing to go. But when he saw her tears of sorrow at going away, he relented, and promised she should stay. Before night, however, he had changed his mind, the mother, he said, cried as much at leaving her, as we must let her go after all hoping soon to get her back again. When we think of the vice which is practised in the camp and the wild, uncivilized habits of the people among whom she goes, it makes us feel very sad. But we trust that the Good Shepherd will watch over his little lamb, and teach her himself.83 81

PMD, 28 February 1866, #4, 28-29. Jamie S. Scott, “Penitential and Penitentiary: Native Canadians and Colonial Mission Education,” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Missions, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 117. 83 Diary of A. & M. Hartmann (1863 - 1870), 14 June 1863, MAB E. Hartmann collection (1979), Box 2 of 4. 82

178

chapter five

The missionaries actively tried to provide what they saw as the necessities for raising children in a Christian way, much like the choir systems at Herrnhut (see Chapter One), yet without regard for indigenous customs. For example, the Moravians segregated children at a young age, whereas traditional Aboriginal practice allowed children of both sexes to mingle with each other until they reached puberty. The missionaries, as the above quote demonstrates, were sensitive to some extent to the parents’ wishes, yet they believed in the superiority of their institutions and actively encouraged parents to place their children in the boarding house. At both Ramahyuck and Ebenezer, the missionaries placed married, converted Aboriginal couples in charge of the boarding houses as an example for all ‘heathen’ residents to follow. The Ebenezer boarding house was opened in 1874, with its 17 children under the care of an Aboriginal couple: Phillip Pepper (previously known as Charley Charley), brother of the first convert Nathanael, and his wife, Rebecca (who had formally had the European name ‘Jessie’).84 At Ramahyuck, Bessy and Donald Cameron were initially in charge of the boarding house. Despite their initially favourable position within the mission system, the couple did not stay long in this prestigious post, for when they differed in opinion from Hagenauer he removed them, prompting Flower later to declare that: “I can never be happy on a mission station.”85 Christianization and Civilization For the missionaries, the formal church marriage of Bessy Flower to a ‘half-caste’ man demonstrated their successful progress in civilizing and Christianizing the Aborigines. These two concepts were so strongly aligned that the Moravian historian, H.G. Schneider, stated in 1882 that “the missionary…has Evangelism in his right hand and in his left brings, what one, simply put, understands as Civilization.”86 Although ‘Civilization’ could be conceived as a difficult concept to

84

Australischer Christenbote 1864, 6, 22. Patricia Grimshaw, “Faith, Missionary Life, and the Family” in Gender and Empire, ed. P. Levine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 260-280; Bessy Cameron (Ebenezer) to Captain Page, BPA secretary (Melbourne), 10 October 1883. Cited in Nelson, Smith, and Grimshaw, eds. Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 18671926, 153. 86 Schneider, Missionsarbeit, 2. 85

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

179

define, depending as it did on the location and object, it was seemingly straightforward for the Moravians in Australia, as Spieseke’s letter in the Christenbote of 1865 was epitomized: The acceptance of the gospel has made it possible for them to become more civilized. All of the baptised, except for one, live, under the circumstances, in nicely built houses. And even this one, who has out of necessity until now lived in the camp, will soon have his house finished.87

This excerpt presumed a strong link between living in ‘nicely built houses’ and both civilization and Christianization, neatly following the historian Jane Samson’s argument that, “Conversion … had a geographical dimension.”88 The physical geography of the converted was evident in the European-styled huts and, for the missionaries, it was only in the absence of building materials that a ‘converted’ Aborigine could or would live in a ‘heathen,’ and thus ‘un-civilized,’ camp. In following the logic that the Christianization process could be linked to static geographic sites, such as mission stations, the Moravians justified taking Aboriginal children away from their itinerant families to place them into boarding houses, and thus into the fold of God and civilization. Although external conversion to European life-styles was important for the missionaries, the internal, spiritual conversion was deemed more important, as this excerpt from Spieseke’s letters to the Christenbote, of 1867 reveals: One often says: Civilize the Aborigines first and then make them into Christians. I support those who say that these two things should go hand in hand. If one of the two must come first, then it must be the preaching of the gospel. Once they take that on, then civilization will follow naturally. We know this from our own experiences.89

Religion defined and informed all aspects of the Moravian missionary work. In uncovering the reason for the failure of early Australian mission fields, the historian Jean Woolmington has argued that because the focus for these missions was placed on Christianization before civilization, the early missions did not meet with much success.90 87

Australischer Christenbote 1865, 5, 20. Jane Samson, “Landscapes of Faith: British Missionary Tourism in the South Pacific,” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Mission, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 92. 89 Australischer Christenbote 1867, 11, 43. 90 Jean Woolmington, “The Civilisation/Christianisation Debate and the Australian Aborigines,” Aboriginal History 10, no. 2 (1986), 96. 88

180

chapter five

The Moravians, however, bucked this trend and were deemed to be successful not only in converting heathen people to Christianity, but also bringing them into the folds of European civilization. They entered the mission field of Victoria at a time and place of a large cultural rupturing of Aboriginal people’s lives in the wake of European expansion. This period coincided with an increase in the Colonial Government’s control over Aboriginal lives. The Colonial Government was also pressured by land-holders to provide beneficial conditions for their economic ambitions, often to the detriment of indigenous peoples (See Chapter Three). The Government saw missionaries as allies in their ambition to control Aborigines, yet they were not necessarily in agreement with the methods that the missionaries used. For the Moravians, the honouring of the religious over the secular was paramount to their mission, and was a way of justifying their role within colonial society. They were not, however, blinded to the harm which civilization had brought upon Aborigines, and therefore distinguished between types of civilization that Aborigines came into contact with: Of course civilization that turns a sober savage into a drunken beggar is harmful. Let him take part in the good deeds of a real civilization, and things will change. Some have dared to say that nothing can be done for the Aborigines: don’t believe this. It is true, that he is deeply sunken, but he can be raised again.91

Within Spieseke’s world-view there was a hierarchy of civilizations into which Aborigines were subsumed. This complimented humanitarian beliefs, as Samson has argued in the context of the Pacific. Indigenous peoples “new to Christian morality and steeped in barbarism, would be forgiven much, while white men who sinned had fallen from grace and betrayed their superior heritage.”92 Spieseke, like other humanitarians and missionaries, believed that his moral superiority was due to adherence to the Christian faith, and assumed that Aborigines would be willing to take part in the ‘real civilization’ to which Christians belonged. Furthermore, Spieseke ascribed to the belief that, since Aborigines did not possess a natural desire for self-betterment as did Europeans, the fact that sometimes chose to live like Europeans was purely the work of God.93 Although the above quote creates a strong 91

Australischer Christenbote 1867, 11, 42. Jane Samson, Imperial Benevolence. Making British Authority in the Pacific Islands (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1998), 41. 93 Adolf Hartmann, ‘Missions=Nachrichten’ Australischer Christenbote, 1869, 1, 2. 92

„alles geht seinen schleppenden gang“

181

causal link between civilizing and Christianizing, not all missionaries accepted this concept outright. In 1863, four years before Spieseke’s words were published, and at the beginnings of the Ramahyuck mission station, Hagenauer stated that: We have often come across pious Christians who confuse Europeanization with Christianization. They believe that a person who does not live a European lifestyle cannot be a true Christian! Whoever is acquainted with the lifestyle of the Aborigines and knows how they must look for their food at different places and hence from generation to generation they are used to the wandering, will easily be able to explain that it is not a small thing for them to live a European lifestyle. We Europeans cannot think good of it, suppose however, that we should all of a sudden swap our lifestyle for theirs, would such a life be easy for us?94

Hagenauer, in the vein of Spieseke, privileged Christianity over civilization. Yet his excerpt deviated from the dominant view of Aborigines insofar as he did not try to place Aborigines in a European context rather, it suggested that the European reader should empathize with the Aborigines’ plight. It was one of only a few examples amidst the published writings of the Moravian missionaries in Australia that explicitly recognized the difficulties that Aborigines must have faced as they came into contact with European culture. In almost all other Moravian writings, the presence of the Christian God subsumed earthly problems or issues. Within this unusual passage, the Eurocentric stance of many other descriptions was distant, yet the assumed position of dominant Christian thought remained. Hagenauer was capable of empathy, but not of questioning the dominant hegemony. Thus, although his comments about Aborigines challenged the contemporary views on Aboriginality, they did not challenge the larger framework of power relations between indigenous subjects and colonizing powers. The Moravian missionaries believed entirely in the infinite wisdom of God, but not in the infinite wisdom of civilization. Thus, a converted Aboriginal man could live in a camp and still be a good Christian. Likewise, Bessy Flower was not allowed to marry a white man who was educated but not a good Christian, yet she was encouraged to marry a ‘half-caste’ man of lower educational standards, who was a good Christian. Similarly, indicators of civilisation such as townships and

94

Australischer Christenbote, 1863, 7, 26.

182

chapter five

public houses were deemed evil if they were not embedded within Christian values. The Moravian world-view was one in which God reigned supreme. This chapter has argued that, despite the change in the missionaries’ own perceptions, the Moravian Church’s global view of Aborigines was not challenged. Even with the more humane reporting from the side of the missionaries, the status quo of both the missionaries and the Moravian Church did not change. Furthermore, as the Moravian Church itself could not offer the missionaries much more than spiritual guidance, the missionaries inevitably became more embroiled in the politics of the colony, to suffer under a barrage of conflicting interests and desires. The history of the Moravian Church, which relied on tried and true practices, therefore impeded the abilities of the missionaries within the Australian mission field to respond to current situations. Thus, the decade closed with a “schleppend” (sluggish) thud to the Moravians’ missionary work, in contrast with the optimistic beginnings that the new decade promised. This was particularly evident in the mission to the ‘Interior’ that ultimately resulted in another failure to Christianize the Aborigines of Australia, caused in no small part by the Moravian Church’s insistent privileging of mission over missionaries, in this case serving their desire to keep local financial supporters onside. Added to the Moravian administration’s political machinations were also Hagenauer’s manipulations of the situation undertaken to ensure that Kramer would be returned to help him at Ramahyuck. Although the missionaries had changed their positions in relation to Aborigines, with some of their writings demonstrating more humane understandings of the Aboriginal position, ultimately their religious world-view constrained the ways in which they engaged in all public discourses on Aboriginality. The following chapter will demonstrate how the Moravians’ Christian values remained a dominant factor in their interactions with the colonial administration at the close of the nineteenth century.

Figure 7. Friedrich Hagenauer preaching at Ramahyuck.

CHAPTER SIX

“EVERY TRIUMPHANT DEATH” – CLOSURE IN A BRITISH COLONY Events during the 1880s shook the foundations upon which the Moravian mission field in the colony of Victoria was based. Whispers of closure echoed from the late 1870s, became a persistent murmuring throughout the decade, and reached a crescendo at the end of the 1880s, leaving the Moravians unsure about their work and protective of the investments they had made. There was much public pressure in Victoria for the closure of the missions, as it was believed that the last ‘remnants’ of the Victorian Aborigines would soon die out. Meanwhile it was thought that ‘half-castes’—people of mixed descent—should make their own way in the world and not be a burden on the public purse. The Moravian missionaries, and in particular Friedrich Hagenauer, were involved in this debate. Although he was a Moravian Christian missionary, Hagenauer became involved in secular affairs. This was an incongruity given the Moravian Instructions that imposed a distinction between the activities of missionaries and the politics of the governing bodies under which they lived. In holding such positions, he laboured under many competing demands, some of which had an impact on his role as a missionary. This chapter follows Andrew Porter’s suggestion to historians to, “take not only theology but a good many other things as seriously as did most missionaries of the day,”1 and Jane Samson’s caution to historians of missions not to “marginalize human spirituality and the role of religious belief in influencing attitudes and actions,”2 and thus keeps Hagenauer’s profession of Christianity at the forefront when analysing his activities in Victorian Aboriginal affairs. In particular the chapter will examine how Hagenauer viewed the Government’s Aboriginal station, Coranderrk, as well as his contribution to the so-called ‘Half-Caste’ Act of 1886 (An Act to amend 1 Andrew Porter, Religion Versus Empire?: British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700-1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 11. 2 Jane Samson, “Landscapes of Faith: British Missionary Tourism in the South Pacific,” in Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Mission, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 93.

186

chapter six

an Act intituled [sic] “An Act to provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria” (No. DCCCCXII) ), which was to have such a devesting effect on Aboriginal people, while all the time maintaining his strong faith in divine providence. Conflicts between the colonial ruler and the missionary: The Board for the Protection of Aborigines, mushrooming committees, and the Moravians As servants of God before those of man, Moravians desired to attain a level of governmental support that would best facilitate their secular work in the missions without impinging on their spiritual work. History had taught them that this was best done at arms-length from secular administrations, as the Instructions stated, viz: “that they have no desire to intermeddle with the politics of the country in which they labour, but are solely intent on the fulfilment of their official duties.”3 Chapter Four established that this Instruction was duly followed when the Moravians arrived in the Colony of Victoria for the second missionary attempt, however, by the end of the century, Hagenauer was very directly meddling with the politics of the Colony, and had become an integral part of the governmental response to, and control over, indigenous affairs. Although the Moravian Church held fast to their abiding narrative of how missions should be established, and how missionaries should behave, once in the field the missionaries had to grapple with situations outside of the realms of Moravian experience. Yet, this was not a position held only by the Moravians, for as the historian of mission Andrew Porter has identified, many “missionaries have been constrained by local circumstances.”4 The uniqueness of the Moravian situation in southern Australia lay in the fact that the circumstances in which they found themselves compelled them into secular work, and their responses to this compulsion had resounding consequences for the greater control of indigenous affairs in colonial Australia. Despite such conflicts, there were common aims held by both government and missionaries, such as those of civilization and control of the natives. 3 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, From the German, Second (Revised and Enlarged) ed. (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), § 61, 68. 4 Porter, Religion Versus Empire?, 13.

“every triumphant death”

187

Yet, the two groups often held different assumptions as to exactly what these aims meant, and how they should be attained. In the civilization debate of the late nineteenth century for example, the Moravians believed that “a true missionary is of course also a civilizer, but the outer civilization does not build the roots, rather the fruit of Christianity;”5 whereas for colonial governments, the civilization of indigenous people aided their control, and led to a reduction in the expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. During the 1870s, there was an increase in public curiosity in Victoria over the activities of the mission stations, with many local and international visitors keen to see not only the ‘good’ work conducted in ‘Christianizing’ the Aborigines, but also to whet their appetites for the curiosities of the ‘dying’ race. Despite Hagenauer’s claims that “our little community forms a kind of small world in itself and moves generally around its axle,”6 there was much interest in the Moravian missionary work in Australia, which created in itself conflicting obligations within the missionaries’ minds. On the one hand there was an obligation to promote their work to ensure that funding continued; and on the other, the unwanted attention had the potential to damage the good work of the mission, and to subject Aboriginal people to debased situations. One such situation was the engagement of Aboriginal men in a cricket tour of England in 1867-1868, which Hagenauer believed to have been demeaning, as well as to contribute to their mortal demise.7 Whilst Ramahyuck, which was closer to Melbourne and directed by Hagenauer, was often in the public gaze, the work at Ebenezer continued despite the changing of staff. Johannes Adolf Hieronymus Hartmann and his English Moravian wife, Mary Hartmann, arrived in Australia in 1864, however, Mary’s poor health caused them to return to England seven years.8 In September 1871, a Los was drawn for Hartmann’s replacement at Ebenezer, and in May of 1872, the 31-year old tailor, Bruder Johann Heinrich Stähle, arrived at Ebenezer to fill Hartmann’s post.9 Stähle’s time at Ebenezer proved brief. He left less 5 H.G. Schneider, Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882), 63. 6 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Macdonald, 25 December 1877, NLA, MS 3343, 746. 7 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 20 June 1881, NLA, MS 3343, 516-517. For more on this tour see for example: D.J. Mulvaney, Cricket Walkabout: The Australian Aboriginal Cricketers on Tour 1867-8 (London: Melbourne University Press, 1967). 8 PUAC, 21 September 1871, #5, 211. 9 PUAC, 30 September 1871, #8, 228.

