Ancestry24

The common belief that the historic manor-house of Groot Constantia was erected by Simon van der Stel at the end of the seventeenth century is completely fallacious. Although the proud structure of the present day probably rests on the foundations of Governor Simon’s original building, there is not a vestige of a superficial trace of resemblance between the two buildings.

In her beautiful Historic Houses of South Africa, Miss Dorothea Fairbridge advanced what is on the surface, a perfectly logical argument, that “Simon van der Stel built the house which is the best example of seventeenth century architecture left to the country”. She had never come across any evidence to the contrary, she wrote; while there is ample evidence to show that it was built by Simon van der Stel. The glowing description of Kolbe, in the face of his fierce hatred for the Van der Stels, implied great beauty: and who but a Van der Stel would have decorated the floor of his house with the star in red stone that we find at Groot Constantia? The severe simplicity of the gables also suggested a link with Van der Stel: they radiated “that feeling of classical severity that made me think they were built for Simon van tier Stel”.

She was probably strengthened in her belief by the writings of Mrs. A. F. Trotter at the turn of the present ‘century, a lady who did her research on a bicycle, and who was an artist of no mean ability. “Here”, wrote Mrs. Trotter, ”he built a house … gabled like the houses of the fatherland . . . yet individual and distinct; the first great homestead of the Cape”. She was sceptical, however, of the genuineness of the white-washed lime walls and speculated whether Constantia . . . “being built early, arid almost certainly of good bricks from the Netherlands, was originally left unplastered”. An intelligent observation, ’suggested no doubt by Sparrman’s reference in 1772 to “the old or red Constantia”. However, this probably refers to the type of wine manufactured on the estate, rather than to the colour of the house, for Sparrman was an enthusiastic botanist deeply interested in the viticulture of the Cape. After the fire, it was shown that the original building was built of small red Klinker bricks, but there is evidence that, at the time of remodelling at any rate, the building was plastered and whitewashed.

Nothing new was added to our knowledge of the history of Groot Constantia until 1926. On December 19th of that year, the manor-house was completely gutted by fire. Nothing was saved, and only the bare walls remained.

In the following year, the Public Works Department, entrusted the task of restoring the house to the well-known Cape architect, F. K. Kendall, who subsequently published his findings in book forth, entitled The Restoration of Groot Constantia. His conclusions, persuasively drawn, suggested that at one stage almost the entire house had been rebuilt and considerably enlarged. He accepted the drawing of J. W. van der Heydt as being in conformity with his findings in the walls and probably representing the original appearance fairly accurately. Previous to this, the Van der Heydt drawing done in 1741 from a point in the orchard above the house had been regarded in the same light as the illustrations in most of the travel chronicles relating to the Cape.

Examination of the front wall of the house revealed that small Dutch Klinker bricks existed up to the level of the window-sills, but that above that level a larger and more modern brick was used. In the central gable an indiscriminate mixture of Klinker and “modern” was found. At the end of the building, in the wall of the front (drawing) room two narrow voids were discovered, stretching from floor level to two segmental arches, and filled up with Klinker bricks. This provided the clue to the front of the house, for Kendall was able to show that these levels corresponded with those of the casement windows set further back in the wall, and that originally these spaces contained casement windows as well. He postulated that when the house was remodelled, the sash-window was already in vogue in the Cape, and the front was broken down to the level of the sills to include them in the walls; and, to prevent incongruity of sashes and casements in the same room, the latter were walled up in the drawing room. The appearance of Klinker bricks mixed indiscriminately in the upper part of the building with the modern suggests that when the original building was broken down, a great quantity of bricks was in good enough condition to be used again.

Kendall then proceeded to correlate these findings with the Van der Heydt drawing. He located the exact spot in the orchard from which the artist had looked down upon the farm, and he discovered that, allowing for modern developments, as far as the skyline, avenue of oaks, the sea and the mountain were concerned, it was “a remark-ably conscientious and accurate representation in all respects”. He concluded that the omission of the gable was probably accurate. Moreover, the windows, with the aid of a magnifying glass, can all be shown to be casements: not only are they of casement proportion, but the heads of the front ones are in line with those at the end of the house. The accurately-drawn dormer is so eccentrically situated that it was probably one of a pair on the front roof; and indeed this would be corroborated by his remark that “from the upper front windows you have a charming vista of meadows, vineyards and several pretty country seats”, were Kolbe not so unrealiable a chronicler.

The ridge of the roof in Van der Heydt’s drawing is on the same level on all three sides, whereas the present building has a much higher ridge on the front roof than on the sides, necessitated by the extra width of the middle portion of the house. When the plaster was stripped off the back cross-wall, it was found that it was built throughout of a mixture of Klinker and “modern” bricks, and that it had been inserted into the wing walls by chases cut into them to receive it. It thus appeared that this back wall was a product of the remodelling, for its sash-windows corresponded with those in the front of the house. This theory was borne out by the discovery of portions of an old wall well on the inside of the present one, running lengthwise through the middle of the dining-hall. Whitewashed and plastered with lime and showing unmistakable signs of previous exposure, this wall was originally the outside wall of the house. The implications of this are fourfold. Firstly, it eliminated all speculation of Van der Stel regaling his friends with gigantic feasts in the dining hall as we know it to-day; Valentijn must have enjoyed the “matchless fine and delicious fruit” of. his host in more modest surroundings and even Le Vaillant in 1780 was not privileged to be entertained here. In place of a dining-hall, Van der Stel had a fine wide gallery or passage covered with a lean-to roof and opening through a door in the centre onto a concrete platform from which led down steps into the courtyard below, as is the present arrangement. The discovery of this platform, at a slightly lower level than the floor of the hall, supplied conclusive evidence of the extent of the cross-wall. Records refer to this gallery, and there are instances of similar design in other old Cape houses—possibly this was the original one.

