Louis van Bengale

• c1650 Birth of Louis van Bengale West Bengal, India

Bengal and Arakan in 1638 By Willem Blaeu - Novus Atlas, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=95411445''

• 1662 April 2 Louis vBengale arrives in the Cape at about 12 years old as a Slave of Zacharias Wagenaer - the next Cape Governor. The Angelier and Oijevaer had departed Batavia enroute to de Caep de Goede Hoop on 30 January 1662. Among the passengers on The Anglier are 5 personal slaves of Dresden-born Zacharias Wagenaer (1614-1668), the Cape’s 2nd commander (1662-1666): Japanese Christian Anthonij de Later van Japan; his concubine Annica van Bengale; their son Abraham; Louis van Bengale & Willem van Bengale." Mansell G. Upham 'Documented Slave Arrivals at the Cape of Good Hope (1652-1677)', First Fifty Years, Uprooted Lives - Unfurling the Cape of Good Hope's Earliest Colonial Inhabitants (1652-1713), (Unpublished), 16 November 2014.
• 1666 September 25 sold by Zacharias Wagenaer's stepdaughter to the sekunde Hendrik Lacus and his wife Lidia de Pape for the sum of 80 rijksdaalders or f 270.
• 1667 Taken over by the Company
• 1671 Bought his freedom
• 1675 May 5 Baptism NGK Kaapstad
• 1676 June 1 Louis was granted a garden in Table Valley.
• 1676 Sept 1 Granted land and builds house in Berg St, CT

Berg Lane in Bo-Kaap by KruegA

Berg Ln

• 1678 April 28 Lijsbeth breaks into Louis vBengale's house
• 1678 July Louis v Begangale owns slave Elysabet
• 1680 Oct 6 Baptism of Lijsbeth Louisz
• 1681 Owned slave Anthonij van Coromande
• 1683 July 27 Baptism of Anna Louisz
• 1683 July 27 Louis Van Bengale frees Lijsbeth & her two children
• 1683 Settles in Stellenbosch on the banks of the Eerste Rivier called 'Leef-op-Hoop'

• 1685 July 17 Louis van Bengale sold a house and erf of 50 sq. roods in Table Valley (from 1676 land grant) to Casper Solberger for f 860. Solberg paid 100 guilders in cash, the first of four instalments, the balance came in three payments over the next 3 years: f 200 on 1.3.1686, f 280 on 1.1.1687 and f 280 on 1.1.1688.
• 1686 Feb 10 Birth of Maria Louisz
• 1687 March 17 Engagement of Louis van Bengale and Lijsbeth
• 1687 May 24 Bought slave: Matthijs Java Age:28. Seller: Adriaan Brakel, Buyer: Van Louis Bengal Cape Slave Transactions – R Shell
• 1688 Lijsbeth runs off with William Teerling
• 1689 Louis takes on & dismisses knegt Willem Tarling
• 1689 October 25 Bought slave: Matthijs Malaba Age: 34. Seller: Louis Bengal, Buyer: Abraham Hartog Cape Slave Transactions – R Shell
• 1690 Returns to Cape Town Louis van Bengal abandoned his Jonkershoek farm in 1690 to return to Table Valley where he had owned two erven since the 1670s (one situated where Gardens Shopping Centre is today, the other in Hout Street). This followed a scandal involving his ‘wife’, Lysbeth Sanders…see Joanne Gibson's article.

Hout St, Bo-Kaap by Suzi-k

• 1694 March 21 Marriage of Louis van Bengale and Rebecca van Maccasser
• 1696 Dec 15 Verkoping van het stuk land, dat de overleëden vrije swart Anthonij van Angola bij sijn leven gekogt heeft, van de meede vrije swart Louis van Bengalen; waar op nog te kwaad was ƒ250 het voor de overleedene betaald is; en also de koop van dit land, tusschen beide voorsz:e swarten, bij de E:E: Weesmeesteren, onbekent is geweest wanneer op gemelde Anthonij van Angola, sijn ander goed is verkogt geworden, soo wert het selve nu bij openbaar op veijling verkogt het welk gekogt heeft / Sale of the piece of land that the deceased free black Anthony of Angola bought during his lifetime from the fellow free black Louis of Bengal; where ƒ250 was still short, it was paid for the deceased; and as the purchase of this land, between the two parties, was unknown to the E:E: Weesmeesteren, when his other property was sold by the aforementioned Anthonij van Angola, so it is now sold by public auction it which bought..

• de vaandrager Isaac Schrijver, voor ƒ381
  
• Aldus vercogt aan Caap de Goede Hoop den 15 December 1696.
  
• Gecommitteerde Weesmeesteren: W: Corsenaar, Henning Husing
  
• Mij present: A: Coopman, Secret:s
  

• 1697 April 15 Church Membership

from SA Dutch Reformed Church Archives, CapeTown, Cape of Good Hope Baptisms 1695-1712

• 1697 June 15 Bought slave: Titus Sambou Age: 22 Seller: Philiber Bresschot Van Buyer: Louis Bengal, Cape Slave Transactions – R Shell
• 1697 August 30 Makes a will & provision for his children
• 1700 August 4 Sold slave: Titus Macass Age: 20 Seller: Louis Bengal, Buyer: Van David Lingelbach Cape Slave Transactions – R Shell
• 1705 Has to sell house
• 1708 Kerkraad of Cape Town calls in an outstanding debt
• 1711 Creditors claim his garden land in Table Valley
• 1715 Dependent on aid from the church poor fund
• 1715 Louis vBengale sues to have Lijsbeth back as his slave
• 1716 Death of Louis van Bengale

  ---

Louis of Bengal and Lijsbeth van de Kaap

in Sodomy, Race and Respectability in Stellenbosch and Drakenstein, 1689 —1762: The Story of a Family, Loosely Defined Author(s): SUSAN NEWTON-KING

Source: Kronos, No. 33 (November 2007), pp. 6-44 Published by: University of Western Cape Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41056580 . Accessed: 29/09/2014 07:02

Louis of Bengal had settled in Stellenbosch in 1683 when he was 31 years old. He was among a small group of free blacks who moved to the new settlement on the banks of the Eerste River in the early 1680s in order to take advantage of free land grants and new farming opportunities, partly in response to encouragement from Governor Simon van der Stel. He was granted 29 morgen on the banks of the river in an area known as Jonkershoek, named for Jan Andriesze, otherwise known as Jan de Jonker, who lived further up the valley.86 Louis optimistically named his farm Leef op Hoop1 His near neighbours were Manuel and Anthony of Angola and Jan and Marquait of Ceylon.88 Across the river, and about three kilometres upstream on the edge of the new village of Stellenbosch, lived fellow settlers Steven Jansz Botma (at Welgevallen) and Dirk Coetzee (at Coetsenburg).89

Louis of Bengal spent his early life in slavery and, though his first owners at the Cape were men of high rank, one may assume that his childhood was hard. He was brought to the Cape in 1664 as a slave of the Commander, Zacharias Wagenaer. He was then about twelve years old.90 When Wagenaer left the colony in 1666 his step-daughter sold Louis to the Secunde, Hendrik Lacus, for 80 rix dollars.91 In 1667 Lacus was sent away from the colony in disgrace and Louis was taken over by the Company, for whom he worked without reward for five years.92 In 1671 Commissioner Isbrandt Goske, who was visiting the Cape, gave him permission to buy his freedom, but it took him some months to accumulate the means to do so. In April 1672 he was at last able to petition the Council of Policy to grant him his freedom. His petition was granted, provided he paid 50 reals of eight to Lacus' account.93

