Van de Caab / Caap / Caep / Kaap and van Cabo as indicators of Cape of Good Hope provenance are … mostly … not interchangeable. Cases do exist, however, in the records where they are interchangeable. But bear in mind that the Afrikaans ‘van die Kaap’ was introduced – most problematically – by Dutch-born C. Pama when revising C.C. De Villiers’s magnum opus on old Cape families in 1966 to separate those individuals deemed to be non-white …
The usage of Cabo is in line with the European convention to stick to the names of places originally mapped by European ‘discoverers’ and/or cartographers. The VOC’s occupation of the Cape meant recognising and using the original Portuguese-designated Cabo da Boa Esperança (or variations thereof) and using the name in mostly formal or ‘official’ situations as the name of their colony which in time ‘evolves’ and also becomes more informally designated de Caab / de Caep … some of the confusing interchangeability can be ascribed to the particular scribes involved in the writing up of the record and his peculiar application of the toponym – certainly a more seasoned or local scribe would have been able to distinguish between the Cape subtleties of ‘van Cabo’ vs ‘van de Caab’ which seem to have relied heavily on perceived respectability and one’s place in the Cape colonial hierarchy …
My experience of the tag used in original (not published) records is that it is generally a toponym used after people’s first names – where no family or surname exists] and after surnames – but that it does, to a much lesser extent, appear as a (mostly temporary) surname.
Some examples:
Anna Maria van de Caap married firstly Claes Beu van Ditmaarsen. This same woman married secondly as Anna Maria van Cabo de Goede Hoop, weduwe van Claas Beu and is later found in records as Anna Maria Dominicus.
Anna Groothenning van Bengale and Angela van Bengale were both manumitted slave woman from Bengal – one with a ‘surname’ / patronym the other without.
Jan de Zousa van Calijjepatnam was a mardijker also from the Indian sub-continent.
Christoffel Snijman van de Caep was a mestizzo born in slavery but freed on his mother’s marriage to a mardijkerAnthonij Jansz van Bengale, aliasAnthonij van Bengalealias Anthonij de Later van Bengale
Petronella van Bengale (half-sister to Christoffel Snijman) was a mestizza born in slavery but freed on her mother’s marriage to a mardijker Anthonij Jansz van Bengale, alias Anthonij van Bengale aliasAnthonij de Later van Bengale. Originally recorded as Petronella van de Caep, she later went by the toponym-now-surname Petronella van Bengalebeing (and acknowledged as) the stepdaughter of Anthonij van Bengale.
Given the many sensitivities about nomenclature (semantics, politics, precision, standardisation, institutionalisation etc) the use of Van die Kaap is deserving of a more detailed enquiry.
For what they may be worth, a few comments:
1. It helps to distinguish the following concepts: surname, family name, patronym and toponym.
2. The use of Van de Caab / Caep, van die Kaap and van Cabo [de Boa Esperance]
(a) in published sources
(b) in original records or primary sources
This distinction is crucial, I think, because published genealogies are invariably the products of selective research and memory – or put differently, politically-contrived. Logically, all Cape-born individuals should be v.d.K. – so why the limited use in these sources to identify thus only non-white individuals?
3. The meaning of van die Kaap.
I prefer to translate the phrase as from the Cape and not of the Cape. My reason for this is that VOC officialdom were meticulous about recording their subjects in terms of their provenances or places of origin. Bear in mind too that in Christian countries, people were bound to their parishes and could only relocate with permission. Subjects are taxable and for this reason too they cannot be allowed to roam without a fixed address / abode. Even now our places of birth are determinants of our official identity as taxable and rule-able individuals.
I try to use the contemporary spelling of Cape to eliminate misunderstanding. The Dutch often retained the Portuguese name of the Cape of Good Hope as official name – sometimes with the ‘Hope’ part being gallicised. Scrutiny of original records will reveal a discernible bias towards non-slave and non-Free-Black children being referred to as van Cabo as opposed to van de Caep for non-whites generally. There are exceptions, however. Mrs Visser (Catharina Everts van der Zee) who was born at sea hence her peculiar toponym, is in one instance in the records referred to as Catrijn van de Caap.
The role of respectability is likely to have influenced the sometimes inconsistent use in original records of the tag from the Cape.
In a book review of Dutch novelist Henk van Woerden’s latest novel about Tsafendas (Wilhelm Snyman, ‘The deed that symbolised the mortality of apartheid’, B.O.O.K.S, Cape Times 24 March 2000, p. 8), acknowledging that his Dutch heritage gives him a particular sensitivity to the South African situation, the author is quoted:
“I am interested in history and I don’t understand why the Dutch today refuse to acknowledge that they started this colony, and that they are in part responsible for all the misery – slavery for example … In South Africa, history stops at the Boer War. For the Dutch, history stops at the second World War – anything beyond that is almost inconceivable …”
Against the background of recent papal agonising about past Roman Catholic atrocities, Van Woerden’s words are food for thought. Although his singular (trendy?) example of slavery adumbrates his concerns, could he not have endeared us more by also referring to Dutch dehumanisation and effacement of the Khoe / San?
