Saturday, November 7, 2026

Candasa's Fight for Freedom at 93 years of Age

Candasa and Marzella : Paper Chains and Lost Letters : Fighting for Emancipation at the Cape

Candasa's evidence to the Protector of Slaves *

"Protector of Slaves Office

February 27 1832

Evidences taken in the case of Marcella’s claim to freedom.

Candasa 93 years registered as the slave of Andries Facolyn Gous, and mother of Marcella 1st, states

That she has understood when she was only two days old, a donation was made of her by Clara Bock to Clara Gous under condition that she was never to be sold, but when she arrived at about the age of fifteen years Mrs Clara Gous gave her a large paper (describing it to be about the size of half a sheet of foolscap) which she told her was a free Brief, and at the time Mrs Clara Gous presented it to her she Explained to her that this paper contained a Condition that neither Her, Candasa, nor any Children She might ever have could ever be Sold.

That she kept this said paper in her own possession for a great length of time, she cannot say what number of Years, but until she had three Children, Arend, Marsella and Simon, the latter of whom is long deceased. That there was a disturbance with some repertory Hottentots and there was an apprehension that they would attack the place and Mrs Clara Gous told her that she had better give up that paper to her keeping as it was of so much consequence to her and her Children that it should be carefully preserved. That she therefore delivered up that paper to the care of Mrs Clara Gous, and notwithstanding all her Endeavors she never could get hold of it again, nor ever seen it since. That during the time she was in possession of this paper she frequently showed it to her children and to several other persons, but being now so old she cannot remember any one in particular."

Marzella's letter to the Court of Justice *

"My Mother named Candasa, born in this Colony, was formerly a slave of Mrs Clara Bok, now aged 93 years, retaining her full senses. The undersigned with her children as oppressed slaves take the liberty of humbly addressing your Lordships, and beg to direct your attention to the following statement which is a correctone.

Our Mrs. Clara Bok died since many (1ago inserted in letter) years a Widow, and left a Will by which she has disposed of her male and female slaves, that they shall be obliged to serve the family of Gous, which consisted of one son and five daughters, and if after their death they should leave any children behind them to serve them also, the son named Andries Stephanus Gous was married, but left no issue, and his sisters died all of them unmarried. The tenor of the will was that we should serve the families of Gous (as mentioned above) as long as they live, but after their decease we should be released from slavery and put into freedom. The longest living of the family was Clara Gous, and was living with a certain Mr Andries Facolyn Gous where she died six years ago, aged 85 years.

My Lordships this Andries Facolyn Gous does not belong to the family of sons, he is an adopted child taken up by the brother of the five sisters Gous, this so called Andries Facolyn Gous arrived in this Colony **** a Bay with his parents. His father was a sergeant in the Regiment of Luxembourg and died soon after his arrival in the Hospital at Simons Town, his wife soon followed him to the grave, and Stephanus Gous seeing him without parents took him under his care, and named him after himself, Andries Facolyn Gous, but his proper name is Carel Eduard Alexander Facolyn.

My Lordships as none of us fear that justice shall be done to us, we the Parties concerned in the will of our late Mrs Clara Bok are obliged to have recourse to your Lordships, and must humbly beg leave to call on your pity towards us as oppressed slaves.

Nobody else but this adopted son of Andries Stephanus Gous and his wife oppose us to be released from slavery and put into freedom. We most humbly beg leave to demonstrate very plainly the injustice we suffer - if we have been slaves belonging to the family of Gous, why did not Mr Andries Stephanus Gous sell the slaves of Clara Bok, when he gave up his business and paid off all his property. When Andries Stephanus retired from business in consequence of his old age and sickly disposition and took up his lodging with Dirk Gysbert Van Renen where he died, why did he not leave such a Deed as was left by his sister Clara Gous who passed a Deed to Dirk Gysbert Van Renen by which she gave him three female slaves Berrendina, Leentje and Galtie and the male slave Piet and after these slaves have been considered for many years the property of Van Renen and the female slaves have begotten many children, the Deed was revoked and annulled by the above mentioned Clara Gous who was the longest liver and took the slaves back, who all lived with her during her life time, and after her death D. G Van Renen reclaimed for a second time these Slaves who was then under the protection of Andries Fracolyn Gous. When the slaves heard that Van Renen would get them again in his possession, they went to law against him, and did not only gain their lawsuit but all of them were declared free.

