1786 Ceres van Madagascar
In this case, Ceres van Madagascar attacked Louisa, his female partner, because April van Ceijlon had told him that she had been unfaithful with other slaves.1 The case reveals the network of relationships and tensions that could develop amongst the slaves on a farm which largely prescribed and confined their world: Louisa’s mother also lived and worked there. Both the attacker and the accuser tried to flee, but were caught and sentenced by the Council of Justice, Ceres for murder and April for ‘malicious accusations’ and incitement to murder.
Footnotes
-
Slaves could not legally form permanent relationships and this often had a highly deleterious impact on their emotional and personal lives. See 1749 Reijnier van Madagascar, n. 1 for discussion of slave families. For other examples of cases involving rejection or jealousy among slaves, see 1729 Jeptha van Batavia and 1742 Fortuijn van Bengalen. ↩
CJ 795 Sententiën, 1782-1789, ff. 286-96.
As Ceres van Madagascar, 30 years old at a guess, and April van Ceijlon, 40 years old at a guess, both slaves of the burgher Olthman Ahlers, currently their honours’ prisoners, have voluntarily confessed and further, since it appeared evident to the honourable Council of Justice of this government:
That for four years the first prisoner Ceres has been having a relationship on his owner’s farm, situated in the Tijgerbergen, with the slave woman Louisa, who also belongs to his said owner, [and that] the second prisoner April, on the 18th of the past month February, when they were working together in the cellar, said to the first prisoner: “Are you too a fellow who goes with the meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ Louisa, who also goes with 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.?” The first prisoner answered to this: “Why are you tormenting me? I have never seen that!”, without there being at that time any further discussion about this between the first and second prisoners.
That, nonetheless, when they had finished their work in the cellar in the evening, the time being already 8 o’clock, the first prisoner, feeling jealous because of what he had been told, went through the back door into the kitchen, where the second prisoner was already present, and the aforesaid woman slave Louisa was busy preparing tea for her owner’s children, and coming into the kitchen, the first prisoner went directly and with laughter to the said Louisa, without saying a word either to the meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ or to the other slaves present in the kitchen, taking her by hand, and took her thus with him from the kitchen through the back door to the outside and, in going out said to the second prisoner: “Come on, come out now, and prove what you have said”; so the second prisoner also went outside.
That the first prisoner, as soon as he was outside the kitchen with the said Louisa and April, placed the aforementioned Louisa in front of him and asked her: “What am I hearing! Do you also go with 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.?”, upon which she asked: “Who says that?”, to which the first prisoner answered: “April says that!”, when the aforementioned Louisa asked: “Is that true?”, to which the first prisoner continued: “Yes, that is true!”, while adding: “April is standing there, ask him yourself!”, whereupon Louisa asked the second prisoner about it, but that 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. did not answer anything.
That the first prisoner, after first hitting the said Louisa, gave her a stab with a knife in her left breast, which, going through the second rib, penetrated through the lung, with damage to her blood vessels, and in this way was completely fatal; upon which the prisoner immediately saved himself by fleeing.
That as the aforesaid Louisa did not return, her mother, the slave Sanna, who was present in the kitchen, became suspicious and therefore went to go and find her, which is when she found her daughter Louisa between the house and the chicken coop, lying bending forward as if dead, which proved to be the case when she was picked up on the order of their owner, whom they had called for.
That the second prisoner remained absent that night, yet the following morning again came to work in the cellar, when he claimed that he had slept that night in the vineyard because he was somewhat drunk. However, after he went to the kitchen at 8 o’clock in the morning to get his bread and saw the soulless body of the woman slave Louisa lying there, he tried to flee, but was caught by the volkvolkIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used to refer either to a group of people in the sense of ‘nation,’ or more commonly a group of people acting or working together. It was thus often used as a short-hand term for common labourers. Although the word was used in this latter meaning at the Cape to refer to European labourers, it eventually – due to the racial divide in the labour situation – came to refer to both slaves and Khoikhoi in the sense of manual labourers. This usage lived on in modern Afrikaans plaasvolk, ‘farm labourers.’ and, having been tied up, was transported to the Cape. As also the first prisoner who, some days thereafter, was discovered at De Grendel and taken prisoner, and brought to the Cape as well; with both of them thus given over into the hands of justice.
But since such deliberate murder, malicious accusations and incitement to murder can under no circumstances be tolerated in a country where justice is properly administered, but must, as circumstances merit, be punished as an example to other such murderous and malevolent rogues.