188

chapter six

than two years later, heart-broken after the loss of his 23-year old wife, Maria Magdalena (née Stamm), in childbirth. Her death left him “lonely and forsaken.”10 He requested the UAC to send another wife to provide him company and thoughtfully provided them with four names. The Schwester drawn from the Los for him, Susette Walder, declined the offer, believing God wanted her to remain in Jamaica. Stähle’s subsequent three choices were all drawn in the negative, and thus no new Moravian wife was forthcoming for him.11 Like Job Francis before him (see Chapter Three), Stähle departed the services of the Moravian Church for other Aboriginal reserves: first Coranderrk in 1874, followed by Lake Condah in November 1875 (see Figure 1). The Moravian administration saw him as a “Bruder who remained in connection with the Brüdergemeine.”12 Although he no longer remained in the service of the Moravians, they nonetheless encouraged him to evangelize in the manner of the Moravians whilst he was located at the Aboriginal station of Coranderrk, a Government, and thus nominally secular, reserve. The Missionsdepartement kept a certain distance from Stähle, believing there to be a high probability that he would marry a ‘non-Moravian’, or, as the UAC notes suggested, a “Fremde” (stranger). This was not surprising given the failure of the Moravian’s decision making-processes to meet his request. He proved them correct by marrying a former schoolteacher of Coranderrk, Miss McLean.13 Stähle continued to work within the Victorian mission field, yet despite his best efforts and pleas, he never again worked as a Moravian missionary. With his loss, the Moravians called August Hahn through a Los in October 1874. He accepted the call and arrived in Australia in January 1876 with his English wife, Mary Ellinor (née Clemens).14 Instead of replacing Stähle at Ebenezer, Hahn was sent to Ramahyuck at Hagenauer’s request, with Kramer moving from Ramahyuck to fill Stähle’s position at Ebenezer. Both Hagenauer and Kramer were pleased with this outcome, as relations had soured between the two men. Yet, as will be detailed below, the relationship between Hagenauer

10

PMD, 14 January 1874, #19, 58. PUAC, 26 June 1873, #6, 245. 12 PUAC, 9 March 1875, #3, 194. 13 PMD, 3 March 1875, #8, 87-88. 14 PMD, 12 April 1876, #10, 190. 15 PMD, 3 March 1875, #6, 86; PMD, 3 March 1875, #7, 86; PMD, 23 June 1875, #1, 278; PMD, 23 June 1875, #2, 279. 11

“every triumphant death”

189

and Hahn was also not destined to last, demonstrating Hagenauer’s inability to collaborate with his fellow missionaries.15 Meanwhile at Ebenezer, the longest serving missionary, Spieseke, was becoming increasingly weakened by illness. The strain on his body weighed heavily on his heart. He confessed that: “Often I am myself weak in faith, and it is often difficult for me to bring the Message to the world.”16 His body finally succumbed, and he died on the 24th of June, 1877. The UAC had foreseen his physical demise, and took measures to call a successor in the form of (Herman) Paul Bogisch. Bogisch had been recommended for the missionary service and, as the letters of support for him were satisfactory, the UAC decided that he could be called without the drawing of an official Los—even though official usage didn’t cease until 1889.17 He accepted the call to the Australian mission field after drawing the affirmative in his own personal Los.18 Unlike the condemnation that Täger’s personal drawing of a Los had received from the UAC (see Chapter Two), Bogisch’s own drawing was not commented upon, even though the UAC itself had decided against asking God in this manner. The UAC also decided against drawing the Los in relation to the Schwester who would become Bogisch’s wife, Amalie Jindra.19 The UAC’s decision not to draw the Los for either Bogisch or his wife departed from the ways by which previous missionaries had been called to the Australian mission field, and perhaps reflected the UAC’s belief that, since the desired outcome was clear, divine providence did not need to be sought. The Bogisches arrived at Ebenezer August 1877, two months after Spieseke’s death. Although Spieseke was the voice of the Moravians at the beginning of the second period of Moravian presence in Australia, by the end of the century, the Government had deemed Hagenauer to be the expert on Aboriginality within and beyond the Moravian community. He also became the official voice of the Moravian Church in Australia. This move from secondary to primary missionary occurred before Spieseke died and was in part due to Hagenauer’s employment by, and close association with, the Presbyterian Church. In 1869, the Presbyterians 16

Missionsblatt, 1876, 1, 5. PUAC, 26 August 1876, #13, 96; Wilhelm Bettermann, “Das Los in der Brüdergemeine,” Zeitschrift für Volkskunde III, Heft 3 (1931): 284-287. 18 PUAC, 5 September 1876, #14, 109-110. 19 PUAC, 19 September 1876, #3, 133. 20 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 2 December 1869, NLA, MS 3343, 370. 17

190

chapter six

had conferred on him “the full status of a minister of Church.”20 In accepting the appointment, however, he made it clear to the Moravian Elders that he only did so to further his missionary work, and that: “er wollt nur der Brüderkirche angehören, u. sie nicht verlassen” (he wanted only to belong to the Moravian Church, and not to leave them), demonstrating his strong commitment to the Moravian faith.21 His association with the Presbyterian Church was in line with the Moravian Church seeing themselves as the “handmaid of the other larger Churches,”22 which also supports Porter’s notion that “missionaries viewed their world first of all with the eyes of faith and then through theological lenses.”23 In 1871, Hagenauer was further honoured by the Church of England through becoming the Superintendent of their Aboriginal mission station at Lake Tyers (see Figure 1). He commented to the Missionsdepartement that this was “proof of the appreciation and love that the Church of England has towards the dear Moravian Church,” thus deferring any personal recognition on his behalf, or any need to justify his political and religious positioning to his own Church.24 Through these contacts, he became responsible to the administrative bodies of both the Presbyterian Church and the Church of England, as well as to the Government through the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines (BPA), whilst still remaining responsible to the Moravian Church’s administrative bodies, and always ultimately responsible to God. The BPA itself was formed in 1869 through an Act of Parliament, with the Chief Secretary of Victoria as its Chairman. It was the Government’s third attempt at finding a suitable body for the administration of indigenous affairs. As Chapter Two explained, after the Protectorate System (1838-1848) failed, the Government retreated from running Aboriginal stations, and invited missionaries to fill this role. Yet, even in exiting from the ground-work, the Government maintained firm control over the administration and funding of mission stations. In 1860, a second attempt to administer indigenous affairs, in the form of the Central Board to Watch Over the Interests of 21

PMD, 9 March 1870, #7, 111. John Libbey, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869), 7. 23 Porter, Religion Versus Empire?, 13. 24 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 23 March 1871, NLA, MS 3343, 422. 22

“every triumphant death”

191

the Aborigines in the Colony of Victoria (Central Board), was established after much public pressure and concern for the surviving Aborigines of the colony. At its first meeting, the Board stated its desire for Aboriginal people to be self-supporting. As they believed this was likely to take some time, they suggested that missions should be encouraged, and the populations of each reserve—where practicable— should be placed under the care of missionaries. The Board was of opinion that: [it] is the bounden duty of the people who have taken possession of their country to protect them as far as possible, and to a certain extent to maintain them. We occupy for pastoral and for other purposes nearly all the land in the Colony, and that which we do not occupy is the least fitted for the black population. Under these circumstances it is necessary that permanent reserves should be made for the blacks whenever their numbers are such as to require a tract of country yielding food.25

The Board, in its misguided benevolence, suggested to the Parliament that Aborigines should “be confined as closely as possible to those reserves; and, for their better management and control, that the Act relating to the Aborigines should be amended giving to Your Excellency full power to order as to their residence and maintenance.”26 Thus, the Government’s stance on Aboriginal affairs was explicitly directed to the ‘management and control’ of Aborigines. It also reflected broader imperial attitudes of the 1850s and 1860s toward indigenous peoples.27 This period, however, was also one in which there was a “hiatus if not stagnation in important areas of missionary activity” within missionary societies, as Porter has argued.28 Thus, in the 1860s, religious organizations in Victoria saw the Government as being ‘indifferent’ to Aboriginal affairs, missionary organizations themselves were losing public support; and, for the Moravians in particular, global funds for missions were low.

25 First Report of the Central Board appointed to watch over the interest of the Aborigines in the Colony of Victoria, Presented to both houses of Parliament by his Excellency’s command, 1861, John Ferres, Government Printer, Melbourne, 11. 26 First Report of the Central Board, 11. 27 Patricia Grimshaw and Elizabeth Nelson, “Empire, ‘the Civilising Mission’ and Indigenous Christian Women in Colonial Victoria,” Australian Feminist Studies 16, no. 36 (2001): 295-309. 28 Porter, Religion Versus Empire?, 189.

192

chapter six

Although the Central Board had hoped for an early response to their proposal, it took until the 11th of November, 1869, for an Act To Provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria (Aboriginal Protection Act, 1869, 33 Vic. No. 349) to be passed as law.29 The Board had no precedents for the protective legislation drafted within Australia, and as the Australian law historian John McCorquodale has argued, it was instructive as, “the First Act in Australia to set the pattern for all other States,” in relation to ‘control’ over Aboriginal people.30 On a broader geographic scale, it was also at the forefront of racial legislations enacted throughout the British colonial world, with similar legislations appearing in 1865 for indigenous peoples of Canada, and in 1867 for New Zealand Maoris.31 The Victorian Aboriginal Protection Act was a comprehensive scheme in which the lives of Aboriginal people were controlled through the Government’s capacity to regulate their residence, employment, marriage, and social lives. It legislated governmental control over “the care[,] custody and education of the children of aborigines.”32 The 1869 Act also saw the establishment of the ‘Board for the Protection of the Aborigines’ (BPA), which maintained the same members as had served on the Central Board, and was also answerable to the Chief Secretary of Victoria. The change in the titles of these Boards from ‘watching over’ to ‘protection’ reflected a move from passive to active control. Furthermore, the 1869 Act provided legal recourse to “regulate [Aboriginal] residence, employment and access to liquor,” in a benevolent hope to, “curb the nastier propensities of Europeans rather than limit the civil liberties of Aborigines,” as the historian and anthropologist Diane Barwick has argued.33 The idea of shielding indigenous people from the negative effects of debased Europeans was mooted almost a decade before the Act was introduced, when, in 1860, the Central Board had asked their Honorary Correspondents around the colony 29 Fifth Report of the Central Board appointed to watch over the interest of the Aborigines in the Colony of Victoria, Presented to both houses of Parliament by his Excellency’s command, 1866, John Ferres, Government Printer, Melbourne, 17. 30 John McCorquodale, “The Legal Classification of Race in Australia,” Aboriginal History 10, no. 1 (1986), 11. 31 Patricia Grimshaw, “Australasia: One or Two ‘Honorable Cannibals’ in the House?,” in Equal Subjects, Unequal Rights. Indigenous Peoples in British Colonies, 1830-1910, ed. Julie Evans, et al. (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003): 63-87. 32 Aboriginal Protection Act, 1869, (Vic), Section 2 (V). 33 Diane Barwick, Rebellion at Coranderrk (Fyshwick: Aboriginal History Inc, 1998), 46.

“every triumphant death”

193

for their suggestions “as most likely to be beneficial to the natives” of the districts in which there were located. The overwhelming response was a call to protect Aborigines from the vices and bad influences of European culture.34 The Moravians in their response to the Central Board’s request noted the importance of providing Aborigines with Christianization. In the words of Spieseke, Considering that they belong to the one great family of mankind, and feeling therefore the same inward want as the rest after something higher than that wherewith they now try to satisfy their craving, the gospel should be preached to them, and that without loss of time, before they disappear; along with that bread should be given them; and being poor and needy should be brought into houses; and being too often denuded should be covered, until by their own industry they can procure this for themselves.35

Such responses from the missionaries ensured that they were seen in a favourable light by the Central Board, who expressed the wish in their First Report that: “every endeavour should be made to foster and encourage the self-denying efforts of the enlightened [Moravian] missionaries.”36 Despite such positive comments from the Central Board, by the time the 1869 Act was drafted there were no specific provisions for missionary activity. The Moravians themselves stood at odds with some aspects of the Act. They disagreed for example, with the BPA’s stance in relation to the distribution of individual Aborigines’ wages amongst the larger group, as Section 2(III) of the Act allowed.37 Hagenauer took particular objection to this Section of the Act, as he, like many other nineteenth-century missionaries, believed in the ‘dignity of labour.’38 Working for individual monetary gains was, for him, a way by which indigenous people could demonstrate both their civilized state and their autonomy. He stated that; “the [man] who works with his hands feels like a white man that he works for himself and his family and even for work for myself of the Station I pay them knowing

34

First Report of the Central Board, 18. First Report of the Central Board, 22. 36 First Report of the Central Board, 5. 37 Aboriginal Protection Act, 1869, No. 3[49], Section 2 (III), 2. 38 See for example: John Comaroff and Jean Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume Two: The Dialetics of Modernity on a South African Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 135; Andrew Porter, “ ‘Commerce and Christianity’: The Rise and Fall of a Nineteenth-Century Missionary Slogan,” The Historical Journal 28, no. 3 (1985): 597-621. 35

194

chapter six

that the labourer is worth of his live [sic].”39 This matter remained of great importance to him, despite its contradictory position to that of the Government. In later years, he reminisced that he had told the Central Board that: The Aborigines preferred at all time[s] to make their own terms for their work with other people and [they] always open their small earnings for themselves and their families according to their own discretion. I never could nore [sic] would interfere with that, and had I done so they would have left the Station! NOTE: if the Blacks shall become a self-supporting people in a civilised way they may and must be guided and directed in a kind way, but the payment for their work must be their own. If on the other hand their little income should be taken from them and either divided among the rest as the Board would direct or paid into the general revenue of Victoria, it would make slaves of them, and they would rather prefer to wander about in their old miserable state than submit to such treatment. All the Labour of the missionaries and all the money spent for them would have been in vain. In my opinion I will say, that it would not be lastful [sic] more just to take their earning away and if so the Ruler and Regulations would only do a great deal of harm instead of good.40

Intrinsic to Hagenauer’s stance was the use of commerce as a civilising agent which, although being a Eurocentric measure entirely ignorant of traditional Aboriginal practises of communal living, was needed for the dual aims of ‘Civilizing and Christianizing’ the heathen. However, Hagenauer himself deemed there to be a line between that which was seen as acceptable in the provision of labour as a civilising agent, and that which would enslave the inhabitants of the mission. For him, this line was overstepped by the restrictive wording of the 1869 legislation. In voicing his disagreement to the Presbyterian minister, George Mackie, in 1871, he reiterated his assertion that the Central Board had “no right to make slaves out of the natives,” or to “control things which [are] against common law. The Blackfellows are subjects of the Queen and must be able to enjoy all the liberties which other subject[s] have.”41 As we shall see however, within twenty years of the date of this letter,

39 ‘Extract of a statement made by me to the Central Board for Aborigines in regard to their wages or savings from the labours on their land by the Aborigines … made some years ago’, Hagenauer Letterbook, NLA, MS 3343, 440. 40 ‘Extract of a statement made by me to the Central Board …’ , Hagenauer Letterbook, NLA, MS 3343, 440. 41 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), 23 May 1871, NLA, MS 3343, 442.

“every triumphant death”

195

indigenous Victorians were to find themselves divorced from these sentiments which Hagenauer so nobly proclaimed, and this would occur partly by his own doing. Although Hagenauer proved himself on occasion to be a vocal objector to BPA directives, other Moravian missionaries were not so forthcoming in their criticism towards the Government. In the early 1870s for example, Spieseke ceased correspondence between himself and the BPA as a protest against their interference in Ebenezer’s affairs, an act which raised the ire of the Missionsdepartement, and demonstrated Spieseke’s failure to engage with colonial politics.42 Once laws were passed, however, Moravian missionaries were expected to comply with them to the very letter. The missionaries themselves also ensured that others followed suit, as exemplified by Kramer’s request in 1877 for a copy of the Aboriginal Act to be made available to the police in the nearby township of Dimboola, who were “willing to give their assistance in enforcing it.”43 Kramer’s need for external regulations and enforcement of the legal code reflected the growing agency which indigenous people exerted, for instance, through correspondence with governmental agencies. These were realms hitherto occupied by the missionaries and, as the Moravian code stressed discipline and adherence to the rules and regulations of the station, insurgence by such means was seen as insolence. When in 1879, Kramer heard that a complaint had been lodged against him, he protested that “the blacks would rather see us insulted than that discipline would be upheld if need be by means of punishment.”44 Yet for many Aboriginal people there were few options available other than to live on the mission stations, especially as governmental control over their place of residence was becoming increasingly strict. Some people managed to find independent lives away from the missions; however, the majority of Aboriginal people were residents of mission or Government stations.45

42

Hartmann (Fairfield) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 20 February 1873, AAV, MF 180. Kramer (Ebenezer) to Captain Page, Inspector of the Aborigines, 17 July 1877, NAA (Victoria), B313/93/16. 44 Kramer (Ebenezer) to Page, Inspector of the Aborigines, 2 October 1870, NAA (Victorian), B313/95/35. 45 See: Bain Attwood, “Off the Mission Stations: Aborigines in Gippsland 18601890,” Aboriginal History 10, no. 2 (1986): 131-151. 43

196

chapter six

The missionaries were themselves sometimes placed as mediators between the Colonial Government and their own Church. On occasion the missionaries were duly obliged to follow the official governmental orders even when these conflicted with their own moral code. Kramer, for instance, expressed the conflicting obligations expected of him in his secular role and his own moral codes when he officially agreed with a governmental dispatch that he privately disagreed with. For him, he “deemed it, however, [his] duty to make those statements contained in the official letter,” and therefore restrained his personal impression in secular correspondence.46 Thus, the ‘official’ voice of the missionaries was often filtered through understandings of responsibility and conflicting obligations, and cannot always be taken as their abiding personal stance on an issue. The situation was made even more complex for Hagenauer, who had a number of official roles, and thus numerous official voices that he projected. It was the negotiating of this complex web of committees, both governmental and religious, that Hagenauer pointed to as a very difficult aspect of the Moravian work within Victoria. In 1866, he noted to the Brüder of the Missionsdepartement that they were probably thinking, “daß doch keine Ende mit Committee’s in Australian, u. dieselben wachsen nur so heir wie die Schwämme” [emphasis in original] (that there was no end to committees in Australia, and that they grow like mushrooms).47 He suggested that at some stage all would become clear, but in the meantime the missionaries within Victoria had to follow the whole “Comitte plan” [sic]. The consolidation of committees was not, however, to eventuate, leaving Hagenauer complaining in the following year that; “Unsere Mission in Australien ist von der Art, daß weder Regeln noch fest stehende Beschlüsse immer ausführbar sind” (our mission in Australia is of the type, that neither rules or firm standing decisions can be carried out).48 The complex web of administrating bodies controlling different aspects of the Victorian Moravian mission field led him further to state that within Victoria a whole new component of the Brüder-Mission appeared, one which distinguished it on the outside from all other Moravian stations across the globe. On the inside—the spiritual side—the mission “im Geistlichen muß unsere Brüderische Art genau 46 Kramer (Ebenezer) to Page, Inspector of the Aborigines, 19 August 1879, NAA (Victoria), B313/95/25. 47 NLA, 24 May 1866, Hagenauer to Reichel, MS 3343, 62. 48 NLA, 22 December 1867, Hagenauer to Reichel, MS 3343, 224.