The Deed is still to be found, nobody can have it than the the wife of Dirk Gysbert Van Renen, which she can never deny if she is put to oath; if she will not sin against her conscience we will put to her one question, whether she does not recollect (when those Slaves, given to her husband by Deed passed by Clara Gous and taken from him after the slaves had gained their lawsuit) with her husband did not go to law with Andries Facolyn Gous and whether the lawsuit did not remain pending in consequence of his illness of which he soon died. In this matter two declarations had been given, one by I P Meiring (deceased) and the other by Petrus Gerhardus Loubscher which are in possession of Jacobus de Wet the notary. In this lawsuit which remained pending, Dirk Gysbert Van Renen has proved and would have proved before the Court, that this adopted child who by the name of Andries Facolyn Gous, had under his protection male and female slaves who by right ought to have been emancipated as well as those 25 slaves which have by Deed been transferred to him (D. G Van Renen) but which Deed has been revoked by the longest liver Clara Bok. For me all of us and our parents have been slaves of Clara Bok and we are all related and are included in the Will of Clara Bok.

My Lordships in this manner are we poor slaves oppressed, Andries Facolyn Gous to prevent us from being released from Slavery and put into freedom and saying that my Mother was a slave of Stevens Gous, who had also a female slave with the name of Candasa. This Stevens Gous was the father of those families and which we have been all of us obliged to serve. Mrs Clara Bok was twice married, her first husband was Daniel Fok and her second husband was named Gideon Slabberts, and in those two wills left we found the names inserted of our Mother and her Brother named Filander as slaves belonging to Clara Bok, the number of Slaves (in which are included my Mother, myself, and the other slaves) being too great to be emancipated is the reason why art was employed to prevent us from being made free.

The third will left by Clara Bok who died a widow and in which the names of our Parents are inserted is nowhere to be found. Jacobus De Wet the notary asked my Mother in my presence, whether she had any papers of Clara Bok, upon which my Mother and myself delivered to him two papers, but all trouble we took afterwards to getting them back was fruitless. We gave notice of this to the formal Landdrost of the Cape District Mr. T W Stoll. We refer you to Advocate Hendrik Cloete, who conducted the case of Dirk Gysbert Van Renen against the Slaves, and which he (van Renen) lost. He declared to us that we are entitled to be made free as well as the other 25 Slaves who gained their lawsuits for our case is a similar one. We refer your Lordships also to Mrs the Widow of Hendrik Smuts, who declared in presence of her two Slaves Spatie and Christie that my Grandmother arrived in this Colony as a free person with Daniel Fok, and consequently that she was free, and that she cannot conceive that we could serve Andries Facolyn Gous so long as slaves. The Widow Smuts is a daughter of Gideon Slabbert who was a Widower when he married our Mrs Clara Bok.

