1714 Tromp van Madagascar
The authorities were constantly alarmed by the prevalence of slave desertions, especially so, as in this case, when a large group of slaves of different owners banded together. The documentation for this case is voluminous.1 Each of the eleven runaways who were recaptured gave his own reasons for running away, some of them induced by others. Of particular interest is the blood oath that they took and their vow never to ‘eat the bread of the Dutch again’, which might have been a metaphorical way of saying ‘we will never be part of them/serve them again’. They planned to escape to Namaqualand, but en route fell in with a group of San, who co-opted them into attacking Khoi herders in the Piketberg region, from whom they captured cattle and sheep. They then put up considerable armed resistance before they were recaptured by a troop of Company militia. A few of the band escaped and were never heard of again.
Although unusual in its scale and organisation, this episode was in one way typical of slave resistance in the VOC period. The slaves did not mount a rebellion against their owners, but rather sought to escape from them and from the colony. This was more characteristic of a slave society in its early stages, when slaves were all imported, and so aware of a world of freedom outside the Cape, rather than born into slavery in the colony. Rebellions seeking to overthrow the colony never occurred at the Cape during the VOC period, possibly because of the slow rate of creolisation.2 Only in 1808 did a slave uprising take place which sought to overthrow the slave system of the Cape from within.3
Footnotes
-
CJ 318, ff. 6-174. Here we reproduce the sententie, which summarises the events, and the interrogation of Thomas van Bengalen, one of the eleven runaways, which gives some intriguing details of the methods adopted by the group. The documentation for the case also includes the interrogations of all of the slaves involved, as well as the testimony of Jan Hendrick Munch, the soldier who led the Company troops against them. ↩
-
In this context, it means the rate by which slaves were locally-born rather than imported. ↩
-
For this shift in the nature of slave resistance in the Atlantic colonial world, see Genovese 1979, and, for the Cape, Ross 1983. Ross discusses this episode on pp. 41-2. Penn 1999: 73-99 provides the fullest analysis of runaway slaves on the Cape frontier. ↩
CJ 318 Criminele Process Stukken, 1714, ff. 90-7.
Interrogation, on the requisition of the Independent Fiscal, Cornelis van Beaumont, in which is to be heard and examined Thomas, bondsman of the burgher Christoffel Esterhuijsen.
There appears before the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the here-named slave Thomas, who has answered on the questions below as is noted at the side of each:
Article 1: What is the prisoner’s name, age and place of birth?
Answer: Thomas van Bengalen, 30 years old.
Article 2: Whose slave he is and on what post he lived?
Says to be slave of Christoffel Esterhuijs, and that he had lived at the Paardeberg.
Article 3: At what time, when and from what cause the prisoner fled from there?
Answer: That he ran away with Knap een Deuntie, who had incited him to it.
Article 4: Which slaves the prisoner enticed, as also what his designs were in doing this?
Answer: That he went with Knap een Deuntie to the jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. of Casper Batenhorst, who were lured by Knap een Deuntie and who fled with them, and that Knap een Deuntie had told them that they would go to the land of the Namaqua.
Article 5: If the prisoner, after having been gone for a considerable time, returned again to the house of his master in order to rob some sheep from there?
Says that he did not run away more than once, and did not seduce the slave Anthonij, nor did he flee in his company.
Article 6: If the prisoner forced the slave Anthonij to give up some of his master’s sheep?
Says no.
Article 7: If the aforementioned Anthonij was opposed to this and said that, if the fiscal would get to hear this, he would certainly have to hang?
Answer: Not to know of this.
Article 8: If the prisoner answered to this: “We shall never come back to the Dutch, nor eat their bread again”? Says that Knap een Deuntie did say this to him, but that he did not speak to Anthonij about this.
Article 9: If the prisoner, seeing that Anthonij was in no way inclined to flee, tied him up, beat him, dragged him by his hair, and threatened him that, if he did not want to go with them, his throat would be cut?
Not to have done this.
Article 10: If the prisoner dragged Anthonij, who was thus tied up, against his will to the Groene Kloof and there untied him again?