While reading about raids (both official and unofficial) against whole ‘Hottentot’ villages, Peter Kolbe (1719) singled out certain prominent founding fathers as being companions to the ‘dronklap’ and debauched Gerrit Jansz: van Deventer (Dronke Gerrit): Frederik Botha (stamvader), Theunis Botha (stamvader’s son), Wynand Wynandszoon (son of the Bezuidenhout stamvader) and Hans Jacob Brits (stamvader).
The prominence of members of the BOTHA family (my own ancestors) has its own irony when wondering how exactly the Kat River Colony ‘rebel’-on-death-row (and headman of the remnants of the Gonaqua) Andries Botha would have been related ‘by blood’ (ie also genealogically) …
Veldkornet Andries Botha, war hero and politician
Field Cornet Andries Botha – influential Khoe leader of the Kat River Cape Colony. Probably born at end of 1700s, and as young man in 1830s recorded as powerful leader of Gonaqua (Gona) Khoe at the Kat River Settlements. Surveyor General of Cape Colony, W.F. Hertzog, records him (1834) as arriving at Kat River (1829), among followers of Khoe leader Kobus Boezak who migrate from Theopolis. Young Andries Botha and his community immediately split from Boezak’s group and settle on the banks of Buxton River – a Kat River tributary – where he builds his farming estate. At one time he is acknowledged civilian and military leader of the entire Kat River region. He has a troubled family life losing his 1st wife (1841) and further family strife remarrying a widow with whom he is extremely happy but estranged from the children from his 1st marriage.
Distinction in Frontier Wars
He and Khow commandos in great distinction in the frontier wars, fighting under Khoe Commandant Christian Groepe, withSirAndriesStockenström in assault (1846) on slopes of the Amatola. Bravery and martial ability of both him and his several hundred Khoe sharpshooters are repeatedly mentioned in accounts of the war, as is their habit of ignoring any order to retreat. At one point, he and a mixed handful of his (predominantlyKhoe) gunmen are surrounded in a valley by a large army of Sandile’s Xhosagunmen, and coming under heavy rifle fire from all sides. The tiny group fought off the enemy army for the entire day, before breaking out and riding back to the main army (from which they receive no support). Other dispatches from the 7th Frontier War describe him and followers after the Burns Hill ambush, riding directly into thick of fighting while rest of army retreat, simply to rescue the ammunition.
Rebellion (1850-51)
Retires to Kat River valley as local war hero – lauded for bravery and martial feats. Also builds up substantial farming estate, and is one of region’s wealthiest landowners. Several years later however, a vast range of grievances inflicted on the Khoe lead him to openly sympathize with those of Kat River Khoe who join rebellion (1850) – including at least two of his sons. Rebellion causes enormous devastation and upheaval in the Kat River settlements. In spite of this, and deserted by most of his family and followers, offers services and continuing loyalty to the Cape – defending Fort Armstrong and ensuring safe passage of officials such as Magistrate Wienand. His sons are captured (27 March 1851), and he immediately begins negotiations with Khoe rebel leader Willem Uithaalder (communications which are used against him in his later trial).
Treason Trials (1851-52)
After rebellion is suppressed, much of country descends into mood of vindictive hatred against Khoe rebels. Becomes target for reactionary political elements in frontier settler lobby and charged with high treason.
First Treason Trial (1851)
Hostility by Eastern Frontier settlers causes trial to move to Cape Town. Charges are withdrawn (May 1851) for lack of evidence.
2nd Treason Trial (1852)
In spite of release, soon re-arrested and brought before a new court (12 May 1852), in what becomes 2nd and more severe treason trial. New Judge isSir John Wylde, and trial quickly becomes a political show – possibly South Africa’s first. Nonetheless, he is defended by two of the colony’s top lawyers – Frank Watermeyer and Johannes Brand.
Convicted of high treason and sentenced to death, in spite of an incredibly strong defense. Outrage from friends and allies cause death sentence to be quickly changed to one of life imprisonment, however controversy continues. Both trials are immensely controversial as he is a respected war hero, held in high regard by many of those who fought with him (who are now also influential politicians).
Highly praised by ex-companions-in-arms John Molteno and AndriesStockenström, who write to London of him “Her Majesty has not in her dominions a more loyal subject, nor braver soldier”. Stockenström and James Read also give evidence in his defence. Altogether, the guilty verdict is held to be very unconvincing and whole event is seen as being a vindictive form of show-trial, with Botha even appearing in chains. After intense political pressure from his supporters, sentence is commuted and scrapped. Receives royal amnesty from the Queen (October 1855) together with 38 other convicted rebels.