'From 1673 onwards,' notes Leon Hattingh, 'his name appeared annually on the roll of free inhabitants at the Cape.'94 Louis prospered in freedom. By 1676 he owned two pieces of land in Table Valley: a garden on the lower slopes of the mountain, 'in the vicinity of presentday Breda Street'95 and a residential plot in Bergstraat near the centre of the town.96 By April 1678 he owned one slave: Anthonij van de Cust Coromandel, who in 1681 was brutally punished by the Council of Justice for desertion and assault, and set in chains for life.97 In July 1678 Louis also acquired a female slave, the 18 year old Lijsbeth van de Kaap. She had belonged to a neighbour, the Company's master carpenter Adriaen van Brakel, who had bought her in 1671 from one Mathijs Coemans for /1 60 (53 rix dollars).98 Louis acquired her in a most unusual manner. In April 1678 she broke into his house in Bergstraat, opened a wooden cupboard in his room and stole a gold ring, three pairs of silver buttons and some money. When apprehended, she at first denied the theft, saying she had traded the items from a 'Hottento' named Corhaeij, but two days later she confessed (apparently under torture) and, presumably after receiving some form of corporal punishment, she was returned to her owner.99 The Council of Policy determined that Van Brakel should compensate Louis for the losses caused by his slave. When he failed to do so, Louis again approached the Council, which ordered that Lijsbeth be sold to raise the money.100 Instead, it seems, Van Brakel gave her directly to Louis.101

In this way Gerrit Coetzee's maternal grandmother became the slave and concubine of his grandfather, Louis of Bengal. On 6 October 1680 the first child born to Lijsbeth and Louis was baptised in the church in Cape Town.102 (Louis himself had been baptised in 1675, when he was 'about twenty-three years old'.) In July 1683, the year that Louis and his family moved to Stellenbosch, Louis signed a document in which he set Lijsbeth and her two children free. 'lek Louis van bengale bekenne vrijgegeven te hebben mijn meijtgenaamt lijsbeth van Cabo' he declared, '... en meede vrijgeefi haer twee kinderen...'105 This document was tested in court six years later, and found wanting, but there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Louis' intention at the time.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its inauspicious beginning, the union of Louis of Bengal and Lijsbeth van de Kaap was not happy. Leon Hattingh, whose meticulous work guided me to the original documents, has described it as 'apparently very stormy'.106 In March 1687 the couple made a trouwbelofie (got engaged) before the College of Landdrost and Heemraden in Stellenbosch. Exactly one year later, however, Louis appeared before the College again, this time to sue Lijsbeth for desertion and to demand that she marry him. Lijsbeth countered that her promise to marry Louis had been conditional upon an improvement in his behaviour towards her. The Landdrost had warned him, she reminded the court, that he should no longer treat her so tyrannically, 'met smijten, slaan en dreijgementen van dooden ... (with shoving, hitting and threatening to kill her ...)', but since that time things had got worse, not better, and she no longer wished to marry him, nor would she live with him.107 Lijsbeth was adamant, and she resisted all attempts of the assembled Heemraden to reconcile the couple. Finally she and Louis agreed to part: 'Lijsbeth could go where she would, but she should neither marry another nor live with him ... as long as Louis remained unmarried.' Louis got custody of the two children 'bij dito Lijsbeth in onecht geprockeert (procreated out of wedlock with the said Lijsbeth)', but the youngest child (Maria Louisz) was permitted to remain one more year with her mother, provided that Louis paid maintenance.108

Thus was Elisabeth Louisz, later to become the mother of Gerrit Coetzee, given over into the unsafe custody of her father, Louis of Bengal. The Heemraden of Stellenbosch were apparently unaware that there was a hidden dimension to this dispute. Only in April 1689, when Louis took his case to the Council of Justice in Cape Town, did it emerge that there was a third party involved.109 The Council was informed that, 'about a year and a half ago', that is, not long after Lijsbeth and Louis had concluded their trouwbelofie, Louis had taken on a knegt named Willem Teerling (or Tarling), a 55 year-old Englishman who had been 16 years in the Company's service and now worked as a shepherd among the freeburghers.110 Louis now alleged that, while in his house, Teerling had seduced and 'debauched' Lijsbeth and won her away from him. Being unable to prove this, he said, he was obliged to dismiss Teerling, whereupon Lijsbeth left him too. Her departure had caused him much damage, he averred, since he was unable to see to both the land and the livestock on his own.111 Wild animals had killed his livestock (he had lost a cow and calf to a 'wolf [jackal] and 25 sheep to a leopard); fruit and vegetables had gone to waste; 16 chickens had gone missing and 2 morgen of grain had been left untended.112 He asked the court to restore Lijsbeth to him as his slave and to free him once and for all from his trouwbelofte. From Teerling he wanted damages to the amount of /450 for losses suffered as a result of Lijsbeth 's departure.113 The Fiscal elected to institute a criminal prosecution against both Lijsbeth and Teerling, the former for disobeying and deserting her 'patroorì and owner and the latter for debauching Louis' slave and seducing her away from her duty.114 The Fiscal was unimpressed by Lijsbeth's vrijbrief. He called it 'her pretended letter of freedom' {'haare pretense brief van vrijdom') and said that it was of no value, because it had been issued on private authority and had not been validated by an oath sworn before the Secretary [of the Council of Justice?] and properly appointed witnesses. Furthermore, even a properly freed slave was required to remain obedient o his former master.115 The Fiscal concluded that Teerling should be compelled to make good Louis' losses and to labour for two years at the public works; Lijsbeth should be whipped and branded and then restored to Louis as his slave, 'with costs'.116 Lijsbeth and Teerling wisely denied having had carnal relations while still in Louis' house, and Teerling, perhaps mindful of the agreement reached between Lijsbeth and Louis before the Heemraden of Stellenbosch in March 1688, denied that he had lived with her thereafter. But Lijsbeth freely admitted that she had had a steady relationship with Teerling since her departure from Louis' house and that (in April 1689) she was four months pregnant by him.117 The court declined to grant the Fiscal all that he asked. Teerling was condemned to pay a fine of 25 rix dollars and to labour for two months at the public works; he was also to compensate Louis for his losses, by an amount still to be determined by the court. Lijsbeth was apparently discharged without punishment.118 She was not obliged to return to Louis. It seems, however, that this court case marked the end of Lijsbeth van de Kaap's relationship with Willem Teerling.