Thus it is, that the honourable Council of Justice, having read and deliberated the written crimineelen eijsch ende conclusiecrimineelen eijsch ende conclusieLiterally ‘criminal demand and conclusion.’ The document drawn up by the prosecutor based on the evidence he collected and delivered in court against an accused. The conclusie is the final part of the document in which the prosecutor suggested an appropriate punishment for the crime. drawn up and delivered for and against both prisoners by the interim fiscal here, Sieur Gabriel Exter, by reason of his office, as well as having noted everything serving the case and which could have moved their honours, practising justice in the name and on behalf of the high and mighty Lords States General of the United Netherlands, and having judged both the prisoners, Ceres van Madagascar and April van Ceijlon, is sentencing them with this: to be taken to the place where criminal sentences are usually executed here, there to be handed over to the executioner, the first prisoner, Ceres, to be bound to a cross, to be dismembered from the bottom up, with the coup de grâce, afterwards his dead body to be dragged to the outer place of execution, there to be laid upon a wheel, and to remain thus as prey to the air and the birds of heaven; further the second prisoner, April van Ceijlon, to be exposed with a rope around the neck under the gallows, then to be tied to a stake, severely scourged on the bare back with rods, thereafter to be riveted in chains and to labour in them for a period of five successive years without wages on the public works on Robben Island, and after the termination of this time, to be returned to his master; with sentencing both of the prisoners to the costs and expenditure of justice.1
Thus done and sentenced at the Cape of Good Hope on 23 March 1786, as well as pronounced in the Castle of Good Hope on the 1st of the following month April and executed on the same day.
Let the sentence be done, [signed] C.J. van de Graaff.
[signed] P. Hacker, Gs. Hk. Cruijwagen, Johs. Smuts, S. v. Echten, As. van Sittert, J.M. Horak, J.M. Bletterman, W.F. v. Reede van Oudtshoorn, C.G. Maasdorp, G.H. Meijer, O.G. de Wet.
In my presence, [signed] C. van Aersen, secretary.
Footnotes
-
This sentence was recorded in the regtsrollenregtsrollenLiterally ‘rolls of justice’, the minutes of the proceedings of the Council of Justice., CJ 68, ff. 18-19. It differed somewhat from that recommended 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., which did not propose the coup de grâce for Ceres van Madagascar and proposed that April van Ceijlon be kept in chains for two years but returned to his master, CJ 424, ff. 7-8. Further documentation for this case consists of the interrogations of Ceres van Madagasacar and April van Ceijlon, the testimonies of Stoffel van de Caab and Sanna van Mallebaar (Louisa’s mother) and the surgeon’s report on the body of Louisa, CJ 424, ff. 9-31. ↩
Alsoo Ceres van Madagascar, oud na gissing dertig jaaren, en April van Ceijlon, na gissing oud veertig jaaren, beijde slaaven van den burger Olthman Ahlers, thans ’s heeren gevangens, vrijwillig beleeden hebben, en den edelagtbaare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, wijders evident gebleeken is:
Dat den eersten gevangen Ceres den tijd van wel vier jaaren herwaards, op zijn lijfheers, in de Tijgebergen geleegene plaats, met de slavinne Louisa, die meede gemelde zijn gevangen lijfheer toebehoord, gehouden hebbende, den tweeden gevangen April, op den 18e der jongstleeden maand Februarij, wanneer tezaamen in de kelder moesten werken, tot den eersten gevangen had gesegd: Bent gij ook een keerel, en loopt bij de meijd Louisa, die ook bij andere jongens loopt?, den eersten gevangen daarop had g’antwoord: Wat plaagd gij mij? Dat heb ik niet gesien!, zonder dat voor alsdoen dienaangaande tusschen de 1e en 2e gevangen iets verder gesprooken was.
Dat den eersten gevangen egter over dat zeggen jalouzij gevoed [sic] hebbende, denselven dus, wanneer zij ’s avonds in de kelder met werken gedaan hadden, zig, de klocke wel agt uuren, door de agterdeur in de combuijs begeeven had, alwaar den tweeden gevangen zig reeds bevond en voorseijde slavin Louisa beesig was om theewater voor haare lijfheers kinderen in gereedheijd te brengen; hebbende den eersten gevangen zig, in de combuijs koomende, regtstreeks en al lachende, zonder een woord, nog teegens de meijd, nog teegens de verdere in de combuijs zijnde slaaven te spreeken, na gemelde Louisa begeeven, deselve bij de hand gevat, en zoo door de agterdeur meede uijt de combuijs en na buijten genomen, in ’t uijtgaan teegens de 2e gevangen gesegt hebbende: Toe, kom nu buijten en maak waar wat gij gesegt hebt, dus den tweeden gevangen ook meede na buijten gegaan was.
Dat den eersten gevangen, soo ras met gemelde Louisa en April buijten de combuijs was geweest, hij 1e gevangen meergemelde Louisa ter rheede gesteld en gevraagd had: Wat hoor ik! Loop gij ook bij andere jongens?, die slavin daarop had gevraagd: Wie segt dat?, op ’twelke den 1e gevangen g’antwoord hebbende: April segt dat!, meergemelde Louisa had gevraagd: Is dat waar?, waarop den 1e gevangen hervat hebbende: Ja, dat is waar!, met bijvoeging: Daar staat April, vraagd het hem zelvs!, gemelde Louisa daarop aan den tweede gevangen daarna gevraagd, dog die jongen daarop niets g’antwoord had.