The second point that this discovery settles is the question of the pitch of the roof. Had a wider span been used on the front roof, this portion would have been much higher, as it is to-day; but it would have been difficult to build, especially at a time when the construction of such a building was more of an experiment than anything else.

The fact that the original walls of the house that were uncovered were lime plastered and whitewashed seems to allay the fears of Mrs. A. F. Trotter that the original structure was left unplastered. As early as 1675 there is a reference to prisoners being sent to Robben Island “to gather mussel-shells and others, for the burning of lime”, and all descriptions of the settlement remark upon the whiteness of the houses. There is no reason why Simon van der Stel should have been different in the construction of his own house.

The fourth point concerns the so-called Van der Stel arms worked into the stones on the floors of the entrance porch and dining-hall. In both cases the design is identical with that in the banqueting hall in the centre of the room. It therefore appears obvious that these floors were laid at the time when the banqueting hall was built–that is, when the house was remodelled. On the other hand, we know from Kolbe that Simon van der Stel discovered and worked a quarry of the red stone used in the design in the Steenberg, and it was much used in floors and steps. Also the floor design undoubtedly indicates the arms of Van der Stel impaled upon the star of the Sixes, the family of his wife. One can therefore speculate that the design laid down at the time of remodelling the house was a copy of an earlier design dating from the time of the Van der Stels.

The period of remodelling of the façade and courtyard of the house cannot be determined with accuracy, but, according to the evidence of old-records and references in travel-books, and the style of architecture, the year 1792 appears to be the most likely date.

When Hendrik Cloete purchased Groot Constantia from Jan Serrurier in December 1778 for 60,000 Cape guilders, the estate “was in a ruinous state, the buildings were all destroyed and scarcely a vineyard was bearing” according to an attestation by his son Peter Laurence Cloete, in 1827. He also stated that his father had “rebuilt all the buildings on it, and increased the plantations”. As Hendrik Cloete had bought the estate by a mortgage bond for the full amount to be paid off in instalments, and since he had paid an additional 30,000 Cape guilders for the slaves and movable property, it is conceivable that for no small space of time his financial position did not warrant the spending of a large sum of money on the erection of an expensive and lavish building not essential for the good running of his farm. By 1791, however, he had met with sufficient success to invite the architectural giants of his time-Thibault and Anreith—to construct a wine-cellar at the back of his house. There is a quaint tradition that Anreith worked on the pediment behind e screen, and would not allow his patron a glimpse of the work until it was completed.

Groot Constantia 1741

It does not appear that the house was altered until after the completion of the wine-cellar. Being a good farmer, Cloete built the most necessary things first. Then, as Mr. Kendall writes, “it is highly probable that the proprietor would finish his constructive energies with a flourish by adding magnificence .and comfort to the house itself”. By being in constant touch with Anreith and Thibault in connection with the wine-cellar (”the production of which must have in itself been a strong incentive to beautify the house”) Cloete invited them to remodel his house according to the latest style.

The earliest illustration of the present facade of the house—with a window in place of •a statue in a niche—appeared in Milbert’s Voyage Pittoresque a L’Isle de Franee au Cap de Bonne Esperanee (1812 Paris). A sketch by Bowler in 1854 likewise shows a window in place of the niche. This would suggest that the statue and niche are of ‘later erection: but this is contradicted by Kendall, who—feeling it unlikely for two windows to be placed one above the other in the same gable—examined the inside of the gable for previous patching and repair—and found no trace. He therefore concluded that the niche and statue are as old as the gable itself, and that Bowler copied unfinished details from the earlier artist; or, by some strange co-incidence, they both independently made the same mistake. Cloete family tradition assigns the statue of Plenty to an earlier date than 1854—indeed, Dorothea Fairbridge says to before the time of Anreith. This is hardly possible since Anton Anreith’s arrival at the Cape predated the erection of the front gable by at least fourteen years! There is a reference to “a vile painting, of a strapping girl, and ugly enough, reclining on a pillar” (not pillow as Kendall writes) by a Frenchman De Saint-Pierre, who visited the Cape in the seventeen-seventies. “I took it for a Dutch allegorical figure of Chastity : but they told me it was a portrait of Madame Constance, daughter of a Governor of the Cape”. ‘This is confusing from our point of view, but the reference is to a painting and not a statue, and it must be assumed that De Saint-Pierre at least recorded his basic facts accurately. The present-day statue of a girl leaning against a rest is very suggestive of this earlier painting, and provided De Saint-Pierre’s description is correct, we can speculate that Cloete requested Anton Anreith merely to copy the old design, rather than create a new one. For it is quite possible that the statue of Plenty was designed by Anreith as well. Hendrik Cloete would have been in close contact with him in connection with the wine-cellar pediment, and when Thibault began remodelling the house, Anreith was invited to assist. The fortunate partnership of Anreith and Thibault might well be personified in the front gable of Groot Constantia.