According to her testimony before the Council of Justice in 1689, after she left Louis's house at the end of 1787, she had gone to join her (unnamed) mother 'ten huijse van Abram van guinea'.119 Teerling had gone to live first with Anthony of Angola (Louis' immediate neighbour) and then with Jan Andriesze van Rijssen (Jan de Jonker) further up the valley of Jonkershoek. While there he seems to have had almost daily contact with Lijsbeth, so it is reasonable to assume that Abram van Guinea also lived in Jonkershoek, possibly with Jan Andriesze himself, or with Jan of Ceylon, Louis's neighbour on the other side.120 However, while Teerling certainly returned to Stellenbosch after the completion of his sentence in September 1689, he does not seem to have rejoined Lijsbeth van de Kaap. In 1691 and 1692 he appears on the muster rolls as a single man.121 And by 1695, as we know from another source, Lijsbeth van de Kaap was already involved with the man who was to become her life partner, Johann Herbst or Herfst of Bremen.

In January 1696 Lijsbeth (now aged about 36 and described as 'a free black living in Stellenbosch') was again charged with theft. The Fiscal (Joan Blesius) alleged that, one Friday evening in March 1695, while lodging in Cape Town with the free black Jacob Cornelisz of Bengal, she had taken a locked casket {'seeker kleijn indische kisje met kopere hengsels en slot plaatse') in which Jacob Cornelisz kept his most precious goods ('comprising silverwork and other small things'), removed it secretly from the house and taken it the next day to Stellenbosch.122 The Fiscal was able to produce a confession signed with Lijsbeth's mark, as well as the damning evidence of two veldwagters attached to the Drostdy of Stellenbosch. They had been asked by Jacob Cornelisz to fetch Lijsbeth from the house of the freeburgher, Jan Herbst, and bring her to him so that he could confront her in their presence. She was indeed to be found at the house of Jan Herbst, which was located less than half an hour's walk from the village (probably in Jonkershoek).123 Lijsbeth was guilty - she had admitted her guilt when confronted by Jacob Cornelisz and had returned the casket to him (with most of its contents)124 in the presence of the Secretary of Stellenbosch - and the Fiscal demanded that, as 'a common thief and repeat offender, she be punished in public and 'in her person'. He asked that she be brought to the public scaffold, 'and there delivered to the executioner, bound to a pole and severely whipped with rods', and thereafter clapped in chains to labour for three years at the public works.125 Lijsbeth again admitted guilt but asked that she be spared the humiliation of a public whipping. She would be willing to pay a fine instead.126 The court was lenient by the standards of the day: it ruled that the whipping would be administered by the caff er s (convict police) in the Company's slave lodge {'in 7 slaven quartier') - thus not exactly in private, but out of view of the general citizenry - and that the sentence of three years hard labour could be commuted to a fine of 50 rix dollars, 'in case of prompt payment'.127

Did Lijsbeth serve out her sentence with the chain gang? Or did her lover Johann Herbst pay the fine? It seems unlikely that he could have raised the money. In 1692 Herbst had formed apartnership with Cornelis Joosten, according to which the two men agreed to share the costs and the returns of farming Joosten's land in Jan de Jonkershoek. In return for the use of the land, Herbst would help Joosten repay his debts to the Company.128 But by 1695 the partnership seems to have been dissolved. In that year Herbst was listed alone on the muster rolls, with two children (one of whom may have been Lijsbeth's unnamed child by Willem Teerling and the other her little daughter Clara, fathered by Herbst)129 but neither 'maaf nor spouse. Joosten, by contrast, had formed a new partnership with another man, named Hans Jürgen.130 It emerges from another source that in 1694 Herbst had concluded an agreement with a certain Claas van Guinea ('Klaes van genea'): Herbst would provide Claas and his concubine (Hoen or Hoena van Guinea)131 with food, help him sow a muid of grain each year, and provide him with a garden, from which he, Herbst, 'would enjoy no more than what was needed to feed his family'. In return, Claas would place his six oxen at Herbst's disposal.132 This agreement seems to have been markedly favourable to Claas van Guinea and Hattingh has suggested that he, rather than Abraham van Guinea, may have been the father of Lijsbeth van de Kaap. Hattingh notes that Claas van Guinea had made a similar agreement with Louis of Bengal on 15 October 1687, around the time (perhaps a little before) that Lijsbeth had left him for Teerling.133

Certainly it seems very probable that Lijsbeth's parents were West African slaves. The so-called Guiñean slaves had arrived at the Cape in 1658, brought by the VOC from the coast of Dahomey, in contravention ofits agreement with the Dutch West India Company. 'Some were sent on to Batavia, some retained by the Company and some assigned to the first freeburghers.'134

According to Hattingh, Claas van Guinea was freed by the Company in 1687 (the year of his agreement with Louis of Bengal), as 'old and worn out'.135 Lijsbeth van de Caap was born in 1659,136 so she may well have been the child of two newly imported 'Guiñean' slaves. We do know, at least, that her brother, the free black Pieter Willemsz, also known as Pieter Willemsz Tamboer, transport-rider and drummer in the Stellenbosch burgher cavalry, was sometimes known as 'Pieter Willemsz Africano'.137 If Lijsbeth van de Kaap had served her full sentence, she would have been freed from the chain gang in 1699. In that year Johann Herbst was granted land on the upper reaches of the Wamakers River in the newly settled region of Wagenmakersvalleij (now Wellington). Herbst (or Herfst) named his farm 'Opper1 28 1 /STB 1 8/40, Contracts, 1 694- 1 70 1 , 1 0 December 1 692. Herbst brought 8 oxen and 1 1 2 sheep into the partnership. herfst'. He lived there with Lijsbeth (now known as Lijsbeth Sanders)138 until his death in 1734, though in 1724 the farm was transferred to his son-in-law, Johannes Vosloo, on condition that Vosloo maintain him for the remainder of his life (Lijsbeth Sanders was not named in the agreement).139 Herbst and Lijsbeth Sanders had two daughters: Clara, who may have been born before Lijsbeth was convicted of theft in 1696, and Gerbrecht, who was born in 1702 and married Johannes Vosloo in 1718.140 When they first settled at Opperherfst, Lijsbeth and Herbst were assisted by the burgher (and tailor) Heinrich Venter, who agreed to help Herbst, 'wegen zijn swaekheijf (on account of his infirmity) to establish the farm. They would sow and reap together and share the profit and the loss.141 Venter made his 60 cattle available for ploughing and manure and pastured his sheep on the land. In 1704, however, Venter eceived his own land further downstream on the Berg River. He presumably then left Herbst and Lijsbeth Sanders to fend for themselves. In time, as we shall see, they gathered around themselves a small community of relatives, including the husbands and lovers of Lijsbeth's daughters by Louis of Bengal. *