Even after amnesty, not immediately permitted to return to Kat River, nor does he immediately receive compensation for the lands which are broken up and reassigned during the rebellion. However, further public support from Stockenström and other ex-companions-in-arms sees these decisions reversed. Receives (June 1862) substantial compensation for his properties and permitted (1865) to return to Kat River. Nonetheless, massive injustices inflicted on him and fellow ‘rebels’ has a lasting effect. He never recovers his former prosperity and influence.
In an even more lasting effect of the rebellion the Kat River region is attacked and suffers from removal of its legal protection – no longer reserved as land exclusively for the Khoe, and effectively broken up.
Old age and politics
Very little is known about his final years. Becomes involved in politics in his old age and speaks in the Cape Parliament in support of the movement for responsible Government. This support for a greater degree of independence from Britain (after a long life of loyalty) is possibly inspired by his terrible experiences of the rebellion and his treason trial. Also launches a fiery attack on the proposed ‘native policy’ of the opposition Eastern Cape Separatist League calling its leaders the Colesberg foxes. His last years are spent in retirement, living on wool farm of colleague from his early life, Robert Hart.
References
Dictionary of South African Biography
E.L. Nel, An evaluation of community-driven economic development, land tenure, and sustainable environmental development in the Kat River Valley (HSRC Press 2000)
C.W. Hutton (ed.), The autobiography of the late Sir Andries Stockenström, bart., sometime lieutenant-governor of the eastern province of the Cape of Good Hope (C.T., 1887, vol. 2. C.T. 1964)
Saul Solomon, The Trial of Andries Botha (Cape Town 1852)
P.A. Molteno, The life and times of Sir John Charles Molteno, KCMG, First Premier of Cape Colony, Comprising a History of Representative Institutions and Responsible Government at the Cape (London Smith, Elder & Co. 1900), vol. II. p. 211.
Imvubu, ‘Andries Botha’, Amathole Museum Newsletter, vol. 19, no. 2, August 2007, pp. 4-5
Historian Hermann Giliomee has extolled the virtues of the intellectual / creative writings of three men he considers to have enhanced the growth and esteem of the Afrikaans language: historian Piet van der Merwe, jurist J.C. de Wet and writer/philosopher N.P. van Wyk Louw (‘Afrikaans se groei en aansien deur gehalte van skeppende werk bepaal’, Die Burger 25 March 2000).
What makes them all the more admirable, he claims, is the fact that they chose to write in their ‘native’ tongue, thereby opting for a smaller audience even when their English capability (being unimpaired?) would have ensured them greater exposure, fame or appreciation.
But it is the lesser-known (even to most Afrikaans-speakers / writers?) Piet van der Merwe that gets the most exposure this time – all because of his pioneering work on the Cape migrant farmers (trekboere) which has finally been translated into at least English 60 years later.
The book is the story of the main bulk of ‘Afrikaners’ (Giliomee’s term) that lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. Giliomee considers Van der Merwe to have asked questions quite different from other ‘ordinary’ historians suggesting that he even may have been before-his-time. Furthermore, it is claimed that the work is remarkably free from racism.
Examples of such questions are:
* How did it happen that a small farming colony at the tip of Africa come to be transformed into a large permanent or established colony (‘vestigingskolonie’) having livestock as primary commodity?
* What values (‘waardes’) enabled them to escape (dodge?) a process of ‘verwildering’ (becoming degenerate? savage?) (‘ ‘… ‘n proses van verwildering vry te spring …”) whilst in terrific isolation?
* What were the influences of education and religion (‘die Statebybel’)?
* What race relations did they develop?
The bitter struggle for survival against the ‘Bushmen’, Van der Merwe regarded as a clash of different cultures and economies.
Van der Merwe’s questions appear to still linger in the minds of those struggling to deconstruct the concept ‘Afrikaner’. I somehow doubt whether his questions are particularly extraordinary or novel or pioneering.
His premise that migrant farmers were isolated and armed with values (superior?) that prevented them from falling into ‘savagery’ or ‘barbarism’, is not only questionable, but it is elitist. When will we acknowledge that ‘Hottentots’ – of all people – were/are not the lowest form of humanity? When will we be more amenable to the less prurient observations of visitor-writers like Schreyer, de Greyvensteyn, Peter Kolbet al?
Van der Merwe’s view that clashes with the Khoe / San amount simply to a ‘clash’ of different cultures and economies is reductionist.
In lauding Van der Merwe’s virtues as a racist-free(?) historian and far-seeing promoter of the Afrikaans language, Giliomee fails to appreciate that Van der Merwe’s view of cultures ‘clashing’ or ‘colliding’ is narrow when compared to an analysis that views cultures-in-conflict as something more than just collisions. Contacts and relationships also need to be taken into consideration.
The trekboers were NEVER in isolation.