Answer: As above.
Article 11: Which other slaves the prisoner and Jeroen incited, being those of Sieurs Swellengrebel, Oortmans and Mulder, and if he likewise made them believe that he would bring them to another country where there would be good food and drink?
Answer: That Jeroen incited these slaves: yet Tromp, Jeroen, Pasqual and Jonas say that it was Thomas who told them to run away, and Jeroen says that he was present when Thomas talked to the said jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour..
Article 12: To which place they set out and how strong their company was?
Answer: That they went to the Groene River and that they were then nine strong, being the prisoner, Jeroen, Jonas, Pasqual, Theunis, Balij, Januarij and Isaac.
Article 13: Where, and in what manner, they found food during this roaming around?
Answer: That they kept themselves alive with bread, which they had taken along with them, and that Anthonij had carried the clothes.
Article 14: What insolent and brazen deeds the prisoner helped to commit against the Hottentots, and if their livestock had been forced from them?
Says not to have committed anything brazen against the Hottentots, nor to have forced their livestock from them.
Article 15: If the prisoner did not also help to steal from the Hottentots five cattle and three sheep?
Answer: No.
Article 16: If the prisoner too was at the kralen of the Hottentot captains Couragie, Hanibal and Caesar, or where else he ended up?
Says not to have been there, but that he was in the Groene Cloof around the Sonquas Fontijn in order to search for food there.
Article 17: If the prisoner was armed with a gun and assegaij, and to what end he had stolen this from his master?
Answer: That he took with him a musket, two pairs of shoes, five sheep hides, two pairs of silver buckles, a frock coat and a jacket of his master.
Article 18: If the prisoner eventually gave the gun to Jeroen and with what purpose he handed it over?
Says that he did not do so. However, is persuaded by1 Jonas, Pasqual, Anthonij, Tromp and Jeroen that he handed over the musket, as also that he told them that he had supported a certain jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. named Claas Kok2 for six months and had given him food. Moreover, that he went to the Groene Cloof in order to incite more jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour..
Article 19: If the prisoner was not also a co-contributor of guns, powder, shot etc., and who were his collaborators?
Says that Knap een Deuntie had broken open a chest of his baasbaasIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used both in the sense of ‘head’ (e.g. ‘head carpenter’) and ‘master’. In South Africa the second meaning developed further, and thus baas came to be a synonym for meester (‘master’). It was the form that slaves (and Khoikhoi) would use to address male Europeans. and had stolen from it powder and shot, without him having been present. However, is persuaded by Tromp, Anthonij, Jeroen, Pasqual and Jonas that he was the provider with Knap een Deuntie of the powder and shot, as also that he had baked two hundred and sixty rusks for Claas Cok [sic].
Article 20: If the place of rendezvous was at the house of the cripple farmer?
Answer: Yes, their place of rendezvous was there.
Article 21: If the prisoner also ate there with Knap een Deuntje [sic] a piece of bread covered in blood and took an oath of allegiance to each other in order to do the Dutch every harm and never to return to them?
Says not to have eaten of this. Tromp, who is present in court, says that Thomas, together with him and the other jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour., had eaten of the bread with blood.
Article 22: If the prisoner has to admit that Knap een Deuntje, Tromp and he, the prisoner, were the principal inducers, inciters and authors concerning the flight and the other evil that was committed?
Answer: That Tromp and Knap een Deuntie were the heads of the gang and that he was the corporal. Tromp, Anthonij, Jeroen, Pasqual and Jonas say that Thomas was one of the principal heads and inciters of the gang.
Article 23: Into how many parties they divided themselves, and if the prisoner was not also head of a troop?
Answer: That Knap een Deuntie and Tromp were heads of the one, as also Jeroen and the prisoner who were the heads of the other troop.
Article 24: Where the prisoner was roaming with his lot when Knap een Deuntje and the accomplices he had with him were defending themselves against the Dutch?
Says that at that time he, besides Isaac and Claas Cok, had separated from the troop and were on their way home.