Writing from Cape Town on the 1st of October, 1792, Cornelis de Jongh, an accurate and pleasant Dutch visitor to the Cape, praises Hendrik Cloete as “an artistic argriculturalist who has made innumerable improvements to his farm, having built a new wine-cellar, altered the house, and planted new species of tree and vine . . . “  I feel justified in accenting this entry as indicative of the date at which the “alterations” were completed, or at least, under way.

This date is in conformity with the place of Groot Constantia in the ordered sequence of evolution of the architectural style at the Cape: the façade is certainly the product of a later development than existed in the time of Simon van der Stel. It is more likely the “country” version of the double-storeyed town house with the dak kamer on the roof, such as the Martin Melk house next to the Lutheran Church in Strand Street. At the same time it was probably the precursor of the common triangular-topped square gable seen so extensively in the country districts, particularly in the Worcester-Robertson area. But its Renaissance cap distinguishes it as something apart, and earlier in conception than these.

There is something very comforting about Groot Constantia, lying so close to the great Mother City, and yet breathing the life of another, an easier and more carefree world of the past. All the old ghosts are there—Hendrik Cloete with le Valliant, Lady Anne Barnard and a whole train of distinguished guests; and Kolbe, Valentijn and “if you dream there long enough, you will see wandering among the flickering shadows, the shadow of Simon van der Stel”.

E. H. BURROWS. Africana Notes and News,  December, 1948        Vol. VI, No. 1

Top image is Groot Constantia in 1812

Kmdt. Henning Petrus Nicolaas Pretorius

(born 1844 in Natal, South Africa; died 1897, Farm Abrahamskloof, Albanie, Cape, South Africa) nicknamed “Skote Petoors”

When a young boy, he was nearly present when his paternal grandfather was murdered in 1865 in Moorddraai, but rode ahead to see his fiancee, and therefore was saved from being murdered too. In 1876 he became and Cornet in the Z.A.R. in the Sekukune wars. His heroic conduct during the First Boer War in Elandsfontein made him famous. He was wounded twice. In 1882 he was commissioned as a Kommandant. In 1890 he was made Acting Kommandant Generaal in place in P.J. Joubert. In 1896 he was promoted to Lt. Colonel of the reorganised Artillery Corps under the new name of Staatsartillerie. He made several improvements to the Artillery, rendering them equivalent to those of most nations at the time. He died while on a mission in the Eastern districts of the Cape, while looking for the beam on which the accused were hanged in 1816 for the Slagtersnek opstand. He was buried with full military honours at the Helde-akker in Pretoria. There is a statue of him in front of Military Headquarters in Potgieter Street in Pretoria.

Kmdt. Henning Petrus Nicolaas Pretorius

His father was Marthinus Wessel “Swart Martiens” Pretorius (1822-1864) born in Graaf Reinet and who died at the Battle of Silkaatsnek, during the First Boer War. Farmer in Welgegund, near Pretoria. His mother was Debora Jacoba Retief (1815-1900), born at Mooimeisjesfontein, in the Cape. She famously painted her father’s name on the cliff face of Kerkenberg in the Drakensberg. A sculpture of this deed is on display in the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria. Her father was Gen. Pieter Retief (1780-1838), known as Piet Retief, Voortrekker leader. Retief was born in the Cape Colony, South Africa. His family were Boers of French Huguenot ancestry, and Retief grew up on one of the vineyards established by French wine-making immigrants near Stellenbosch. After moving to the vicinity of Grahamstown Retief, like other Boers, acquired wealth through livestock, but suffered repeated losses from Xhosa raids in the period leading up to the 6th Cape Frontier War. (However, apart from such losses, Retief was also a man in constant financial trouble. On more than one occasion, he lost money and other possessions mainly through gambling and land speculation.

He is reported to have gone bankrupt at least twice, while at the colony and on the frontier. Such losses impelled many frontier farmers to become Voortrekkers (literally those who move forward) and to migrate to new lands in the north. Retief authored their ‘manifesto’, dated 22 January 1837, setting out their long-held grievances against the British government, which they felt had offered them no protection, no redress, and which had freed their slaves with recompense to the owners hardly amounting to a quarter of their value. This was published in the Grahamstown Journal on 2 February and De Zuid-Afrikaan on 17 February just as the emigrant Boers started to leave their homesteads. Retief’s household departed in two wagons from his farm in the Winterberg District in early February 1837 and joined a party of 30 other wagons. The pioneers crossed the Orange River into independent territory.

When several parties on the Great Trek converged at the Vet River, Retief was elected “Governor of the United Laagers” and head of “The Free Province of New Holland in South East Africa.” This coalition was very short-lived and Retief became the lone leader of the group moving east. On 5 October 1837 Retief established a camp at Kerkenberg near the Drakensberg ridge. He proceeded on horseback the next day to explore the region between the Drakensberg and Port Natal, now known as Kwa-Zulu Natal. Upon receiving a positive impression of the region he started negotiations with the Zulu chief, Dingane, in November 1837. Retief led his own band over the Drakensberg Mountains and convinced Voortrekker leaders Maritz and Potgieter to join him in January 1838.