After contact, comes collision, conflict, co-existence, cohabitation, tolerance and even merger …
There exists sufficient evidence that trekboer culture was no different to that of the ‘Hottentots’ (which latter term should be understood to cover a multitude of virtues: Bushman, Basters, outcasts, outlaws and Khoekhoe – detribalised or otherwise) and that the intercourse (in every sense of the word) between them and the indigenes was sufficiently advanced.
Genealogists can confirm this to some extent …
Did Namaqualanders on the northern frontier really manage (by means of some miracle) to dodge savagery and help preserve the nucleus of existing Western Christian ‘civilisation’ that we know today?
In an article (“Between Amsterdam and Batavia – Cape Society and the Calvinistic Church under the Dutch East India Company”, Kronos 1999), the Dutch academic Gerrit J. Schutte takes to task a “demagogic” Robert Shell of Children of Bondage– fame for demonising Calvinism as the driving force in segregating Cape (and ultimately South African) society.
In what some people might consider to be an exercise in apologism and not forgetting:
(1) a very apparent in-one’s-face rapprochement between Afrikanderdom and the so-called Stamlande (read Netherlands, Belgium, maybe Germany perhaps Britain but NOT India or `Indonesia and quite forgetting Indigenous ‘Hottentotdom’ …, eg Karel Schoeman’s latest scriblings (in Afrikaans) on the ‘Dutch Golden Age’ and greater Dutch / Flemish artistic journeys of discovery to Africa and participation at Stellenbosch and Oudshoorn);
(2) Dutch attempts to erase colonial guilt by exaggerating Dutch participation and instrumentalism in ‘liberating’ South Africans (their former colonial by-products or rejects) from ‘apartheid’; and
(3) the glowing Calvinistic legacy as propounded (naively?) by W.A. De Klerk in his The Puritans of Africa;
(4) ‘Afrikaner’ soul-searching and liberal disavowal by people as varied as Dr Neels Smit, Christina Landman, Elisabeth Eybers, André du Toit and Allister Sparks …
can we blame Gerrit Schutte for wanting to absolve Dutch ‘christian practice’ in creating a segregated society at Africa’s remotest corner?
Certainly, blaming Calvinism (defined as what?), is an over-simplistic cop-out that damns only a minority-within-a-minority and grants automatic amnesty to the many colonised (not-necessarily ‘white’) minds of the ‘African’ majority.
Schutte’s arguments, I would opine, are convincing vis-à-vis Shell’s “unhistorical” views and interpretation of early Cape colonial society. But he does not go beyond demolition. He does not posit (never mind prove) any real reasons why, for example, until 1825 the church council at Stellenbosch was content to treat its technicoloured parishioners as being ‘equal’ before God. Thereafter a volte-face ensued whereby the church bowed to “growing social segregation” (what does this mean?) thereby separating “coloured church members” in terms of Holy communion.
Why?
What caused this about-turn? We are still living with its consequences … even genealogical.
The separation of church registers and the prior selective retrieval of data from these records has left us in the dark as to a fuller picture also to the whereabouts, existence, behaviour, failings, right to baptism etc of some of our ancestors.
Anyone care to debate a little on this important issue?
By a proclamation (26 April 1816) the registration of Slaves was made compulsory.
Such a measure is necessitated by “the numerous manumissions which take place, and the large class of Negro Apprentices, (which has of late years been, by decisions of the Court of Vice Admiralty, greatly encreased)”, and the expediency “that the most minute precautions should be taken to prevent the possibility of such free persons, or their offspring, merging into a state of Slavery, or being confounded with the domestic or other Slaves, the property of individuals in this Settlement.” An office is established in Cape Town “for the purpose of keeping exact Registers of all Slaves within the Colony” and managed by an Inspector and an Assistant Inspector.
Similar offices are established in each of the country districts “under the immediate inspection of the Landdrost, and in correspondence with, and under the control of, the principal office in Cape Town.”
These offices are placed under District Clerks.
As there is no District Clerk at Stellenbosch the duties in question are to be carried out by the Secretary for the Drostdy.
The registration is explained by the following clause: –
“Every Proprietor of a Slave shall be bound to enter at the office of the District, in which he resides, by name and sex, all his or her Slaves, stating their respective ages … country, and occupations, and also to report and receive a Certificate of all manumissions, transfers, inheritances, births, deaths, or changes of property, as the case may be”.
An alphabetical register of proprietors within Cape Town, the Cape District and Simonstown, giving the names and all particulars of the slaves of each person, and what happened to them, was to be kept in the office of the Inspector of the Enregisterment.
Similar registers are kept in the country districts and copies there – of transmitted monthly to the Chief Office in Cape Town.
The 1st to occupy the post of Inspector is Major George Rogers.
