Posted By:Vicky
Email:
Subject:Re: Correction on Sarah Jansen
Post Date:January 15, 2013 at 09:51:26
Message URL:http://genforum.genealogy.com/morocco/messages/361.html
Forum:Morocco Genealogy Forum
Forum URL:http://genforum.genealogy.com/morocco/

The marks XX--XX made by ANTHONY JANSEN and his brother-in-law(*) JAN EMANS. April 12th 1660. [Signed by the marks of four others and by four more men by written signatures.]

(*) Meaning, in this case, son-in-law, for this Jan Emans is proved the husband of Sara, daughter of Anthony Jansen van Salee. The same mistake or inexact rendition occurs again in O'Callaghan's modern translation of "The Declaration of Nicolaes Stilwil" of February 10, 1662, originally written in English for Stilwell by some scribe, and translated therefrom into Dutch in 1662 by Notary Lachaire (whose Register reveals his charge for the translation) and from whose old Dutch copy the modern translation into English, again, was made. In this latest translation of Stillwell's declaration, the latter in referring to another of Anthony's sons-in-law (probably Willem Jansen) is made to say: "Whereupon his brother-in-law there present said 'Father, you have made over your right out of your own hand,' " etc. Thus the word "Father" contradicts the translation that calls that speaker "brother-in-law." Both Jan Emans and Willem Jansen were schoonzoons (sons-in-law) of the said Anthony, but each appears in modern translations of separate records as "brother-in-law." The most eminent translator of ancient Dutch records in America, A. J. F. van Laer, clears up this contradiction by explaining that it arose because of the old use of the word swaeger, which in the 17th century meant son-in-law as well as brother-in-law.