We also appeal to the witnesses of the free declared slaves Berrendina, Leentje, Galtie and the male slave Piet who are ready to come forward to depose in our favor respecting our right to be emancipated. The widow of Hendrik Smuts told us that she was told by her agents that she had no occasion to appear before the Court in consequence of her advanced age. She has still a good memory and one should know what could prevent her from making her appearance before the Court. Andries Facolyn Gous did not mind to take advantage of the old age of the longest liver to obtain from her what he desired. You will perceive My Lords (when our case will be brought to the court that the Documents passed in favor of Andries Facolyn Gous are instruments drawn up when Clara Gous was much advanced in years and this was done by advice of said Andries Facolyn Gous and his friends whom he has bribed for the purpose of defrauding us from our legal Claim to be made free. This is an art employed by Andries Facolyn Gous and all the papers which will be exhibited to you by him are drawn up and passed after the death of Mr Andries Gous who was too honorable to do a thing contrary to his conscience for he was known to be a most virtuous and religious man. My Lordships we were all included in the will of our dear Ms Clara Bok, in which was asserted that we should serve the families of Gous and their children, if there were any, and after their death, we should be made free, consequently everyone of the family had an equal right over us, and none of them left any partners which could prevent our emancipation. By supposition we beg leave to cite one instance Mr Andries Stephanus Gous, in consequence of his advanced age and sickly disposition, went and took his Lodging with Dirk Gysbert Van Renen where he was attended day and night by said Van Renen, his wife and their children, and got every thing he asked for, we were all eyewitnesses of that. Andries Stephanus was the only Brother of the five sisters, and they always lived together. If Andries Gous had the power to act as he pleased, would he not (as an unfortunate patient) rewarded the services done him by van Renen by making him presents of Slaves as the longest liver has done to which she authorised, and she did not care what she did for she was no loser by it. Andries Stephanus Gous was too virtuous and religious a man to enrich himself with another mans property. My Lordships when Dirk G. Van Renen reclaimed the slaves of Andries Facolyn Gous after the death of Clara Bok, the slaves Berrendina, Leentje and Galtie proceeded to law against D. G. van Renen, joined their lawsuits and were immediately declared free by the former Court of Justice, If they had not had that assistance they would have been still slaves, and would that have been right, would that not have been rejecting and annihilating a Will without consulting the dictates of their conscience. We are all of us still kept in slavery by Andries Facolyn Gous, and are about five years deprived of every assistance to submit our case to your Lordships, for consideration. Whenever we sought for an opportunity of applying to somebody or other not to speak on our behalf we were carefully matched, but since my daughter has money to purchase me free for 1500 rds and my mother for 200 rds, I found good people to assist me to bringing our case before your Lordships. We most humbly beg that my mother, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters may be admitted to appear before the Court in order to be heard. The Guardian of Slaves requires more grounds to act upon, where are they to be obtained.

When notary De Wet asked my Mother, if she had any papers of Clara Bok, she delivered to him two Papers which he kept, and when we made application to have them back, he moved not to give them up ( I daresay to make a bad use of them) by delivering the same to Andries Facolyn Gous for the purpose of depriving us poor slaves from our happiness to be emancipated. Mr Andries Facolyn Gous is a man of property, therefore all this was done with a view of defrauding us from our legal claim. The third of last will in which are inserted our parents to be emancipated has been found but afterwards destroyed. How can they destroy papers of such great importance at an office, which has always been considered a place of the greatest safety, papers in which our freedom are inserted. If this may be found to be the case, we leave everything to you my Lordships for judgement. About three years ago my mother Candasa and her six children, received an order from the Field Cornet Christiaan Coetzee, that they were to appear before the Court of Justice on Thursday the 03 March 1829 precisely at 9’O Clock. We accordingly did prepare ourselves for our journey to proceed to Town, when in the night of the 2nd March 1829 a Boy came from Rynier Beck the notary with orders that my mother and her children have no occasion to come to Town, but that Mr Andries Facolyn Gous and his wife and the wives of Jacobus Laubscher and that of Dirk Gysbert van Renen (now deceased) should only appear before the Court. What right had notary Beck to exclude us from a right which was allowed to us as well as the above mentioned persons, who in the morning secured orders to appear before the Court, and in the night of the 02 March 1829 we were countermanded. This action appears to us suspicious, we all of us are in doubt whether R Beck had received such an order from the Court of Justices, so that we were disappointed to lay our complaints before the Court my Lordships. What we state now about R Beck cannot have escaped his memory for the Boy arrived on the Place of Andries Facolyn Gous by port in the night with a letter addressed to said Gous, by which we were countermanded. If R Beck had received such an order from the court of Justice we hope and trust he has entered it into his Register in his capacity as a notary. I wish he would produce the order received by him from the Court. The former Court of Justice my Lordships were no children to cause to appear before them the claimant and his wife and others without hearing the plea of the defenders, to please a parcel of persons void of honor and without any principles of religion to passing sentence in favor of them, and to keep us oppressed slaves in slavery, merely to satisfy them. The Court has never made themselves guilty of such an act and therefore we insist upon Mr R Beck producing the order he received from the Court to counter command us. My Lordships we humbly beg leave to prove you a truth. If D. G. Van Renen and Andries Facolyn Gous had not quarreled about these slaves, the cheat formed between them would never have been discovered, but the desire of Andries Facolyn Gous and his wife was too great to have alone such a great number of slaves which occasioned a great hatred and enmity between them and van Renen. The consequence of which was that a lawsuit arose about it and that 25 slaves were declared free to which neither of them had not the least claim. If they had consulted their conscience they would never have committed such a fraud which for ever has disgraced them. The Slaves Berrendina, Leentje and Galtie were urged to promote their happiness left them by their dear Mrs, and the 36 slaves still kept in slavery are entitled to the same happiness as those 25 slaves who had been declared free, for they all belong to the same Mistress but they were always deprived of every assistance to bring their case before the Court as your Lordships will perceive by the perusal of this Paper by which you Lordships will find that, we trust, that there is sufficient grounds to do us justice.