On a second visit to Dingane, the Zulu agreed to Boer settlement in Natal, provided that the Boer delegation recovered cattle stolen from him by the rival Tlokwa tribe. This the Boers did, their reputation and rifles cowing the tribe into peacefully handing over the cattle. Despite warnings, Retief left the Tugela region on 28 January 1838, in the belief that he could negotiate permanent boundaries for the Natal settlement with Dingane. The deed of cession of the Tugela-Umzimvubu region, although dated 4 February, 1838, was signed by Dingane on 6 February 1838. This Dingane did by imitating writing and with the two sides recording three witnesses each. Dingane then invited Retief’s party to witness a special performance by his soldiers. However, upon a signal given by Dingane, the Zulus overwhelmed Retief’s party of 70 and their Coloured servants, taking all captive. Retief, his son, men, and servants, about a hundred people in total, were taken to Kwa Matiwane Hill in what is now Kwa-Zulu Natal, and murdered. Their bodies were left on the hillside to be devoured by wild animals, as was Dingane’s custom with his enemies.

Dingane then gave orders for the Voortrekker laagers to be attacked, which plunged the migrant movement into serious disarray. Eventually, the Retief party’s remains were recovered and buried on 21 December 1838, by members of the “victory commando” led by Andries Pretorius, following the decisive Voortrekker victory at Blood River. Also recovered was the undamaged deed of cession from Retief’s leather purse, as later verified by a member of the “victory commando”, E.F. Potgieter. An exact copy survives, but the original deed disappeared in transit to the Netherlands during the Anglo-Boer War. The site of the Retief grave was more or less forgotten until pointed out in 1896 by J.H. Hattingh, a surviving member of Pretorius’s commando. A monument recording the names of the members of Retief’s delegation was erected near the grave in 1922. The town of Piet Retief was named after him as was (partially) the city of Pietermaritzburg.

(The “Maritz” part being named after Gerrit Maritz, another Voortrekker leader.) Piet Retief married Magdalena Johanna De Wet [1782-1855; daughter of Pieter De Wet (1765-?) and Maria P Opperman (1757-?)]. Her father Pieter de Wet was in turn the son of Petrus Pieter De Wet (1726-1782) and Magdalena Fenesie Maree (1726-1770). Retief’s own parents were Jacobus Retief [1754-1821; son of Francois Retief (1708/9-1743) and Anna Marais (1722-1777)] and Debora Joubert [1749-?; daughter of Pieter Joubert (1726-1746) and Martha Du Toit (1729-1771)].

Jacobus Retief was a farmer near Wellington, his original farm was called “Soetendal”. He also bought the farm “Welvanpas”, formerly known as “De Krakeelhoek” which belonged to his grandmother Maria Mouij, of whom presently. He had eleven children. His father, Francois Retief, was the eldest son of the founding father of the Retief clan in South Africa, Hugenot emigrant Francois Retif Snr. (1663-1721). This Francois Retief fled Mer in Blois, France during the recriminations of King Louis XIV with his young sister to Holland. Since the Dutch were looking for settlers for the Cape, they joined and arrived in Cape Town in 1688. He bought a farm and called it “Le Paris” on the northern banks of the Berg River near Wemmershoek. He married Maria Mouij, (1685-?, daughter of Pierre Mouij, also of France.), 23 years his junior.

To return to Marthinus Wessel Pretorius (Swart Martiens): His father was: Councillor Henning Petrus Nicolaas Pretorius [1800-1865; son of Marthinus Wessel Pretorius (1747-?) and Susanna Elisabeth Viljoen, (1760-?), widow of J.D. Hattingh] who was a Deacon in the church and long-serving elder, as well as member of the first Voortrekker Council in Natal. He was murdered by the Sotho at Moorddraai near Harrismith with his wife, Johanna Christina Vorster [1804-1865; daughter of Barend Johannes Vorster (1771-1840) and Johanna Christina Vorster (1776-?)], two of his sons and a companion. His brother, Andries Pretorius later became the Voortrekker arch-leader and founded the capital city of Pretoria, South Africa. Barend Vorster was the son of Barend Johannes Vorster (1748-1799) and Cecilia van Heerden (1752-1789). Marthinus Wessel Pretorius was the son of Johannes Pretorius [1711-1778; son of Johannes Pretorius (1642-1694) and Johanna Victor (1640-1719)] and Johanna Bezuidenhout [1717-?; illegitimate daughter of Wynand Bezuidenhout (1674-1724) and Gerbrecht Boshouwer (1684-1772)]. Johannes Pretorius (1711-1778) farmed near Roodesandskloof with about 40 cattle and 70 sheep. His father, the elder Johannes Pretorius was born in Oudorp, Alkmaar, Noord-Holland, Netherlands and was the first to move to South Africa. His parents were: Wessel Schout Praetorius [1614-1664; son of Barend Wesselius Pretorius (1596-1668) and Aaltje Jansdochter (1596-1643)] and Josyntgen Claesdochter (1618-?). Barend’s father was Wessel Schulte (1566-?).

Jacob Abraham De Mist, Commissioner-General, 21 February 1803 to 25 September 1804.

Lieutenant-General Jan Willem Janssens, Governor, installed 1 March 1803, capitulated to an English army 18 January 1806.