Louis returned to Cape Town in 1690, bitter over the departure of his slave and concubine and crippled by the losses he had suffered. He sold Leef op Hoop to his neighbour, Anthony of Angola, and retreated to Cape Town where he still owned a house and a garden plot. In 1694 he married Rebecca of Macassar, a free woman and a Christian (possibly a mardijker), recently arrived from Batavia.142 She joined the Cape church on arrival and it was perhaps under her influence, as Karel Schoeman suggests, that Louis was confirmed as a full member of the church in 1697. 143 For a while they lived a life of modest comfort in Louis' house in Bergstraat, but in 1705 Louis' debts caught up with him and he was obliged to submit o the sale of his house and its contents in execution of a judgment against him.144 Louis had many debts - in 1703 he had mortgaged his house for 200 guilders to Joan Blesius the Fiscal (the same who had prosecuted Lijsbeth van de Kaap in 1696) - and one wonders whether some were not incurred in a bid for respectability and burgher status, as Louis settled down to life as a married man and church-goer in the Colony's only town.145 In1703, for example, he bought six ebony chairs at the auction of Christina Does, a prominent resident of the town.146 The list of his possessions sold at auction in 1705 includes a backgammon board, eight porcelain dolls with porcelain hair, a silk cabaaij (jacket), 12 pictures, 2 mirrors, a curtained bed, 4 sheets, a teapot, 2 porcelain cups and saucers, 24 porcelain plates, 23 porce lain serving dishes, 18 table napkins, a round table and 12 chairs, including the 6 ebony chairs acquired in 1703.147 The house itself (recorded as ' 7 huijs van Swart Louis') was sold for 603 rix dollars. This was not the end of Louis's troubles. 'Indeed Hattingh remarks that since 1676 he was never without debt', notes Karel Schoeman.148 In 1708 the Kerkraad of Cape Town called in an outstanding debt of /300 and in 171 1 his creditors finally claimed his garden land in Table Valley.149 By 1715 he and his wife Rebecca were dependent on aid from the church poor fund. In that same year Louis made one last futile attempt to force Lijsbeth to return to him: he sued Jan Herbst for the return of his 'slave'. The Council of Justice dismissed his claim as 'frivolous' and fined him 2 rix dollars for having handed in a document without aseal.150

Louis died soon after, penniless and apparently embittered. His widow, described in church documents as 'Rebecka' or 'de vrouw van Swarte Louis', remained dependent on a monthly grant from the poor fund until her death in 1724.151 Louis had made her his sole and universal heir, but there was no estate to bequeath. However Louis's three 'onegte hinderen', Elisabeth, Maria and Anna, were each left 50 guilders, for Louis had wisely entrusted these monies to the Orphan Chamber at the time of his marriage to Rebecca.152

• 86 Jan Andriesze was also known as Jan Andriesze van Rijssen or Van Arendsdorp. (Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 39, 80.)
• 87 Schoeman, Armosyn, 646.
• 88 Hattingh, Eerste Vryswartes, map, p. 87; Schoeman, Armosyn, 649.
• 89 See Leonard Guelke, 'The southwestern Cape Colony, 1657-1750: treehold land grants , map produced Dy tne uepartmeni of Geography, University of Waterloo, 1987.
• 90 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 21 ; Schoeman, Armosyn, 646.
• 91 Anna Böeseken, Slaves and free blacks at the Cape, I65Ü-I7ÜU (Cape Town: larelberg, IV / /), Z8. une rix dollar equalled 48 stuiwers.
• 92 C 8, Resolutions of the Council of Policy, 1 3 April 1 672. 24 103 She became known as Elisabeth Louisz or Lowice. Louis and Lijsbeth had at least one further child, Maria, christened in 1686. Lijsbeth cannot have been Louis' only partner, however, for in 1685 a third daughter, Anna Louisz, was christened in Cape Town and her mother's name was given as Maria van de Kaap.104
• 93 1 real was worth 54 stuiwers: 50 reals thus eaualled 56.5 rix dollars.
• 94 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 2 1 .
• 95 Schoeman, Armosyn, 646.
• 96 Ibid., 646; Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 2 1 .
• 97 Hattingh, 'Die blanke nageslag van Louis van Bengalen en Lijsbeth van die Kaap', 6 and Eerste vrijswartes, 22. See also Böeseken, Slaves and free blacks, 90 and C 13, Resolutions, 14 July 1678.
• 98 Hattingh, 'Blanke nageslag' 12; Böeseken, Slaves and free blacks, 128; C 13, Resolutions, 14 July 1678.
• 99 CJ 2954, Confessien en interrogatorien, 1677-1685, 28 and 30 April 1678. I am deeply indebted to Mansell Upham for drawing my attention to these documents and for transcribing them. It has proved impossible to find a record of Lijsbeth 's trial. The record of her confession on 30 April 1678 refers to her amending her previous confession 'op scherper examinatie' but there is no mention of this in the minutes of the Council of Justice for that year.
• 100 C 13, Resolutions, 14 July 1678.
• 101 This is the inference drawn by Mansell Upham, and it is supported by circumstantial evidence.
• 102 Hattingh, 'Blanke nageslag', 16.
• 103 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 22.
• 104 Ibid., 10, 12 and 19. According to Hattingh, a woman named Maria van de Kaap was a godparent at the Christening of Maria Louisz in 1686. 25
• 105 1 /STB 1 8/ 1 44, Notarial Declarations, 27 July 1 683 .
• 106 Hattingh, Blanke nageslag , /.
• 107 Ibid.
• 108 Ibid., 7. The source of the quotations is not named, but it must be 1/STB 5/1, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 15 March 1688.
• 109 CJ 3, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 10 February 1689.
• 110 CJ 291, Documents in criminal cases, interrogation ot Willem leerling, b April lò»y. 26
• 111 CJ 29 1 , Statement of Louis of Bengal, 6 April 1 689.
• 112 See list translated and reproduced in Hattingh, Eerste vryswarte, 25. The original document is almost illegible.
• 113 CJ 3, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 1 0 February 1 689; CJ 29 1 , Statement of Louis of Bengal. Louis's recourse to the Council of Justice was perhaps provoked by a successful civil suit brought by Teerling in June 1688 for the repayment of 31 rix dollars which he had lent to Louis. (1/STB 5/1, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 1 1 June 1688.)
• 114 CJ 29 1 , Eijsch of Fiscal Cornelis Linnes, 1 689.
• 115 Ibid. On the duty of freed slaves towards their former masters, see Schoeman, Armosyn, 670 and Hattingh, Vryswartes, 56.
• 116 CJ 29 1 , Eijsch of Fiscal Cornelis Linnes, 1 689.
• 117 CJ 29 1 , Testimony of Lijsbeth van de Caap, 6 April 1 689.
• 118 CJ 3, Minutes of proceedings in criminal cases, 6 July 1689.
• 119 CJ 29 1 , Interrogation of Willem Teerling, 6 April 1 689. 27
• 120 Abram van Guinea seems to have entered into a short-lived partnership with Matthijs Calmer. See Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 47. The Stellenbosch muster rolls for 1691 list the name of Abraham van Guinea immediately after that of 'Paij [Marquait] van Ceijlon' and the rolls for 1692 list 'Abraham van Guinea and Pladoor [Plat oorl' below the names of Cornells Joosten en Jan Hersts' who farmed as 'maats' in Jonkershoek atthe time. (VC 39, Muster rolls, 1660-1700; 1/STB 18/40, Contracts, 10 December 1692.)
• 121 VC 39, Muster rolls, 1 660- 1 700.
• 122 CJ 299, Documents in criminal cases, 1 696, eijsch of Fiscal Joan Blesius, 26 January 1 696. For Jacob Cornelisz, also known as Jacob Cornelisz of Ceylon, see Schoeman, Armosyn, 640.
• 123 CJ 299, Testimony of the soldier Pieter Sours, 1 3 January 1 696.
• 124 The contents of the casket are listed in CJ 299, Testimony of Hans Jürgen Smith, 25 January 1696.
• 125 CJ 229, Eijsch of Provisional Fiscal Joan Blesius, exhibited in court 26 January 1 696.
• 126 CJ 3, Minutes ot proceedings in criminal cases, 5 .' January 1OVO.
• 127 Ibid. 28
• 129 Herbst also had a son, named Johannes, born of the slave Cecilia of Angola in 1685. (Heese, Groep sonder grense, 9.)
• 130 VC 39, Muster rolls, 1 660- 1 700. The significance of this will become clear below.
• 131 VC 39, Muster rolls, 1 660- 1 700.
• 132 1/STB 18/40, Contracts, 1694-1701, 2 January 1694.
• 133 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 44.
• 134 James Armstrong and Nigel Worden, 'The slaves, 1652-1834', in Elphick and Giliomee (eds), Shaping, 112.
• 135 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 42.
• 136 Hattingh, 'Blanke nageslag', 10.
• 137 1 /STB 5/10, Minutes of proceedings incivil cases, 1 1 May 1716. For the relationship between Pieter Willemsz and Lijsbeth van de Caap (or Lijsbeth Sanders, as she became known), see 1/STB 5/3, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 28 November 1729. For Pieter Willemsz' role as 'tamboer', see Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 48. 29
• 138 Mansell Upham suggests that 'Sanders' was derived from Alexander, which may have been Lijsbeth's father's name.
• 139 Le Roux and Le Roux, Onse Drakensteinse erjgrond: tiovlei (Drakenstein HeemKnng, undated), 1 1 ; ueeds urnce, i dw, volume 33, donation inter vivos, 13 April 1724.
• 140 Heese and Lombard, Suid-Afrikaanse gslagsregisters, vol. 3 (Pretoria: HSRC, 1992), 328.
• 141 1 /STB 1 8/40, Contracts 1689- 1 70 1 , 1 7 March 1 699.
• 142 Hattingh, 'Blanke nageslag', 9; Schoeman, Armosyn, 647.
• 143 Schoeman, Armosyn, 647.
• 144 CJ 4, part 1 , 1 54, 6 October 1 704.
• 145 Louis is described as a 'vrijburger' in several contemporary documents.
• 146 TEPC Project and Sentrum, MOOC 10/1 .27, Inventory of Christina Does, 8 October 1703. 30
• 147 CJ 2913, 116, list of movable goods sold in execution at the house of the Vrijswart Louis van Bengalen, 19 January 1705.
• 148 Schoeman, Armosyn' 648.
• 149 Hattingh, Eerste vryswartes, 29; Schoeman, Armosyn, 648.
• 150 CJ 6, Minutes of proceedings in civil cases, 142, 14 November 1715.
• 151 Schoeman, Armosyn, 648. 1 52 CJ 2597, Wills, 30 August 1 697.