Article 25: If the prisoner was busy inciting more jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. in the meantime?
Answer: No.
Article 26: If the prisoner and two other jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. were surprised by the Hottentots, tied up and thus brought under arrest into their kraalkraalBoth this word and the English ‘corral’ derive from Portuguese curral, meaning an enclosed area for keeping livestock. However, in South Africa a related meaning developed, right from the founding of the Cape colony, namely as a settlement of indigenous people, at first specifically the Khoikhoi but later also other indigenous peoples.?
Answer: That at the mouth of the Berg River he, with the two aforementioned jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour., were tied up by the Hottentots.
Article 27: If they got loose during the night and thus escaped, and whither they then went?
Says that they cut themselves loose with a knife and that he then went to his master’s house.
Article 28: Where this was and what mischief was done there?
Answer: As in article 26 and that they had not done anything mischievous there.
Article 29: What roguery and wicked deeds the prisoner committed other than what have been mentioned before?
Says to have done no other wicked things.
Article 30: What was wrong with the prisoner to have perpetrated such devilish deeds?
Says not to know that.
Article 31: If the prisoner was not aware that many punishments had already been meted out here to similar rogues?
Answer: Not to know this.
Article 32: If the prisoner must not acknowledge to have made himself guilty of several offences which are punishable most severely?
Answer: Not to have done anything wrong.
Article 33: What reasons moved the prisoner, when a certain Dutchman had intended to capture him, to go to such an extreme as to want to cut his throat with a knife, of which he at present still has the scar on his neck, and in what manner he then escaped this?
Answer: That he had done this because he was being chased by a certain Dutchman who asked him whose jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. he was, to which the prisoner answered that he was the slave of Christoffel Esterhuijs, whereupon this Dutchman drove him on in front of the horse, but the prisoner could not continue any longer, when he found a knife near some shrub, with which he cut himself in the throat. That the Dutchman let him lie and rode away, whereupon the prisoner went from there to his master’s house and healed himself with leaves of the oil tree.3
Thus questioned and answered in the Castle of Good Hope on 19 January 1714.
This X is the mark of the slave Thomas.
As delegates, [signed] O. Bergh, J. Blanckenberg.
In my presence, [signed] Dl. Thibault, secretary.
There appears before the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the interrogatee named before, who, after the answers given to the questions put had been read out word by word, clearly and plainly, declared to fully persist by them, not desiring that anything more be added to or taken from them.
Thus done and verified in the Castle of Good Hope on 20 January 1714.
This X is the mark of the slave Thomas.
As delegates, [signed] O. Bergh, J. Blanckenberg.
In my presence, [signed] Dl. Thibault, secretary.
Footnotes
-
The subject of this is unstated in the Dutch. It appears that others were present at the interrogation (compare article 21) who may have spoken up against him. It is equally possible that the fiscal meant: ‘We are convinced or persuaded by the testimonies of Jonas...’. ↩
-
Schoeman (2002b: 9-10) suggests that it is possible that this Claas Kok was the progenitor of the later Griqua captains. Certainly, Adam Kok, usually considered the founder of the Griquas, first entered the historical record during the 1750s when he was farming in the region of Piketberg, the area where this case was set, and his descendants later claimed that he was born the son of a slave. ↩
-
This is probably the Ricinus communis, known as the kasterolieboom, and in the eighteenth century often simply called olieboom, and of which both the oil and leaves were used as medicines (Thunberg 1986: xl-xli, 56 and Scholtz 1972: 148). ↩
Interrogatoriën, gedaan maaken omme daarop, ter requisitie van den Independent Fiscaal Cornelis van Beaumont, gehoor en geëxamineert te werden, Thomas, lijfeijgen van den burger Christoffel Esterhuijsen.
Compareerde voor d’ ondergeteekende gecommitteerdens uijt d’ agtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, de slaaf Thomas, hierneevens genoemt, dewelke op d’ onderstaande vraage sodanig heeft geantwoord als ter zijde van ieder staat genoteert:
Articul 1: Hoe sijn gevangens naam is, ouderdom en geboorte plaats.