Lieutenant-General Jan Willem Janssens

In the evening the principal houses in Cape Town were illuminated, and a series of festivities followed.
The amnesty did not include the Graaff-Reinet farmers who had been nearly four years in prison, as they had been sentenced by a court of law. But they were not left long in doubt concerning their fate. Adriaan van Jaarsveld had died in confinement. The others were set free on the 30th of March.

The landdrost, secretaries, and in general all the clerks who had held office during the English administration retained their appointments. So did the collector of tithes and the wine tax, Christoffel Brand, and the receiver-general of revenue, Arend de Waal, who had succeeded Mr. Rhenius in April 1797. Mr. J. P. Baumgardt had left the country on its transfer to its old masters, and in his stead as collector of land revenue Mr. Be Mist appointed Sebastiaan Valentyn van Reenen, who had suffered heavy losses under the late administration by being detained for a long time in arrest on suspicion of having communicated with the Dutch fleet under Admiral Lucas.

The burgher senate was enlarged to seven members, but in the following year was reduced to five. Those now chosen were Cornelis van der Poel, Gerrit Hendrik Meyer, Anthony Berrange, Pieter van Breda, Jan Andries Horak, Jacobus Johannes Vos, and Jan Adriaan Vermaak. Cajus Jesse Slotsboo was appointed secretary. After the reduction in number took place, the senate consisted of a president and four members. At the end of every year one retired, when a list of four names was furnished to the governor, from which to select a successor. At the same time the governor appointed one of them to act as president during the ensuing twelvemonth.

On the 3rd of April Governor Janssens left Cape Town to visit the eastern part of the colony, and ascertain how matters were standing with the white people, the Kosas, and the Hottentots. At Port Frederick he found Dr. Van der Kemp and the Hottentots under his care, who had abandoned Bother’s farm some time before. Upon close inquiry he learned that many of these people who had once been in service with farmers had good reason of complaint on the ground of ill-treatment. He fully approved of the plan contemplated by General Dundas, of assigning a tract of land for their use, where they could be under the guidance of missionaries; and he offered for this purpose any vacant ground that was available. A commission, consisting of the commandants Botha and Van Rooyen, Mr. Dirk van Reenen, and Mr. Gerrit Oosthuizen, was thereupon appointed by the governor to act in conjunction with the reverend James Read, Dr. Van der Kemp’s nominee, in selecting a suitable place. They chose a tract of land about six thousand seven hundred morgen in extent, lying along the Little Zwartkops river, between the loan farms of Thomas Ferreira and the widow Scheepers. On the 3lst of May the governor gave his formal consent in writing to the occupation of this place by the Hottentots under supervision of missionaries of the London society, and at Dr. Van der kemp’s request named it Bethelsdorp. The permission thus given was confirmed by Mr. De Mist a few months afterwards.

One hundred and fifty men of the Waldeck regiment, under command of Major Von Gilten, had in the meantime arrived by sea, and had occupied Fort Frederick. Order could therefore be enforced in the immediate neighbourhood. The governor found it advisable to remove two farmers, who were much disliked by the Hottentots on account of their harsh conduct. Thomas Ignatius Ferreira he ordered to reside in the neighbourhood of the drostdy of Swellendam, and Jan Arend Hens he sent to Stellenbosch.

Two parties of Hottentots who had not chosen to place themselves under the guidance of missionaries were living near the Sunday River. The governor sent friendly messages to their captains, Klaas Stuurman and Boesak, the first of whom accepted an invitation to visit Fort Frederick and make his wants known. Stuurman stated that his followers were thoroughly impoverished, and most of them would be very glad to take service with the colonists, if they could be assured of peace and good treatment. He asked for a tract of land on the left bank of the Gamtoos river, where he and his people could have their homes, while those who were so disposed could engage themselves to the farmers. The governor did not immediately give a decision upon this request, as he wished Stuurman’s clan to move farther westward; but he came to a friendly understanding with the captain. The past was to be forgotten on both sides, or, if it was remembered, the misdeeds of the Hottentots during the war were to be regarded as a set-off against the ill-treatment which some of them complained of having received from colonists. The Hottentots were assured of complete protection of person and property, and it was arranged that when any of them went into service a record of the terms should be kept by the landdrost, who should see that strict justice was done.

By the governor’s directions, on the 9th of May an ordinance was published by the council, requiring contracts between farmers and Hottentots to be made in triplicate, upon certain prescribed forms, before an official of position as no notice would be taken by the courts of law of complaints against servants engaged in any other manner.

On the 19th of June the governor instructed Captain Alberti, the second in command of the garrison of Fort Frederick, to select a suitable tract of land on the Gamtoos River, and give it to Stuurman for the use of his people. A great many of these in the meantime had gone into service. The captain was then away hunting buffaloes, and the next that was heard of him was that his gun had burst and shattered one of his arms, from the effects of which he died in November. His brother David Stuurman then became captain of the clan, and in February 1804 a location was assigned to him on the Gamtoos river.

Boesak and his followers wandered about for a time, but did not molest any one, and ultimately they also settled down peaceably.

