1735 Varken
This conflict between three Khoi herdsmen, on the one hand, and a slave, on the other, shows the tensions and conflicts of status and authority that could arise on the many burgher farms where both slave and Khoi labourers worked.1 The 17-year-old Khoi Varken objected to the way in which the slave Titus scolded and beat him, and found immediate support from his fellow Khoi herders. We do not know anything about Titus, but it is likely that he was older than the young Khoi labourers and that this gave him authority over them. There is no indication that the owner-employer Adriaen Louw objected to Titus’s behaviour, and he might have encouraged or even ordered the slave’s role as overseer over the young Khoi workers. Not all slaves were of lowest status, especially in comparison to Khoi workers. Varken’s violent reaction might have been a personal feud with Titus, but it was doubtless also compounded by the anger or shame he felt, as a legally free Khoi, at being harshly treated and controlled by a slave.2
The punishment of the Khoi, two of whom were sentenced to death, is an indication of their full incorporation into the judicial apparatus of the Company’s colony. The Khoisan were losing claims to independent sovereign status by this period and certainly those working on colonial farms, even on the colony’s frontiers, were firmly under the authority of the settlers and the Company’s legal apparatus.3
Footnotes
-
The eijscheijschLiterally ‘claim’ or ‘demand.’ This is strictly speaking the eijsch ende conclusie without the final part about sentencing, but the term is often used as a shorthand for the whole document. and testimonies by Varken, Toontje and Ruijter, as well as those of the farmers Jacobus Louw Jacobsz and Daniel Bockelenberg, are available in CJ 339, ff. 146-65. The farm was located in Jakhalsvalleij, which probably refers to the area southwest of Clanwilliam, near the modern settlement of Jakkalsvlei. This was on the northern frontier of the colony in 1735. Khoi labourers were more widely used in this region than in the more settled arable parts of the colony, especially as stock herders. See 1724 Andries van Ceijlon for the use of both Khoi and slave labourers on farms. ↩
-
In the regtsrollenregtsrollenLiterally ‘rolls of justice’, the minutes of the proceedings of the Council of Justice. Varken and Toontje stated that they had killed Titus ‘omdat haar gedaagdens geduurig quaad deed en bekennen daarover dood waardig te sijn’ (because he continually treated them badly and they admit that they deserve death because of this, i.e. the murder of Titus). Ruijter persisted in denying that he had helped to murder Titus, CJ 17, f. 37. ↩
-
Robert Ross (1993: 166-80) has argued that the gradual incorporation of the Khoisan into the Cape legal system was as much a marker of their loss of independence as was their loss of land and livestock. Whereas in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, conflicts between Khoi were usually not dealt with by the Company and were handed over to Khoi chiefs or ignored, by the middle of the eighteenth century this was no longer possible or desirable. From the late seventeenth century, whenever Khoisan conflicted with settlers or slaves, as in this case, they were subject to the laws and sentences of the Council of Justice. ↩
CJ 785 Sententiën, 1726-1735, ff. 333-38.
As the honourable Council of Justice of this government, from the voluntary, verified confessions of the Hottentots Varken, 17 years old at a guess, Toontje, about 22 years old and Ruijter, 20 years old at a guess, made without any torture or coercion of bonds, of irons, or even the least threat of suchlike, and from the other papers produced in court; has determined it to be evident:
That the first prisoner, Varken, during this current year, after wheat harvesting time, had set out one morning to the veld with a certain slave named Titus, belonging to the farmer Adriaen Louw, with whom he, the prisoner, usually herded a flock of sheep of the aforesaid Louw on the latter’s farm in the Jakhalsvalleij. As soon as they got there, he went from the aforementioned slave Titus to the second prisoner, Toontje, who was looking after the cattle of the aforesaid Louw in that vicinity, and requested assistance from him to take the life of the aforementioned Titus, because the same Titus continually scolds and beats him, the first prisoner.
