A place to learn about and remember the hundreds of lives lost during the "Last European Witch Hunt". Mod: Dionys (they/them), @/Dionys_Toussaint on Instagram
Bekman, Bernard: Kapitein der Bokkerijders (1949) - The most historically accurate book about the Bokkenrijders I've ever read! I absolutely loved this one and definitely recommend it. If I hadn't had such a nostalgic bond with Ton van Reen's book, this would have been my favourite. (E-Book)
Ecrevisse, Piet: De Bokkerijders (1848) - Nice book. That's all, really. During my research I haven't found anything about the main characters, but one of them reminded me off Joseph Kirchhoffs. I believe it's one of the first works of fiction about the Bokkenrijders. (E-Book)
Van Reen, Ton: De Bende van de Bokkenrijders (?) - I'm very nostalgic about this one, since this is the book that got me into this subject. While not 100% historically accurate (and sometimes even painfully inaccurate), it is my all-time favourite book about the Bokkenrijders. It’s also inspired a TV-show!
Toussaint, Dionys: Levensdief (2019) - Please just buy my book, I'm poor. (DM for PDF)
(Blok, Anton: De Bokkerijders, Roversbenden en Geheime Genootschappen in de landen van Overmaas [1730-1774] (1992) - One of my first research books on this subject, a very nice book, about the same level as Melchior's and also very often used by researchers.
Heijenrath, Lei ; Huijnen, Mathieu ; Nijsten-Höfte, Lea ; Van Wersh, Hub: Facetten uit het Land van Rode (2017) - One of the newer books. It isn't exclusively about the Bokkenrijders, it does also provide a lot of other information about the Land of Rode, and doesn't say a lot about the gangs in the Country of Valkenburg, Gulik, etc. It is still a very nice book!
Gierlichs, Wilhelm: De Geschiedenis der Bokkerijders in 't voormalig Land van 's Hertogenrode (1940) - Probably the most used research book out there and definitely my personal favourite. It has a lot of pictures, something the others lack, so it's very nice if you want to see original letters, sentences, etc. but aren't able to visit any archive! While some of Gierlich’s theories have been disproven, it’s still very nice for this use.
Melchior, Juliaan: De Bokkerijders (1915) - Provides a lot of information. Just a good book, also very often used by researchers. It's considered to be one of the few fully correct books. This was also my very first research book about the Bokkenrijders, so I'm a bit nostalgic on this one. (E-Book)
Ramaekers, G. ; Pasing, Theo: De Woeste Avonturen van de Bokkerijders (1972) - Nice, tiny book (compared to the others), so easy to take with you. A compilation of short bits about robberies, people, etc. A bit like this blog, but by a journalist, I guess. It’s also one of my favourite and most-used books. (E-Book)
Sleinada, S.J.P: Oorsprong, Oorzaeke, Bewys en ontdekkinge van een godlooze Bezwoorne Bende, Nagtdieven en Knevelaers, binnen de landen van Overmaeze en Aenpaelende Landstreeken ontdekt, met een nauwkeurig getal der Geexcuteerde en Vlugtelingen. (1779) - A lot of words! This is considered to be the first book ever published about the Bokkenrijders. It's used mostly for research about how people thought about the gang while it was still active. Since it's written in 18th century Dutch (there is no modern translation yet), it can be hard to read, but I definitely recommend it! (E-Book)
Het Bokkenrijdersgenootschap - A group dedicated to researching and talking about the Bokkenrijders. Some of the most important researchers are/were members of this group. I have visited a meeting once, though I am, sadly, not a member. This one meeting was quite fun, though! There are some very interesting articles on this website.
John V.E. - One of my personal favourite websites. It has a list of convicted Bokkenrijders, as well as a transcription of most trials. Besides that, it also has some letters, corpus delicti and other documents! It’s also a fun website to practice your 18th century Dutch ;)
(There aren’t really that many websites dedicated to this subject!)
Maria was baptized in Schinnen on February 15th, 1725. She was the daughter of Paul Notermans and Cornelia Claessen, whose occupations are unknown. We know little of her youth, but we do know she got married to Balthasar Kirchhoffs, an older brother of Joseph Kirchhoffs, when she was 37, on February 8th, 1763, in Merxstein. Balthasar was 55 then. They never got any children.