This content downloaded from 196.11.235.237 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:02:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

https://www.academia.edu/31217292/Sodomy_race_and_respectability

Die Eerste Vryswartes Van Stellenbosch - 1679-1720 by Prof. J.L. Hattingh, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, 1981
[THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF SECTION 3 OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATION, CONCERNING LOUIS VAN BENGALE - NOT A PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATION]
Die Eerste Vryswartes Van Stellenbosch - 1679-1720 by Prof. J.L. Hattingh, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, 1981 | South African History Online THE FIRST FREE BLACKS OF STELLENBOSCH - 1679-1720 3. Louis of Bengal In 1684 Louis of Bengal (another colourful character amongst the free blacks) also went in search of a farm of about 29 acres next to the Eerste (First) River in Jonkershoek. He did this because it seems that others, as well as Manuel and Antonie of Angola, were already living in the area. This farm, as that of Manuel and Antonie, was only given to him on 15 October 1692. Because of this unprecedented decision, many references were made to Louis of Bengal in previous writings. Dr. Boeseken, in her book "Slaves and Free Blacks at the Cape 1658-1700", gives some details of his life, although it tells us nothing of his farming activities in Stellenbosch. The parts she does deal with are often vague and incomplete. She, however, is not the first to make mistakes or be misinformed about him. Dr. De Wet in his article "Die Vry Bevolking" ("The Free Nation") says that not only was Louis a landowner "but probably a farmer as well". He was not too sure either. Many other articles have been written about him, e.g. J.L. Hattingh, "Die Blanke Nageslag van Louis van Bengale en Lijsbeth van die Kaap" (The white off-spring of Louis of Bengal and Lijsbeth of the Cape). A concerted effort has been made here to piece together all the facts, as accurately as possible, with the exception of facts before 1680. A full and truthful picture of Louis of Bengal has been difficult. It is possible that Louis came to the Cape in 1664, along with Commander Zacharias Wagennaar because on his departure from the Cape he sold Louis to his second-in-command - Hendrik Lucas for 80 Rds. However Lucas got involved with a fraud case: that is why, in 1671, the visiting Commissioner at the time, Isbrand Goske, granted Louis the opportunity to purchase his freedom. Louis, however, could not afford the very high price. It was only a year later in 1672 that he was allowed to buy his freedom for 50 reale. His name appeared regularly from 1673 on the monsterrol, in the list of free blacks listed in the Cape. According to Dr. De Wet, Louis received a piece of land from the authorities in 1675 in the Table Valley area, apparently to farm with fruit and vegetables. This gift was obviously influenced by one fact. On 5 May 1675 Louis christened himself in the Cape's Church, describing himself "a sane person and free young man of Bengali origin and approximately 23 years old," - and declaring himself a Christian out of his own free will. With this action he also gained the admiration of the other freed blacks in the area. Two years later he was witness in town to another christening, that of slave Susanna and her son Pieter (the name of the father is listed in the town's register as "unknown Christian"). Louis was often asked to be witness at christenings and elevated to the status of "Godfather"; often it was of people not even related to him. If he was 23 years old when he was christened, he must have been 45 years old when he became a member of the Cape's Church on 15 April 1697 - this was granted after lengthy questioning and confession (declaring of his faith). As far as can be established, it was the first time in the decade that a free black was asked to confess and become a member of the Church. The rest of the blacks were happy to be christened. The step that Louis took was greatly influenced by his wife Rebecca from Macassar as she was already a member of a Church in the East. It was with that as proof, as a Church member, that she was allowed to enter the Cape in 1693. In 1680 Louis had to appear in court because he was caught chopping wood in a prohibited area. In his own defence he pleaded innocent as he said he was ignorant and could not read the instructions that prohibited the chopping of wood. That might have been the case. But Louis was one of the few blacks that had a very distinctive handwriting. He could repeatedly sign the same way. He made his L upright, while the V and B were joined together. The court, however, did not accept his excuse and fined him 4 Rixdollars. This was obviously not a very effective form of punishment, because a year later Louis' slave was caught doing the same thing. This time, however, he squarely put the blame on the slave. The slave's name was Anthony of the Coast of Coromandel. He was found guilty a year earlier of desertion. He was also found guilty of drawing his knife in a fight against a Lieutenant Jan Baptis. His punishment for this was to be tied by the neck while standing upright and be beaten and branded. Each of his middle fingers was also chopped off and had to be kept in chains for the rest of his life. After the sentence was carried out he was allowed to return to his master, who also had to pay for the cost of carrying out the sentence. This incident slid Louis deeper into debt. He asked Andries Houwer(whom he had asked for money before and will again later) eleven Rixdollars to pay for the court costs. By May 1683 Louis owed Houwer 62 Rds and had promised to pay it back in 1684-85. We are not sure if it was the same debt or more, but by March 1687 Houwer sued/summoned Louis to court to pay him 47 Rds and 5 bags of wheat. A year later he owed Houwer 65 Rds, 6 bags of wheat and 4 kilos(?) of fish. Because of this huge debt he promised that after the harvest of 1689 and 1690 he would be able to pay off half of his debt. On this occasion he used all of his possessions as collateral. In the same year, on 4 November 1688 Louis signed another letter of debt; this was done in the presence of Sybrand Mankadan, the secretary of Stellenbosch area and surroundings. In the letter he admits that he further owed Houwer f800 for 200 sheep he had bought. He also promises to pay it back in two instalments, during 1689 and 1690. However, if Houwer decides to return to the Netherlands, he promised to pay back the full amount. He was very optimistic because in March of the same year, he had another debt - (that of Aarnout Willemse, whom he owed 8 Rixdollars) - postponed until after the sheep season. After only three months of purchasing the sheep, Houwer demanded the first payment of f476, although Louis offered to return all the sheep (as per an agreement between the two parties). In April 1689 another case came to court regarding this matter. Louis did not defend this case and as compensation offered "good/healthy" sheep in return. This created the impression that the sheep he had returned 3-4 months earlier, after buying them, were in weaker state when he did receive them; or that he had replaced them with inferior ones. A few days later, both Louis and Houwer were sued by Jacob van Heur for damages to his vegetable garden which was apparently caused on the day the sheep were delivered, 24 April 1689. Van Heur claimed for all the damages to the freshly sowed seeds as well as 100 heads of cabbage that was destroyed. Houwer, as owner of the sheep at the time, had to pay 12 gulde. Before leaving the Cape to settle in Stellenbosch, Louis, on 27 July 1683, freed Lijsbeth from Cape and her two children from slavery. He referred to her as "his woman". His only condition for her freedom was that she remain loyal to him for one more year. He didn't give any reason for granting her freedom, but on 17 March 1687, in the presence of the Stellenbosch magistrate, they declared their marriage vows. From this Dr. Boeseken concluded that they were indeed married. She also suspected that he had earlier been married to a Zara; this she concluded because when the slave Hendrik Locas was sentenced by the Political Council in 1667, reference was made to Louis' Hottentot housewife/wife Zara. Dr. Boeseken could find no church register to prove that these marriages actually took place. Actually it was the exchange of the promise of a marriage that might occur in the future, although at that time they already had two children. Lijsbeth of the Cape, his former slave, left him when he fired his hired help - 50-year-old white, Willem Teerling - suspecting him of having an affair with Lijsbeth. She accused Louis of not living up to the promise he had made in front of the magistrate because he continued to beat her and continually threatened to kill her. That is why she refused to stay with him, keep