[1/21 (Inventory of the Archives of the Registrar and Guardian of Slaves, 1717-1848 Registrar: Protector)]
1707: Anna van Banchem, widow of Guillaume (Guilliam) Eems / Heems who marries (2ndly) burgerraad s:r Hendrik Möller / Mulder
28 April 1709 Cape-born burgerraad s:r Hendrik Möller / Mulder (1683-1720)
1720: Anna van Banchem, widow of burgerraad s:r Hendrik Möller(1683-1720)
1726: Guilliam Heems Jr.
17 February 1758: Jacob van Reenen (from Memel)
13 September 1758: Jacob Friedrich Nöthling (from Deetz, Brandenburg)
1774: Johannes (Jan) Roep / Rupp (from Hanau)
1783: Peter Henken aka Pieter Heintjes / Henkes (from Goldap – Voivodeship of Warmian-Masurian, Poland)
1804: Justinus (Justus) Nikolaus Keer / Keur (from Eisenach, Saxony)
1805: Honoratus Conrad Maynier (from Leipzig) – adds over 77 morgen to place, beautifies buildings, plants many oak trees & names it Protea;
Sir Lowry Cole – British Governor of the Cape (1828-1843)
1836: Andreas Brink
1842: Honoratius Maynier – grandson of former owner
1834: Protea Village established on portion of farm by emancipated slaves to settle on condition they work for landlord
1848: BishopRobert Gray arrives at Cape & rents Protea
1851: Miss Burdett-Coutts – Victorian philanthropist – purchases farm on behalf of Colonial Bishopric Fund which renames it Bishopscourt as residence for Bishop for princely sum of £4000; Bishop Gray establishes school hold prayer services & exercises pastoral care for 83 villagers
Present: official residence of Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town
Comp:[areer]de voor nagenoemde gecomm.[itteerden] rade van Justitie deses commandements Marije van de Caep[inserted]vrij swartinne out omtrent 24jaer dewelke ter requisitie van den fiscael in loco [inserted]S:[ieu]r Cornelis Linnes v[er]claerde hoe waer is dat sij deposante logeerende oft wonende ten huijse van Anna van Guinëa in de Tafelvalleij alhier, gesien heeft dat Lijsbet voordogter van voorn:[oemd]e Anna van Guinëa, op den 11 deser des avonts droncken int’ huijs gecomen [inserted] sijnde [deleted: aleenend dat deselve] doenmaels wel met Bastiaen Janse van s’Gravensan daer in huijs wonende en met haer Lijsbets suster Marij[deleted: van de Caep] [inserted in margin]anders genaemt Swarten Evert Marij in woorden en oock met vuijsten hand gemeen geweest is; maer [deleted: dan] egter [inserted] niet dat de geseijde Lijsbet haer genoemde moeder [deleted: niet] en heeft geslagen, oft qualijck bejegendt als hebbende sij deposante gehoort dat deselve Lijsbeth gedurende de questie en gevegt riep – mijn moeder mag mij wel slaen, maar soo mijn suster, sij denoterende sij deposante daermede de geseijde Marij, mij slaet, soo sal ick weerom slaen, V[er]eers verclaerde deposante mede waer te sijn dat den voorn:[oemde]Bastiaen en Marij te samen als getrouwde lieden met den anderen leven [de] [last part of afore-mentioned word deleted], spreecken [de][last part of afore-mentioned word deleted] [inserted] eten en t’ samen in den tuijn wercken [de] [last part of afore-mentioned word deleted], sonder nogtans [deleted: egter] dat haer deposante bekent is dat deselver te samen [inserted]hebben op een koij[deleted: slapen, maer leedege] slapen, maer [deleted: dat] wel [deleted: dat sij beijde te saam slapen in een affdack] [inserted] in een afdack, alwaer maer eene koij staet, t’ gene v[oor]z: is v[er]claerde sij deposante te sijnde op regte waerheijt, te vreden sijnde t’selve des noots behoort met eede gestandt te doen gedaen aen de Caep de Goede Hoop den 25 April 1689.
Ons praesent als
gecomm:[itteerden]
[signed]J.[ohann]H.[einrich] Blum
[signed]Adriaen van Reede
dit is het merck
van Marij de
deposant
X
mij praesent
[signed]M:[elchior] Kemels
secr[e]t[ari]s:
[Cape Archives (CA): CJ 291 (Criminele Processtukken), 25 April 1689, pp. 233-234 – transcribed by Mansell G. Upham]
Hendrik Adriaan, Baron van Reede / Rheede tot Drake(n)stein, Heer van Mijdrecht(Amsterdam, 13 April 1636 – at sea 15 December 1691)who visits the Cape of Good Hope (19 April 1685-16 July 1685)
On 19 April 1685 arrives in Table Bay, the ships Emmenes, Eenhoorn, the yacht Bantam, the flute Adringhem, Stavenis, with Hendrik Adriaan, Baron van Reede / Rheede tot Drake(n)stein, Heer van Mijdrecht(Amsterdam, 13 April 1636 – at sea 15 December 1691)as admiral and VOC Commissioner. He, with Councillor de St. Martin [Isaac de l’Ostal / Lostal de Saint-Martin (c. 1629-1696) – VOC Councillor Major-General and Commander-in-Chief of all the armies of the Company in the Indies] and Upper-Merchant Banchem [Martinus van Banchem (from Den Haag)] come ashore into the Castle.