A forgotten commander
According to the trials of other "Bokkenrijders" - there are no remaining documents of Maria's own trial - Maria Notermans-Kirchhoffs was part of the Bokkenrijders during the third wave. If this is the truth, it could be Balthasar was the one to introduce her to the Bokkenrijders, as he is said to have been a member of the gang during at least one previous wave as well. It could also be Maria became a member by herself and the two met during gatherings. After all, the third wave is said to have started in 1752, while Balthasar and Maria got married ten years later.
We know for sure that, if Maria was in any way part of the Bokkenrijders, she was not just a simple member. There are multiple sources in which she is named as a commander of this wave's gang, for example in this letter, written on November 4th, 1774:
"...Dat bij die zelve gelegentheid, de vrouw van [Balthasar] Kerkhoff, die bij het plegen van de voornaamste Euveldaden tegenswoordig geweest is, en een gedeelte der Bende Commandeerde, onder de Naam van de Swarte Hoesaar op het voorsz. Monstrantie, waar voor de Roomschen anders, gelijk bekent is, zo veel eerbied hebben, haar water heeft gemaakt."
"...And that during this same gathering, the wife of [Balthasar] Kerkhoff, who had been present during some of the most notable crimes and commanded a part of the Gang under the name of 'de Swarte Hoesaar', had watered on the previously named monstrance, for which Roman Catholics normally have so much respect."
If it's true she was one of the commanders, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise. Both her husband Balthasar and her brother-in-law Joseph were arrested because they were thought to be commanders and another brother-in-law, Peter, was thought to - at least - have been a member. In this family business, so to speak, Maria wouldn't be an exception.
Arrest
Usually, the diaries of Kloosterraede are our second most important source to find out when a certain person was arrested. By using the dates of interrogations and the dates on which people were taken to the castle, we can be pretty sure of the date of arrest if it's not mentioned in the trial itself. But, as said before, the documents of Maria's trial have been lost and the diaries don't mention the exact date of arrest of the people arrested before February 1st, 1771.
So the exact date of Maria's arrest is unknown, though we do know she was arrested before February 14th, 1771, because of a statement made Catharine Korvers, widow of Joannes Reinartz, about a robbery that happened eight years prior:
"Dat sije deese persoon wel in het gesicht gesien heeft, maar niet gekent, ende nu tot cortelinghs heeft hoiren seggen, dat dit soude geweest sijn die vrouwe van Baltus Kerckhoff tegenwordigh gedetineerden tot s'Hertogenraede, ende als sij deselve soude sien, soude misschijn wel kennen."
"That she saw this person but didn't recognize them, but that, not too long ago, she'd heard that this was the wife of Baltus Kerckhoff, who was now imprisoned in 's-Hertogenraede, and that, if she should see her, maybe she would recognize her."
From this, we can learn she was arrested before this date. However, the only two dates of arrest mentioned in the diaries before the 14th are February 4th and 1st, but those arrested on those dates were all from Übach, while Maria lived in Merxstein.
So we'll have to assume she was one of the three people arrested in January, which would also be the most logical time, as we do know for sure her husband was arrested sometime in January, and it would make sense for them to be arrested at the same time.
Escape
On March 7th, 1771, Balthasar Kirchhoffs got tortured to death. It is said Maria escaped later that month, though, again, the exact details aren't known. But while Sleinada remains silent on Maria for the most part, he is quite probably our only available source when it comes to this event.
"...of om beter te zeggen van heymlyk uytgelaeten te worden, vermits het gat in de tooren, waerdoor zy zou uytgebrooken zyn, zoo kleen was dat geenen mensch daer door kunde uytkruypen, nademael Mary een zware dikke vrouw was."
"...it would be better to say she was let out, as the hole (window) in the tower, through which she is said to have escaped, was so small, nobody could have crawled out of there, and Maria was quite a fat woman."
For her to bet let out, isn't completely illogical, as some guards lived in Merxstein and quite possibly new Maria personally. Besides, the Kirchhoffs family was quite wealthy, so there's a big possibility Maria bribed a guard. However, some guards were later arrested as well. Could it be they simply wanted to save a fellow Bokkenrijder?
As seems to be the case with almost everyone in this story, we'll never know for sure what happened.