Upon this request of the first prisoner, the second, by the name of Thoontje, immediately went with Varken to the said slave Titus who, according to what they claim, had called out to them: “Come here, I will stab you with my knife”, after which they immediately attacked and beat him with sticks in such a way that he fell down onto a patch of sandy soil; after which the first two prisoners pressed him down into the sand for so long that he suffocated miserably and died. After which atrocious deed the first prisoner went to the third prisoner, by the name of Ruijter, who was also herding a flock of sheep of the aforementioned Louw in the vicinity, and informed him of the committed murder with a request from the first prisoner and his comrade in this, the second prisoner, to lend a helping hand with the burying of the murdered slave Titus, in which the third prisoner also acquiesced. He thereupon set out directly to the place where the two first prisoners had left that murdered 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., whereupon all three prisoners brought the aforenamed slave Titus to a porcupine hole and buried him in there, but only after they had first removed the clothes from Titus, which they divided amongst one another in such a way that the third prisoner, for his part, came into leather trousers, a blue shirt, a comb and some blue thread, while the first two prisoners burnt their allotted parts.
And since such an atrocious deed cannot remain unpunished in a country where law and justice are practised.
Thus it is, that the honourable Council of Justice of this government, serving today, having seen and deliberated with carefully considered counsel the eijsch en conclusie of the landdrost drawn up and delivered for and against the prisoners, apart from their voluntary confessions, properly verified, and other documents produced in court, as well as everything else which served the case and could have moved their honours; practising justice in the name and on behalf of the high and mighty Lords States General of the free United Netherlands, and having judged all three prisoners, their honours are sentencing them herewith: to be taken to the place where criminal sentences are usually executed here and there to be handed over to the executioner, the first and second prisoners, Varken and Toontje, to be punished with the rope on the gallows in such a way that death will follow, thereupon their dead bodies to be dragged to the outer place of execution, and there once again to be hanged up, to stay thus until being consumed by the air and birds of heaven, further that the third prisoner, Ruijter, be tied to a pole, be severely scourged on the bare back by the executioner and to be branded, with sentencing to the costs and expenditure of justice, denying the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate). his further demands.1
Thus done and sentenced in the Castle of Good Hope on 12 May 1735, likewise pronounced and executed on the 14th thereupon.
Let the sentence be done, [signed] Jan de la Fontaine.
[signed] A. v. Kervel, Dl. v.d. Henghel, J.T. Rhenius, Ns. Heijning, H. Swellengrebel, C. Brand, Js. Möller, Mnus. Bergh, Corns. Eelders, J. Leij, P. Artoijs.
In my presence, [signed] Js. de Grandpreez, secretary.
Footnotes
-
The death sentence by hanging for Varken and Toontje mitigated that of breaking alive on the cross and impaling, as recommended by the fiscal in the eijscheijschLiterally ‘claim’ or ‘demand.’ This is strictly speaking the eijsch ende conclusie without the final part about sentencing, but the term is often used as a shorthand for the whole document., CJ 339, ff. 154-55, and was also recorded in CJ 17, ff. 39-40. ↩
Alsoo den edelachtbare Raed van Justitie deeses gouvernements, uijt de libere, gerecolleerde confessie [sic] van de Hottentots Varken, oud naer gissing 17, Toontje, oud omtrent 22, en Ruijter, oud naer gissing 20 jaeren, buijten pijn ofte dwang van banden, van ijsers, dan wel de minste bedreijging van dien, gedaen, en andere stucken in juditio geproduceert, evidentelijk is geconsteert:
Dat den eerste gevangen Varken in dit loopende jaer, naer ’t koorn snijden tijd, sig met seeker slaef, Titus genaamt, toebehoorende den landbouwer Adriaen Louw, met wien hij gevange een troup schaepen van voorseijde Louw op desselfs plaets aan de Jakhalsvalleij gewoon was te weijden, op een morgen heeft in ’t velt begeven, gaende soo ras daer gekomen was van voornoemde slaef Titus af naer de tweede gevangen Toontje, dewelke daer omtrent de beesten van voornoemde Louw was hoedende, versoekende aen denselve om bijstand ten eijnde den voornoemde Titus om ’t leeven te brengen, om reedenen dat denselven Titus hem eerste gevangen continueel uijtschold en sloeg.