Antwoort: Thomas van Bengalen, oud 30 jaaren.
Articul 2: Wiens slaaf hij is, en op wat post gewoont?
Segt slaaf te weesen van Christoffel Esterhuijs, en dat aan de Paardeberg gewoont heeft.
Articul 3: Wat tijd, wanneer, en uijt wat oorsaak hij gevangen van daar gefugeert is?
Antwoort: Dat hij met Knap een Deuntie, die hem opgerockent heeft, is weggelopen.
Articul 4: Welke slaven hij gevangen aengelokt heeft, mitsgaders wat dessein hij had daer mede uijt te voeren?
Antwoort: Dat hij beneevens Knap een Deuntie na de jongens van Casper Batenhorst zijn gegaan, die door Knap een Deuntie verleijt, met haar gefugeert zijn en dat Knap een Deuntie haar heeft gesegt dat se na ’t Namacquas land souden gaan.
Articul 5: Of hij gevangen, nae een geruijme tijt weg geweest zijnde, niet weder is gekoomen aen ’t huijs van sijn meester ten eijnde eenige schapen van daar te rooven?
Segt dat hij niet meer als eens is weg geloopen geweest en den slaaf Anthonij niet verlijt, nog in zijn geseltschap gefugeert te zijn.
Articul 6: Of hij gevangen den slaaf Anthonij niet gedwongen heeft, dat hij van sijn meesters schapen soude geeven?
Segt neen.
Articul 7: Of voormelde Anthonij sig daar niet tegens aengestelt heeft en gesegt, indien de Fiscaal zulx quaam ter ooren, hij sekerlijk soude moeten hangen?
Antwoort: Daar niet van te weeten.
Articul 8: Of hij gevangen daarop niet antwoorde: Wij sullen nooit weder bij de Duijtsen komen, nog haar broot meer eeten, mitsgaders hem belooft, indien mede wilde gaan, na het Portugeese lant te sullen brengen?
Segt dat Knap een Deuntie hem sulx wel heeft gezegt, maar dat hij teegen Anthonij daarvan niet gesprooken heeft.
Articul 9: Of hij gevangen, ziende dat Anthonij tot het fugeeren geensints inclineerde, hem niet heeft vast gebonden, geslagen, bij ’t hair gesleept, en gedrijgt, indien nog niet wilde me [sic] gaan, hem den hals te sullen afsnijden?
Sulx niet gedaan te hebben.
Articul 10: Of hij gevangen hem Anthonij, alsoo gebonden, tegens zijn wil niet naer de Groene Kloof heeft gesleept, en daar weder lost gemaakt?
Antwoort: Als boven.
Articul 11: Welke slaven hij gevangen met Jeroen meer opgemaakt heeft, als die van Sieurs Swellengrebel, Oortmans en van Mulder, en of hij die slaaven insgelijks niet heeft wijs gemaakt, haar in een ander land te brengen daar goed eeten en drincken was?
Antwoort: Dat Jeroen die slaven heeft opgemaakt,1 dog zeggen Tromp, Jeroen, Pasqual en Jonas dat Thomas hun aangesprooken heeft om weg te loopen en segt Jeroen dat hij er present is geweest wanneer Thomas de gemelde jongens aangesprooken heeft.
Articul 12: Naar wat plaats zij haar cours genoomen hebben, en hoe sterk het complot was?
Antwoort: Dat ze na de Groene Rivier gegaan zijn, en dat ze alsdoen met haar neegenen zijn geweest, als hij gevangen, Jeroen, Jonas, Pasqual, Theunis, Balij, Januarij, Anthonij en Isaac.
Articul 13: Waar, en op wat manier, sij geduurende ’t swerven aen de kost zijn gekoomen?
Antwoort: Dat ze haar met brood g’erneert hebben, ’tgeent [sic] mede genomen hadden, en dat Anthonij de kleederen gedragen heeft.
Articul 14: Wat insolentiën en brutaliteijten hij gevangen aen de Hottentots heeft helpen pleegen, en of haar het vee niet afgedwongen is geworden?