"Myne Heeren, hebt gy nu voldoening genoeg? Anders neemt my, en kapt my van lid tot lid en werp my zo op dit vuer, zoo zult ge zoo weynig van my weeten, als ge tot nog toe vernomen hebt."
~~~
"Gentlemen, are you satisfied now? If not, take me, cut me to pieces and throw me onto this fire: that way, you will hear just as little from me, as you have done thus far."
- Joseph Kirchhoffs, according to S.J.P. Sleinada, Oorsprong, Oorzaeke, Etc.
PSA: I'm going to be completely honest with you: almost nothing you're going to read now is 100% certain, as seems to be the case with everything related to the Bokkenrijders, and even more so when it comes to Joseph Kirchhoffs's life and trial. While most of the Bokkenrijders trials are available at RHCL (the archives of Limburg in Maastricht), quite a few are missing, the most notable being those of Joseph Kirchhoffs: only his death sentence has survived. This is why we have to rely on other sources, such as the diaries of Kloosterraede and the (rather unreliable) Sleinada with his booklet.
Kirchhoffs's arrest
The mystery of Kirchhoffs's trial starts a few days before his arrest. According to some, count Maximiliaan Hendrik Hoen de Carthils (with whom Kirchhoffs is said to have got into a fight with before) told him he was going to get arrested soon and, if needed, Kirchhoffs could hide at place he owned in Westfalen. Kirchhoffs refused- why is still topic of debate. Some say he didn't want to desert 'his' gang, others say De Carthils never actually warned him.
A warned man or not, according to Sleinada, he went to church in the early morning of August 14th, 1771. When mass was finished and Kirchhoffs left the church- according to Sleinada still wearing his nightgown- people were waiting outside, and he was arrested. Without saying another word, he was taken to the Castle of Rode, where he would spend his final months.
The diary of Kloosterraede notes the following on this day:
"Auri sacra fames, quo non mortalia cogis pectora!"
~
"Damned thirst for gold, to what do you seduce mankind?"
The abbey diaries on August 11-15th. The "Auri sacra fames" is just above the entry of August 15th.
The trial
Kirchhoffs was, according to most sources, very calm in prison. He remained civil towards prisoners and guards alike. As he kept repeating he was innocent, two pastors were brought in: Father Kemmerling of Herzogenrath and Father Rhamen of Afden both testified for Kirchhoffs's innocence, but he was brought to be interrogated anyway.
This first interrogation of Joseph Kirchhoffs took place on October 10-11th, nearly two months after his arrest. However, despite going through all levels of torture (including the infamous strappado which led to his brother's death), he said nothing. It is said he did call his interrogators his complices, but this cannot be proven.
The strappado, or "wipgalg" in Dutch
Some see his silence as a confession: in some versions of the oath new Bokkenrijders had to say, they had to promise not to say a thing under torture. Some older theories claim that, because he was the leader of the Bokkenrijders, Satan helped him stay silent during his trial.
However, it is very probable Kirchhoffs knew the gang either didn't exist or, if he called a name, he'd probably sentence an innocent person to death by doing so. Besides, there was a law which ruled a person could not be sentenced to death without a confession.
Torture continued on November 12-14th. Again, Kirchhoffs confessed nothing. He never did.
The sentence
While Sleinada mentions April 22nd as the day on which Joseph Kirchhoffs was sentenced to death, this was actually on May 4th or May 6th, as the sentence was written down on the 4th but isn't mentioned in the abbey diaries until the 6th.
While Kirchhoffs didn't confess anything, it is said he was sentenced to death anyway because 'evidence against him was too strong'. The evidence solely consisted of confessions made either during torture or in fear of it. Real evidence simply doesn't exist, as is the case with most Bokkenrijders.
Kirchhoffs's complete death sentence wasn't simply for him to be hanged to death. He was to be tortured beforehand, in an attempt to get a final confession out of him, and after his death, he would stay hanging on the gallows until he'd rot off it, as an example to others.