A few days before Mr Murphy was appointed Guardian of Slaves my daughter and myself went to him to request him to bring my mother’s brother and sister before the court in order that we may be examined respecting our claim to be emancipated, but which he refused to do, having called on him again the other day he declared to us that me were no slaves of Clara Bok, but of Stevens Gous. I asked him to produce us the papers that we are not slaves of Clara Bok but of Stevens Gous, upon which he said he had no such papers but asked me what I wanted to do with them. My answer was that I want to go to the Governor, upon which he said go to your Mistress and apply to her for the Papers. It was from Mr Murphy I heard the first time that we have been slaves of Stevens Gous. If we had been slaves of Stevens Gous why have they not informed me of it in former times, there is not a single slave that belongs to Stevens Gous. I knew my Mistress perfectly well, and we all of us acknowledge her to have been our Mistress to whom we legally belonged. I had three children when she died. Stevens Gous died many years before my Mistress, Suppose an instrument may be found passed by Stevens Gous, of course it is an unlawful one for how can he dispose of slaves that do not belong to him. Suppose it was true, that we have been slaves of Stevens Gous, what right has Andries Facolyn Gous (that does not belong to the Family) and his wife to keep us from our happiness. Clara Gous asked for my mother’s papers which she said she will take care of, but never returned, what right has notary Jacobus De Wet to hide papers which was entrusted to his care, and what right has Rynier Beck to oppose us to appear before the Court. We wish very much to know whether Beck did receive such an order. Our application to Mr Murphy was also no purpose, we have been disappointed from all sides. When the 25 slaves given to D. G. Van Renen were declared free, Stevens Gous was called from the death by Andries Facolyn Gous and his wife and many others who have been bribed in this business to give slaves to Stevens Gous that belong to Clara Bok. I am now sixty three years old, but never knew Stevens Gous. Advocate Cloete having conducted the Case of Dirk Gysbert Van Renen against the slaves, which he ( van Renen) lost, We refer you my Lordships to him for explanation. Signed Marzella, Moeder and Marzella, dogter "

(*I have made minor adjustments and corrections to grammar and spelling for ease of reading. Candasa and Marzella (Marcella) were illiterate and employed a scribe to write on their behalf. Marzella was the daughter of Candasa, and her own daughter was also named Marzella, and both signed the same letter. In all likelihood, Candasa's father was Daniel Fok, who married Clara Bok—the woman who gave the two-day-old Candasa as a donation to Clara Gous, likely after Candasa's mother passed away. My assumptions are based on the account that Candasa's mother was a free woman when she arrived in the colony with Fok, the lack of any further mention of her in the letters, and the core condition that Candasa and her descendants were never to be sold, but instead kept within the family. While my theories require further investigation in the archival records, if proven true, they speak to the increasingly heinous and complex aspects of slavery involved in this matter.)

Introduction

The history of slavery at the Cape of Good Hope is often told through administrative records, legal codes, and high-level colonial policy. Yet behind every line of cursive in the colonial registry sits a human story of survival, memory, and an unwavering fight for justice.

Among the thousands of pages preserved in the archives, few records are as moving as the testimony taken on February 27, 1832, at the Protector of Slaves Office in Cape Town. There, a 93-year-old woman named Candasa—surviving into nearly her tenth decade—stood alongside her daughter, Marcella, to deliver an eyewitness account of broken promises, missing documents, and a lifetime spent navigating the gray zone between conditional freedom and lifelong bondage.