Isaac de l’Ostal / Lostal de Saint-Martin (c. 1629-1696)
Accompanying Van Reede are his adopted Eurasian daughter Nonje / Juffr:[ouw] Francina van R(h)eedealiasSipkens (dies 6 June 1731) – manumitted and adopted (1670) slave-born daughter (nyonya) and orphaned halfslag – and her companion Sandrina Reets, daughter of Utrecht surveyor Gabriel Reets …
Their presence is witnessed by the subsequent arrival of the visiting busybody, transexual and JesuitFrançois-Timoléon, abbé de Choisy (1644-1724) as part of a French flotilla headed for Siam [Thailand] but which stops over at the Cape (21 April-1 May 1688):
“There were in the roadstead of the Cape four large ships which had been there for a month, although they had sailed from Holland more than eight weeks before us. The 1st was flying the pennant of an Admiral below the flag: this is a sign of the sovereignty that the Dutch Company claims in the Indies. It was commanded by theBaron Van Rheeden, who was sent by the East-India Company with the title of Commissioner-General to visit the Company’s settlements there. He had authority to give whatever orders he thought fit, to change the officers in the factories and even the governors of the stations, if he considered it necessary. The 2nd was under the command of the Baron de Saint-Martin, a Frenchman by birth. He is Major-General of Batavia and, as such, commands all the troops of the Republic in the East Indies. The Sieur Bocheros, formerly a ship’s captain and now councilor on the staff of Van Rheeden during the period of his commission, commanded the 3rd.
The 4th ship was also under the orders of Saint-Martin, who was to proceed almost immediately to Batavia. All these gentlemen, with whom must also be included Monsieur Vanderstellen[Simon van der Stel, Heer van Lisse (14 October 1639-24 June 1712)], the Governor, or, as the Dutch say, the Commandeur of the Cape, are of singular merit, and it was a happy chance that enabled us to make their acquaintance during our stay here.”
Simon van der Stel, Heer van Lisse (14 October 1639-24 June 1712)
One of Van Reede’s immediate tasks is to preside over the colony’s Council of Justice and decide the fate of four arrested (19 April), soon arraigned Cape aborigines (26 April) and executed (27 April): Kison, Oddade, Goede (Gonnema’s Kraal) and Biecquabe (Kuiper’s Kraal) [Cuijper of the Gorachouqua] – for killing the veteran Casper Brinkman (from Freckenhorst), the knecht of Henning Huijsing (from Hamburg) …
Brinkman – significantly – was one of the very 1st of the colony’s free-burghers who personally experiences the original murder of his compagnonSimon in’t Veld – the very 1st Dutch casualty (after 6 April 1652) at the hands of the Goringhaiqua Doman aka Anthonij and other Cape aborigines …
Kison,Oddade,Goede (Gonnema’sKraal) and Biecquabe (Kuiper’s Kraal) [Cuijper of the Gorachouqua] are sentenced (26 April) and executed the next day (27 April):
“… the imprisoned and condemnedHottentots … were beaten to death with sticks by their own tribe, in the presence of their Captains … A month ago the King of theOutentotscame himself to the Cape to beat to death 5 of his subjects who had killed aDutchman [DR 27 April]. He left them lying there, and the Dutch hanged them up on a gallows, where they still are.”
– François-Timoléon de Choisy Translated from his Journal du Voyage … (Paris 1687) [translation also in Strangman, with occasional errors and omissions not indicated, but with valuable background material][Journal du Voyage de Siam fait en 1665 et 1686].
This incident appears to tie up with Christoph Fryk`s description of the execution of a Cape aborigine at about the same time:
“In the time that I staid in the Cape, I saw once one of these Wild Men of the Land judged, in a near-by Village, for Theft: He had some time before stolen some Cows and Sheep from some of the Freemen, without the Approbation of their King, (which is a Dignity they confer on some one amongst ’em; and wherever they are, tho’ but to the number of five or six together, they always make them a King or Captain to Rule over them, without whose Consent no kind of thing is to be done; and in this the Company does not at all interpose, but leaves them to their own Customs). The Criminal was tied Hand and Foot, and stretched betwixt two Posts, about half a Man’s height from the Ground; after which some Men came with great Sticks, and beat him from above and below so that a quantity of blood ran from him. If they hit him on the Head or Breast he is soon dispatcht; but they never give over as long as they find any Breath in him. When he is expired, they carry him to the Wood, and there fasten him to a Bough, and leave him for a Prey to Wild Beasts.”