Kirchhoffs and Zünder
According to Sleinada, a Jesuit priest called father Zünder was to comfort Kirchhoffs during his final days. One particular story states that, as Kirchhoffs was being tortured, Zünder had brought all the children of 's-Hertogenraede to the room next to the room Kirchhoffs was in, to pray there for the soul of the poor man. It was at this day Kirchhoffs is said to have spoken the famous words quoted at the start of this blog, as he was let go when the interrogators realized he wasn't going to confess this time either. After being let go, Kirchhoffs walked to the room where the children were praying, guided by father Zünder. Kirchhoffs asked for the man's name, and then replied: "God, then you have come to me [to the right person(?)] for I am a big sinner." This is a reference to father Zünder's name, as 'sinner' in German is 'Sünder'.
This story, however, can not be true, as Kirchhoffs was, according to the diary of Kloosterraede, tortured on May 6-7th. Father Zünder is mentioned here for the first time on May 10th, in the context of him meeting Kirchhoffs only a day prior. So while the story of Kirchhoffs and Zünder may sound nice, it can in no way be true.
His execution
On May 11th, Joseph Kirchhoffs was executed on the Beckenberg in 's-Hertogenraede as leader of the Bokkenrijders' Third Wave, no more than a kilometre away from his home, which was also no more than a five-minute walk from both the prison and the church he was arrested at. It is unsure whether his wife and children were watching his execution or not, but one thing is known: the city of 's-Hertogenraede had never seen so many people for an execution. Kirchhoffs was a well-known man, and a beloved one at it. It is no surprise people came from far away to watch him get hanged.
Before getting hanged, Kirchhoffs was asked to speak his final words:
"Jesus, for You, I live -- Jesus, for You, I die."
"Publico suspendio in Beckenbergh obiit infelix Kirchhoffs circa 11-mam matutimam..."
~~~
"This morning around 11 'o clock, the poor Kirchhoffs was publicly executed by being hanged on the Beckenbergh..."
-Anonymous: Diarium Rerum Memorabilium Abbatiae Rodensis [May 11th, 1772]
Family
Joseph Kirchhoffs was born as the youngest child of Nicolaas Kirchhoffs and Catharina Do(u)veren. He had one older sister and four older brothers:
Johanna (1705 - 30-10-1785)
Joannes (13-02-1706)
Balthasar (or Baltus, 27-09-1707 - 07-03-1771)
Dionijs (22-11-1708)
Peter (1720-1771)
From various letters we can also learn that he had an uncle who was a surgeon, perhaps this was the reason Joseph later became a surgeon himself.
Although he is quite probably the most famous Bokkenrijder of all, he wasn't the only one convicted in his family. Both Balthasar and Peter would later die during the trials, as well as his sister-in-law (Balthasar's wife), Maria Notermans-Kirchhoffs.
Early life (~1724 - 1752)
There is very little known about Joseph's early life. We don't even know the date of his birth, although there are some sources which say this was October 24th, 1724. This, however, can not be proven, since all birth certificates of 's-Hertogenraede from before 1736 have been either burnt or just destroyed. We can, however, be sure he was born in 's-Hertogenraede as it is noted as his birthplace in various letters and documents.
It is, however, known that Dr. Johannes Jacobus Wagener was the one who taught Joseph to become a surgeon.
On March 13th, 1743, Joseph received his 'Lehrbrief' (lit. 'Teaching Letter'), or a proof of fulfilled apprenticeship at Dr. Wagener's. From this letter, we can conclude that Joseph was born sometime around 1724.
After receiving his Lehrbrief, Joseph joined the Austrian army, where he was placed in the second company under the Count of Spada's command, part of the first battalion of the royal infantry regiment of duke Karel van Lotharingen, where Joseph was said to have been a petty officer, instead of a surgeon, which he became only after the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748) had ended, and his troupe was placed in Brussels.
In the autumn of 1752, J. van Grupello, the troupe's priest and Joseph's (presumed) friend, notified him that the city of 's-Hertogenraede was looking for a new surgeon, after which Joseph sent a letter to the abbot of Kloosterraede to apply.
Life in 's-Hertogenraede (1753-1771)
In the early months of 1753, Joseph returned to 's-Hertogenraede to fulfill his duties as the city's surgeon. He moved into a house originally owned by one of his uncles, located at what is today's Kleikstraße, with the church (where he was arrested), Burg Rode (where he was imprisoned), and the Beckenberg (where he was executed) all within a five-minute walk.