Segt geen brutaliteijten aan de Hottentots gepleegt, nog haar het vee afgedwongen te hebben.
Articul 15: Of hij gevangen niet mede van de Hottentots vijf koeijbeesten en 3 schaapen heeft helpen steelen?
Antwoort: Neen.
Articul 16: Of hij gevangen mede aen de kraelen van de Hottentots capiteins Couragie, Hanibal en Caesar geweest is, of waar hij elders met sijn bende belant is?
Segt daar niet geweest te hebben, maar dat hij in de Groene Cloof is geweest, omtrent de Sonquas Fontijn, om kost te soeken.
Articul 17: Of hij gevangen niet met een roer en assegaij gewapent is geweest, en tot wat eijnde hij sulx van sijn meester ontneemt heeft gehad?
Antwoort: Dat hij een snaphaan, twee paar schoenen, vijf schapen vellen, twee paar silveren gespen, een rok en een hembtrok van sijn meester heeft mede genomen.
Articul 18: Of hij gevangen het roer naderhand niet aen Jeroen heeft gegeeven, en uijt wat insigte ’tzelve overgelevert?
Zegt dat hij sulx niet gedaen heeft, maar werd door Jonas, Pasqual, Anthonij, Tromp en Jeroen overtuijgt, dat hij de snaphaan overgegeven heeft, mitsgaders dat hij haar heeft verhaalt dat hij seekeren jonge, Claas Kok genaamt, ses maanden opgehouden en de cost gegeeven heeft. Dat hij voorts in de Groene Cloof is gegaan om meerderen jongens op te maken.
Articul 19: Of hij gevangen geen mede besorger van geweer, kruijt, loot etc. is geweest, en wie sijn compagnons waeren?
Segt dat Knap een Deuntie een kist van sijn baas heeft opgebrooken en daar kruijt en loot uijtgestoolen, sonder dat hij er bij geweest is. Dog werd door Tromp, Anthonij, Jeroen, Pasqual en Jonas overtuijgt dat hij de bezorger, beneevens Knap een Deuntie, van ’t kruijt en loot is geweest, mitsgaders dat hij voor Claas Cok twee honderd sestig bisschuijten heeft gebakken.
Articul 20: Of de rendevous plaats niet is geweest aen ’t huijs van de kreuple boer?
Antwoort: Ja, dat aldaar hun rendevous plaats is geweest.
Articul 21: Of hij gevangen aldaar van Knap een Deuntje niet mede een stuk broot met bloet besmeert heeft genuttigt ende geswooren malkander getrouw te weesen, om de Hollanders alle leet aen te doen en nooijt weder bij haar te koomen?
Segt daarvan niet gegeeten te hebben. Tromp, in judicio present zijnde, segt dat Thomas, neffens hem en andere jongens, van ’t brood met bloed gegeeten heeft.
Articul 22: Of hij gevangen niet moet bekennen dat Knap een Deuntje, Tromp en hij gevangen de principaalste aenlijders, oprokkenaers en autheurs omtrent het fugeeren en verder gepleegde quaad zijn geweest?
Antwoort: Dat Tromp en Knap een Deuntie hoofden van ’t complot zijn geweest, en dat hij corporaal is geweest. Tromp, Anthonij, Jeroen, Pasqual en Jonas zeggen dat Thomas een van de principaalste hoofden en oprockenaars van ’t complot is geweest.
Articul 23: In hoe veel partheijen sij haar verdeelt hebben, en of hij gevangen niet mede hooft van een bende is geweest?
Antwoort: Dat Knap een Deuntie en Tromp hoofden van d’ eene, mitsgaders Jeroen en hij gevangen hoofden van d’ anderen troep zijn geweest.
Articul 24: Waar hij gevangen met zijn lot gesworven heeft wanneer Knap een Deuntje met zijn bij hebbende complices hun tegens d’ Hollanders defendeerde?
Segt dat hij, beneevens Isaac en Claas Cok, alsdoen al van de trop waren afgesepareert en op rijs naar huijs waaren.