“every triumphant death”

197

durchgeführt werden” (must in spirit be continue to be carried out in the Moravian way). Furthermore, it was Hagenauer’s experience that it was neither the missionaries’ roles as agents of the Government, nor the changing administration of the same, that was the problem. Rather, “die Schwierigkeit tritt vielmehr in den Vordergrund zwischen den verschiedenen Cometees [sic] u. der Regierung wenigstens muß ich diese Erfahrung oft machen” (difficulty lay much more in the foreground between the different committees and the Government, at least, I have often had this experience).49 Indeed, colonial politics and power struggles would continue to affect the missions until they were finally closed in the early twentieth century. Funding remained a constant issue throughout this time. Despite the fact that the missions could not be on ‘sure footing’ in relation to their secular administration, Hagenauer’s belief in the providence of God proved unshakeable. Funding Funding was a constant strain upon the Moravian missionaries, both in Victoria as well as throughout the world. Although many Moravian mission stations attempted to become financially self-supporting, they mostly relied on external sources. The missionaries’ small salaries, if any, were often paid by local missionary organizations or churches. The needs of indigenous peoples—including for European clothing, nontraditional foods, or materials for European style house—also had to be covered. Within Victoria, the Government provided some funds and supplies for the benefit of the indigenous inhabitants of mission stations, yet it was never their intention to fully fund and support the mission stations.50 This meant that Aboriginal men were often obliged to earn a wage away from the mission. The missionaries were loathed to let Aboriginal men earn their own money away from the mission, for men could potentially come under the bad influences of ‘debauched’ Europeans. Moreover, if too many went away there would be no labourers for the agricultural work on the mission. And yet the mission itself could not financially support all the people residing there without

49

NLA, 22 December 1867, Hagenauer to Reichel, MS 3343, 224. BPA Memo, 19 September 1896, Public Records Office (PRO), Melbourne, VA 515/VPRS 1694/ 1896, Item [7]. 50

198

chapter six

outside help, often this help came through the wages that the Aboriginal men brought back with them, or from the Government. The missionaries needed governmental support, yet loathed to be subject to the Government’s power, and often complained to supporters about their desire to be financially independent of the Government.51 Such desire, however, was never plausible. The situation was particularly difficult at Ramahyuck, for unlike Ebenezer where the land grant had been given to the Moravian Trustees, the land at Ramahyuck belonged to the Government. This meant that any profits from the sale of produce went to the governmental fund for Aboriginal affairs, which in turn was divided up amongst the stations and paid quarterly. Hagenauer, along with John Bulmer at Lake Tyers, was not allowed to profit personally from the land upon which he lived. The two were not even allowed to raise animals or vegetables for food. Instead, they were forced to feed their families on their wages. To the Missionsdepartement, Hagenauer stated that he believed the Government’s stance was justified, as they “could hardly expect anything more.”52 In a letter to the Presbyterian Church two days after his letter to the Missionsdepartement, however, he declared himself nonplussed at the BPA’s stance: I myself was under the impression (like last April) that we as the spiritual instructors of the Blacks should reap by and bye [sic] some benefit from their reserve, but I am now officially informed that every penny must be accounted for to the Government; that the Government will stock the Land … build the houses, and claim everything as public Trustees for the Blacks, and we as a Church are only permitted to carry on our work on their land. This is, or course, quite a diffirent [sic] state of affairs than you and I thought at first. In consequence of that information I have applied to the Government for more help in money matters, and if I should get … some money back, which I gave or spent for the Blacks and for buildings I feel sure you will only be to glad…I am altogether out of money now, but as soon as I get my next quarter salary I shall be quite willing to send you again a little for the Harmonium.53

The change in his attitude over these two days exemplifies his deference to competing obligations. Despite his complaints, his situation did

51

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Morris, 14 December 1876, NLA, MS 3343, 216. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 22 December 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 222. 53 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), 24 December 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 226-228. 52

“every triumphant death”

199

not change. Some eight years later, he claimed that the control exercised by the ‘Christian-unfriendly’ Government over his finances and the use of mission produce would continue “so long as the Stations shall remain religious, instead of secular places.”54 In 1875, Hagenauer wrote a letter to the convenor of the Presbyterian Mission Committee, the Reverend Hamilton, in which he drew on his international connections to conclude that in Australia: The position between Missionaries and the Government is of a most peculiar nature and I can only say that I have no reason to complain at all for the Board of Protection have carried out the rules laid down for Missionaries in general and also for myself. As Missionaries or religious teachers we are not under the control of the Board, but are kindly permitted to teach as much religion as we like … I receive letters from Missionaries in different parts of the world and all complain that they have not control over their unsettled people neither any help from their Government, and we all are of opinion that we here are far in advance of them.55

Within Hagenauer’s analysis of the situation to a religious colleague, he focused on the religious aspect of the mission, and not the secular aspect. Yet, as we shall read, by the end of the century Hagenauer himself would engage in the secular aspects of the mission to such an extent that a subsequent history of the Australia mission would declare the situation in Victoria as an exception in which the missionaries were “von der Regierung ziemlich abhängig” (rather dependent of the Government).56 As Hagenauer was dependent on the financial support of the Presbyterian Church, they were in a position to scrutinize his financial and material situation. In 1875, for example, he was pressured not only from the BPA, as detailed above, but also from the Presbyterian Church, to justify his use of produce from the missionary stations for his own and his family’s sustenance. The Church required him to answer accusations brought against him in relation to his use of produce from the mission station, such as “milk, butter, beef, arrowroot, potatoes, vegetables of all kinds, pasture for horses & cows, water, dwelling house, fuel all for the most part without money or price,” when according to the

54

Hagenauer to Hamilton, 1 June 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 14. Hagenauer to Hamilton, 19 June 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 32. 56 Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das zweite Missionsjahrhundert, vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932), 573. 55

200

chapter six

Presbyterian Church all he “strictly required” was “tea, sugar and clothing.”57 In Hagenauer’s 42 page response, he snidely replied that he was, “sure that this cannot be the case, else I would not be able to exist very long, for with us the life generally begins with the daily bread, which may appear in the accounts either as flour or as bread from the backer [sic].” To the question as to “what you have got to do with your money?” he remarked that: “I am sure, or rather afraid, that after the perusal of my accounts, it will be said, “The wonder is, where do you get your money from?” [original emphasis].58 He thus indicated his indignation that he was requested to lay bare his personal life to the organization which paid him yet did not spiritually guide him. Hagenauer himself often stated that he had used his own money for the “benefit of the Blacks,” for example through paying for the passage of five indigenous women from Western Australia to Ramahyuck, including Bessy Flower.59 This often left him in a precarious financial situation, and indebted him to many creditors. When his gaze was directed toward the ways in which indigenous people spent their money, however, his response was laden with reference to the civilising virtues of economics. If the Aborigines’ money was used for aims which undermined the Christianizing or civilizing aspect of the mission—such as when they often gave away all that they had, or spent their earnings on alcohol— he despaired, and created an image of a people not capable of responsibly handling their own money, and therefore in need of paternalistic control.60 When Aborigines used money in ways that pleased him, he complimented them, stating that they were capable of spending money on useful, civilising purposes.61 Thus, within the tight financial situation of colonial Victoria, money was used as an agent of control over both the missionaries and also the ‘heathens’ whom the missionaries were trying to convert. For Hagenauer his own financial situation and the constraints placed upon him through the land not belonging to him were both frustrations. He was still willing, nevertheless, to suggest that his position was enviable compared with many other 57 58 59

Hagenauer(Ramahyuck) to Hamilton, 1 June 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 17. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Hamilton, 1 June 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 18. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Chase (Melbourne), 26 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343,

71. 60

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Brough Smyth (Melbourne), 5 September 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 97. 61 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Mackie (South Yarra), 1 April 1867, NLA, MS 3343, 158.

“every triumphant death”

201

missionaries in the world, as he was free to preach as often and as much as he liked with no interference from the Government, and this allowed him freely to fulfil his foremost concern. Coranderrk – ‘a nest of discontent’ Hagenauer, as a religious man, was dismissive of the Government’s Aboriginal reserve, Coranderrk, which was located a short distance north of Melbourne. It was established in 1863 through the efforts of members of the Kulin clans, who petitioned the Government for land upon which they could farm and live. According to the BPA, the residents of Coranderrk were problematic, as they were rebellious and troublesome, due in part to the large number of ‘half-castes’, a term referring to people of mixed descent. The anthropologist and historian, Diane Barwick, reported a different story in her posthumously published monograph on the history of Coranderrk, Rebellion at Coranderrk. She wrote of an Aboriginal people fighting for recognition and recompense from an uninterested Victorian Government.62 In nineteenth century Victoria, the politically active inhabitants of Coranderrk ensured that the station itself became a scapegoat for a growing public dissatisfaction with the level of public funding for all Aboriginal reserves and missions. Europeans who actively petitioned on behalf of Aborigines were seen to be meddling, and were frequently attributed blame for inciting the ‘Blacks’. Two Europeans who were often involved in the politics of Coranderrk were the original manager of the station, the Scotsman John Green, who was also a Presbyterian lay preacher, and Anne Bon, a wealthy Presbyterian widow. Hagenauer followed many members of the BPA in adopting a negative attitude towards these two people. His dismissive stance towards Green predated the political machinations of the 1870s, and was due in part to Green’s baptizing two of Hagenauer’s potential converts in 1866. Hagenauer himself professed to the Presbyterian A.J. Campbell; “I am not jealous, if souls are to go to Jesus.”63 Yet, he complained to the Missionsdepartement that the men baptized by Green were not Christian in character. He further complained to Campbell that Coranderrk received more funding than other stations and, as most 62 63

Barwick, Rebellion at Coranderrk. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Campbell (Geelong), 24 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 67.

202

chapter six

of the people on that station had been partially civilized, they were easier to deal with than his “wild and bad Blacks.”64 In later years, he accused Anne Bon of nurturing a vendetta against the BPA since she “was liable to a fine of £20 or one month imprisonment” for employing a ‘Blackfellow’ without their permission. Her subsequent support of indigenous protests against BPA policy was dismissed by Hagenauer with the suggestion that she was taking “up the war hatchet against the Board.”65 In 1875, Green hastily offered his resignation from his post as General Inspector of the Aborigines for the BPA, in protest against a BPA decision. When he tried to rescind this resignation, the BPA refused to reinstate him. Thus began a long period of tense times between Green and the BPA. The BPA was itself at this time in disarray, with political factions hurling accusations at one another. After the resignation of Green, the conditions at Coranderrk became so politically charged that a governmental Inquiry was undertaken. The contemporary popular press added to the situation by providing an abundance of negative coverage of Coranderrk and a number of rebellions on the station thought to be provoked by ‘half-castes.’ Hagenauer suggested to the Secretary of the BPA, Robert Brough Smyth, that this was due to Green. Furthermore, Hagenauer shared his opinion with Brough Smyth that Coranderrk, “should be given up and the land sold.”66 Brough Smyth himself resigned as Secretary of the BPA in 1876, “after being accused of having been irritable, lacking self-control and over fastidious. A board of inquiry found the charges of excessive severity [and] in the main substantiated.”67 Hagenauer was pleased that the agnostic and antagonistic Brough Smyth had resigned, as he had refused to recognise missionaries “as anything more than local guardians responsible for the secular welfare of the station residents,” a stance Hagenauer objected to.68 He wrote to Hamilton, the Convenor of the Presbyterian Church:

64

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 19 May 1866, NLA, MS 3343, 52. Hagenauer (Ramayhuck) to Macdonald, Strictly confidentially, 4 March 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 685. 66 Hagenauer (Ramayuck) to Brough Smyth (Melbourne), 11 September 1876, NLA, MS 3343, 184. 67 Australian Dictionary of Biography, online edition. www.adb.online.anu.edu.au [accessed 10 February, 2007]. 68 Barwick, Rebellion at Coranderrk, 111. 65

“every triumphant death”

203

I have read with great interest about Mr [Brough] Smyth and I trust that the cause of righteousness will at least prosper again…. It is to be hoped that in future the Board will not put him at the head of aboriginal affairs, for that would be dealing injustly with the poor Blacks and also with the fund voted by Parliament. I also trust that our friends in the Aboriginal Board will in future deal with the Mission Stations in a different way and not leave it to their teaching or what would be still better to have a Christian Gentleman and Secretary and Inspector on all the Mission Stations, for I feel sure that the Church would and could take up the work … When I read your statement about the afflictions of poor Mr & Mrs Green I could not help crying like a child and feel still very much affected. God allone [sic] can give them comfort … I also hope Mr Green may be restored to Coranderrk again for the good of the poor neglected Blacks, although I don’t think he ought to be Inspector again for several reasons I stated to you before.69

Thus, as long as a religious man adhering to a Protestant faith was head of Aboriginal affairs, Hagenauer would be satisfied. Furthermore, as long as his own mission was not affected, Hagenauer demonstrated to a Christian audience an emotive and sympathetic response to Green’s plight; yet in other responses, he demonstrated a callous disregard for the plight of the man, as well as for any Aborigines living on the station. In 1876, Hagenauer wrote a letter to Green’s replacement, Christian Ogilvie. He noted in reference to the amending of the Act and the new regulations that: Your proposals are so reasonable and just and I believe according to common Law of England that they can be carried out, which was not the case hitherto. I have had much Sympathy with yourself and the Gentlemen of the Aboriginal Board about the Coranderrk affairs, and I have no doubt that you will soon be out on clear sailing water with the whole work. You have the sympathy of all, who know the matter and I only hope the Government will not listen any longer to others but their own officers in the matter.70

Hagenauer was pleased with the newly appointed members of the BPA, as they were more religiously minded and would in his mind attend to the spiritual side of the mission. His religious sensibilities, however, were offended by the Coranderrk Inquiry of 1881, undertaken only four years after the 1877 Coranderrk Inquiry. In his criticism of the

69 70

187.

Hagenauer (Ramayuck) to Hamiliton, 11 February 1876, NLA, MS 3343, 123-124. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Ogilvie of BPA, 11 September 1876, NLA, MS 3343,

204

chapter six

secular station, he pointed to the lack of Christianity as a reason for its demise: Coranderrk was established under Mr. B Smyth on the much talked of principle of secularisation. Smyth glorified … it and even notified in writing to me once, that on all the Stations the management would be changed, for which he got a severe lecture from me. That secular principal at Coranderrk has since increased trouble to the present Board and Inspectors, not to say anything about the great expense to the country, and the result has been that matters went from bad to worse, and this [sic] is no doubt that it will get worse more and more and the Blacks get quite demoralized, which I have especially noted by reading the reports of that inquiry. I could not help but stating during my examination that at Coranderrk no manager could give satisfaction, not even the Archangel Gabriel … Coranderrk that nest of discontent ought to be done away, although it will not be an easy matter to get these men satisfied, yet they are after all like children and it may not be so difficult when it comes to the point.71

His statement that “not even the Archangel Gabriel” could satisfactorily manage Coranderrk could be taken to demonstrate his abhorrence of the ‘half-caste’ rebellion. Yet, by referring to the Archangel Gabriel, who in the Christian tradition is well known as the messenger of God heralding the Annunciation (Luke i:19-38), he also demonstrated his Christian world belief, and his frustration that the Christian message was not flourishing as he would have liked. In 1875, Hagenauer had stated to the Church of England’s W.E. Morris, who himself would become a BPA member in 1898, that “there should be only Mission Stations in the colony”, as they had been “far better managed than the Government Station, and had cost nothing to the state,” and that the Christian message served Aborigines much better than the Government.72 This was a stance that Hagenauer continued to take. Hagenauer wished for Coranderrk to be closed down, as it demonstrated neither Christian norms, nor his sense of order and discipline. The BPA also wished to close down Coranderrk, due to the perceived discontent and insubordination that the Aborigines on the reserve demonstrated towards authority. Much of the discontent at Coranderrk was directed towards the large number people of mixed descent on the

71

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Macdonald, 3 March 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 687. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Morris, 29 December 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 109-111. 72

“every triumphant death”

205

station—the so called ‘half-castes.’ Coranderrk was not, however, the only station on which ‘rebellions’ occurred, nor was it the only one on which Aboriginal people complained about the treatment to which they were subjected. In the correspondence of the BPA, and also in the Moravian correspondence, there are many instances of Aborigines complaining about missionaries, missionaries complaining about Aborigines, Aborigines complaining about other Aborigines, the BPA complaining about missionaries, the public complaining about the BPA, the BPA complaining about Aborigines, and the public complaining about the missionaries.73 The explicit and implicit complaints, accusations, and innuendoes paint a picture of a complex and difficult situation, where it is often difficult to know where truth might lie, buried as it is under so many layers of manipulation, and so much pressure for prestige, votes, support, money, funding, food, shelter, and survival. At Ramahyuck, a fight was being played out between Hagenauer and August Hahn, a Moravian missionary who had been sent out to Australia with his wife in January 1876 to replace Stähle. Relations between the two men started amicably, with Hagenauer writing to Spieseke that he thought the Hahns to be “lovely people,” and that he was looking forward to Hahn being able to help on the mission station.74 Yet, as with all of Hagenauer’s relationships with fellow missionaries, things soon soured. Hagenauer complained that Hahn spent all his spare time in his room and, like Kramer, did not help as much as was needed. This put pressure on Hagenauer’s health, and possibly on his nerves. Moreover, he complained that Hahn had defrauded the Government and, in order for there not to be a scandal, something had to be done. He asked the Moravian administration to replace Hahn with a more suitable missionary.75 According to Hagenauer, Hahn assumed that he would not be moved from his post because he was the son-in-law of Gottfried Clemens, a prominent British Moravian. This,

73 See: B312-356, NAA (Victoria); PRO, VA 515/VPRS 1694; Hagenauer Letterbook, NLA, MS 3343; R.15.V.I.b.6, UA, and also Elizabeth Nelson, Sandra Smith, and Patricia Grimshaw, eds., Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1926 (Melbourne: The History Department, The University of Melbourne, 2002); and, Barwick, Rebellion at Coranderrk. 74 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Spieseke (Ebenezer), 29 January 1876, NLA, MS 3343, 117. 75 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 10 September 1879, NLA, MS 3343, 427-428.

206

chapter six

however, was not to be the case. In 1880, Hahn was forced to leave Ramahyuck, yet Hagenauer lost some trust in the eyes of the Moravian administration.76 His behaviour belied somewhat his initial letter of recommendation which had stated, “Mit seinen Collegen in der Anstalt steht er gut; er weiß nachzugeben und sich zu fügen” (with his colleagues in the institution he gets along well, he knows how to yield and how to submit [to someone else]),77 and further indicated the stress placed upon missionaries in the colonial environment. A replacement Government teacher, Mr Beilby, was sent to Ramahyuck. Hagenauer had known Beilby for ten years, and early in 1876, Beilby had asked Hagenauer for a teaching position.78 As Beilby himself was a Baptist, there was uncertainty on the side of the Moravian Church as to who would be responsible for the teaching of religion, with the situation resolved by Hagenauer taking this responsibility. Beilby’s appointment was not well received by the Missionsdepartement, who were very critical of the Government’s move. They stated: “Es ist ein abnormer Zustand, daß die Regierung so ohne weiteres für die Schule Lehrer sendet, dieselbe wird freilich als Regieungsschule angesehen”(It is an abnormal situation that the Government sends out teachers for the school without any further [discussion], this school is indeed seen to be a Government school).79 The implication was that the Government had overstepped its responsibilities into the religious territory of the Moravians. According to Hagenauer, the Missionsdepartement had been informed that Hahn would be replaced by a governmental employee.80 Yet, as he did not inform the Missionsdepartement sooner, and did not provide a name of a Moravian who might have been suitable for the job, Hagenauer effectively abolished the second missionary position at Ramahyuck. This was a point of which the Missionsdepartement were well aware, as reflected in their request for Hagenauer to explain himself. Hagenauer emphatically protested his innocence, and shifted the weight of ‘disobedience’ on to Bogisch, who did not take up the call to move from Ebenezer to Ramahyuck in 1880. Although the Missionsdepartement wanted to believe his “affirmation that he was not 76 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Bechler (Herrnhut), 13 January 1880, NLA, MS 3343, 467. 77 Hagenauer’s „Zeugnis” UA, R.15.A. 17.g. 3(H). 78 Hagenaeur (Ramahyuck) to Bechler (Herrnhut), 12 May 1880, NLA, MS 3343, 477. 79 PMD, 11 February 1880, # 7, 74-75. 80 PUAC, 24 November 1880, # 18, 423.