A few years later, in 1759, Joseph married his neighbor's daughter, Anna Elisabeth Mans, with whom he had a total of six children:
Joannes Fransiscus (February 16th, 1760)
Maria Josepha (June 11th, 1762)
Joannes Franciscus (January 10th, 1765)
Barbara Catharina (July 9th, 1767)
Joannes Arnoldus (July 21st, 1768)
Matthias Josephus (September 13th 1771)
Joseph never met his youngest child, as he was arrested on August 14th, 1771, a month prior to Matthias's birth. Up next, you'll learn more about Joseph's trial, and why he is such a mysterious figure...
"De naemen der geexecuteerdens, hier zullende volgen, staen 'er niet, om hun uytgestaene straf te vergrooten, maer om aen de laetere tyden zoo veel meer indruk te geeven, en hun te doen grouwelen van zulke bande. Ik doe het immers met groote droefheyd des herte, en zoo dikwyls ik aen hun denke, wensche ik hun de eeuwigduerende ruste."
~~~
"The names of those executed, which will follow, are not noted to punish them more than they have been, but to leave an impression for later times, and have them fear such a gang. I do this, after all, with sadness in my heart, and every time I think about them, I wish them eternal rest."
As stated in the about S.J.P. Sleinada, or Arnold Daniëls, there are a lot of things people can't seem to agree on when it comes to this man. They discuss the intention behind his work, as well as its reliability.
Intention
There has been quite the discussion on what Sleinada's intention was when he wrote his infamous booklet. While some say he wanted to express the hatred he felt towards the Bokkenrijders, and he only wanted to compliment the way the government of the Lands of Overmaeze had reacted, others say he wanted to show there was more to the Bokkenrijders than just bad intentions, and he actually wanted to help people.
On the first theory: Sleinada compares the Bokkenrijders to an illness quite a lot. They were, according to him, sinners, who would convert others to their sinful way of living. Throughout most of the book, he accuses the gang of making the Lands ill, so to speak. His work is also dedicated to those who cured the Lands of this illness, and he praises them often throughout this work. Besides, is there really any way a priest would want to say anything good about a gang of satanists?
Well, yes, say those who believe Sleinada wasn't as hostile towards the Bokkenrijders as was believed for so long. After all, as shown in the quote above, Sleinada really seemed upset about what had happened and there are multiple times when he notes he didn't write the book just to upset people, he wrote it to protect the Lands from another gang like that.
Again, neither of these theories are proven, so feel free to discuss in the comments or on the forum!
Reliability
While Sleinada continues to be one of the most frequently quoted works out there when it comes to Bokkenrijders research, we should doubt its reliability. After all, there are a few instances where he notes something as a fact, while there is no other proof it happened, or, in some cases, there is proof it did not happen. For both of these, I'll give you an example.
No other proof
"Op eene nagt in 1770 heeft men, in 't laetste van den zomer in 't stedeken een groot tumult gehoord, vermengd met eenige scheuten, en het was op de wagt gemikt: maer onze braeve Keyzerlyke helden, die meermaelen vyandelyken polver gerooken hadden, gaven zoo fraey vuer, dat de knevelaers op de aftogt dogten, en zig eylings weg pakten.
"During one late summer night in 1770 did the people hear a great tumult in the city [of 's-Hertogenraede], and it was aimed at [the castle's] guard: but our brave and loyal heroes, who had smelled the enemy's gunpowder many times, shot back in such a way that the criminals retreated and fled."
To understand why this part can be proven false by the fact there's no other evidence this attack on the castle happened, you need to know that another important source for researchers are the diaries the Abbey Kloosterraede (Rolduc) kept. In this diary, the most important parts of the trials were written down. Even the number of people executed on a day, or who visited the abbey after a day of torturing a prisoner can be found in these diaries.
There is, however, not a single word about the attack Sleinada talks about, despite the fact that this would be something the diary would most definitely have noted.
And on a side note, there were no 'Bokkenrijders' imprisoned in the castle in the summer of 1770. The first prisoner of the third wave, Joseph Keyser, was imprisoned in December 1770.
Proven false
"Eyndelyk is in 1772 den 22 April het doodsvonnis tegens hem gegeeven."
"And finally, on the 22nd of April 1772, [Joseph Kirchhoffs] was sentenced to death."