Born: Orange, Southern France, circa 1660; Died: Drakenstein, 07 February 1723.Paul Roux was a Huguenot teacher and arrived at the Cape in 1688 with one of the first parties of French refugees. Nothing is known of his birth and parents. On the strength of his ability the Council of Policy appointed him, on the 8th February 1688, reader and schoolmaster for the French community in Drakenstein at a fee of fifteen guilders a month plus three reals for food. It is not clear whether he taught only the French children or some of the Dutch-speaking as well. Since there is no proof that a school building was available he evidently had to do without one, and taught in private homes, but his task was made difficult by the pro-Dutch policy of the V.O.C. and the fact that the French families were scattered.

On 18 December 1700, Paul Roux was elected deacon (diaken) and when Drakenstein became a separate congregation he was again elected on 19 December 1705. He served in this capacity until 10 December 1709, when someone else was appointed in his stead. His re-election on 16 December 1710 followed a brief retirement of one year, and he served until 13 December 1712.

After the departure of the Rev. Pierre Simond in 1702 sermons in French were held irregularly and subsequently (after 1705) not at all, and it was Roux who, with his regular church services, met the spiritual needs of the French community and through his teaching acquainted the rising generation with the old form of their mother tongue. After his death the Council of Policy refused the request of the Huguenots to appoint a French-speaking sick-comforter in his place. In a figurative sense his death also meant the death of the French language in South Africa.

From 1694 to 1713 Roux kept a baptismal register entitled: ‘Le livre de registre des enfants qu’on a baptizé dans notre Eglise Françoise de Drakenstein du depuis le Aoust l’année 1694′. It was the first church register of the Drakenstein congregation to be preserved and the only one in the French language.

Shortly after his arrival Roux married a fellow refugee, Claudine Seugnet, who came from Saintonge. The couple had seven children, of whom only the two eldest, Paul (circa 1689) and Pierre (circa 1692), perpetuated the family name. Shortly before his death R. married Elizabeth Couvret, widow of Josué Cellier (†October 1721). This marriage was childless.

Source: Dictionary of South African Biography. Copyright: Media24 Digital

Image: Groot Afrikaanse Familienaamboek

PRINCE GWAYI TYAMZASHE was ! born at Blinkwater in the district of Fort Beaufort on the 22nd of January, 1844. He was the eldest son of Tyam. zashe; Tyamzashe, the son of Mejana, son of Oya, of the Rudulu clan, cornmonly known as the Mangwevu. Gwayi as a boy saw all the horrors of the early Kaffir Wars, and was with his mother, Nontsi, during the terrible Nongqause cattle-killing episode, while his father Tyamzashe was a head councillor at the King’s Court. At that time Sandile was the Paramount Chief of the Xosa Tribe.

After the great armed protest of the Xosas, under Sandile and his brother Anta, Gwayi and his parents became detached from the main fighting body and eventually fell into the hands of the missionaries at Dr. Love’s mission station-now known as Lovedale. The late Mr. Goven was then in charge of the mission and he soon induced the raw native fugitives to be converted. Govan actually went so far as to pay those natives who attended infant classes. Gwayi Tyamzashe liked these classes. He was followed by many other natives. The signs of progress moved quickly. Messrs. Smith and James Stewart came to Lovedale, and Gwayi and his friends soon found themselves on the highway to civilisation and education. At all times Lovedale was open to all classes of pupils, and Gwayi found himself rubbing shoulders with European pupils, amongst whom were William Henry Solomon (late Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa), his brother, Richard Solomon, Schreiner, Grimmer and others.

Soon Gwayi qualified as a teacher and taught for some years at Gqumahashe, a village just across the Tyumie River. Just at that time Tiyo Soga was reading for theology in Scotland. This caused Gwayi to leave teaching and return to Lovedale for theology. Before doing so, however, he went in for a University examination in which Latin, Greek and Hebrew were essential subjects. This examination was above the ordinary matriculation. It was a red-letter day at Lovedale when Gwayi Tyamzashe passed this examination; flags were hoisted and the day was proclaimed a exam holiday.

Gwayi completed his Theological Course in 1874 and was immediately called to the Diamond Fields. In 1884 Gwayi and his family, consisting of his wife and three children, James, Henry and Catherine, left Kimberley for the wild north-Zoutpansberg. His journey to that part of the country was a heart-breaking one; the story of which would fill a volume. Leaving Kimberley with two ox-wagons, several milch cows and a pair of horses, he slowly made his way north. There were no roads to speak of; the country was unexploed as yet; the drifts across the rivers were mere sluits and no bridges existed anywhere; the country was still wild, and, worst of all, the Dutchmen, who occupied the Transvaal, were hostile towards the black races. When Gwayi and his caravan arrived on the Witwatersrand-as Johannesburg was then called-he was arrested for having no ” pass.” He was handcuffed behind his back and hurried off to Pretoria in front of four fiery horses of the “Zarps” (Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek Poliese). His wife, however, hurried over to Pretoria and personally interviewed Oom Paul (President Paul Kruger) whereupon Gwayi was not only released, but also given a free pass to his destination.

At Zoutpansberg Gwayi Tyamzashe opened a number of mission stations which exist to this day. He lived at Zoutpansberg for six years, and on being called back to Kimberley, he returned to the Diamond Fields. It was, however, a different Gwayi that arrived at Kimberley. He was physically a mere shadow of the former Gwayi, owing to a relentless attack of asthma which he contracted in the damp and marshy country of the Zoutpansberg. He lingered for six years in Kimberley and died on the 25th October, 1896. Prior to his death he had a serious case against the European Church Union which culminated in victory for him in the Supreme Court at Capetown.