house for him or marry him. Louis alleged that because she wasn't a Christian he was not obliged to honour his marriage vow to her. Because she refused to marry him, he tried to have her re-registered as a slave, but the court upheld his previous decision and found it binding that she stay free. As far as his relationship with the Hottentot woman Zara is concerned, we don't have much information. However, if we take into consideration that he was 23 years old when christened and had eight years previously in 1667 already been bound to Zara, it must mean that he was but 15 years old at the time. So it seems that although the papers refer to her as his housewife, it was most likely that she was his housekeeper. It is also possible that Zara's name was linked to that of Louis because of his wild lifestyle. The feud between Louis and Willem Teerling continued. First Teerling sued him for Rds31 he had loaned to him and he also considered suing because the loan was long overdue. On the first charge he got an order against Louis for payment. When the creditors arrived for the money Louis claimed that he would not pay unless he was first paid for damages. He also said that the law "could do what they like". Because of his self-confidence and attitude, the creditors came to a satisfactory conclusion (were satisfied?) and did not bother him for money again. After this Louis on his part demanded damages from Willem Teerling. He based his charges on the fact that Willem stole his slave and through this action caused him losses in earnings and financial loss. He charged that he couldn't look after his farm and cattle at the same time. He calculated the damages at f574, but only asked for f450. According to the "memorandum of loss" because of Willem's action, this was his calculation: Tiger killed 25 sheep one night f100 Wolf killed a cow and calf 60 ? 40 @ bags of whet/corn (75-100kg. each) destroyed 200 * hens, then another 8, disappeared 16 2 blankets and 5 pillows taken 33 Loss of garden fruit 25 ¼ of a load loss 50 Loss of 6 weeks of butter, milk etc. 50 ____ f 574 Teerling was found guilty by the Board of Justice for the stealing of Louis' slave and fined 25 Rds. He also had to serve two months "hard labour" for the Company, and had to pay f 450 in damages to Louis. Whether he was capable of doing this is another story. In the time that Louis tried farming in Jonkershoek he tried to acquire the services of Claas of Guinea, a fellow free black. They signed a contract on 15 October 1687 (about the time that Teerling left his service). Claas would help with agriculture, especially the planting, ploughing and farming of the fields. Louis in his turn offered to give him enough land to grow vegetables and plant one head of wheat/corn in the first year, but on a loan basis only; the next year to be increased to 2 heads of wheat/corn and so on to 3 the next, then 4, then 5 etc. etc. as long as he stayed. Louis, however, still had to provide for his food. How long this agreement lasted is not known. Claas was probably related to Lijsbeth because when she left Louis, she would have gone to her mother who was with Abraham from Guinea. Hardly any contact betwen Abraham and Claas existed because it could have caused more friction between Louis and Lijsbeth. In 1689 Louis had another disagreement with Lijsbeth about she and "her people" slaughtering his sheep. It did not go to court, but it was probably the final straw that made him decide to give up farming altogether and finally leave Stellenbosch. It was the next year in July 1690 that he finally left to settle in the Table Valley area again. This means that he was one of the free blacks that did not stay too long in Stellenbosch. Louis' attempt at farming never reached great heights. He didn't even declare the few sheep that he had in 1688 as part of his assets for that year. Two years after leaving his farm in Jonkershoek, it was finally granted/given to him to on 15 September 1692. Because of this award Dr. Boeseken could not pinpoint his return to the Cape. She alleges that in 1694, while married to Rebecca, he was still living in Stellenbosch. Because another plot was given to him in the Table Valley area in 1699, she concludes that he must have returned before the turn of the century. But in the next paragraph she talks about his estate and what should happen to it after his death - which she indicates two pages previously should have happened in 1696 - apparently because it was then that his farm was sold to the Chamber of Orphanage. She also indicates that the estate was only finally resolved in 1705. All her conclusions and incorrect findings are obviously the result of an incomplete research and hasty conclusions. Louis' farm was indeed sold to the Orphan Chamber in 1696 for f400. But this was in favour of the estate of Anthonie of Angola, in respect of a verbal agreement and sold "out of hand" before the land was granted to Louis in 1692. Which means that the land was granted to Louis in error. The selling of his possessions in 1705 was also not because he had died, but because it was a legal necessity to sell it to cover all his debts. He could also not have died in 1696 because he and his wife Rebecca drew up the testament together on 30 August 1697, at the time declaring themselves sane and as residents of the Table Valley area. The longest surviving of the two would be the only beneficiary, although he did promise his three illegitimate daughters - Lijsbeth, Ann and Maria Louisz - each f50. This he had to pay to Chamber of Orphans. The legal selling of Louis' possessions was abandoned on 19 January 1705 because of a case brought against him by Hendrik Ploege in October 1704 for repayment of a loan of f451. Louis asked for a postponement but Hendrik refused. The court ordered him to pay the full amount in cash. Because he didn't have the cash, an auction was held at his house. Only half of the house belonged to him and this brought in Rds 606.5.2. While loose goods brought in Rds 133.4.3. In total his belongings brought in Rds 739.9.5. As was the custom at the time, free citizens could use such an auction to acquire their own possessions. All the proceeds for that day came to Rds 997.3.5. Which means that not all proceeds went to Louis as Dr. Boeseken indicates. His part of the deal was the tidy sum of f 2200 (1Rds = f3) = Rds 733.3.3. We can gather from the list of items that Louis had great taste - a round table, 2 mirrors, 6 high black chairs, side-boards. He did succeed in gathering some things. In September of the same year he succeeded in acquiring four paintings at the official auction of Gerrit Hendrik Meyer. Besides the huge profits from his own auction, it was not the end of his financial troubles. In fact, since he was granted land in 1676, when he promised to pay the purchase price of f760 in four instalments by 1685, he was never without debt again. On November 22, 1708, Louis was asked by the Church to pay in an outstanding amount of f300 plus interest. It appears that he had signed letters of debt (promissory note?) on April 1694 for f400 and another in January 1699 for f200. Over the years he had managed to pay back only half of the total sum. This time the court rejected all his pleas. By September 1711 the interest had run up to f48. He had also signed another letter of debt in April 1703 with Joan Blesius. After that he signed surety in October 1710 for another freed slave, Joseph of Batavia. The Board of Justice, on 10 September 1711, declared that Louis' property in Table Valley had to be sold at public auction. This occurred on 9 November. Another burgher Jan Mijnderts Kruijwagen bought it for f1120. Apparently it was just enough to cover all his outstanding debts. When exactly he died cannot be determined but in November 1715 he was still alive, because it was then that he sued Jan Hars (Herfst) to have Elisabeth of the Cape once again reinstated as his slave. But now she had already lived with Jan for two decades. The court rejected his "frivolous request" with costs and fined him Rds 2 plus the cost of the documents he had submitted to the court with insufficient stamps. In 1717 the monsterrol only had the name of his widow listed, which indicates that he had died in the interim. No estate was left. Because he had spent only a short time in Stellenbosch he did not play an important part as a free black there. He was not a successful farmer, led an unhappy social life and was one of the few who had left the area in the 1790s. Due to his unsuccessful attempt at leading an eccentric/expensive lifestyle in the Table Valley area, he did not make much of an impression as an important personality. It is actually the marriage of his three daughters to white men that brought him fame. He and his slave-woman Lijsbeth had through their daughters left behind a great legacy. Some of their offspring were of great fame as well. It is also important to take note of the fact that he had embraced Christianity.