This part can be proven false just by looking up the original death sentence given to Kirchhoffs: it says "den vierden maij 1772" or, in English, "May 4th, 1772". April 22nd 1772 is in no way mentioned throughout the whole sentence and the statement made by Sleinada can thus be proven false.
It is, however, possible that Sleinada knew about the plans made to sentence Kirchhoffs to death, and if those plans were made sometime around April 22nd 1772, it could be possible he just mixed up a few dates, but that would still make the statement that Kirchhoffs was sentenced to death on that date incorrect.
" 't is dan de pligt, die my als eenen waeren landgenoot beweegt, om de Landen van Overmaeze, die als een ander Sodoma en Gomorra in andere plaatsen afgschilderd zyn, eenigzins door dit kleyn schriftje te beschermen, anderdeels om een geheugenis in de gedagten te inten, die de ingezetene in het toekomende zoude afschrikken van door hun gedrag de galgen weer te doen opregten, waer aen hunne voorzaeten hunnen levenstyd en misdaeden met de doodstraf hebben moeten verwisselen"
~~~
"It would then be my duty, as a true citizen of this country, to, on one hand, protect the Lands of Overmaeze, otherwise portrayed as some sort of Sodom and Gomorrah, with this little booklet, and, on the other hand, remind the citizens of tomorrow and scare them so that they will not misbehave and let the gallows rise again, on which their predecessors had to exchange their lives and crimes for a death penalty."
S.J.P. Sleinada was born as Johan Arnold Daniëls on September 2nd, 1738, in Hoensbroek, and was the son of Arnold Daniëls, treasurer, and Catharina Meijers. The fact that he lived in Hoensbroek, as a street called Dorpstraat to be precise, makes it very probable he knew a few Bokkenrijders of the First Wave (1732-1745), or at the least the people they left behind, personally. After all, Hoensbroek was this wave's epicenter.
We know very little about his youth, but there are some documents from a play at the collegium Albertinum of the Dominicans, located in Sittard, from 1754 and 1756, when Daniëls was 16 and 18 years old, respectively. He played Innocentia (Innocence) in a play called "De onoverwinnelijke Joseph geboren uit Jacob door God bestemd tot onderkoning van Egypte", or "The unconquerable Joseph born from Jacob, destined by God to be viceroy of Egypt". From this, we can learn he studied at this collegium.
When Daniëls was 25 years old, in 1763, he was ordained a priest after studying at the seminar or Roermond, and he became a chaplain in his home town until 1765. It is unknown what happened then, but he became a pastor in Scheydt (modern-day Schaesberg) in 1771/1772, when the Bokkenrijders trials of the third wave had already begun...
His work and its importance
This little biography, however, does not explain why Daniëls is of such importance to anyone researching the Bokkenrijders- especially to those researching the third wave. There are hundreds of people who knew a convicted Bokkenrijder personally, dozens who were said to have been robbed by this gang. The latter never even happened to Daniëls! So why is he of such importance, that we dedicate one of our first posts to him, instead of a robbery, or even a 'Bokkenrijder'?
This is because of a little booklet, published in 1779: "Oorsprong, Oorzaeke, Bewys en ontdekkinge van een godlooze Bezwoorne Bende, Nagtdieven en Knevelaers, binnen de landen van Overmaeze en Aenpaelende Landstreeken ontdekt, met een nauwkeurig getal der Geexecuteerde en Vlugtelingen, door S.J.P. Sleinada", or "Origin, Cause, Proof and discovery of a godless Vowed Gang, night thieves and foes in the lands of Overmaeze and Adjacent Countries discovered, with an accurate number of people executed and refugees, by S.J.P. Sleinada" in English.
This booklet, with an exceptionally long title for the amount of pages, was the first book ever published about the Bokkenrijders and, as the title suggests, gives us quite some insight in the trials, as well as the way people, or at least an outsider, albeit written by a pastor, thought about the Bokkenrijders back in the day they were still active, which makes it an incredibly interesting source and which explains why it's named in almost every book or research paper about the gang. After all, besides the trials and a letter or two, it's the only source we have.