Mr. JAMES W. A. TYAMZASHE, elder son of Rev. Gwayi Tyamzashe, was born at Kimberley, 11th March, 1879. Attended the Dutch Reformed and Perseverance Schools at Kimberley and finally went to Lovedale in 1896 where he passed his Third Year Teacher’s and School Higher Examinations of the Cape of Good Hope University. He also read for the Matriculation Examination. Passed the Second Year Teachers’ Examination with honours in 1898. Taught at Lovedale, Mnggesha, Mafeking, Tigerkloof, Uitenhage and finally at the Pirie Mission Station, where, owing to failing health, he was granted a Government pension. Mr. Tyamzashe was an exceptionally good pianist and organist. Composed several songs and his notes on Tonic Solfa and Staff Notation were published in the Education Gazette, and were very highly commented upon by the then Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape. One of the Inspectors of Schools considered him the best of native teachers in school method and music. Prior to his death, which took place at the early age of 52, he was appointed messenger of the court for the district of Kingwilliamstown. By his death an accomplished scholar and musician was lost to the African nation. He married Mina Elizabeth, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Xholla, of Grahamstown, who survives him with eight children.

Chief Sandile, a son of Gaika, was born about 1823. Gaika was a great friend of the neighbouring Dutch farmers. After the birth of Sandile some of these farmers paid him a visit. On being informed of the birth of the young prince and heir the farmers -were very pleased and suggested that he be given the name of .” Alexander de Groot ” saying they hoped he would be a great man. This name was accepted by the Xosas who Kaffirised it ” Sandile.” In 1850 the British colonists doubted Sandile’s friend=ship, and in the same year Sir Harry Smith instructed him to come and see him in order to settle a quarrel brought about through allegedcattle marauding. Sandile replied that the matter, must be -settled by Chiefs Pato and Magoma, his uncles, wno were older and also members of his council.

On receiving this reply Sir Harry Smith despatched fifty mounted soldiers to arrest Sandile, King of the Xosas. The Gaikas declined to hand over their beloved ruler to the white men as a prisoner. The soldiers attempted to use force and were massacred by the enraged Gaikas. Sandile could not be subdued. In 1853 the missionaries prevailed upon Sandile who in turn prevailed upon his people to cease hostilities. The missionaries further succeeded in persuading Sandile to cede to the Britisn the Province of Kafraria. In 1877 another Xosa war broke out, Sandile remaining neutral until 1878. At this time the Gcakelas-a section of the Xosa tribe-had been weakened considerably by the British Colonial Government. Sandile had made up his mind not to take part in this war, but he was reluctantly dragged into it. Sandile met the British commando that was sent to arrest him at Tyityaba where a deadly battle was fought, at the end of which the belligerents on both sides were exhausted. After this battle Sandile retreated to the Pirie Bush (Hoho) where he was killed by two bullets fired at random. Edmond Sigonyela, Sandile’s son, was employed as clerk at the Fort Beaufort Magistrate’s office, and on hearing that his father was cragged against his wish into the war, he at once, resigned and joined him in the struggle which ended in the death of his beloved father.

Sandile’s eldest daughter, Princess Victoria, married Chief Umhlangaso, a grandson of the great Faku. Edmond, Sandile’s heir, died at Kentani where his people lived after the death of Sandile. Sandile’s son and two daughters were educated. He gave much for the building of schools and churches. Could read and write Xosa, and was very popular with the missionaries. E. was also respected by the British agents.

Mr. NELANI JORDAN NOBADULA, born in 1844, at Tandjesberg, Graaff Reinet. His father was a servant to a Dutch farmer. Nelani attended a country school where he was taught to read and write. Later he went to East London and was employed by a carpenter. Also attended night-school. When he left East London he had reached Standard III. besides being a good carpenter. In 1876 he went to St. Mark’s Institution for further education. The Xosa War broke out during 1877 and he was obliged to leave school. After peace was declared he was appointed teacher and catechist of the Anglican Church to which he had become attached. In1882 he was sent to St. John’s College to study theology. During school hours he was at school, and in the afternoons and evenings he attended the Theological Classes. Ordained in 1887 as priest and appointed to Mount Frere where he worked all his life. Died in 1920. Established the Hebehebe, Unyika, Gqogqora, Sikobeni, Nqadu, Xabane and Tower Unyika Anglican Stations in the Umtata and St. Cuthbert’s Dioceses. He did much missionary work among the Bacas and the Pondos at Mount Frere. His six sons and three daughters are well educated. He had much influence over chiefs and heathen people.

Boswell Circus 1959

From the evidence of early Dutch and Cape paintings, it may be assumed that the first White inhabitants of the Cape were diverted by performing dogs and various animals trained to do tricks, notably monkeys (which were common household pets) and baboons. The garrisons at the Castle possibly spent part of their leisure in training such animals, and performing bears and various animals from the Orient may have been seen when in transit to Europe. In the country districts feats and tricks of horsemanship were highly esteemed, and were probably demonstrated at kermis (fair) and other occasions where the farmers gathered. Organised exhibition of performing persons and animals cannot be traced before 1810, when an application was made for leave to stage a circus in Cape Town. Except for occasional theatrical performances and amateur diversions in the town, organised entertainment was rare, and the circus was one of the first forms to develop.