VAN BENGALE Louis, WRITTEN BY AM VAN RENSBURG ON 30 NOVEMBER 1999 https://www.stamouers.com/index.php/stamouers/surnames-v-z/510-van-...
Louis (Louijs, Lowijs) van Bengale land as jongslaaf op 2 April 1662 met die skip Angelier saam met Commandeur Zacharias Wagenaer van Batavia aan die Kaap. Wagenaer het vyf slawe na die Kaap gebring. Maria de Buquoij, stiefdogter van Wagenaer verkoop Louis (hy was toe omtrent 14 jaar oud) aan secunde Hendrik Lacus vir Rds 80. Lacus het 'n drankprobleem gehad en het ook sy vrou aangerand. Louis het verklaar dat hy gesien het "dat hij, Lacus, zijn vrou, hij dronken zijnde, veeltijs sloeg en smeet als zeer qualijk bejegende". Toe Lacus van bedrog beskuldig is, het Isbrandt Goske wat die Kaap as Kommissaris besoek het, in 1671 vir Louis die kans gegun om sy vryheid te koop. In April 1672 kon Louis dit nog nie bekostig het nie, maar op 13 April 1672 word Louis se versoek by die Politieke Raad ingedien. As Louis 50 reale van 8 betaal het, stem hulle dat hy dan sy reg tot vryheid mag kry.
Louis word op 5 Mei 1675 as 'n volwassene ('out omtrent drij en twintig jaar') in Kaapstad gedoop, maar word eers in 1697 'n lidmaat van die kerk. Hy ontvang ook 'n stuk grond in die Tafelvallei in 1675. Hierdie stuk grond het in die noorde aan Jan van Oldenrijck, en in die suide aan die van Anthony van Bengale gegrens. Louis bekom op 1 September 1676 'n erf in Bergstraat (nou Georgestraat), waarop hy drie jaar later reeds 'n huis gebou het. Later boer hy in Jan de Jonkershoek op sy plaas Leef-op-Hoop, 'n plaas waarvan die erfbrief op 15 Oktober 1692 opgeteken is.
Louis word September 1680 met Rds 4 beboet in omdat hy sonder 'n permit hout gekap het.
Sy eerste vrou was 'n khoi-khoi met die naam Zara. 'n Argivale verwysing, gedateer 31 Oktober 1667, dui daarop dat Lacus die volgende persone in diens gehad het: "zijn slaaf genaemt Louijs, ende zijn huijsvrouw d' Hottentotinne Zara"
Die volgende verskyn in die Resolusies van die Politieke Raad. C. 13, pp. 61-66: "Woensdagh 14 Julij ao. 1678.
Den vrijje swart, louwis van Bengale, te kennen gevende dat den baes timmerman Adriaen van Brakel, in conformite van het besluijt van den Gouverneur en Raadt de dato wegens ’t geene desselffs slavin hem hadde ontvreemt, niets wilde toevoegen en gevolghlijck geen accordt met hem conde aangaen, Soo is daarop geresolveert, soo hij kan doen blijcken sijn pretentie rechtmatigh te wesen, dat de gemelte slavin ten behoeve van de g’interesseerde sal werden verkogt, mits dat den eijgenaer daertoe consent draagt off andersints hem te vrede stelt".
In 1680 het Louis die slavin, Lijsbeth, die dogter van twee slawe gekoop.
(Volgens Karel Schoeman was haar ouers - Abraham en Pladoor van Guinea, maar volgens Mansell Upham was haar moeder heel moontlik Lijsbet van Angola).