Men remarqueerden aen die gansche natie een melancolie buijten haer gewoonten desen geheelen dagh …
The whole incident is dealt with in more detail by Van Reede himself in his Journal:
23 April 1685
Manendach den 23en in ‘s Compagnies gevankenisse waren opgesloten vier Hottentots gehorende onder verscheyde kralen en opperhoofden. Dese waren beschuldigt, overtuygt en tot vrijwilligh beken gebracht, hoe zij een Nederlander, een dienaer van een vrijburger, die sijne schaepen hoedede, hadden gedood, het lichaem in een kuyl, door de egelswijnen gemaekt, hadden gedompelt en begraven, naederhand verscheyde schapen gedood en opgegeten. Om dewelcke in hegtenisse te krijgen, alle de opperhoofden aen het Casteel ontbooden, men dese moord had bekent gemaekt, van haer begerende gemelte moordenaers, door welckers ordre die misdadigers ontbooden en overgelevert waren. En sijnde door den fiscael en den Raet van Justitie haer proces in staet van wijsen gebracht, oock haere opperhoofden praesent doen sijn. Op het recollement van haer bekentenisse, soo sprack ick desen dach met haer allen, hebbende deselve uyt beleeftheyt om mij te verwelkomen, een aensienlijck geschenk wel van 90 vette schapen aengebracht, hetwelck van dese menschen, die men van buyten aen te sien soo wild en beestagtigh oordeelt, niet te verwagten was. Considererende, hoe dit voorval buyten exempel zijnde oock wel behoorden te werden gebruykt ende te ondersoeken, hoe dese moord bij haer mogt werden opgenomen, soo vraegden haer, of die luyden, die zij ons hadden overgelevert oock de regte moordenaers waren, of zij uyt haer eygen mond niet en hadden gehoort, zij alle zulcx hadden bekent ende beleeden, waerop zij alle tesaemen antwoorden van jae. Verder wat dat soodanige misdadigers onder haer soude gedaen worden, en wat straffe zij die souden opleggen, daerop zij sonder eenigh beraet tot antwoord gaven: ‘omdat zij een mensch hebben gedood, soo souden wij dieselve onder ons mede dooden’, ende verder gevraegt, off zij door haer eygen volck die executie wel zouden willen doen, antwoorden zij mede van ja: versoekende soo men zulx begeerden doch met den eersten mogt geschieden, opdat zij weder tot haer volck en woningen mogten vertrecken. Uyt welck bereytwilligh antwoord mij dagt veel beter te wesen, zij dese moordenaers selver straften, om daerdoor sooveel te meer afschrick onder dat volck te brengen, en aen ons minder afkeer, als soo wij zulcx selver hadden gedaen, blijvende evenwel de Justitie met al haer formalitijten in haer geheel. Evenwel bleeff ick voornemens derwegen met den Raet naeder te spreeken om te sien, off daer oock eenigh naedeel voor d’E. Compagnie in resideren mogt, latende dese opperhoofden weder met genoegen wechgaen, naedat zij met eeten en drinken vrolijck waren gemaekt en beloften hadden gedaen op morgen met eenigh volck in het Casteel te zullen komen speelen.
24 April 1685
Dijnsdach den 24en. … Heden morgen den politiquen Raet tesaemen geroepen zijnde, daertoe mede versoekende den Raet extraordinair St. Martijn, den Raet van Justitie Bullestrate, oock den oppercoopman Bacherus, vertoonden denselven mijn gedachten over de aenstaende straffe der gevangenen Hottentots. Want dewijle d’E. Compagnie dese naturelle inlanders aensiet niet als onderdanen, maer als vrunden en bondgenoten, met deselve sijnde geallieert en door contract in vrundschap verbonden, dat het delict is begaen wel onder het ressort en jurisdictie van d’E. Compagnie door contract van deselve inlanders verkregen, doch dat de delinquanten door ons op ons territoir niet en zijn agterhaelt, maer genoegsaem de capitijnen en opperhoofden gedwongen die luyden over te leveren, omdat men haer onder een ander pretext in ‘t Casteel doen komen hebbende, hadt aengesegt niet te zullen mogen vertrecken, en als gegijselt blijven, tot zij de handdadige uyt het landt van onder haer volck ons in handen leverden, gelijck deselve oock inderdaed hebben gedaen, welke manieren van procederen meer na geweld dan naebuerschap gelijken. Dat ick egter met haer sprekende geen misnoegen had konnen mercken, maer ter contrarie een afkeer van die misdaed en een bereijtwilligheyt om de schuldige selver te straffen, of men nu niet zoude konnen goet vinden, de uytvoeringh van de straffe door haer te laten geschieden, naedat alle formalitijten bij den Raet van Justitie nae regten waren voorgegaen, dat men hiermede aen dese inlandsche natie soude invoeren een exempel van straffe, meer door haer eijgen opperhoofden, dan door die van d’E. Compagnie, mitsgaders de hardigheyt daerin gelegen van onse natie op haer eygen te leggen, de gemoederen van het gemene onverstandige volck hierdoor niet te verbitteren, dat men vier menschen om de dood van eenen zoude om het leven brengen. Waerop bij den Raet gedelibereert zijnde, verstaen is, dat in desen geen andere aenmerkingh vallende dan in de uitvoerders der sententie bij den Raet van Justitie gevelt, dese inlanders maer waren te considereren als scherpregters van de Justitie, ten aensien van d’E. Compagnie, egter bij de inlandsche naturellen met meer indruck zoude werden aengenomen, als zulcx door haer eygen volck en bevel van haer oversten wierd uytgevoert.