1. The Structure of Conditional Freedom: Deeds, Wills, and Inter-Generational Ownership

In colonial Cape law, emancipation was rarely a simple act of immediate release; it was frequently bound by restrictive conditions, legal reservations, and testamentary terms.

Conditional Donations at Birth: Candasa testified that when she was just two days old, a conditional donation of her ownership was made by Mrs. Clara Bock (Bok) to Mrs. Clara Gous. A core condition of this transfer was that Candasa "was never to be sold".
Testamentary Servitude: The family petition further clarifies that Mrs. Clara Bok’s estate mandated that Candasa and her descendants serve the Gous siblings for the duration of their natural lives, after which they were to be fully emancipated.
Extension to Children: When Candasa reached approximately fifteen years of age, Clara Gous presented her with a document—described as being roughly half a sheet of foolscap—and explained that it was a free brief (vrybrief). This paper legally secured that neither Candasa nor any children she might bear could ever be sold into slavery.

These legal instruments illustrate a common colonial strategy: enslavers granted partial or deferred freedom to secure lifelong labor from enslaved families, while promising eventual liberty or protection from sale.

2. Physical Evidence and Deprivation: The Loss of the Free Brief

A central challenge for enslaved people seeking freedom in colonial courts was the physical custody of legal documents. Lacking secure personal property rights, enslaved individuals were extremely vulnerable to losing the very papers that proved their status.

Candasa maintained personal possession of her free brief for many years, through the birth of her three children: Arend, Marcella, and Simon. However, during a period of frontier instability—noted in the record as a "disturbance with some refractory Hottentots" and an apprehension of an attack—Mrs. Clara Gous persuaded Candasa to surrender the document into her keeping for safe storage.

This incident exposes a fundamental structural barrier to justice:

Enslaved individuals were reliant on enslavers to protect the documentation of their rights.
Once the document left Candasa's hands, the physical evidence of her conditional protection was absorbed back into the enslaver’s household.
Upon Clara Gous's death, Candasa and her family were registered as slaves of Andries Facolyn Gous, an adopted heir whose claim to the family’s slave property directly contradicted the original conditions of emancipation.

3. The Protector of Slaves and the Limits of Colonial Redress

The creation of the Protector of Slaves Office in the late 1820s was part of British amelioration policies intended to monitor slave treatment and investigate claims to freedom. The existence of the February 27, 1832 record shows that Candasa’s daughter, Marcella, utilized this institution to formally petition for her liberty.

Despite these institutional channels, enslaved petitioners faced formidable obstacles:

The Burden of Proof: Without the physical free brief taken by Clara Gous, Marcella's case relied heavily on the oral testimony of her 93-year-old mother, whose recollections had to compete against formal property registries.
Manipulation of Adoption and Inheritance: The registration of Candasa under Andries Facolyn Gous reveals how enslavers bypassed manumission conditions by creating non-blood heirs to extend property claims over enslaved families.
Systemic Resistance: Colonial administrative processes were slow and often favored established property owners. By the time this evidence was recorded in 1832, Candasa had lived nearly a century in bondage despite having received a deed of protection in her youth.

Conclusion

The combined records of Candasa and Marcella provide a compelling case study of the legal complexities of Cape slavery. They highlight the legal mechanics used by enslavers to defer freedom, the precarious nature of slave property documentation, and the persistence of enslaved families in pursuing justice through institutional channels. Candasa’s testimony before the Protector of Slaves stands as a vital historical record, demonstrating how oral memory and preserved knowledge were deployed against colonial attempts to turn conditional freedom into permanent bondage.

Author : Lara Seaward

Further reading: Slave registry - Cape District at https://www.capeslavesancestry.com

Folios 62 and 88 Clara Gous

63,64,67,121 Andries Facolyn Gous

66 Andries Stephanus Gous

Slave Cases 1832 - 37 - Slave Manumissions Cape, Protector of Slaves Office 27 February 1832

National Archives of South Africa

Saturday, October 31, 2026

Jan Smiesing : Slave, teacher, and Ayurvedic healer

Unbroken Spirit: The Forgotten Story of Jan Smiesing, the Slave Lodge Healer Who Defied Colonial Rule

When we think of early colonial South Africa, the history is too often told through the eyes of VOC (Dutch East India Company) governors, military commanders, and European settlers. But deep within the cold stone walls of Cape Town’s VOC Slave Lodge, extraordinary individuals were carving out stories of intellect, healing, and survival against all odds.