Articul 25: Of hij gevangen ondertussen niet besig was om meer jongens op te maaken?
Antwoort: Neen.
Articul 26: Of hij gevangen, met nog twee jongens, door de Hottentots niet is verrast, vast gebonden en alsoo in haar kraal in arrest gebragt?
Antwoort: Dat hij aan de mond van de Berg Rivier, met de twee boven gem. jongens, door de Hottentots is vastgebonden geworden.
Articul 27: Of sij bij nagt niet lost geraakt zijn, en alsoo g’eschapeert; en werwaerts zij doe belant zijn?
Segt dat ze haar met een mes hebben los gesneeden, en dat hij vervolgens na zijn meesters wooning gegaan is.
Articul 28: Waar soo, sulx geweest is, en wat quaad daar uijtgevoerd is?
Antwoort: Als op articul 26, dat ze aldaar geen quaat gedaan hebben.
Articul 29: Wat boosheeden en schelmstukken hij gevangen verders als de voormelde aengehaalde geperpetreert heeft?
Segt geen quaat anders gedaan te hebben.
Articul 30: Wat hem gevangen gescheelt heeft zulke duijvelse daden te begaan?
Segt dat niet te weeten.
Articul 31: Of hij gevangen niet bewust is dat hier reets soo veel straffen op diergelijke vagebonden geoeffent zijn geworden?
Antwoort: Sulx niet te weeten.
Articul 32: Of hij gevangen niet moet bekennen sig schuldig gemaakt te hebben aan verscheide delicten dien op het alder rigoureuste strafbaer zijn?
Antwoort: Geen quaad gedaan te hebben.
Articul 33: Wat reedenen hem gevangen gemoveert hebben, wanneer seekeren Hollander hem meende te vangen, tot dat uijtterste te komen, van sig selven met een mes den hals te willen afsnijden, waarvan jegenswoordig nog het litteeken aan de keel heeft, en op wat wijse hij alsdoen ’t ontkomen is?
Antwoort: Dat hij sulx gedaan heeft omdat hij door een Hollander nagejaagt wierd, die hem vroeg wiens jongen hij was, waarop hij gevangen antwoorde dat hij de slaaf van Christoffel Esterhuijs was, waarop die Hollander hem voor ’t paard heeft uijtgejaagt. Dat hij gevangen niet langer kunnende voort komen, omtrent een bosje een mes heeft gevonden, waarmede hij sig in de keel gesneeden heeft, dat de Hollander hem heeft laaten leggen en weg gereeden is, waarop hij gevangen van daar na zijn meesters huijs is gegaan, hebbende zig zelve met olij bladeren geneesen.
Aldus gevraag en geantwoort in ’t Casteel de Goede Hoop, den 19e Januarius 1714.
Dit X is het merk van den slaaf Thomas.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] O. Bergh, J. Blanckenberg.
Mij present, [get.] Dl. Thibault, secretaris.
Compareerde voor d’ ondergeteekende gecommitteerdens uijt den agtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, de geïnterrogeerde hier vooren genoemt, dewelke, zijn gedaane antwoorden op de voorgehouden vraagpoincten van woorde tot woorde klaar en duijdelijk voorgeleesen zijnde, verklaarde daarbij volkomen te persisteeren niet begeerende datter iets meer bijgevoegd ofte van gedaan werden sal.
Aldus gedaan en gerecolleert in ’t Casteel de Goede Hoop, den 20e Januarij 1714.
Dit X is het merk van den slaaf Thomas.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] O. Bergh, J. Blanckenberg.
Mij present, [get.] Dl. Thibault, secretaris.
Footnotes
-
In the original a line is left open between this sentence and the one starting with ‘dog’. The first part is probably Thomas’s answer, while the part ‘dog…’ was written by the secretary or whoever did the questioning. This also occurs in question 19 below, but note also the answers to questions 18, 21 and 22 where Thomas’s answers are being compared with the evidence provided by the other slaves. It is not clear whether this was done at the actual interrogation, or was added later when the document was copied out. ↩