A source of which we didn't even know the author for quite some time! It was only in 1859, 80 years after the book was published, that the mayor of Hoensbroek discovered S.J.P. Sleinada was the pseudonym of J. A. Daniëls. When you flip around the pseudonym, you get Adaniels P.J.S. - A. Daniëls, Pastor Indignus Schaesbergensis/Pastoor In Scheydt - Arnold Daniëls, Pastor of Schaesberg.
Unfortunately, Daniëls never lived to see this discovery (although, he wrote the book under a pseudonym for a reason), he died in Schaesberg in 1799, at age 61.
Discussions
However, despite Sleinada's booklet being one of the most frequently quoted works about the Bokkenrijders, right after the trials themselves, we can't say everything written in it is entirely true, nor can we say for certain what exactly Sleinada's goal was. Was he trying to put to words what he blamed the Bokkenrijders for, as well as trying to praise the government, or was he really just trying to warn the Lands like he mentioned in the quote mentioned at the beginning of this blog?
The Bokkenrijders - Introduction #2: Three Kinds Of People
PSA: In these theories, there is none more right than the other. All of these theories are still supported by researchers, although we do occasionally have a very... intense discussion about them. I’m telling you this so you know there is no right or wrong here. Please don’t have fights over this and keep discussions civil. It is also 100% okay to switch around a little. I myself used to be a supporter of the 2nd theory, but now believe the 3rd one.
As mentioned before, there are several theories surrounding the Bokkenrijders. My goal, the goal of this blog, is essentially to share reliable information with the world so the people reading this can eventually, with certainty, be a supporter of one of these theories, or maybe even create a new one themselves!
So what exactly are these three theories?
Theory #1 - The confessions are all true, the Bokkenrijders were a violent and Satanic gang
Mostly supported by: S.J.P. Sleinada and other primary sources, people who lived during the times of the trials.
This was he first theory about the gang and the theory on which all the trials are based. The story described in introduction #1 is what this theory is about and, back in the days of the trials, this was the story most of the people believed (although there were already some talking about the second theory).
This theory describes the Bokkenrijders as being a Satanic gang who met up at chapels, robbed churches in the Devil’s name and flew on goats by his power. This theory is also sometimes mixed with the second theory, especially in literary works.
Some also believe that, while the gang itself was not really Satanic, they did use the fear the people had of there being a Satanic gang, for example by using an unholy oath, which led to people (members) being afraid of leaving and/or talking too much.
Due to the fact that this was the leading theory for most of history (read 1730′s to 1960′s), it was long seen as something shameful to have a Bokkenrijder somewhere in your ancestry. There are even several cases of people changing their name due to this fact. One of the most famous cases of someone changing their name is Joseph Kerckhove van der Varent, born Joseph Kerckhoffs, great nephew of the 3rd gang’s (1752-1776) “leader” Joseph Kirchhoffs/Kerckhoffs.
Theory #2 - The confessions are mostly true, there was a gang, but they were Robin Hood-like
Mostly supported by: Wilhelm Gierlichs, Anton Blok and a lot of other researchers, most authors of literary works about the Bokkenrijders.
While there were already a few people talking about this theory during the later trials, it only became popular from the 1960′s on, when Catholicism became less important in Limburg (where the Lands of Overmaeze were once located). People began to speak more positively about the Bokkenrijders and having a member in your family became something to be proud of, instead of something you should be ashamed of.
This theory states that there was indeed a gang, after all, almost everyone tried, confessed to having been a member. However, people who believe this theory think the members were not members just for the sake of robbing people, but in order to stay alive. After all, as stated in Introduction #1, the Lands of Overmaeze, and therefor most of its people, were poor and war-torn. It is very much possible people were so poor and desperate, they turned to criminality to support themselves and their families.
The Third wave, led by the Kirchhoffs brothers, are said to be most evident of these Robin Hood-like tendencies, since most of the convicted leaders led wealthy lives, while most of the normal convicted members were poor.
Some, if not most of the people who support this theory do keep to the Satanic part and say they either robbed churches because there was enough valuable things there, or because they blamed the Church for their poverty. While there are also a lot of people who still support the idea of there having been an important oath, nobody really believes the part they flew on goats anymore.
This theory is practically the only one used in novels about the Bokkenrijders.
Theory #3 - The confessions are completely false, there was no single gang
Mostly supported by: Louis Augustus, François van Gehuchten, a few other modern researchers.