Op welke versoek van den eerste gevangen, de tweede Thoontje genaamt, immediaet met hem Varken naer den gesegde slaef Titus is gegaen die, volgens haer seggen, hunlieden soude toegeroepen hebben: Kom maer hier, ick sal jou met mijn mes steeken, vallende hem daerop immediaet aen, en sloegen hem soodanig met stocken dat op een sandige grond is koomen needer te vallen, waer naer sij twee eerste gevangens deselve so lang in ’t sand hebben gedrukt, totdat daervan ellendiglijk heeft moeten smooren en den geest geeven. Naar welke afgrijsselijke daet den eerste gevangen sig naer de derde, Ruijter genaamt, die mede daer omtrent een troup schaepen van voornoemde Louw was wijdende, heeft begeven, hem de begane moord te kennen geevende, met versoek van hem eerste gevangen en sijn macker, den tweede gevangen in deesen, tot ’t begraven van den vermoorden slaef Titus de behulpsaeme hand te willen verleenen, in ’t welke hij derde gevangen meede toestemmende, sig daerop ook aenstonds naer de plaets vervoegt heeft, daer die twee eerste gevangens dien vermoorden jonge gelaeten hadde, brengende en begraevende daerop alle drie de gevangens voornoemde slaef Titus in een ijservarkens gat, naer hem Titus alvoorens de kleederen uijtgetrocken te hebben, welke sij soodanig onder den anderen hebben verdeelt dat den derde gevangen voor sijn aendeel een leere broek, een blaeuw hembd, een kam en wat blaeuw gaeren heeft bekomen, hebbende de twee eerste gevangens haere toebedeelte portiën verbrand.
Ende dewijl sulke gruwelijk feijt in een land daer regt en justitie geadministreerd word, niet ongestraft kan blijven.
Soo is ’t, dat den edelachtbare Raed van Justitie deeses gouvernements, ten dage dienende, der landdrost eijsch en conclusie op ende jeegens de gevangens gedaen ende genoomen, neevens derselver libere confessiën, behoorlijk gerecolleert, en andere stucken in juditio geproduceert, met rijphijdt van raede geleesen en overwoogen op alles wat ter saeke diendende was en haer Edel Achtbaarens deede moveeren, doende regt uijt naeme ende van weegens de hooghmoogende heeren Staeten Generael der vrije Vereenigde Nederlanden, alle drie de gevangens hebben gecondemneert, so als haer Edel Achtbaarens desselve sijn condemneerende mit deesen: om gebragt te werden ter plaetse alwaer men gewoon is alhier crimineele sententiën te executeeren en aldaer den scherpregter overgelevert sijnde, den eerste en tweede gevangens, Varken en Toontje, soodanig met d’ coorde aen d’ galg gestraft te werden dat er d’ dood na volgt, en vervolgens haer doode lichamen naer het buijten geregt gesleept en daer weder opgehangen sijnde, dus te blijven totdat door de lugt en vogelen des hemels sullen sijn verteert, voorts den derde gevangen Ruijter aen een pael gebonden, door den scherpregter op d’ bloote rug strengelijk gegeesselt en gebrandmerkt te werden, met condemnatie in d’ costen en mise van justitie, ontseggende den Raed den verderen eijsch van den eijscher.
Aldus gedaen ende gesententieert in ’t Casteel de Goede Hoop, den 12e Maij 1735, mitsgaders gepronuntieert en geëxecuteert den 14e daeraenvolgende.
Fiat Executie, [get.] Jan de la Fontaine.
[get.] A. v. Kervel, Dl. v.d. Henghel, J.T. Rhenius, Ns. Heijning, H. Swellengrebel, C. Brand, Js. Möller, Mnus. Bergh, Corns. Eelders, J. Leij, P. Artoijs.
Mij present, [get.] Js. de Grandpreez, secretaris.