“every triumphant death”

207

aware that he had done anything wrong,” they were not entirely convinced by Hagenauer’s arguments, and wished that he had been clearer in his communications. They also could not accept that Bogisch should be implicated in the issue, as there was no possible way that he could leave Ebenezer. Not only had Hagenauer eliminated the need for the second missionary position at Ramahyuck, but there was no chance that the Missionsdepartement would replace Hahn as they did not have the requisite funds. This allowed Hagenauer’s voice to be the sole one reporting on the work of the mission. As the previous chapters have demonstrated, the UAC and the Missionsdepartement relied upon receiving multiple points of view from missionaries dispersed over vast locations around the globe. This was important in order that the Moravian administration was able to read between the lines and provide the most appropriate advice and instruction to missionaries, who themselves had no recourse to personal interviews with Moravian administrative bodies. With no second Moravian voice to either counter or support Hagenauer’s accounts, his voice reigned supreme. Throughout the decades, Hagenauer gained more power within the Victorian missionary scene. By 1880, he was the only missionary at Ramahyuck. He had become closely connected with the Church of England in 1871, when he became the Superintendent of their Aboriginal Mission at Lake Tyers.81 He had made friends within the German Lutheran population of Melbourne, and through this had gained important supporters. One of these was Herrmann Herlitz, who was the General Superintendent of the United Lutheran Synod of Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, as well as the editor of the Lutheran German-language monthly, the Australischer Christenbote. Hagenauer utilized these relationships to his advantage. During the Hahn affair for example, Herlitz threatened the Moravian Church with the withdrawal of Lutheran support in Victoria if they did not support Hagenauer over Hahn.82 This was money the Moravians could not afford to lose, and may well have been a consideration in their subsequent dealings in the matter. Hagenauer was also the Superintendent of the Moravian Mission in Australia. This was a consequence of a 1877 Royal Commission finding that each church or denomination had to have a ‘responsible head’, 81 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to W.E. Morris Esq., 3 April 1871, NLA, MS 3343, 423-424. 82 PMD, 29 January 1880, #2, 35-37.

208

chapter six

who would be charged with communicating with the Government in matters affecting indigenous affairs.83 Yet, Hagenauer did not always consult with the other Moravian missionaries in his decisions in secular matters. Further to his official connections, he also made many connections with distinguished people in the colony. He communicated with ethnologists, botanists, other men of science—including Charles Darwin—men of letters, men of influence, and politicians, and thereby connected himself into a global secular and scientific networks. He kept up to date with Moravian missionary news from around the world,84 and had established communications with a number of international publications, including Moravian publications in the United States of America.85 He was not an isolated man, and had friends in important places; friends gained through decades of devotion to Aboriginal mission stations. ‘Half-Castes’ and Humanity After twenty years in Victoria, Hagenauer had seen the ‘full-blood’ indigenous population plummet from an estimated 2,341 to around 300.86 He unquestionably attributed the demise of the Aboriginal tribes of Victoria to the, “Krankheiten unter ihnen, jedenfalls als Folgen des unmoralischen heidnischen Lebens” (diseases amongst them, which [were] a consequence of their immoral, heathen lives).87 With his 83

Hagenauer(Ramahyuck) to Reichel (Herrnhut), 10 May 1877, NLA, MS 3343,

293. 84 See for example: His comments on Jamaica, Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 17 June 1880, NLA, MS 3343, 483; His comments on Suriname, Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 21 May 1881, NLA, MS 3343, 513; His comments on the “Eskimos”, Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 20 June 1881, NLA, MS 3343, 516-518; His comments on North America, Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 3 June 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 537. 85 Hagenauer corresponded with the editor of the Bethlehem based Moravian children’s publication, “Little Missionary.” See for example Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to H.H. Cland (Bethlehem, USA), [no date], NLA, MS 3343, 66; He also corresponded with the editor of “The Reader.” See for example: Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Oates, 3 July 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 37-39. 86 The number 2,341 is taken from: First Report of the Central Board appointed to watch over the interest of the Aborigines in the Colony of Victoria, Presented to both houses of Parliament by his Excellency’s command, 1861, John Ferres, Government Printer, Melbourne, 13. The number 300 is taken from: Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 7 August 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 541-542. 87 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 9 June 1884, NLA, MS 3343, 583-589.

“every triumphant death”

209

unfaltering belief in God and Christian morality, he believed that his own work had been very successful. In 1884, he stated that of the 300 heathens who had been in the area when he arrived, all but 16 were Christians, and even some of these were under Christian instruction.88 Compared to the estimated total of 80,000 Moravian converts across the globe at this time, Hagenauer’s number of converts was miniscule.89 Although he deemed it a moral obligation for the Government to support the Aborigines who had had their land taken away from them, he, like many of his contemporaries, saw Aborigines as a dying race and believed that they had “lived much longer through the effects of the gospel as would have been the case otherwise.”90 Even death was to be celebrated. In a letter to Henry Shaw of the London Moravian Church, he stated: Regarding the work here with the remnants of our poor people, we have every reason to thank God and take courage, although all the victories which are here gained will bring us nearer to the end of the mission. The number of natives is small and every triumphant death, which we have to record reduces the total, and of course, the time is drawing nearer and nearer when stations should be brought together. I mean some stations given up and the remaining blacks located at the other missionary establishments.91

Thus, in the 1880s Hagenauer believed that God had made his mark on the native heathens of Victoria, and that the ‘triumphant’ deaths were a sign of the spiritual progress which had been made. He indicated in his correspondence with the UAC and the Missionsdepartement that he was not concerned about his own position as the missionary at Ramahyuck, for even if the Victorian field were to close he would still remain part of the broader Moravian community, which was an integral part of his identity.92 Moreover, with over 6,000 potential converts

88 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 10 January 1883, NLA, MS 3343, 570. 89 Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 674. 90 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Shaw (London), 18 June 1883, NLA, MS 3343, 562. 91 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Shaw (London), 5 May 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 536. 92 Even though Hagenauer was naturalized as a British subject, demonstrating that he was willing to discard his German nationhood, he strongly reiterated his membership of the Moravian Church to the Church Elders on numerous occasions, and retained this status even after he became a full member of the Presbyterian Church. See for example: Hagenauer, Friedrich August – Naturalisation papers, NAA (Canberra), A712, 1863/C9379, [Digital copy, accessed 2/06/05]; PMD, 9 February 1870, #3, 60.

210

chapter six

amongst the ‘Blacks’ of New South Wales, there was a possibility for God’s work to be undertaken in new mission fields within Australia. Indeed, Hagenauer’s enthusiastic report of 1885 of his exploratory journey to Queensland in the far north of Australia encouraged the Moravian Church to begin a new mission field there from 1891.93 The idea to venture into a new mission field was in line with the writings of a British Moravian, the Charles Buchner, who strongly recommended that, in view of the “critical financial position” of the Moravian Church at the end of the nineteenth century, it would be prudent to withdraw from the “old work.” He suggested instead that the Church “continue [the] new work with all our might and in courageous faith” in order to be a “truly Missionary Church.”94 Victoria was an ‘old’ field by this stage. It had had over sixty years of experience, and had by then few prospects for bringing further Aborigines to Christ. The Government itself had expressed a desire to bring the work at Ramahyuck and Ebenezer to a close, especially in light of the number of people of mixed blood living on the stations. By the 1880s, the Moravians were beginning to complain that another law needed to be passed to extend the limits of the 1869 Act. Both Kramer at Ebenezer and Hagenauer at Ramahyuck voiced their uneasiness at the fact that that the 1869 Act had become increasingly difficult to implement due to the increased numbers of people of mixed-descent on the stations.95 The general public was also beginning to object more loudly to the ongoing cost of supporting the Aborigines. Pressures such as these contributed to the Government enacting An Act to Amend an Act intituled [sic] “An Act to provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria” (No. DCCCCXII) in December 1886. This Act was known as the ‘Half-Caste’ Act. It placed more restrictive controls over Aboriginal people, as well as legally determining who was classified as an Aborigine. Hagenauer was implicit in the drafting of the ‘Half-Caste’ Act, and, as we will read, through these actions demonstrated that he privileged the act of converting over the converts themselves. In extension, he privileged his 93

Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 576-614. Charles Buchner, The Foreign Mission Work in the Moravian Church in View of the General Synod in 1899. For Private Circulation (Bradford: Bottomley Brothers, 1899), 17. 95 Kramer (Ebenezer) to Page, Inspector of the Aborigines, 3 September 1878, NAA (Victoria), B313/94/40-40A; Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Shaw (London), 5 May 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 535. 94

“every triumphant death”

211

belief in Christian spirituality over individual humanity, and thereby the religious over the secular. In 1882, Hagenauer was aware that the dwindling numbers of Aborigines at Ramahyuck as well as the meagre governmental funding would put an end to his work. He lamented that: with the adults who are left not much work can be done any longer and I have to give up the cultivation of our beautiful arrowroot and also the hops, for to employ white labourers would be beside the object of our mission and might do more harm than spiritual progress of our people.96

With the demise of the strength, health, and numbers of Aborigines on the station, there was no manpower for physical work, and therefore the use of physical labour as an expression of the civilising concepts of the mission was abandoned. The focus of the mission was thereby limited to cultivating souls for Christ. Continued funding for the mission stations in Victoria was looking increasingly unlikely, because public support was low and governmental support could not be relied upon. Aboriginal death rates were high, as had been foreseen in 1869 by the Irish Moravian, John Libbey, who commented in his Euro-centric way that: In some cases these aboriginal races are sunk so low that there is no human likelihood for their ever being fit to be left to themselves, either for the conduct of their own civil affairs, or for self-government and teaching as Christian communities. They must, sooner or later, either become extinct through their own feebleness, or be lost through mingling with stronger races, if not (as is the case with so many before they are Christianized) destroyed by the vices and luxuries brought to them by an unchristian and unscrupulous trade.97

Within this text, the Aboriginal races were projected as being doomed on three fronts, either through the perceived natural inferiority of the races, through assimilation (euphemistically “mingling with stronger races”), or thought their inability to refrain from the vices of the European race. The subtext of this excerpt remained that Aborigines were in need of protection from themselves and from malevolent Europeans, and this need could best be met through the civilizing mission. In the Victorian mission field, there were a number of children born as products of such “mingling with stronger races,” as

96 97

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Shaw (London), 5 May 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 536. Libbey, The Missionary Character of Moravians, 13-14.

212

chapter six

Libbey would have it. In Hagenauer’s imaginings, the original ‘halfcastes’ themselves were the “sinful fruits” of immoral white men and their interactions with ‘heathen’ Aborigines, and it was they who brought “Schaden u. Scham” (damage and shame) back on the white population.98 These “poor children,” he wrote to James Connor of the Missionsdepartement, were naturally not themselves to blame for the sins of their fathers; „ja im Gegengtheil had man überall alles gethan, um den Kindern die mit ihren schwarzen Müthern umherzogen, eine gute Erziehung zu geben u. sie unter den Einfluß des Evangeliums zu bringen”(indeed on the contrary, everyone did everything one could to raise the children with their black Mothers, to give them a good upbringing and to bring them under the influence of Evangelism).99 He stated that all of these children received a good upbringing, and were healthy and strong, “unlike the completely black people.” And, contrary to Spieseke’s 1869 claim that the unwillingness of Aborigines to marry contributed to the people’s demise, Hagenauer claimed that as they had married each other in Christian and legal ways, the numbers of such people had increased on the stations so that at some places there were more ‘half-whites’ than ‘Blacks.’ Thus, according to him, immorality had created such people, Christianity had continued to increase their numbers, yet the Government should control them – demonstrating that his racist view of ‘half-castes’ was mediated through Christian understandings of morality, and shaped through contemporary notions of governance. In 1882, Hagenauer arrived in Melbourne at the request of the BPA to converge with all other managers of the Aboriginal stations for a ‘Missions Conference.’ The purpose of the conference was to provide advice to the Government on points pertaining to the situation that the missions found themselves in, and furthermore, to lay before the Government a publication which would inform a new law regarding Aboriginal Victorians. Hagenauer took the opportunity once again to reiterate his position on the importance of God for dealing with Aborigines. He agreed with the drafting of a new law, because he saw the 1869 law as too mild for the ‘half-whites,’ many of whom had only been born after this law had been imposed. Indeed he saw the 1869 Act as an injustice for ‘half-castes.’ In his world view, they were seen and 98 99

585.

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 9 June 1884, NLA, MS 3343, 585. Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 9 June 1884, NLA, MS 3343,

“every triumphant death”

213

treated as beggars, and were not on an equal standing with other people of the land. They should, he declared, be brought up as white people were and mixed in with the white population. Moreover, he believed that since the majority of Aborigines in the colony were “half castes or ¾ whites” it was necessary to plan for their future, especially because the Government“kann doch wirklich nicht diese weisse Aboriginal Bevölkerung fortwährend ganz mit Nahrung u. Kleidung ohne Arbeit dafür zu erhalten besorgen” (could not possibly continue to look after this white Aboriginal population wholly with food and clothing, without receiving work for it).100 The historian Richard Broome has stated that, in 1881, the BPA saw ‘half-castes’ as “unfit to manage in the wider world, and predicted that if this experiment was tried the men ‘would become loafers and vagabonds and the women prostitutes.’ ”101 Yet Hagenauer, as a Christian, stood in opposition to the BPA on this point, for although he believed that a new law was needed to regulate what he called the “quite white” people of mixed descent, he nonetheless believed them as capable of supporting themselves, and thus able to work alongside white people in the settler society as equals.102 In 1884, Hagenauer wrote in detail of the ‘half-caste’ question in a letter to Connor of the Missionsdepartement. His copy-book shows that he wrote three versions of the letter before he was happy with its tone and content, the third being a more considered response than some of his earlier correspondence.103 All three letters started the same way, with a lengthy description regarding the need for the two Moravian missionaries located at Ebenezer to be paid higher salaries. One hundred pounds, Hagenauer stated, was not enough for a missionary to live on, even if he were frugal with his money. This was not something which Hagenauer himself needed to worry about, as he received over three times that amount from the Presbyterian Church for his work at Ramahyuck.104 He further suggested that there was a far-reaching question in Victoria in relation to the ‘half-whites,’ which he believed must soon be dealt with by Parliament. According to him, these people were 100 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 7 August 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 541-542. 101 Richard Broome, Aboriginal Victorians: A History since 1800 (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 180. 102 Hagenauer (Ramayuck) to Shaw (London), 5 May 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 536. 103 Three copies of Hagenauer (Ramayuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 22 February 1884, NLA, MS 3343, 574-581. 104 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Hamilton, 1 June 1875, NLA, MS 3343, 15.

214

chapter six

treated as ‘Blacks’ under the 1869 Act, even though many of them were almost entirely white, and although they were capable of work, they freely received clothing, food, and housing from the Government, and could not be forced to work. This last point reiterated his belief in the ‘dignity of labour’. Considering that his letter began with a plea for higher wages for the missionaries at Ebenezer, his comments were in the end a criticism of the governmental system, which in his mind rewarded begging and insolence over hard-work and Christian ethics. Soon, he suggested, there would only be ‘half-whites’ left, and their fate needed to be decided upon quickly. Furthermore, as Ebenezer had hardly any ‘Blacks’ left on the station, he noted that soon only one missionary couple would be needed. Hagenauer concluded the letter(s) by stating that he felt compelled to raise this question as to the future of the missions in Victoria with headquarters before it was advised upon in the colony itself, ensuring that the UAC would have time to instruct the missionaries on what to do if indeed a mission station needed to be closed. Within this letter, Hagenauer did not make claims as how to fix the ‘half-caste problem,’ rather he provided his view of the ‘question,’ which itself was laced with racial categories and expressions of public discontent levied towards the ‘half-castes.’ In Germany, the Missionsdepartement read Hagenauer’s letter in light of the civilizing aspect of the mission insofar as they summarized Hagenauer’s letter with the following, “Das Ziel ist, sie zur Gleichstellung mit den Weißen binnen 7 Jahren heranzuziehen” (The goal is to draw [people of mixed descent] to the same standing as Whites within seven years).105 This brief note was the last mention of the Act in the Missionsdepartement’s minutes. Whilst the German voice remained silent, within Australia the 1886 Act would influence Aboriginal affairs across the county into the next century. In his communication explaining the ‘half-caste’ situation, Hagenauer complained to the Missionsdepartement that the Government had done nothing in regard to the fate of people of mixed descent, demonstrating his long-held opinion that the Government was apathetic in relation to the welfare of the Aborigines. The Moravian Church had also held this opinion of the Government since the beginnings of the Lake Boga mission station. To Hagenauer’s great surprise, within months of his 1884 letter being penned, the BPA began in earnest to amend

105

PMD, 20 August 1884, #16, 267.

“every triumphant death”

215

the 1869 Act, which was passed through Parliament into law on 16 December 1886. The ‘Half-Caste’ Act (1886) resulted in Aboriginal people being classified in racial terms, as Hagenauer had hoped for. Those of mixed-decent under the age of 35 were ejected from mission and Government stations. Their access to rations would be curtailed over a seven-year period, after which rations were to be completely stopped. These actions broke up indigenous families, with many children legally not allowed to live with their mothers and/or fathers on the mission station.106 A dire consequence of the Act was that many indigenous people were forced towards abject poverty, as they moved into a wider colonial society soon to be engulfed by economic depression. As a descendant of Nathanael Pepper, the first convert of the Moravians, wrote, “it broke a lot of people’s hearts that rule did.”107 Hagenauer’s ruminations on the topic suggested no forethought as to the negative consequences of such an act. Rather it demonstrated his blind belief in an omnipotent Christian God, and his utter subjugation to faith, which, as a corollary, was devastating for those under his power. The 1886 Act, as with the 1869 Act, had wider reaching consequences than those simply pertaining to Victoria. It was an example for other colonies within Australia to follow in creating legislation for the control and protection of Aborigines. In 1909, New South Wales enacted the Aborigines Protection Act, which mirrored the Victorian ‘Half-Caste’ Act of 1886 almost verbatim in its policy of assimilation. In other states, policies with similar outcomes as the Victorian 1886 Act were formulated in a language that favoured protecting Aborigines from the vices and dangers of Europeans, rather than assimilation. The Aboriginal Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act was introduced in Queensland in 1897, which was the model for similar Aboriginal Protection Acts in Western Australia (1905), South Australia (1911) and the Northern Territory (1911).108 These paternalistic acts created segregated spaces for Aboriginal people in 106 See for example: Grimshaw and Nelson, “Empire, ‘the Civilising Mission’ and Indigenous Christian Women in Colonial Victoria.”; and, Nelson, Smith, and Grimshaw, eds., Letters from Aboriginal Women of Victoria, 1867-1926. 107 Phillip Pepper and Tess De Araugo, You Are What You Make Yourself to Be: The Story of a Victorian Aboriginal Family 1842-1980 (Melbourne: Hyland House, 1980), 30. 108 Richard Broome, Aboriginal Australians. Black Responses to White Dominance, 1788-1994, Second ed. (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1994), 97-99.