Dat den 1e gevangen alsdoen gemelde Louisa, na haar alvorens geslagen te hebben, met een mes een steek in de slinkerborst toegebragt had, dewelke, met verbreeking van de 2e ribbe, gepenetreerd hebbende door de long, met quetzing van derselver bloedvaten, dus volstrekt doodelijk geweest is; waarop den gevangen zig opstonds met de vlugt heeft gesalveert.
Dat vermits voorseijde Louisa niet weeder terug gekoomen was, haare, zig in de combuijs bevonden hebbende, moeder, de slavinne Sanna, eenige agterdogt opgevat en dus na deselve was gaan zien; als wanneer zij voorseijde haar dogter Louisa tusschen het huijs en hoenderhok voor over als dood had vinden leggen; gelijk dan wanneer ze, ter ordre van hunnen daarbij geroepene lijfheer, opgenoomen wierd, ook dood geweest was.
Dat den 2e gevangen dien nagt absent gebleeven, dog ’s volgenden morgens weeder in den kelder aan ’t werk gekomen zijnde, alsdoen voorgewend had dien nagt, dewijl wat beschonken geweest was, in den wijngaard geslapen te hebben, denselven egter, nadat, de klocke ’s morgens agt uuren, in de combuijs zijn brood was koomen haalen en aldaar het ontsielde lighaam der slavinne Louisa had zien leggen, het had zoeken te ontvlugten; dog door het volk gevat en vastgemaakt zijnde, is denselven Caabwaards getransporteerd. Gelijk dan den 1e gevangen, die eenige daagen daarna aan De Grendel is ontdekt en gevange genoomen geworden, meede Caabwaards gebragt en dus beijde in handen van justitie overgeleevert geworden zijn.
Maar nademaal zulken opzettelijken moord, quaadaardige beschuldiging en opstookingen tot moorden in een land alwaar het regt behoorlijk gehandhaafd word, geensints gedult, maar andere sulke moordsugtige en quaadwillige deugnieten ten voorbeelde, na vereijsch van zaaken, gepunieert werden moeten.
Soo is ’t, dat den edelagtbaare Raad van Justitie, geleesen en overwoogen hebbende den schriftelijken crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, door den pro interim Fiscaal alhier, sieur Gabriel Exter, ratione officii, op ende jeegens de beijde gevangens gedaan ende genoomen, mitsgaders gelet op alles wat ter zaake dienende was en haar edelagtbaarens konde doen moveeren, regt doende uijt naame ende van weegens de hoogmoogende Heeren Staaten Generaal der Vereenigde Neederlanden, beijde de gevangens, Ceres van Madagascar en April van Ceijlon, hebben gecondemneert, zoo als hun edelagtbaarens denselven condemneeren bij deesen: omme gebragt te worden ter plaatse alwaar men alhier gewoon is crimineele sententiën te executeeren, en aldaar den scherpregter overgeleevert zijnde, den eersten gevangen Ceres op een kruijs gebonden zijnde, van onderen op met de slag van gratie geleedebraakt, vervolgens desselvs doode lighaam na het buijten geregt gesleept, om aldaar op een rad gelegt te worden, en dus te verblijven ter prooije van de lugt en vogelen des heemels; voorts den tweeden gevangen April van Ceijlon, omme met een strop om den hals onder de galg te pronk gesteld te worden, vervolgens aan een paal gebonden, met roeden op de bloote rugge strengelijk gegeesseld en daarop gebrandmerkt zijnde, daarna in de ketting geklonken te werden om daarin den tijd van vijf agtereenvolgende jaaren op ’t Robben Eijland, zonder loon, aan de gemeene werken te arbeijden, mitsgaders na expiratie van dien tijd aan zijn lijfheer terug gegeeven te werden; met condemnatie van beijde de gevangens in de kosten en misen van justitie.
Aldus gedaan en gesententieerd aan Cabo de Goede Hoop, den 23e Maart 1786, mitsgaders gepronuntieerd in ’t Casteel de Goede Hoop, den 1e der daaraanvolgende maand April en g’executeerd ten zelven dage.
Fiat Executie, [get.] C.J. van de Graaff.
[get.] P. Hacker, Gs. Hk. Cruijwagen, Johs. Smuts, S. v. Echten, As. van Sittert, J.M. Horak, J.M. Bletterman, W.F. v. Reede van Oudtshoorn, C.G. Maasdorp, G.H. Meijer, O.G. de Wet.
Mij present, [get.] C. van Aersen, secretaris.