One of the earliest was W. H. Bell’s circus, but by the eighties there were several, including Feeley’s, Wirth’s, Cooke’s, Val Simpson’s and that of the incomparable Frank Fillis who, coming to South Africa in 1880 to join Bell’s circus, took it over when Bell died. The two mining towns, Kimberley and Johannesburg, and the seaports of Cape Town and Durban now provided profitable ‘pitches’, and the smaller inland towns, formerly almost completely Fillis’s Circus building, Cape Town, in 1895  without entertainment, constituted a worth-while ‘circuit’.

Going overseas from time to time in order to recruit his ‘turns’, Fillis developed his circus into a major entertainment which the highest in the land were glad to patronise. He established a permanent building in Johannesburg in 1889 known as ‘Fillis’s Amphitheatre’ and specialised in spectacles such as a reconstruction of the Niagara Falls, ‘Dick Turpin’s ride to York’ and ‘Major Wilson’s last stand’. These were also staged at a structure opened in 1896 in Cape Town at the foot of Adderley Street alongside the Pier. Madame Fillis was an equestrienne of note and performed haute école at a benefit night given in Johannesburg in 1895. Mr. Lionel Phillips presented Mr. Fillis with a set of diamond studs and Madame Fillis with a ruby and diamond brooch on behalf of Johannesburg residents.

The artistes and company presented him with a gold star set with diamonds’. In spite of the high tone and spectacular scope of his performances, Fillis was frequently in financial straits. In 1900 he took an extraordinary show entitled ‘Savage South Africa’ to England, but despite the attraction of an authentic South African stagecoach, black warriors and other novelties, it failed and he was again bankrupt. He was reintroduced grandly to his old South African pitch by the impresario A. Bonamici in 1902 with an ‘Imperial Circus’, but the current depression militated against him. He faced bankruptcy again and again, and his animals were once sold over his head to pay his creditors. Finally ‘Madame Fillis’s Circus and Wild West Show’ went into opposition against him in Durban in 1910. (Vincenta Fillis, once the world’s first ‘human canon-ball, died in Durban in May 1946 at the age of 75.) Frank Fillis, with the circus that had become a national institution, then left South Africa and operated in the East. He died in Bangkok in Jan. 1922, but his sons continued in the entertainment field. The eldest, Frank, a well-known cinema manager, died in Johannesburg at the age of 80 in March 1961.

During the acute depression that followed the Second Anglo-Boer War the circus was often the only entertainment in the large towns. In addition to Fillis, Bonamici himself, Blake, Willison, Bostock and Wombwell, and F. W. A. Pagel toured during this period. Pagel and his wife survived many vicissitudes to become as much a national institution as Fillis. Born in Pomerania, Wilhelm Pagel was a professional weight-lifter, wrestler and lion-tamer. Madame Pagel also performed with the lions and tigers in her earlier days. Later she left the ring to undertake the entire direction of the complex circus organisation. She was known all over South Africa and frequently caused a sensation by driving about in the streets in an open car with a fully-grown lion beside her. She died at the Pagel training farm for animals near Pretoria in December 1939. The circus continued even after her husband retired in 1944 and after his death at Knysna in October 1948. Bostock’s Circus, based in England, visited South Africa intermittently. One of its clowns, ‘Spuds’ (George Kirk), later joined Pagel, and in 1930 formed his own circus, which was disbanded in 1944.
The cinema and other forms of entertainment were drawing audiences away from the circus except in the smaller towns, where it was a welcome diversion, and in the large towns during holiday seasons. James Boswell, who with his three brothers had come to South Africa in 1910 to perform in a circus, stayed to establish his own. It rivalled Pagel’s as a South African entertainment institution, and in 1956 African Theatres bought an interest in it and kept it on the road. Boswell celebrated his 80th birthday in retirement in April 1961. Competing with Boswell on the Southern African circuit was Wilkie’s Circus, the two amalgamating on 1 July 1963 under the direction of Wilkie, and the combined circus continued to tour. A less ambitious enterprise operating simultaneously was Doyle’s Circus, which was sold in liquidation in 1967. In 1964, the two enterprises were faced by competition on a grand scale when the famous Chipperfield’s Circus was imported lock, stock and barrel from England to settle in South Africa, and opened for the Christmas season in Cape Town. A succession of misfortunes failed to prevent its establishing itself and regularly touring the sub continent.
In 1968 the International Circus Performers’ Award was won by the clown Charlie Bale, the first South African circus artist to be so honoured. Nicknamed the Circus Oscar, the trophy is awarded every five years by an international body to a circus performer whose work is outstanding.
Source:Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa

Mrs. RACHEL MALELE, who died at the age of 112 years, was a daughter of Chief Malebogo, whose country is 70 miles north of Pietersburg. She was taken a slave during a war between her people and the Dutch. During the first visit of the Prince of Wales this old lady was anxious to convey personally her thanks to His Royal Highness, for his great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, had set her free from slavery., She was a Christian and a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. Died at Potchefstroom, Transvaal, on the 26th October, 1930.