216

chapter six

which each life became restricted, controlled, and under surveillance.109 After the federation of the colonies within Australia into the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, paternalistic laws in relation to the treatment of indigenous peoples continued. It was only in 1967, through a national referendum to amend the Constitution, that indigenous people were counted on the census. Despite attempts from successive Australian governments to rectify the disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians’ life-expectancies and general health, and educational opportunities, there still remain large inequalities.110 National inquires, such as the 1997 “Bringing them Home Report,” which reported on the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, found that Acts ordained in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as the 1911 Aborigines Act (SA) which gave the Government power to remove Aboriginal children from their parents at will, contributed to later social injustices against indigenous peoples.111 Throughout the colonial period and into the twentieth century, Aborigines were effectively isolated from Europeans because of such laws, much the same way as the concept of ‘Sammelplätze,’ raised in the 1850s in Victoria, and rejected by the Moravians, would have done. Whether through isolation of indigenous peoples, or assimilation of indigenous populations into wider European society, Acts such as the 1886 ‘Half-Caste’ Act, and those that followed, had detrimental effects on generations of Aborigines. Hagenauer offered various reflections on his role in shaping this Act. To the Missionsdepartement he adopted a modest tone when he stated that it was the suggestion of the BPA to, “so soon as possible merge the half castes with the general population of the country,” with he and other Managers being asked to provide input into their suggestion.112 109

Richard Broome, Aboriginal Victorians: A History Since 1800 (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 188. 110 For 2006 statistics pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia see: “A statistical overview of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia,” Australian Human Rights Commission web-site, August 2006, [http:// www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/statistics/index.html#toc2]. 111 Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission Bringing them home: A guide to the findings and recommendations of the National Inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 1997), 27. 112 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 24 March 1884, NLA, MS 3343, 581.

“every triumphant death”

217

Yet, at a later date Hagenauer claimed in a letter to the Presbyterian Church that the BPA asked him to submit to them a “plea how these people would be dealt with justly and kindly,” and that he made “out the plan, like one used before in South America,” which, “was adopted by the Board with very few omissions.”113 Thus, he assumed more credit for his input into the Act to his contemporary Victorian Christians than to his communal Brüder in Germany. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as aptly interpreted in the Australian mission historian John Harris’s suggestion that Hagenauer “was party to the drafting of its wording.”114 The 1886 Act has been critically examined by present-day historians for its racial agenda. Bain Attwood for example, has argued that the Act was devised on social and racial lines,115 with the legal historians John Chesterman and Brian Galligan arguing that the Act was a “preview [of] the way in which the Commonwealth definition and administration of citizenship would develop in the early federation years.”116 Hagenauer’s racial categorisation and denigrating comments about the Chinese, Aborigines, and even Germans in previous chapters, indicated his propensity to construct racial categories, and he undoubtedly used race as a classifier within his writings about the Act. Yet, by focusing only on the dominant hegemony apparent on-site at the mission—with indigenous people’s agency suppressed by European control—it is easy to focus on the outcome of the Act, and overlook how religion shaped Hagenauer’s input into the Act. For it was religion, not race, which was the paradigm through which he viewed the world. This does not, of course, change nor ameliorate the devastating effects of the draconian Act on Aboriginal people. It does, however, illuminate how a Christian man could willingly contribute to a law which in retrospect was so damaging to the lives of so many Aboriginal people. Furthermore, Hagenauer’s intercession between the Government and the inhabitants of the station, and thus between his secular and religious responsibilities, demonstrated his morally dubious position insofar as he relinquished his responsibilities towards the moral aspects of indigenous

113

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Hardie, 19 January 1885, NLA, MS 3343, 597. John Harris, One Blood. 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity: A Story of Hope (Sutherland: Albatross, 1990), 216. 115 Attwood, The Making of the Aborigines, 98-9. 116 John Chesterman and Brian Galligan, Citzens without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 21. 114

218

chapter six

peoples’ lives, and focused instead on the perceived spiritual outcomes for those people, which itself was mediated through his proselytizing. In his letter to the Moravian Administration, Hagenauer used racial categories, referring to people of mixed descent such as ‘half-castes,’ ‘mixed blood,’ and finally ‘half-whites,’ elucidating this by adding in brackets, “yes often nearly totally white people.” Blackness was subsumed by the more pressing pragmatic question of what to do once all the ‘full Blacks’ had died, and the healthy, strong, educated people were left living on the mission stations. For Hagenauer it became a question of logistics and funding, rather than pontificating about the consequences of the Act. Only once the Act had been approved by the BPA did he lament that, although he had done his best for the ‘half-castes,’ he was sceptical of the Government’s ability to deal with the question, and thought it “would probably be put to the side.”117 He diminished his own input into the Act by deferring responsibility onto God, suggesting that if He pleased, He would do the best for the “poor people.” When analysing the Act with ideologies of hegemonic structures, as Attwood does, Hagenauer’s response belies humanistic beliefs and is callous in the extreme. Indeed, Hagenauer’s actions were callous in regard to the human consequences of the Act, for he prioritized the souls of his converts over their earthly bodies. Furthermore, as an evangelical Christian guided by providence, Hagenauer had an unfaltering belief that God would look after His sheep. For Hagenauer, the Moravian Church’s missionary work in Australia involved the ‘heathen,’ and once there were no more ‘Black heathens’ to work, there would be no more use for missionaries, and it would be up to the Government to deal with the secular aspects of mission. Hagenauer was pleased with the outcome of the Act, and, in describing it to the Missionsdepartement in 1884, stated that: Naturally the Australian situations and conditions differ so much from those in Europe and in particular in Germany, that some things will seem unclear, yet I almost don’t need to affirm that the Mission Committee here as well as all well-meaning friends of the Aborigines have met these recommendations with complete agreement and joy that finally the justice in question shall happen, and that they will no longer be seen as a mild type of slaves. Moreover, that through this the well-educated, and healthy people have open doors before them and can fill their place as

117

581.

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 24 March 1884, NLA, MS 3343,

“every triumphant death”

219

working people everywhere, for until now they were forced by the law to make their home on the Station. In relation to religion everything stays the same, for this Colony is so blessed with churches, schools, and Evangelism, like few countries are in the homeland.118

Within this excerpt it is evident that both the religious and secular ideas stemming from the Enlightenment—those of personal piety and individual agency—were reflected in Hagenauer’s world-view. Yet, Hagenauer misunderstood the social milieu of the Victorian day, which was one of self-improvement enhanced by the theories of evolution made popular by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace in the 1860’s. It culminated in individualist notions associated with the self-improving conservative values dominant amongst the newly rich of the gold-rush era. These values permeated wider social structures, resulting in a harsher attitude towards governmental assistance. Hagenauer was, however, a Christian blinkered to the racial discrimination rife around him. He believed that in Christian Victoria, with its churches and schools everywhere, the ‘half-castes’ would be well catered for in the sphere of religion. Moreover, in his opinion, a benevolent society would not discriminate against his ‘flock’ of Christian Aborigines. This focus on religion and providence, rather than being aware of the constraints evident in the governmental and social spheres, was itself not limited to Moravians in Victoria. Timothy Keegan’s work, for instance, has demonstrated that Moravians in East Africa were likely to attribute failure and other outcomes to “God’s inscrutable workings.” This, he has suggested, lay in contrast to the English missionaries whose responses were more likely to mirror the “rise in ideological racism and social Darwinism in British society.”119 The consequences for indigenous people remained similarly dire in both situations despite the fact that the motivations behind the causal acts differed themselves depending on the various cultural and religious backgrounds of the agents involved. The BPA appreciated Hagenauer’s attitude toward the ‘half-caste problem.’ For them, the Act was financially prudent. From an historical perspective, it has been argued that the Act also allowed the

118 Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 9 June 1884, NLA, MS 3343, 583-589. 119 Timothy Keegan, ed. Moravians in the Eastern Cape, 1828-1928: Four Accounts of Moravian Mission Work on the Eastern Cape Frontier (Paarl: Paarl Print, 2004), xxiii.

220

chapter six

Government to, “effectively [to deny] that it owed [Aborigines] any special responsibilities.”120 For Hagenauer, the Act demonstrated his belief that he had been successful in converting Aborigines to Christianity and thus, that his work was almost completed. Although Hagenauer and the BPA approached the Act from different positions, they reached the same conclusions: ‘half-castes’ were to be removed from the missions and stations, and assimilated into the broader society. The Board rewarded Hagenauer for his work by temporarily appointing him to the office of the General Inspector on the 26th of July, 1889, whilst the incumbent of the office, Captain A.M.A. Page, was incapacitated. It was a position that Hagenauer had previously declined, and a role that he has often since been criticized for, since he was seen as guilty of “serving God and Caesar.”121 Indeed, it was the blurring of duties between God and Government that had concerned the Moravian Church throughout the mission period in Victoria. In a history of the Church written in 1932, the Moravian historian Schulze stated: The missionaries had a double post, for next to their actual mission duties they also had to administer as officials of the state not only their own stations in communal and commercial relations, but also the whole reserve, to assign Aborigines work, and to distribute amongst them food and clothing, and other such governmental support … The missionaries were therefore considerably dependent on the government.122

This ‘double post’ was not one which the missionaries sought, rather it was an inevitable outcome of the Victorian political situation, in which the Government refused to accept the full burden of responsibility for indigenous lives, yet nevertheless wished to maintain control over indigenous people through their control of the missionaries. Page never recovered from his illness. After his death, Hagenauer was appointed to both the office of Secretary of the BPA as well as to the position of General Inspector of BPA. He began his official duties on the 13th of February, 1890, at a salary of £450 per annum, and— importantly—with the permission of the Missionsdepartement.123 With

120

Chesterman and Galligan, Citizens without Rights, 22. Harris, One Blood, 201. 122 Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 573. 123 Memo:T. Aniltal (Chief Secretary’s Office, Melbourne), 26 July 1889, PRO, VA 515/VPRS 1694 [3]; PMD, 6 August 1890, #29, 351. 121

“every triumphant death”

221

the merging of these two BPA positions, he became an incumbent with more than a full-time position. Beyond this secular work Hagenauer still had his missionary duties to attend to. The BPA had to make a special request for Hagenauer to be employed, as he was not in the service of the Government. The Vice Chairman of the BPA, Alex Morrison, pleaded to the Chief Secretary of the Colony that: At a meeting of the Board held this day the question of a successor to Cap. Page was considered and it was unanimously resolved to recommend that Mr Hagenauer should be permanently appointed. There is no man in the colony who has had such long and intimate practical knowledge of the Aborigines and no one who can so officially deal with the half caste question.124

They were also unanimously of opinion that Hagenauer, with upwards of 30 years experience in the colony, was the only man for the position, as he knew the “history of almost every one of them”—referring to the indigenous people of the colony. For the BPA this was especially important as they were carrying out the: important measures [of] the amalgamation of the half-castes among the general population of the Colony and the amalgamation of stations for the pure blacks. The former is being rapidly accomplished. With the latter the policy of the Board is to proceed very cautiously so that there may not be the appearance … of any hardship being inflicted on the pure Blacks.125

The outcomes for both of these objectives were considered important, especially since, through the services of Hagenauer it was believed that, “a great saving will be eventually effected in the annual expenditure on the Aborigines.” And indeed, whilst the efficient and frugal Hagenauer was acting as General Inspector the BPA noted that, “the value in parliament has been reduced from £11,000 to £8,500 whilst the blacks are all well cared for at the same time.”126 The reduction in funding in indigenous affairs coincided with an increase in the meta-control placed over indigenous people. This attitude of combined frugality and over-administration towards indigenous

124 Alex Morrison (Vice Chairman, BPA) to Chief Secretary BPA, 14 February 1890, PRO, VA 515/VPRS 1694 [12]. 125 Alex Morrison (Vice Chairman, BPA) to Chief Secretary BPA, 15 March 1890, PRO, VA 515, VPRS 1694 [13]. 126 BPA Officer to Chief Secretary BPA, 9 May 1891, PRO, VA 515,/VPRS 1694 [1 &1a].

222

chapter six

peoples on behalf of the Victorian Colonial Government reflected in some ways the attitude of the Moravian Church towards their own people. Within the global Moravian Church, the funding for the missionary work within the Colony of Victoria was reduced between 1888 and 1896 from £245 to £17, in line with an Instruction, that stated, Without entangling himself in the affairs of this life, (2 Tim. ii:4) the Missionary will endeavour to promote his Master’s cause, also in regard to temporal things, by conscientious frugality, and by diligence and faithfulness in the concerns committed to him. He will never forget, that in proportion as the expenses of the existing Mission can be diminished, new ones can be the sooner begun, and that every penny saved or earned, may be regarded as a contribution to the great work of heathen conversion.127

Indeed Hagenauer took this Instruction to heart, and reported to the UAC that he had given up half of his income in order that the mission activities in Queensland could go ahead.128 However, the financial situation of the Victoria mission field was an anomaly in the global Moravian mission. Between 1888 and 1896, Moravian expenditure for the heathen missions had increased by £12,000. A sixth of this money had been spent on the Miskito Coast mission due to the volatile political situation there, with the running costs for the Suriname mission increasing by some £2,300 in the same period. Despite these examples of rising expenditure, the broader Moravian Church looked to enlarge its missionary outreach elsewhere.129 One new field of missionary work was that of North Queensland. Hagenauer himself had advised the UAC that this would be a suitable location for further missionary work in Australia. In 1891, with the support of the Presbyterian Foreign Mission Committee, the English Moravian Brother James Ward and German Moravian Bruder Nicholas Hey arrived in Queensland convert the heathen Aborigines of far northern Australia. The first Moravian mission on Cape York in the far-north of Queensland was called Mapoon. It was considered so 127 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren. Translated by From the German. Second (Revised and Enlarged) (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), §50, 57. 128 PUAC, 11 February 1891, #20, 77. 129 Buchner, The Foreign Mission Work in the Moravian Church in View of the General Synod in 1899, 9-10.

“every triumphant death”

223

successful that soon thereafter two further missions were established in the vicinity. They were named Weipa and Aurukun, and were established in 1896 and 1902 respectively.130 As the work was expanding on Cape York, the missions and missionaries within Victoria were all advancing in age. The ‘Half-Caste’ Act had reduced the numbers on the missions to such an extent that it was seen as “only a question of time” until the missions would have to close. At the end of the nineteenth century, the number of inhabitants on the missions had contracted to the point that mission land was gradually returned to the Government.131 From the start of the twentieth century, the Missionsdepartement was seriously considering not replacing any of the missionaries, and assumed that the closure of the missions would be imminent.132 Ebenezer was the first of the two missions to close. The last remaining missionary there, Bogisch, died in June of 1903. His widow and son undertook the administration of the mission after his death, yet in the following year, the Government passed an Act to close the mission.133 The natural attrition of the missionaries through death and also retirement, as in the case of Hagenauer, spared the Missionsdepartement from actively withdrawing from the Victorian mission field. Hagenauer was a young man when he arrived in 1859, and at the turn of the century he was old and worn from dedicating his life to the mission work in Australia. In 1906, Hagenauer resigned from his official posts, stating that he would remain a missionary at Ramahyuck until it closed.134 This was not to be, as his retirement on the 1st of January, 1908, preceded the closing of the mission by several months. Hagenauer served for 50 years in the mission field, and in the context of the broader Moravian mission, he was the oldest and longest serving missionary of all his contemporaries, one who, it was declared, “seine ganze Lebensarbeit diesem hinsterbenden Völkchen gewidmet hat” (dedicated his whole life to these dying people).135 With his death the Moravian mission work in Victoria came to a feeble close. Despite the 130

Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 576-614. Andrew Hardie (Convener of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Foreign Mission Committee) to the BPA Secretary (Hagenauer), 14 April 1891, PRO, VA 515/ VPRS 1694, 1894 [1]. 132 PMD, 8 & 9 January 1902, #33, 15. 133 PMD, 14 July 1903, #6, 209. 134 PMD, 23 October 1906, #9, 336. 135 Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 575. 131

224

chapter six

closure of the missions, the memory of the Moravian mission field in Victoria continued to resonate. In Victoria this was particularly prominent through the enduring political influence Hagenauer’s participation in the 1886 Act engendered. As mentioned, one corollary of this was that other states in Australia used this Act to inform their own laws governing indigenous peoples. The success of the Victorian mission inspired further missions beyond the boundaries of the Colony, with the end of the nineteenth century bearing witness to the physical manifestation of Moravian ideals in the new mission field of Queensland. For many historians, Hagenauer has remained the most enigmatic Moravian in the Victorian mission field, mostly due to his dominant position within secular affairs pertaining to indigenous Victorians. In the attempt to understand the man and shed light on his motives, it must be remembered that he had been acculturated into the Victorian colonial scene more than his contemporaries, and this affected both his interactions with the Colonial Government as well as his input into secular affairs. Following the protocols of the Church, his wife was drawn through the Los and followed him in his religious beliefs. Hagenauer, however, did not send his children back to Germany, but sent his sons to be educated at the Presbyterian Scotch College, and his daughters to the (Presbyterian) Ladies College in Melbourne, thus entangling himself within colonial society to a much greater extent than most Moravian missionaries. He had grown fond of his new land, and noted in 1867 that, “For my own part I must say that I am glad I am here in this beautiful Australia far from all wars and all politics.”136 By the end of the nineteenth century, however, he had considerably altered his position and was no longer “far from … all politics,” rather he had himself become intimately connected with many influential people, as well as closely involved in indigenous affairs. His role on governmental boards contradicted the Instructions. It, however, equally reflected his desire that a religious voice should be heard in relation to indigenous affairs. As the Moravian representative in Australia, the Secretary and also General Inspector of the BPA, the sole missionary at Ramahyuck, and the Superintendent of the Lake Tyers mission station, he reported to

136

139.