Vonnis tegen de vier Hottentotten.
Donderdach den 26en den Raet van Justitie door den oppercoopman en Raet Bullestraten, nevens twee schippers versterkt zijnde, wierden de vierde Hottentots ter dood gecondemneert en gesententieert om met stocken gedood te werden, gelijck deselve den Nederduijtschen harder hadden vermoord. De dood wiert haer ter praesentie van den Eerwaarden Dominus Overneij aengekondigt, maer hadden daer geen wesen af, veel minder eenigh teken van kennisse Gods, seggende wel qualijck gedaen te hebben en strafwaerdigh te sijn, oock wel gewild zulcx niet en was geschiet, doch alles was om daerdoor de straffe te ontgaen, veel eer dan vreese voor een straffe nae dit leven, doch deselve waren oock onder haer eijgen volck woest en quaedaerdige menschen. Het doodvonnis tegen de vier Hottentotten voltrokken.
Vrijdach den 27en de gevangene Hottentots door den Raed van Justitie ter plaetse gebragt zijnde, daer men gewoon is, de sententie eerst gelesen zijnde, waren aldaer d’ inlandsche opperhoofden en veel volck. Dewelcken uijt den hoop eenige commandeerden, die met geen ander geweer als die stocken, daer gemenelijck medegaen, niet dicker als een grooten duijm en ontrent drie voet lang, dese misdadigers om hals bragten, daermede slaende in den neck, dat eenige van de eerste slag dood vielen, dogh andere wierden meer gemartelt. Na welck de lichamen boven op de Sandduijnen wierden opgehangen, tot afschrick van anderen. Men remarqueerden aen die gansche natie een melancolie buijten haer gewoonten desen geheelen dagh.
Sources
Cape Archives (CA) Council of Justice (CJ) 2 (26 April 1685), p. 272
Two prisoners on Robben Island are sentenced to death for committing sodomy
Claas Blanc and
Rijkaert Jacobsz:
– They are accused of ‘mutually perpetrated sodomy’ according to trial records from Cape Council of Justice (August 1735).
Jacobsz:, VOC sailor (from Rotterdam), accused (1713) of sodomy in Batavia (aged 18) is banished to Robben Island for 25 years due to insufficient evidence.
Blanc, a CapeKhoe, convicted (1715) of stock theft, is sentenced to labour for 50 years on Robben Island.
The trial is precipitated by complaints laid against Jacobsz: by a slave from Batavia, called Panaij van Boegies (July 1735) who reports Jacobsz: making sexual advances towards him.
After his complaint, Hermanus Munster (from Steenwijk) and Jacobus de Vogel (from Rotterdam) also submit testimonies claiming to see Jacobsz and Blanc fornicating (April 1732).
Following this, another prisoner, Augustijn Matthijsz:, gives an eye witness account corroborating the accusations against Jacobsz: and Blanc.
Faced with these eyewitness accounts, Blanc and Jacobsz: confess their guilt.
They are sentenced to death (18 August 1735) and taken aboard a vessel and drowned in the sea.
The death sentence is carried out the next day (Friday 19 August 1735).
Gaetano Cellini – ‘Humanity Against Evil’ [National Gallery of Modern Art, Rome]
References:
Film: Proteus (100 mins, 2003, Canada / South Africa, John Greyson & Jack Lewis, Afrikaans, English & Nama) (ASL)
Susie Newton-King ‘For the love of Adam: 2 sodomy trials at the Cape of Good Hope’, Kronos: Journal of Cape history, 28 November 2002, pp. 21-42.
Nigel Worden, ‘“What are we?”: Proteus & the problematising of History’ in V. Bickford-Smith & R. Mendelsohn (eds.) Black and White in Colour: film & history in South Africa (Cape Town, Athens, London, 2006)
Susan Newton-King ed. ‘History & film: a roundtable discussion of Proteus’, Kronos: Journal of Cape history, 31, Nov 2005.
Muatze 