In 1683 word Lijsbeth en haar twee kinders deur Louis vrygestel, en in die dokument staan daar onder andere die volgende geskryf: "mijn meijt genaemt Lijsbeth van de Kaap". Sover ons weet was minstens een van hierdie twee kinders 'n kind van Louis. Haar naam was Elizabeth, en met haar doop in 1680 was die slavin Groot Armosyn die getuie.
Louis het in 1685 ook 'n kind met die naam van Anna by Maria van de Kaap gehad.
Louis en die voormalige slavin, Lijsbeth van de Kaap, lê in 1687 voor die Landdros en Heemraad die troubelofte af. Kort hierna het Lijsbeth 'n verhouding met hulle 56 jarige Engelse kneg en veewagter, Willem Teerling, gehad. Later was Lijsbeth blykbaar swanger met die kind van Teerling en het sy vir Louis verlaat.
Louis het Teerling voor die hof gedaag, maar nie soos verwag kan word aangaande sy verhouding met Lijsbeth nie. Teerling is daarvan beskuldig dat hy nalatig was met sy toesig oor Louis se plaasdiere. Volgens die beskuldiging het 'n tier een nag 25 skape doodgebyt, 'n wolf het 'n koei en 'n kalf doodgemaak, en twee morg koring was ook deur die beskuldigde verwaarloos. Teerling het na bewering ook 8 hoenders, en daarna nog 'n verdere 8 hoenders, sonder die toestemming van Louis. Hy is ook daarvan beskuldig dat hy twee komberse en vyf kussings geneem het, en dat daar 'n verlies aan vrugte en die verlies van ses weke se botter en melk was.
'n Paar maande later beskuldig Louis vir Teerling dat hy 'n verhouding met sy vrou, die slavin Elisabeth (Lijsbeth), gehad het. Elisabeth het erken en verklaar dat sy swanger met 'n kind van Teerling was. As vonnis ontvang Teerling 2 maande harde pad (tronkstraf), en word hy ook op 19 April 1687 beveel om skadevergoeding van 450 gulden te betaal, asook 'n boete vanr Rds 25 omdat hy Louis se vrygestelde slavin Lijsbeth verlei het.
Louis vra in 1687 dat hy van Lijsbeth kon skei weens 'afwesigheid' en dat sy weer 'n slaaf gemaak moet word. Een van die redes wat hy aanvoer het is dat sy met Evert van Guinee en sy vrou, wat haar groot gemaak het, baklei. Sy beskuldig toe vir Louis van mishandeling 'met smijten en slaan en dreijgementen van doden'. Die Raad van Justisie het toegelaat dat die huwelik ontbind word, maar hulle het nie toegestem om vir Lysbeth weer 'n slaaf te maak nie, want Evert en sy vrou en dogters was bekend vir hulle "quade en oneerlijcke huijshouding". Lijsbeth en Louis se kinders sou by Louis bly, maar die jongste kind moes nog vir 'n jaar deur Lysbeth opgevoed word, en Louis moes 25 gulden onderhoud vir haar betaal.
Lijsbeth word in 1696 beskuldig van diefstal van juwele wat aan Jacob Cornelissen van Bengale behoort het. Lijsbeth lewe hierna saam met die Duitser Jan Herbst (Herfst), en sy staan voortaan as Lijsbeth Sanders bekend.
Die derde keer trou hy op 21 Maart 1694 met die 'vrijmaegt' Rebekka van Macassar. Sy was 'n Christen en blykbaar 'n lid van die kerk in Batavia.
Louis van Bengale het 'n slaaf, Anthonie van die Kus van Koromandel gehad. Hierdie slaaf van hom het egter in 1681 weggehardloop. Nadat Lijsbeth hom verlaat het, koop Louis vir Matthijs van Java vir Rds 35t. Louis verkoop sy slaaf Matthijs van Mallabar (33 of 34 jaar oud) op 25 Okotober 1689 aan Abraham de Hertog Provoost, vir Rds 30 (heel moontlik is dit dieselfde slaaf) vir 'n verlies van Rds 5. Louis se handtekening verskyn in die dokument as L VB (met die V en B aanmekaar). Sien Boeseken p. 113.
Volgens Heese p. 12 het Louis drie dogters by Lijsbeth gehad. Sover vasgestel kon word, het Lijsbeth ook twee ander dogters by blanke mans gehad.
KINDERS
Elisabeth Louisz gedoop 6 Oktober 1680, (Lijsbet Sanders en Louis van Bengale was die ouers) later bekend as Lijsbeth Glim / Glam, X Jacobus Coetzee.
Anna gedoop 1 Apr 1685, ouers Louwys van Bengale en Maria van de Kaap
Maria gedoop 10 Feb 1686, ouers Louwys van Bengale en Lijsbeth

Maria gedoop 20 Jan 1704 (moeder Lijsbeth van de Kaap)
Anna Elizabeth gedoop 20 Des 1705 (Moeder Lijsbeth van de Kaap)

Van Louis se besittings word in 1705 verkoop omdat hy 451 gulden uitstaande skuld by Hendrik Ploege gehad het. Sy meubels het ingesluit 'n gewone bed en ook 'n hemelbed, en ses ebbehoutstoele. In 1708 word hy gedagvaar vir skuld van 300 gulden plus rente aan die kerk. In 1715 het "Swarte Louis van Bengalen" drie maande lank van die diakonie ondersteuning gekry. Hy is heel moontlik in daardie jaar oorlede -- hy sou toe 64 jaar oud gewees het. Sy vrou ontvang hulp van die kerk tot in 1724.

Lijsbeth van de Kaap het later 'n verhouding met die Duitser, Johan Herbst (Herfst), gehad. Hulle sou die vader en moeder van die twee dogters, Clara en Gerbrecht, word. Clara trou later met Johannes Harmensz Potgieter. Gerbrecht trou op 2 Januarie 1718 met Johannes Volsoo (junior).
Bronne:
SAG
DSAB Vol 2, p. 826
AJ Boeseken, Slaves and Free Blacks at the Cape 1658 - 1700, pp. 28, 41, 89 -91, 97, 113;
GC de Wet, Die Vryliede en Vryswartes in die Kaapse Nedersetting, 1657 - 1707, pp. 102, 175, 207, 208, 211, 212- 215;
HF Heese, Groep Sonder Grense, p. 52;
Karel Schoeman, Armosyn van die Kaap: Die wêreld van 'n slavin, 1652 - 1733, pp. 215, 646-649, 682;
Kaapstad se kerk doopboek
Bydrae:
AM van Rensburg

See, too:

• Heritage Study - Mount Happy - Jonkersdrift
• Evolution of the werf – Mount Happy, Jonkersdrift

  ---

References

• The First Fifty Years Project
• Cape Slave Transactions – R Shell http://www.stamouers.com/Shell.PDF

1. 1687.05.24 Matthijs Java Age:28. Seller: Adriaan Brakel, Buyer: Van Louis Bengal, Van
   
2. 1689.10.25 Matthijs Malaba Age: 34. Seller: Louis Bengal, Buyer: Van Abraham Hartog
   
3. 1697.06.15 Titus Sambou Age: 22 Seller: Philiber Bresschot Van Buyer: Louis Bengal, Van
   
4. 1700.08.04 Titus Macass Age: 20 Seller: Louis Bengal, Buyer: Van David Lingelbach
   

• J.L. Hattingh, Die blanke nageslag van Louis van Bengale en Lijsbeth van die Kaap. Kronos : Journal of Cape History, Volume 3, Issue 1, Jan 1980, p. 5 – 51 Oop toegang https://journals.co.za/content/kronos/3/1/AJA02590190_482
• https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Bengale-27#_ref-text-305_0 Bengali slave who bought his freedom