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to “My dear Friend”, 20 February 1867, NLA, MS 3343,

“every triumphant death”

225

the Missionsdepartement, the UAC, the BPA, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of England, and various other boards and committees. In some of these roles there were no checks on his behaviour. This was evident insofar as he, in his position as the Moravian representative in Australia, sometimes acted without consulting the other missionaries. Any reprimand from Germany would often arrive only once the now irrevocable deed had been done, and therefore without consequence. He obviously held too many roles for him to work to the best of his abilities in any one without sacrificing quality, principles, or his health. The strain of his work commitments was demonstrated in the curt manner in which he expressed himself in many of his letters, along with his propensity to complain, making him unpopular with his fellow missionaries. In all of his roles he believed that he served God by looking after the welfare of indigenous peoples, whether spiritual or secular, despite evidence to the contrary. He believed that he fulfilled his duty as a servant of God, and as a missionary to mankind. Hagenauer approached the ‘Half-Caste’ Act with predominantly spiritual outcomes in mind, albeit ones which reflected both Protestant ethics of work and imperialist notions of commerce. His motives have been read as racist, as indeed they were. Until every last “triumphant death” had occurred, Hagenauer expected every Aborigine to contribute to, and cope within, the society that was forcibly built around them. It was assumed that the life skills that Hagenauer and other missionaries had imparted to them would be enough to enable them to navigate through colonial Victoria. Yet Hagenauer was not without some semblance of humanity, albeit a humanity which referenced his own spirituality. This was evident when writing about the beginning of the end of the Victorian mission stations. He conceded to headquarters that, “to speak about it in human terms, it almost seems as God does whatever pleases him.”137 He thereby deflected attention from his own agency in shaping a draconian and destructive piece of legislation by attributing it to God, whose attested omnipotence rendered redundant the powers of mortal believers. As a mortal believer, Hagenauer saw himself as nothing other than an instrument of God; the destructive consequences of his actions for the people affected by the 1886 Act formed no part of his reckoning. The Moravian Church themselves had been dubious from the beginning of the second missionary attempt

137

Hagenauer (Ramahyuck) to Connor (Herrnhut), 3 June 1882, NLA, MS 3343, 537.

226

chapter six

in Australia about the ability of the Colonial Government to provide enough help for the ‘depraved’ people. In his own eyes, Hagenauer did everything he could for the ‘poor people,’ including becoming a member of a Church other than his own so that he could further his missionary work. In doing so, he continually privileged converting over converts, and spirituality over humanity. He willingly manipulated situations and people in order to further the mission, and disregarded the Instructions, when it suited his needs. Although the Moravian Church had a grand narrative of how a mission should be established, and how missionaries should behave, once in the field the missionaries had to grapple with situations outside of the realms of Moravian experience. Even in such novel situations, however, the Moravian missionaries remained little other than servants of God, intent on collecting souls for Christ. Thus, as Hagenauer’s experience amply epitomizes, the religious world-view of the Moravians shaped all aspects of their lives in colonial Victoria, including the ways by which Aboriginal secular affairs were controlled.

CONCLUSION In 1932, on the occasion of the bicentenary of the Moravian Church’s mission work, the Moravian historian Adolf Schulz wrote a history of the venture. In concluding his section on Australia, he wrote: The mission-work in southern Australia, whose short history we have just had an overview of, was, and stayed, from the very beginnings only a small twig on the world-wide mission tree. It could never show off with large numbers [of converts]. But one should nevertheless award it a mission history of no small importance. For it had supplied through deeds the irresistible proof of the efficacy of Evangelism, which was able to raise also the most deeply sunken people in both their external living standards as well as in their ability to be spiritually cultivated, and above all to raise them in their religious lives.1

His comments aptly describe the Moravians’ experiences of Victoria: they were small in terms of missionaries and converts in comparison with the global Moravian mission enterprise;2 they imparted upon the ‘heathen’ Aborigines aspects of the ‘civilizing’ paradigm; and, above all, they brought their own spiritual beliefs in the form of Christianity to the Aborigines, who were seen by the Moravians to be the ‘most sunken people.’ Furthermore, it demonstrates how entirely the Moravians viewed the mission to Australia as but one part of a broader enterprise. The Victorian mission was decisively shaped by the global Moravian heritage and history. The narrative of the preceding chapters has revealed that, as a global missionary enterprise, the Moravians believed in their ability to further the divine work of converting all ‘heathen’ to Christianity. From its humble beginnings in the eighteenth century as a group of religious refugees on the estate of Count Nikolas von Zinzendorf, the Church was re-formed and grew into a global missionary enterprise. Its influence was substantial, not only on individuals such as Charles Wesley, but also on the eighteenth-century English evangelical revival. 1 Adolf Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das zweite Missionsjahrhundert. vol. II. (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932), 575. 2 In 1898, there were only six missionaries employed in the Victorian field compared to 376 European Moravian missionaries around the globe. Schulze, 200 Jahre Brüdermission, 674.

228

conclusion

The Moravians’ practices, such as their deference to the Bible, their use of Losungen, the Los, the choir system, their music, and the Instructions, shaped their daily lives, yet ultimately they believed in God’s providence before all. At the time that the Moravians were contemplating sending out missionaries to the so-called ‘lowest of the low’—the Aborigines of Australia—they had had over a century of missionary experience under many different colonial governments, and through these varied opportunities had gathered a wealth of information about different cultures, governments, and lands. They had also learnt hard lessons such as when ruling powers withdrew their support of the missionaries, as occurred for example in Ohio and Georgia in North America. These and similar experiences ensured that the Moravians followed the Instructions, which described how missionaries should interact with governments: The Brethren […] demean themselves as loyal and obedient subjects, and strive to act in such a manner, under the difficult relations in which they are often placed, as may evince, that they have no desire to intermeddle with the politics of the country in which they labour, but are solely intent on the fulfilment of their official duties.3

As the historian J.C.S. Mason has argued, the Moravian Church’s development during the latter part of the eighteenth century was “highly dependent on the attitude of governments and officials who needed to be satisfied that Moravians were neither sectarian at home nor seditious overseas.”4 The situation in Victoria was no different in this respect. Nor did it differ from the majority of Moravian mission locations in which the missionaries found themselves to be ‘strangers in a strange land,’ working under foreign colonial governments amidst people who spoke foreign languages, and adhered to foreign belief systems. The unifying aim for Moravian missionaries was to bring these foreign and heathen peoples into the Christian church through the methods and means of the Moravian Church.

3 August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, From the German, Second (Revised and Enlarged) ed. (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840), § 61, 68. 4 J.C.S. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760-1800. (Suffolk: The Boydell Press for The Royal Historical Society, 2001), 8.

conclusion

229

The Moravians were driven by a desire to convert heathens to Christianity, and were willing to go to the most far-flung places on the planet to achieve this aim. They had initially contemplated sending out missionaries to New Holland before the continent had been settled by Europeans, such was their drive to impress their version of spirituality onto other people. As this was deemed untenable, they waited until they believed that God wished them to do so through a favourable drawing of the Los. It was fortuitous that a favourable Los was drawn in agreement to send missionaries to colonial Victoria in 1848, after the 1837 Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlement) was tabled in the British House of Commons. The Zeitgeist saw Evangelicals press for increasingly benevolent action towards emancipated slaves and indigenous peoples of British colonies. At a meeting of the Moravian Elder’s Conference in Germany in February, 1841, three reasons were given to justify the Moravians’ decision to send missionaries to Aboriginal Australians. Although the discussion concerning the sending out of missionaries to Australia at this time was not successful, the rationale behind the renewed interest itself shed light on the underlying principles that guided and shaped the Moravians’ time in Victoria, and demonstrated their self-perceptions. The first of the three reasons related to the Church’s own internal perception as a Missionary Church, with its raison d’être to bring the word of God to people deemed to be such “poor, despised creatures, who are on the lowest level” on both spiritual and cultural scales.5 In other words, Australian Aborigines posed a worthy challenge to the abilities and self-perceptions of the Moravian Church. The second reason revolved around how the Moravians viewed their external reputation and identity. It stated that amongst the English, as reiterated even by the Archbishop of Dublin, the opinion was that only the Moravian Church could be successful amongst the so-called degraded Aborigines. The excerpt opening this conclusion, written some twenty years after the last Moravian mission in Victoria had closed, created the impression that the success of the Moravians in conversion of Aborigines was “irresistible proof of the efficacy of Evangelism,” in their hands. The third and final reason to send missionaries to Australia related to favourable external influences, in the form of the support that the Church could hope to secure from the governmental authorities: 5

PUAC, 23 February 1841, #5, 176.

230

conclusion so many favourable conditions for the Mission concern come together and that is: that the Colonial government in England and besides from that, 3 of the 4 Colonial Governors of the same are completely interested and they are using their influence.6

Indeed, the Moravian missionaries in Victoria did have the initial support of the Government as the Governor, Charles Joseph La Trobe, was himself of a Moravian family. In the ensuing years, however, that support would wane, as the responsibility for governing the colony was transferred from the Colonial Office in Britain to officials within the colony intent on securing their own positions. The history and practices of the Moravian Church would become more and more strange and foreign to Governmental incumbents. This typically resulted in situations in which the wants of the mostly British settlers were privileged over the needs of the Aborigines. The uniqueness of the Moravian situation in Victoria lay in the fact that the circumstances in which they found themselves compelled them into secular work, which, on the surface, was at odds with the history and practices of the Moravian Church. Friedrich Hagenauer, for example, had commented in 1866 that, ‘there was no end to committees in Australia, and that they grow like mushrooms [original emphasis].’7 Yet by 1889, he had himself become an integral part of the Government’s response to indigenous affairs as the General Inspector for the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines. In examining how Hagenauer was able to reach such a position, this study has contended that the history and practices of the Moravian Church were of utmost importance. Thus, the first chapter provided a background for understanding the rationale behind the Moravian Church’s desire to send missionaries to Australia. Chapter Two elicited the processes behind sending out missionaries to Australia. It demonstrated that although the Moravians had contemplated sending out missionaries since the late eighteenth century, the matter was finally only resolved in 1848 with the beginnings of the second wave of Moravian global expansion. Within the world-wide Moravian ventures, there was a fine line that the missionaries trod between following the orders of their own Church, and the laws that governed the new lands that they had adopted as their homes. Chapter Three discussed some examples of the competing demands of church and state, and explicated 6 7

PUAC, 23 February 1841, #S, 176. NLA, 24 May 1866, Hagenauer to Reichel (Herrnhut), MS 3343, 62.

conclusion

231

why resolution was not seen to be possible by missionaries at the first missionary attempt at Lake Boga. The mission failed, and the ‘fauler Fleck’ which resulted ensured that the Moravian’s subsequent attempts to convert Australian indigenous peoples were more cautious in their dealings, especially with the European settlers and the colonial Government. As Chapter Four stated, the missionaries returned to Australia to re-establish a mission in the Wimmera, known as Ebenezer. In 1860, they succeeded in their aim of converting Aborigines to Christianity, and consequently fulfilled their own expectations in succeeding where all other missionary organizations before them had failed. This led the Presbyterian Church to employ Hagenauer to establish a new mission station in Gippsland, known as Ramahyuck. With his connections to the Presbyterian Church, Hagenauer became more prominent and extremely influential, not only in the missionary spheres within the colony, but also within secular governmental circles. Chapter Five followed the failed attempt of the Moravians to establish a mission station in the ‘Interior’ of Australia. It demonstrated that the Moravians undertook the mission because they felt compelled to accept the invitation of the Church of England’s ‘Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia,’ due to the financial support the Association had already provided for the Victorian mission field. With various bodies supporting and financing the mission stations, the missionaries had conflicting interests to navigate. And, as Chapter Five demonstrated, Hagenauer began to manipulate situations to suit his ends. He, as well as his fellow missionaries, also manipulated images and constructs of Aborigines to suit their ends, as argued throughout the book. Chapter Six focused on the missionaries’ perceived success in the dual aims of ‘Christianizing and civilizing’ indigenous people, and how the Moravians’ belief in their successful achievement of these dual aims enabled Hagenauer to support the 1886 ‘Half-Caste’ Act, which saw Aborigines of mixed descent expelled from mission stations and Governmental reserves. Theoretically, the Act aimed for the assimilation of people of mixed descent into the broader colonial context. Practically, the Act enshrined racism. Within Chapter Six it was further argued that the Moravians viewed the matter primarily through the prism of their religious beliefs, and thereby privileged the converted souls of Aborigines over their physical bodies. As the Moravian Church had mission stations in many other colonies ruled by various colonial governments, they were able to provide

232

conclusion

critical comparisons of colonial rule, and thus act as imperial critics. Moreover, this study has examined the role of Hagenauer in the 1886 ‘Half Caste’ Act through the paradigm of religion, and has argued that it was his belief in the Christian God and providence which enabled him to not only support the Act, but also to actively participate in the drafting of it. He was confident that indigenous peoples would convert to and embrace Christianity, and as such would be capable of assimilating into the colonial landscape. Furthermore, he believed that the results of the dual aim of ‘Christianization and civilization’ would provide indigenous peoples with the skills that they needed to be capable of living amongst other Christians in the settler colony. What he could not foresee was the settlers’ reluctance to accept Aborigines—who had hitherto been isolated on Government reserves or mission stations—in their own midst. This reluctance often translated into open hostility towards those of mixed descent. The exodus of the Moravian missionaries occurred just as the settlers of the Colony were facing the economic depression of the 1890s. Blinded by his own faith in God, Hagenauer believed that he had achieved the goals of the Moravian Church in bringing Christianity to the Aborigines of Victoria. At the end of the nineteenth century, as the number of potential converts around the Moravian mission stations decreased, Hagenauer actively looked towards new mission fields in New South Wales and Queensland, where he believed that God’s work amongst the heathen could commence anew. It is at this point that the narrative ends for the Moravian presence within Victoria, yet the ramifications of the missionaries’ work would continue to affect the lives of indigenous Australians well into the following century, with many people living on the fringes of European society, and thus becoming strangers in their own land.

APPENDIX ONE

THE MORAVIAN CHURCH’S MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES AND YEARS OF ESTABLISHMENT* Year

Place

Type of activities Ethnographical group

1732

St Thomas, Caribbean Greenland Lapland, Sweden Surname, Dutch Guiana Georgia, North America Archangelsk, Russia West Cape, South Africa Ghana, West Africa Livland and Estland, Balkans South Carolina, North America Berbice, Guiana Lappland, Sweden

Mission

1732-1900 1734 1735-1816 1735-1740 1736 1737-1744 1737 1737-1918 1738-1854

Afro-American slaves Mission Inuit Mission attempt Sameh Indian mission Arawak and Carabin Mission attempt Cherokee Mission attempt Samojeden Mission attempt Khoikhoin (Hottentotten) Mission attempt Akan people Diaspora Esten, Letten

Mission attempt Afro-American slaves 1738-1763 Mission Arawak 1739 Renewed misSemeh sion attempt 1740 Sri Lanka Mission attempt Singhalese 1740 Walachei, Rumania Mission attempt Rumanian 1740 Algeria Mission attempt Christian slaves 1741 Pennsylvania- later Mission Irokesen, Ohio, Kansas and Delaware, Mohican and Oklahoma Shawnee

*Adapted from: Annegret Nippa, Ethnographie Und Herrnhuter Mission: Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut. (Dresden: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, 2003), 13.

234

appendix one

Appendix One (Contd.,) Year

Place

1746 Persia (Iran) 1752 Labrador 1752-1783 Coptic Church in Ethiopia, later Cairo, Jeddah 1753 North Carolina, Georgia, later Oklahoma 1754 Jamaica and Antigua, Carabin 1759-1803 Trankebar, India 1763/64 Labrador

Type of activities Ethnographical group Mission attempt Gauern Mission attempt Inuit Contact attempt Copts, Egyptians, Arabs Renew mission in Cherokee, Creek south-east North America Mission Afro-American slaves Mission attempt Tamile Renewed Inuit mission attempt Mission Kalmyk

1765-1822 Sarepta, Russia (West Mongolia) 1765 Carabin: Barbados, Mission later St Kitts, Tabago 1765 Ceylon Renewed mission attempt Mission 1766 Suriname (Plantations and in the Bushland) 1768

Ghana, Gold Coast, Renewed West Africa mission attempt 1768-1787 Nikobaren Island Mission attempt 1770 Labrador Mission 1776-1792 Bengal (Calcutta, Mission attempt Patna, Seramput) 1781 Tiflis, Georgia Mission attempt 1792 South Africa, West Mission Cape

AfricanAmerican slaves Singhalese

Afro-American slaves and Marron (Bushmen) Akan people

Nikobares Inuit Bengalese Georgian Khoikhoin (Hottentotten)

appendix one

235

Appendix One (Contd.,) Year

Place

1828

South Africa, East Cape

Type of activities Ethnographical group

Mission extension Bantu speaking Nguni (including Xhosa) 1835 Guayana Mission attempt African from Antigua Americans 1843 Ghana, Gold Coast, Mission attempt Akan people West Africa from Jamaica, combined with the Basel Mission 1849 Miskito Coast, Mission Miskito, Sumo, Nicaragua Rama 1850-1907 South East, Mission Aborigines Australia 1853 West Tibet (Lahoul, Mission Tibetan Ladak) 1867 Palestine/Israel Medical mission Arabs (Sternberg) 1878 Guayana Mission sent out Afro-Americans, from Barbados Indians 1885 Alaska, North Mission from Yupik America USA 1889 California, North Mission from Yuma, Morongo America USA 1890 Trinidad, Carabin Mission Afro-American 1891-1919 North-East Mission Aborigines Australia 1891 Nyassa region, East Mission Nyakyusa, Nyika, Africa Safwa (and others) 1897 Unyamwesi region, Mission Nyamwesi East Africa From 1901 Suriname

1904

Extension of the Indian, mission Indonesians, Chinese Dominican Establishment of Afro-American Republic, Carabin a congregation

236

appendix one

Appendix One (Contd.,) Year

Place

Type of activities Ethnographical group

1930

Honduras

1942

Costa Rica

1962

Raajpur, North India East Siberia

Mission from Nicaragua Mission from Nicaragua Refugee work

Tibetans

Mission

Yuit, Chukchi

1992

Miskito Miskito

APPENDIX TWO

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS* Barkly, Sir Henry (1815-98) Governor of the Colony of Victoria, 1856-63. Of Scottish extraction. In 1848 appointed Governor and commander-in-chief of British Guiana. Governor of Jamaica from 1853-56. Appointed Governor of Victoria in December 1856. In 1863 appointed Governor of Mauritius. Governor and High Commissioner at the Cape from 1879-76. Bogish, Herman Paul 1845, January 22 … 1876, September 1876 June 2 1877, June 3 1877, June 7 1877, June 26 August 5 August 15 1888, September 14 1890, March 27 1903, June 2

Born Sagen/Silesia Visited the mission school at Niesky for a couple of hours per week called into the mission service in Australia (appointed to Spieseke at Ebenezer) Called into the Akoluthie Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus Married Schw. Amlie Jindra Travelled from London to Australia Arrived in Melbourne Arrived at Ebenezer Sister Bogish (nee Jindra) died at Ebenezer aged 36 Married Sister Henriettee (Emmy) Gemüller at Bethal, Australia Died at Ebenezer aged 59

Bon, Anne Fraser (1838 - 1936) Advocate, Philanthropist and Pastoralist. Born in Dunning, Perthshire, Scotland. Married the * Moravian Missionaries are in tables, with information reflecting that of their individual Dienstlauf held in the Unitätsarchiv, Herrnhut, Germany. The dates are not always internally consistent, for example the dates given for the missionaries travelling to the interior vary, which is a reflection of the fact that the Dienstlauf for each missionary was complied at a separate time, and not cross-referenced.