This is the newest theory. It started with Louis Augustus’s Publications (1991), and states that the Bokkenrijders never really existed. While this theory does acknowledge the existence of the trials, it dismisses the existence of the Bokkenrijders as a single gang.
The reason for this is very simple: as stated in Introduction #1, torture was a very common practice during these trials. Supported of this theory state that, because of this, the confessions made during the trials, are unreliable. Besides, most confessions made are contradictory to each other. We should therefor look at what little other primary sources we have, such as Corpus Delicti, books and letters, but none of these have proven the existence of a single gang. In fact, the only available book as a primary source, S.J.P. Sleinada’s work, makes a lot of claims which can be proven false!
The Bokkenrijders - Introduction #1: The Basic Story
In order to understand anything on this blog, a short introduction to the Bokkenrijders might be in place.
Why this can only be a short introduction, has a simple reason: we know little to nothing about the Bokkenrijders and everything we do ‘know’ is up for debate. The only thing people can agree on is the death count, and even on this subject, there’s a small debate going on.
I will, however, tell you the story which has been believed for over 250 years, the story supporters of the 1st and 2nd theory (more on that in introduction #2) still believe today and the story which has ultimately led to the tragic death of hundreds of people. This is the original story.
The story started in the 1730′s (1), a time in which the Lands of Overmaeze were downright poor and war-torn. Church robberies started to occur and, in the very Catholic Lands, this obviously started rumours...
The First Rumours
According to these rumours, there was a Satanic gang active in the Lands. Members were said to gather at chapels before robberies and, in the case of a new member, say their oath. The exact wording of this oath is unknown, but everyone agreed that new members had to “renounce God and all the Saints and instead worship Satan”. Some also claim they had to promise to do harm whenever they could, but most researchers, even those who believe all condemned were guilty, do not believe this.
It was also said that, because of this oath, Satan would help them with their criminal activities and would appear to them as an enormous goat - hence the name Bokkenrijders, or Goat/Buckriders in English. They would fly on this goat (or multiple goats, according to some) to be able to rob more places per night. Some confessions even stated to have flown with 42 people on a single goat. (2)
The Trials
In the 1740′s the first people got caught, but here’s something incredibly important to the trials that followed: torture was a common practice and complices were thus named by the dozens. Trials turned into mass trials, three main ones in total (1743-1745, 1749-1751 and 1771-1776) and a few smaller ones afterwards. What started off as church robberies ended up with 500 to 700 people executed, exiled or otherwise tried and outcast, and around 1200 to 1600 people in total being named as complices of this gang.
What Posts Will Be About
In later posts, I will tell you more about how these mass trials came to be, how exactly an interrogation went, the differences in trialing between the three Lands of Overmaeze and, of course, some specific people and robberies. The Askbox is always open if you’d like to know more about a specific subject, and I’ll try to get to your ask as soon as possible!
Sources
1: Anton Blok: De Bokkerijders, Roversbenden en geheime genootschappen in de Landen van Overmaas [1730-1774]
Hello! Yes, I know, there's already been an introduction page on this blog, but since that one has been lost in the year-old shitposts, it seemed to me it would be better to just start over completely- so with a few new introductions as well, starting of with a little "about me" page now and another "about the Bokkenrijders" page later!
So yeah, as you probably already know, my name is Dionys (they/them), I'm 16 years old as of the publish date of this post and I'm from Limburg, the Bokkenrijders-hotspot, and to be even more precise, I grew up in Schaesberg, also know as Scheydt, a very special place in this history, but you'll learn more about that once I make a post about Sleinada and his book!
This part, however, is quite important to how this blog came to be, since on the market place of Schaesberg, there's a small memorial statue:
This statue was my first introduction to the Bokkenrijders. When I asked my father why there was such a strange thing on the square, he told me he had a book about them.
And well... now we're here, with a finished study, a published book and now a blog, because I'd love to see more people learn about these people.
While I was gone, I've been doing a lot of research and I found out more about the theory not everyone executed as "Bokkenrijder" may have been guilty.
Besides, this subject has been getting quite a bit of international attention due to my Instagram account @/historical_confessions.
I am therefor starting over with this account, but the old posts will stay available. This post is to introduce a new era of this account- an era in which we will do the people executed, exiled or otherwise hurt, the justice they deserve.