238

appendix two

pastoralist, John Bon, who died in 1868 of a heart attack after which time Anne Bon took over the running of the station. She was actively engaged in indigenous politics. Devout Presbyterian and humanitarian. Brough Smyth, Robert (1830 -1889) civil servant became Honorary Secretary of the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines (19 June, 1860) and voting member in 1863. He resigned from the BPA on 4 May, 1876. Campbell, The Reverend Alexander James (1815-1909) Presbyterian clergyman and theological teacher. Born in Edinburgh. Free Church Missionary, sent to Brighton a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria. After 1859 became an assistant in Geelong and served as a minister at St George’s Church for 26 years. He was particularly interested in converting the so called ‘heathen’ of the Pacific Isles and Korea and taking the gospel to the indigenous people in Central Australia. Chase, The Reverend Septimus Lloyd (1814-1895) Church of England minister. First incumbent of St. Paul’s Anglican Church, now St Paul’s cathedral, in Melbourne. Active amongst the missions to the Chinese and Aborigines of the Colony of Victoria. Member of the Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia. Ellerman, Horatio Cockburn (1822- ?) Born in Belgium. Arrived in the Wimmera as a 17 year-old youth in 1839. He was connected to the overlander J.M. Darlot, and through this connection established the Antwerp squatting run in the Wimmera region in 1846. In 1851, he married Anne Westgarth, sister of the merchant, financier, politician and historian William Westgarth, whom the missionaries had first met in 1848 during the period of the Lake Boga mission station. Flower, Bessy (1851-95) Nyungar woman born near Albany, Western Australia. Arrived at Ramahyuck in 1866 to take over the school. Raised at Anne Camfield’s Native Institution in Western Australia. Married Donald Cameron in 1868.

appendix two

239

Francis, Job 1860 1861, January 1861, July 4 1861, July 21 1861, October 22 1861, November 2 1863, October

Single brother in Bedford, Carpenter Call to the mission in Australia Entered into the educational institute at Fulnek, England Accepted into the Akoluthie in Bedford, England Travelled from London, England Arrival in Melbourne, Australia Arrival at Ebenezer, took over the running of the school Left the Missionary service

Hagenauer, Friedrich August (and Christine Louise née Knobloch) 1829, March 10 1843

Born in Hohenleuben, Saxony Confirmed. Stayed for two years in father’s service 1845-46 Surveyor assistant on the construction of the Saxony to Bavaria railroads 1847-49 Weaver in Greiz 1850 Took over the Moravian Weaving factory in Ebersdorf, studied medicine on the side 1853 Teacher in the boy’s school at Ebersdorf 1857 Called into the missionary service to Australia 1858, January 6 Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus 1858, February 15 Travelled to Australia via London 1858, May Arrived in Melbourne 1858, June 15 Travelled inland 1861, June 15 Married Schw Christine Louise Knobloch from Herrnhut (who herself was accepted into the Akoluthie on 05.01.1861) 1861, July On behalf on the Presbyterian Church went on a trip to Gippsland 1861, End of August Came back to Ebenezer and left with his wife 1862 Called to establish a mission in Gippsland (the Presbyterian Church carried the costs) 1863 Took possession of the mission land at Avon River

240

appendix two

Hagenauer, Friedrich August (and Christine Louise née Knobloch) (Contd.,) 1877 1899 1909, November 28

1909, 30 November

Became the President of the [Moravian] Australian mission work At his request had the presidency taken away from him Br Hagenauer died at Ramahyk [sic]in Gippsland (Victoria) aged 81 after 51 years of missionary service Buried in Sale

Hahn, Heinrich August (and Mary née Clemens) 1846, May 13 1846, May 24 1860 1869 1871-73 1874 1874, October 1875, July 15 1875, September 24 1875, November 8 1876, January 9 1880, January

Born in Neu-Tucheband, Brandenburg Baptized in Neu-Tucheband Went to the town school Confirmed Stonemason Military duty (Franco-Prussian war) Mission school, Niesky Teacher in Ebersdorf Called into the missionary service to Australia Accepted into the Akoluthie Ordained into the Diaconus Married Schw. Mary Ellinor Clemens in Fulneck, England Arrived in Ramahyuck, Australia Took the position as teacher in a state school, and thereby left the missionary service of the Brüdergemeine

Hansen, Paul 1827, May 15

1827

Born in Dobel, Ribe, Jutland Parents: Hans Jacobsen (Watchmaker and Farmer) and Kjesten Nidsdatter, née Bang At the age of 6 attended the village school

appendix two

241

Hansen, Paul (Contd.,) 1836, April 10 1839 1842/43 1843, February 11

1845, November 12 1853, end of July 1853, September 5 1854, January 6 1854, March 1 1856, June 1 between 1864 March–Nov 1903, February 25

Confirmed Trained as a tailor Came into contact with the Moravians Went to Christiansfeld, worked for 3 years in the kitchen of the Brüderhaus Joined the Brüdergemeine Was called as a missionary amongst the “Papua” in Victoria/Australia Was received into the Akoluthie in Christiansfeld Arrived in Melbourne Arrived at Lake Boga, to work with Br Täger and Br Spieseke Returned to Europe after the disbandment of the station. Travelled as a translator for English, German, and Danish to Greenland Br. H. died in Christiansfeld aged 82

Hartmann, Johannes Adolf Hieronymus (and Mary née Hines) 1831, 23 October 1863 1863, 10 December 1864, January 1864, May 1871

1873

1906, 19 November

Born at Charlottenburg, Surinam, South America Called to missionary service in Australia Ordained into the Diakonus Travelled from Gravesand to Melbourne, Australia Arrived at Antwerp Return to Europe from Ebenezer due to the poor health of Sister Hartmann Called into mission service under the Delaware Indians in New Fairfield, Canada Died at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

242

appendix two

Herlitz, Hermann (1834-1920). Evangelical Lutheran. Paster of Trinity congregation, Melbourne (1868-1914); graduate of the Basel Mission Society; General Superintendent of the vereinigten luthererische Synode von Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland; Editor of the Australischer Christenbote. Howitt, Alfred William (1830-1908). Born in England, educated in England, Heidelberg and University College School, London. Arrived in Melbourne in 1852, with members of his family, and remained after they returned to England in 1854. Renowned as explorer, author, natural scientist and pioneer authority on Aboriginal culture and social organization.

Kramer, Carl Christian Wilhelm (and Emilie née Beyer) 1835, June 5 … 1863, December 1864, January 1864, July 31 1864, August 17 1864, November 28 1866, July 31 1866, August 22 1866, December 1867, January 31 1867, July

1870, October 30

1874 1891, February 17

Born in Dechtow, Brandenburg Trained as a tailor Called to establish a mission in the colony of Victoria Accepted into the Akoluthie Ordained into the Diakonus Departure via ship to Melbourne Arrived in Melbourne, moved to Ramahyuck Arrived in Bethel, South Australia Travelled inland Arrived at the last settler outpost at Lake Hope Arrived at Copperomanna [sic] With the other missionaries, Walder and Meisel, went to Bulkaltanian, wanted to go back to Copperomanna Married Schw. Emilie Beyer (who was accepted into the Akoluthie on 14.07.70) Called to Ebenezer Died aged 56 at Ebenezer

appendix two

243

Kühne, Wilhem Julius 1834, November 29 1863, December

1864, January 1864, July 31 1864, August 22 1864, November 28 1868

Born in Halbau, Silesa Shoemaker Called to establish a mission in the interior of Australia with other brothers Called into the Akoluthie Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus Travelled to Melbourne via London Arrived in Melbourne, went to Ramahyuck Went to another Mission Society in Australia (?)*

* Note: This indicates a lack of information received by the Moravian Church as to his further roles. Kühn remained on Kadina on the Yorke Peninsula where he worked with the Congregational Minister William Wilson.

La Trobe, Christian Ignatius (1758-1836) Moravian. Secretary of the British Moravian Church from 1875. Father of Peter and Charles Joseph. Musician, writer, traveller, and friend of Bishop Spangenberg. La Trobe, Charles Joseph (1801-75) Moravian. Educated for the Moravian ministry. Appointed in 1838 as the Superintendent of Port Phillip. Became first Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Victoria, when it separated from the Colony of New South Wales in 1851. Left post and Victoria in 1854. La Trobe, Peter (1795-1863) Moravian. Born in London. Eldest son of Christian Ignatius. Educated in England. Ordained deacon in 1821. Consecrated a presbyter in 1836. Secretary of the Unity of the Brethren in England. Meissel, Gottlieb 1837, October 29 1860 1863, December 1864, January 14

Born in Blankenberg, Saale, in Saxony Schooling Teacher at Ebersdorf Called to establish a mission in Australia Called into the Akoluthie

244

appendix two

Meissel, Gottlieb (Contd.,) 1864, July 31 1864, November 28 1865, April 1 1865, May 7

1866, July 31 1866, August 22 1866, December 5

1868, December 1869 1869, May 26 1869, September 12

Ordained in Herrnhut to Diakonus Arrived in Melbourne, went to Ebenezer with Walder Started into the Interior, to Cooperakreek [sic] Arrived in Adelaide. He stayed 8 Months at Point MacLay waiting for the drought to break Arrived in Bethel, South Australia Travelled with Brs Walder and Kramer further inland Reached the Lake Hope Station, started building on Lake Kopperamanna. Due to the drought the work had to be given up Beginning of the return trip Stay in Melbourne. Called to be a missionary in Suriname Left Melbourne Arrived in St. Thomas (Virgin Islands)

Stähle, Johann Heinrich (and Marie Magdalena née Stamm) 1840, April 17 1871 1871, December 16 1871, December 17 1871, December 29 1872, January 22 1872, May 16 1872, October 16 1874

1875 1875, November

Born, Alpirsbach, Württemberg Leatherwork Called for missionary service to Australia Called into the Akoluthie Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus Married Schw. Maria Magdalena Stamm (Infant teacher, born on 4.03.1850) Departed London Arrived at Ebenezer. Worked in the school Schw. died at Ebenezer aged 23 Left the service of the Brüdergemeine to further his theological education. Was called to the English station of Korandisk (sic) Remarried Took over the Station at Lake Condah in the service of the Church Missionary Society

appendix two

245

Spieseke, Friedrich Wilhelm (and Christine Johanna née Fricke) 1820, July 23 1849 1849, August 1849, October 23 1849-56 1856

1856, December 23 1857

1858, January 6 1858, February 15 1858, May 1858, June 15 1859, August 1861, May 29 1876, September 1877, June 24

Born at Stücken, near Betzig, Brandenburg Called to begin a new station to the Aborigines of New Holland (Australia) Called into the Akoluthie Travelled from London to Australia (with Täger) First mission attempt to Lake Boga The three Brothers Spieseke, Täger, Hanson returned home without permission Arrival in Herrnhut Called again to the mission service in Australia, this time in the Wimmera District Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus Travelled form London to Australia Arrived in Melbourne Travelled inland Arrived at Antwerp/Australia Married Schw. Christiane Johanna Fricke Gave up missionary work due to poor health Died at Ebenezer aged 57 years

Mackie, George (1823-1871) Presbyterian Minister. Born in Scotland. Sent to Australia in 1848 by the Free Church Presbytery of Brechin. After spending some time in Sydney moved to Victoria in 1857. He was stationed at Lake Learmonth and Burrumbeet (near Ballarat). Around 1861 moved to the parish of Horsham (close to Ebenezer). Called in 1862 to South Yarra, Melbourne, died in 1871 aged 48. Was convener of the Presbyterian Church’s Chinese and Aborigines Mission Committee in Victoria. Morris, W.E. (1851-1916) Church of England. Member of the Board for the Protection of the Aborigines (1898-1910). Secretary of the Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Secretary, Committee of the Church of England Mission to the Aborigines.

246

appendix two

Pepper, Nathanael (1841-1877) Wotjobaluk man from the area around the Ebenezer mission station. First convert of the Moravian Ebenezer mission station. Married Rachel Wardekan from Western Australia in 1863. After Rachel’s death in 1869, Nathanael moved to Ramahyuck. Täger, Andreas Friedrich Christian 1811, September 6 1842, December 24 1843, February 14 1845 1849 1849, July 15 1849, October 12 1850, April 11 1851 1856, December 23 1857, January 10 1870, December 22

Born in Wulfinghausen, Hannover Trained as taylor Received permission to go to Herrnhut First communion Went to Niesky Called to missionary service in Australia Ordained in Niesky to Diaconus Sailed from London Arrived in Melbourne Went to Port Phillip [sic] Returned to Herrnhut with Spieseke and Hansen Meeting between the UAC and the three Brothers Died at Gnadenberg aged 60 years old

Walder, Heinrich (and Anna Charlotte née Less) 1837, May 14 1863

1864, January 2 1864, July 31 1864, August 1864, November 28 1865, July 31 1869, January 1869, July 19

Born Robenhausen, Switzerland Teacher at Königsfeld in the Black Forest Called into missionary service to establish a mission in Australia with three other Brothers Called into the Akoluthie Ordained in Herrnhut to Diaconus Travelled from London to Melbourne Arrived in Melbourne, went to Ebenezer Arrived in Bethel, South Australia Called to the missionary service in the West Indies Departed South Australia

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Archives and Libraries Aboriginal Affairs, Victoria - Microfilm (MF) 164-185: Moravian Mission in Australia Papers, 1832-1916. Papers, correspondence, transactions and diaries on microfilm. Microfilm, 26 reels, 35 mm. 26 parts including 1786 letters. Copies made by AAV from copies held at Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (AIATSI), originals held at Archiv der Brüder-Unität, Herrnhut, Germany. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA E. Hartman Collection (1979). - Box 1 of 4. Various documents including: Diary of A. & M. Hartmann, 1863-1870; letter books. - Box 2 of 4. Various documents including: Notebook of Rev. Adolphus Hartman. - Box 3 of 4. Various documents including: Letters; A. Hartman’s diary from 1858-1859. - Box 4 of 4. Various documents including: Handwritten manuscripts with information pertaining to Australia. Moravian Archives, Moravian Church House, London, UK - Minutes of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, Volume I, 1768-1772. - Minutes of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, Volume V, 1814-1830. - Minutes of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, Volume VI, 1839-1848. - Minutes of the Committee of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, Volume VII, 1848-1859. - Minutes of the Committee of the Brethrens’ Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, Volume VIII, 1859-1865. - Stated Rules of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel Among the Heathens, no date, no place, pamphlet, 8 pages. National Archives Australia, Victorian Branch, Melbourne, Australia - Accession Number B332/0 Reports – Protection of the Aborigines, 1861-1906. - Accession Numbers B312-356, Central Board for the Protection of the Aborigines, Correspondence Files, 1869-1975. National Library, Canberra, Australia Hagenauer’s letter book, 1865-1885, Manuscript MS 3343. - Volume I: 1865-1872. - Volume II: 1872-1885. [Note: As the two volumes cover different years (with the exception of 1872), the footnotes in this book do not explicitly note from which volume the material comes]

248

bibliography

Public Record Office, Victoria, Australia - File VA 515, VPRS 1694, 1889-1899. Unitätsarchiv, [UA, Archives of the Moravian Church], Herrnhut, Germany. - Beilagen der Synode, 1848, Bericht des Missionsdepartement, no. 134. - Dienstlauf of missionaries. - File MD 603: Naturwissenschaftliches und Ethnographisches. Deutsches Auslandsinstitut Stuttgart u.a. 1902-1930 (with gaps). - Hauptregister der Brüder-Unität Herrnhut, 1732-1919. - Jahresbericht von dem Missionswerk der Brüdergemeine. - Rubrik.15.A.12.10. - Rubrik.15.A.63. - Rubrik.15.V.no.3.5. - Rubrik15 VI.a. 8,9: Zeitungsausschnitte und Drucksachen, 1856-1902. - Rubrik15.V. No.3. - Rubrik15.A.16.c.3.1-16. - Protocoll des Missionsdepartement, 1840-1910. - Protocoll der Unitätsältestenconferenz, 1840-1910. - Zeugnis for Hagenauer, written by C.F. Bellartz, Ebersdorf, 19 August 1856. The University of Melbourne Archives - Strathfieldsaye Estate Collection 76/13.

Published Material Alliques, The Church of the Brethren and her Mission (London: Printed for private circulation, 1871). Baudert, S., The Advance Guard. 200 Years of Moravian Missions. 1732-1932. Translated by John Greenfield (London: Moravian Book Room, 1932). Bechler, Theodor, 200 Jahre ärztliche Missionsarbeit der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine. Missionsärzte, Chirurgen, ärztlich tätige Missionare, Diakonissen und Schwestern (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932). Bettermann, Wilhelm, “Das Los in der Brüdergemeine” Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, III, Heft 3 (1931): 284-87. Buchner, Charles, The Foreign Mission Work in the Moravian Church in View of the General Synod in 1899, For Private Circulation (Bradford: Bottomley Brothers, 1899). Chase, S.L., The Moravian Mission at Lake Boga in the Colony of Victoria: A statement of the causes which led to its relinquishment July 1, 1856 with charts (Melbourne: Wilson, MacKinnon and Fairfax, 1856). ——, ed. Missionary Success among the Aborigines (Melbourne: W.M. Goodhugh & Co., 1860). Collinson, John, ‘[Comments on]: On the Indians of the Mosquito Territory.’ Journal of the Anthropological Society of London, 6 (1868): xiii-xvii. Committee of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, eds. Facts Relating to the Moravian Mission. First Paper (Melbourne: W.M. Goodhugh & Co., 1860). ——, Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia. Second Paper (Melbourne: W.M. Goodhugh & Co., 1861). ——, Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia. Read in connection with the Report of the Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Held July 21, 1862, Third Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1862).

bibliography

249

——, Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia. Read in Connection with the Report of the Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Melbourne Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, Held August 17, 1863. Fourth Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1863). Committee of the Victorian Association in Aid of the Moravian Mission to the Aborigines of Australia, eds. Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia, Held in Connection with the Report of the committee at the Annual Meeting of the Victorian Association in Aid of Moravian Missions to the Aborigines of Australia, Held March 19, 1866. Fifth Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1866). ——, Further Facts Relating to the Moravian Missions in Australia, Read in Connection with the Report of the Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Victorian Association in Aid of Moravian Missions to the Aborigines of Australia, Held September 30, 1867. Sixth Paper (Melbourne: Fergusson & Moore, 1867). Förtsch, Karl, Kurze Geschichte der Goßnerschen Mission. Zum fünfundsiebzigjährigen Jubiläum. Den Missionsfreunden in Stadt und Land erzählt (Berlin-Friedenau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Goßnerschen Mission, 1911). H.S., A short memoir of William Wimmera: an Australian boy, who sailed from Melbourne, April 1, 1851; died at Reading, March 10, 1852 (Cambridge: privately printed, 1853). Hagenauer, F.A., Mission Work among the Aborigines of Victoria (Melbourne: Diocesan Book Society, 1880). Hamilton, J. Taylor, A History of the church known as the Moravian Church, or the Unitas Fratrum, or the Unity of the Brethren, During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Bethlehem, P.A: Times Publishing Company, 1900). ——, A History of the Missions of the Moravian Church During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Bethlehem, PA: Times Publishing Company, 1901). ——, The Moravian Manual Containing an Account of the Moravian Church, or Unitas Fratrum. Published by Authority of the Provincial Synod of the American Moravian Church, North (Bethlehem, P.A.: Times Publishing Company, 1901). Hassé, E.R., The Moravians (London: National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, 1911). Hassé, Mrs E.R., Women’s Work in the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church: Paper Read at the Free Church Council March 9th, 1879 (Ashton-under-Lyne: Griffin & Sheard, 1897). Haßkarl, J.K., Australien und seine Kolonien Süd Australien, Australia Felix, nach mehrjährigen Beobachtungen und Erfahrungen von Wilkinson, Westgarth, Wyld und den Berichten deutscher Kolonisten. Ein Handbuch für deutsche Auswanderer (Elberfeld und Herlohn: A Julius Bädeker, 1849). Hey, N., An Elementary Grammar of the Nggerikudi Language. Edited by Department of Public Lands. Bulletin No. 6, North Queensland Ethnography (Brisbane: Government Printer, 1903). Holmes, John, Historical Sketches of the Missions of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, from Their Commencement to the Present Time (Dublin: R. Napper, 1818). ——, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (London: Printed for the author, 1825). Howitt, A.W., The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1904. Reprint, 1996). Hutton, J.E., History of the Moravian Church (London: Moravian Publications Office, 1909). ——, A History of Moravian Missions (London: Moravian Publications Office, 1922). Karsten, Hermann, Die Geschichte der evangelisch=lutherischen Mission in Leipzig von ihrer Entstehung bis auf die Gegenwart dargestellt. Erster Teil (Güstrow: Verlag von Opitz & Co., 1893). La Trobe, B., The Moravian Missions. A Glance at 164 years of unbroken Missionary Labours (London: Norman and Sons, 1896).

250

bibliography

Libbey, John, The Missionary Character and the Foreign Mission Work of the Church of the United Brethren (of Moravians) (Dublin: Moravian Church Dublin, 1869). London Association in aid of the Missions of the United Brethren, commonly called Moravians, The Fifth Report in Aid of the Mission of the United Brethren, Commonly called MORAVIANS, for the Year 1822 With an Appendix, containing Interesting Intelligence from the Missionary Stations, A List of Contributors, &c. (London: Printed by F. Marshall, Kenton Street, Brunswick Square, 1823). Loskiel, George, The History of the Moravian Mission among the Indians in North America from Its Commencement to the Present Time with a Preliminary Account of the Indians Compiled from Authentic Sources. By a Member of the Brethren’s Church. (London: T. Allman, 1838). McCrie, Charles G., The Moravian Missions. Reprinted from “The British and Foreign Evangelical Review” (London: London Association in Aid of Moravian Missions, 1883). Missions=Department der Unitäts-Aeltesten-Conference, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern Welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen. Zweite durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837). ——, Allgemeine Bestimmungen über Ausrüstung, Gehalt, Reisekosten und Ruhegehalte der Missionare der Brüdergemeine sowie über die Erziehung ihrer Kinder und ihre persönlichen Verhältnisse (Herrnhut: Gustav Winter, 1896). Montgomery, James, Retrospect of the Origin and Progress of the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen; and of its operations during the past hundred years. Read at the Centenary Anniversary of the Society, on Nov 19, 1841 (The Mount near Sheffield: SFG, 1841). Oberländer, Richard, Australien. Geschichte der Entdeckung und Kolonisation. Bilder aus dem Leben der Ansiedler in Busch und Stadt. ursprünglich herausgegeben von Fr. Christmann. In zweiter völlig umgestalteter Auflage und unter Berücksichtigung der neuesten Gewerbe=und Verkehrsverhältnisse bearbeitet (Leipzig: Verlag von Otto Spamer, 1880). Reichelt, G.Th., The Literary works of the Foreign Missionaries of the Moravian Church. Translated and Annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz (Bethlehem: The Comenius Press, 1870). ——, Our Foreign Missions and the British Province; A Paper Read at the Provincial Synod, Held at Fairfield, In June and July, 1874 (Derby: T.L. Hadham, 1874). Richter, D. Julius, Geschichte der Berliner Missionsgesellschaft. 1824-1924 (Berlin: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Berliner ev. Missionsgesellschaft, 1924). ——, Band V. Die evangelische Mission in Niederländisch=Indien, fern=und Süd=Asien, Australien, Amerika. Heft 2: Die evangelische Mission in fern=und Südost=Asien, Australien, Amerika. Allgemeine Evangelische Missionsgeschichte (Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1932). Schneider, H.G., Missionsarbeit der Brüdergemeine in Australien (Gnadau: Verlag der Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1882). Schulze, Adolf, 200 Jahre Brüdermission: Das zweite Missionsjahrhundert. Vol. II (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1932). Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, The Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel and its Third Jubilee (London: Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, 1891). Spangenberg, August Gottlieb, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1782). ——, Instructions for the Members of the Unitas Fratrum who minister in the Gospel among the Heathen. Translated from the German (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen, 1784). ——, Kurzgefaßte historische Nachricht von der gegenwärtigen Verfassung der evangelischen Brüderunität augsburgscher Confession mit Anmerkungen begleitet von einem

bibliography

251

Ungenannten, welcher sich acht Jahre in verschieden Brüdergemeinen aufgehalten (Berlin: August Mylius, 1786). ——, An Exposition of Christian Doctrine, as Taught in the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or, Unitas Fratrum. Written in German, by August Gottlieb Spangenberg; with a Preface by Benjamin La Trobe. Fifth Edition (Bath: S. Hazard, 1796). ——, Idea Fidei Fratrum oder kurzer Begriff der christlichen Lehre in der evangelischen Brüdergemeinen, Neue Auflage (Gnadau: Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder= Unität, 1824). ——, A Concise Historical Account of the Present Constitution of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren Adhering to the Confession of Augsburg, Translated from the Fifth Improved German Edition (Philadelphia: McCarty & Davis, 1833). ——, Unterricht für die Brüder und Schwestern welche unter den Heiden am Evangelio dienen. Zweite durchgesehene und vermehrte Ausgabe (Gnadau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität, 1837). ——, Instructions for Missionaries of the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren. From the German. Second revised and enlarged edition (London: Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathens, 1840). Smyth, R. Brough, The Aborigines of Victoria: With Notes Relating to the Habits of the Natives of Other Parts of Australia and Tasmania. Compiled from Various Sources for the Government of Victoria. Vol. 1 (Melbourne: John Ferres, Government Printer, 1878). ——, The Aborigines of Victoria: With Notes Relating to the Habits of the Natives of Other Parts of Australia and Tasmania. Compiled from Various Sources for the Government of Victoria. Vol. II (Melbourne: John Ferres, Government Printer, 1878). Teichelmann, C.G., Illustrative and Explanatory Notes of the Manners, Customs, Habits and Superstitions of the Natives of South Australia. (Adelaide: Committee of the South Australian Wesleyan Methodist Auxiliary Mission Society, 1841). Thompson, A.C., Jubilee Address. Delivered at Bethlehem, P.A., on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Foreign Missions of the Moravian Church. August 21, 1882 (Bethlehem: Moravian Publication Office, 1882). Wakeman, Henry Offley, An Introduction to the History of the Church of England. From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Fourth edition (London: Rivington, Percival & Co, 1897).

Government Acts An Act to provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria, No. 3 [49], 1869, Victoria. An Act to amend an Act intituled ‘An Act to provide for the Protection and Management of the Aboriginal Natives of Victoria’ (No. DCCCCXII), 1886, Victoria.

Periodicals Der australische Christenbote/Australischer Christenbote Evangelisches Missions Magazin The Little Missionary Missionsblatt aus der Brüdergemeine Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie National Advocate Periodical Accounts relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren, established among the Heathen

252

bibliography

Port Phillip Gazette This Month in Moravian History The United Brethren’s Missionary Intelligencer, and Religious Miscellany; Containing the Most Recent Accounts Relating to the United Brethren’s Missions Among the Heathen; With other interesting Communications from the Records of that Church

Secondary Sources Published material Attwood, Bain, “Off the Mission Stations: Aborigines in Gippsland1860-1890” Aboriginal History 10, no. 2 (1986):131-151. ——, The Making of the Aborigines (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989). Atwood, Craig D., “Sleeping in the Arms of Christ: Sanctifying Sexuality in the eighteenth-century Moravian Church” Journal of the History of Sexuality 8, no. 1 (1997): 25-62. ——, “Spangenberg: A Radical Pietist in Colonial America” Journal of Moravian History 4 (2008): 7-27. Augustin, Stephan, “Das Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut und seine Sammlung von den Reisen des englischen Kapitäns James Cook” Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 13 (1992): 53-61. ——, “Johann Jakob Bossarts‚ Kurze Anweisung Naturalien zu sammeln‘ der Beginn wissenschaftlicher Sammlungstätigkeit innerhalb der Evangelischen Brüder-Unität” In Abhandlungen und Berichte des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde Dresden, edited by Lydia Icke-Schwalbe & Karla Seefried (Frankfurt/Main: IKO- Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation, 1994): 99-122. ——, “Herrnhuter Mission und Völkerkunde” In Ethnographie und Herrnhuter Mission. Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut. Katalog zur ständigen Ausstellung im Völkerkundemuseum Herrnhut Außenstelle des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde Dresden, edited by Annegret Nippa (Herrnhut: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden, 2003): 8-17. Bade, Klaus, ed. Imperialismus und Kolonialmission: Kaiserliches Deutschland und koloniales Imperium (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982). Barry, Amanda, “ ‘Equal to Children of European Origin’: Educability and the Civilising Mission in Early Colonial Australia” History Australia 5, no. 2 (2008): 41.1-41.16. Barwick, Diane, Rebellion at Coranderrk (Fyshwick: Aboriginal History Inc., 1998). Bebbington, D.W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989). Benz, Ernst, “Pietist and Puritan Sources of Early Protestant World Mission (Cotton Mather and A.H. Francke)” Church History 20, no. 2 (1951): 28-55. Beyreuther, Erich, “Lostheorie und Lospraxis” In Studien zur Theologie Zinzendorfs: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Neukirchen-Vlyun: Kreis Moers, 1962): 109-135. Blake, L., “Education at Ebenezer” The Educational Magazine 24, (1967): 37-48. Blaskett, Beverley, “The level of violence: Europeans and Aborigines in Port Phillip, 1835-1850” In Through White Eyes, edited by Susan Janson and Stuart Macintyre (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990): 77-100. Bonyhady, Tim, Burke and Wills. From Melbourne to Myth (Sydney: David Ell Press, 1991). Braun, Thomas, Die Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft und der Missionshandel im 19. Jahrhundert (Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission Erlangen, 1992). Brenner, Reuven, Gambling and Speculation. A Theory, a History, and a Future of Some Human Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

bibliography

253

Brock, Peggy, ed. Outback Ghettos: A history of Aboriginal institutionalisation and survival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). ——, Indigenous Peoples and Religious Change (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Broome, Richard, Aboriginal Australians. Black responses to White dominance, 17881994. Second edition (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1994). ——, Aboriginal Victorians: A History Since 1800 (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005). Bukdahl, Jørgen, Søren Kierkeegaard and the Common Man. Translated by Bruce H. Kirmmse (Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001). Burton, John W., “Christians, Colonists, and Conversion: a View from the Nilotic Sudan” The Journal of Modern African Studies 23, no. 2 (1985): 349-369. Caldere, D.B. and D.J. Goff, Aboriginal Reserves and Missions in Victoria (Kew: Department of Conservation and Environment, 1991). Campbell, Alastair H., John Batman and the Aborigines (Malmsbury: Kibble Books, 1997). Cannon, Michael, ed. The Aborigines of Port Phillip 1835-1839. Vol. 2A, Historical Records of Victoria (Melbourne: Victorian Government Printing Office, 1982). Carr, Julie, The Captive White Woman of Gipps Land: in pursuit of the legend (Carlton South: Melbourne University Press, 2001). Cathcart, Michael, Manning Clark’s History of Australia abridged by Michael Cathcart (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1993). Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Differences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Chesterman, John and Brian Galligan, Citzens Without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Christie, M.R., Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1835-1836 (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1979). Clark, Ian D., Aboriginal Languages and Clans: an Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800-1900. vol. 37, Monash Publications in Geography (Melbourne: Monash University, 1990). ——, Scars in the Landscape vol. 37 (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 1995). Clark, Ian D. and Toby Heydon, Database of Aboriginal Placenames of Victoria. CD-ROM (Melbourne: Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages, 2002). Cole, Keith, The Lake Condah Aboriginal Mission (Bendigo: Keith Cole Publications, 1984). Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff, “Christianity and Colonialism in South Africa” American Enthnologist 13, no. 1 (1986): 1-22. ——, Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume Two: The Dialetics of Modernity on a South African Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997). Connor, John, “British Frontier Warfare Logistics and the ‘Black Line’, Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), 1830)” War in History 9, no. 2 (2002): 143-158. Davies, Norman, Europe. A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Davies, Susanne, “Aborigines, Murder and the Criminal Law in Early Port Phillip, 1841-1851” Historical Studies 22, no. 88 (1987): 313-335. Deanesly, Margaret, A History of the Medieval Church, 590-1500. Fourth edition (London: Methuen & Co., 1941). Dodson, Michael S., “Translating Science, Translating Empire: The Power of Language in Colonial North India” Comparative Studies in Society and History 47, no. 4 (2005): 809-835. Duff, Alexander, India and India Missions: Including Sketches of the Gigantic System of Hinduism, Both in Theory and Practice; also, Notices of some of the Principal Agencies Employed in Conducting the Process of Indian Evangelisation, etc. Second ed.

254

bibliography

(Edinburgh & London: John Johnston, Hunter Square and Whittaker & Co., and Nibbet & Co., 1840). Dvornik, Francis, “The Significance of the Mission of Cyril and Methodius,” Slavic Review 23, no. 2 (1964): 195-211. Edwards, William, Moravian Aboriginal Missions in Australia 1850-1919 (Adelaide: Uniting Church Historical Society (South Australia), 1999). Ellender, Isabel and Peter Christiansen, People of the Merri Merri: The Wurundjeri in Colonial Days (East Brunswick: Meri Creek Management Committee Inc., 2001). Emilsen, Susan and William W. Emilsen, eds. Mapping the Landscape: Essays in Australian and New Zealand Christianity. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ian Breward (New York: Peter Lang, 2000). Etherington, Norman, “Missions and Empire” In Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 5 Historiography, edited by R. Winks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999): 303-314. ——, ‘The Missionary Writing Machine in Nineteenth-Century Kwazulu-Natal’ In Mixed Messages. Materiality, Textuality, Missions, edited by Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005): 37-50. Fels, M.H., A History of the Ebenezer Mission, Occasional Report No. 51 (Melbourne: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 1998). Feuchtwanger, Edgar, Imperial Germany, 1850-1918 (London: Routledge, 2001). Findlay, George and Mary Grace Findlay, Wesley’s World Parish: A Sketch of the Hundred Years’ Work of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society (Hodder and Stoughton: Charles Kelly, 1913). Flannery, Tim, ed. The Birth of Melbourne (Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company, 2002). ——, ed. The Life and Adventures of William Buckley. Thirty-two years a wanderer amongst the Aborigines of the then unexplored country round Port Phillip (Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company, 2002). Fleisch, D. Paul, Hundert Jahre lutherischer Mission (Leipzig: Verlag der Evangelisch= lutherischen Mission, 1936). Förtsch, Karl, Kurze Geschichte der Goßnerschen Mission. Zum Fünfundsiebzigjährigen Jubiläum. Den Missionsfreunden in Stadt und Land Erzählt (Berlin-Friedenau: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Goßnerschen Mission, 1911). Freeman, Arthur J., An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1998). Gavaler, Christopher P., “The Empty Lot: Spiritual Contact in Lenape and Moravian Religious Beliefs” American Indian Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1994): 215-228. Gollin, Gillian Lindt, “Family Surrogates in Colonial America: The Moravian Experiment” Journal of Marriage and the Family 31, no. 4 (1969): 650-658. Gore, James, “Historical Collections in Australian Museums, 1800-1975” Journal of Australian Studies, (2001): 39-53. Graf, Lanie, “John Frederick Hintz, Eighteenth-Century Moravian Instrument Maker, and the Use of the Cittern in Moravian Worship” Journal of Moravian History 5 (2008): 7-39. Graham, Elizabeth, Medicine Man to Missionary: Missionaries as Agents of Change among the Indians of Southern Ontario, 1784-1867 (Toronto: Peter Martin, 1975). Griffith, T., Hunters and Collectors: The Antiquarian Imaginations in Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Griffiths, Gareth, “Popular Imperial Adventure Fiction and the Discourse of Missionary Texts” In Mixed Messages: Materiality, Textuality, Mission, edited by Jamie S. Scott and Gareth Griffiths (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005): 51-66. Grimm, Harold, The Reformation Era 1500-1650 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1954). Grimshaw, Patricia, “Australasia: One or Two ‘Honorable Cannibals’ in the House?” In Equal Subjects, Unequal Rights. Indigenous Peoples in British Colonies, 1830-1910,

bibliography

255

edited by Julie Evans, Patricia Grimshaw, David Philips and Shurlee Swain (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003): 63-87. ——, “Faith, Missionary Life, and the Family” In Gender and Empire, edited by P. Levine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): 260-280. Gross, Alan, Charles Joseph La Trobe (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1980). Gründer, Horst, Christliche Mission und deutscher Imperialismus, 1884-1914 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1982). ——, ed. >>… da und dort ein junges Deutschland gründen