Among them stands Jan Smiesing (1697–1734)—an enslaved schoolmaster, medical practitioner, and chronicler who authored the earliest surviving handwritten manuscript by an enslaved person in South Africa. Here is the forgotten life of a man who turned knowledge into a lifeline inside one of the Cape’s most oppressive institutions.

Born into Bondage: The Law of the Mother

Unlike many enslaved people brought to the Cape via maritime trade routes from East Africa, Madagascar, or South Asia, Jan Smiesing was a third-generation Creole slave born directly into the Slave Lodge in 1697. He did not experience capture at sea; instead, his bondage was guaranteed by colonial law. Under the legal principle of partus sequitur ventrem, any child born to an enslaved mother automatically inherited her status as legal property—regardless of who the father was.

A Matriarchal Legacy: Jan’s maternal grandmother was Armosyn Claasz van de Caab or Armosijn de Cleijne, a renowned Lodge matron (matres) and schoolmistress who eventually gained her freedom and became one of Cape Town’s first female, former slave philanthropists. His mother, Manda Gratia, also known as Manda Gratia Frisnet or Manda the Mandoor, was born into slavery at the Cape around 1679 to Armosijn Claasz van de Caab. Succeeding her mother, she too became a respected supervisor and teacher inside the compound. She was responsible for supervising the women in the Slave Lodge and educating the enslaved children in reading, basic catechism, and Dutch literacy.

In 1711, when her mother Armosyn petitioned the Dutch East India company (VOC) to free her children, the Company denied Manda Gratia's request for freedom because they considered her educational and managerial duties as matres too essential to the functioning of the Lodge. She eventually gained her freedom in 1714 when Guilliam Frisnet purchased her manumission in order to marry her. Following her emancipation, she worked to secure the freedom of her children.

European Paternity: Jan’s father was a Dutch VOC official named Jan Smiesingh from Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Serving as a medical practitioner/ assistant surgeon, he was posted to the Cape Colony for about six years from 15 October 1694 until his departure back to Europe on 28 May 1700. Yet despite his European heritage, VOC property codes meant young Jan remained company property from the moment of his birth. When Jan was baptised in the Cape Dutch Reformed Church on 06 March 1697, his father's name was left unrecorded in the official baptismal register (attributing the child metonymically as Johannes, kint van Manda vande Caab ). This was standard administrative practice for children born out of wedlock to enslaved mothers in the Slave Lodge. Despite his official non-recognition at baptism and his father's departure to Amsterdam, Jan retained his father's surname (Smiesing / Smiesingh ) which eventually became established as a surname in the Cape registers.

Classroom & Clinic: The Lodge Schoolmaster and Healer

Growing up in a household of educators, Smiesing achieved a rare level of literacy and numeracy. At just 17 years old, he was appointed the official schoolmaster of the Slave Lodge, a position he held for over two decades. Day after day, he taught enslaved children reading, writing, and religion. But Smiesing’s contribution to his community went far beyond the classroom. He also served as an internal medical healer for his fellow captives. Inside the Slave Lodge, conditions were notoriously grim. Unsanitary quarters, harsh labor, and systemic exploitation—including the compound functioning as a nightly brothel for visiting sailors—led to widespread illness and raging epidemics of venereal diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. Official VOC surgeons treated enslaved workers strictly as commercial property to be patched up for labor.

Smiesing provided an alternative: compassionate, holistic care that blended European domestic medicine, local Cape indigenous herbs, and traditional Asian remedies.

The Smiesing Journal & Its Siddha Healing Recipes

Between 1717 and 1732, Smiesing kept a private handwritten notebook. Today preserved in the Cape Town Archives, this manuscript is a remarkable historical artifact that offers a direct window into the mind of an 18th-century enslaved intellectual. Written primarily in early Cape Dutch with vocabulary and notes in Tamil, it contains a unique list of Siddha (Vedic) medical remedies written across two pages in the Tamil language. These recipes were likely shared with or transcribed by Smiesing through his close connection with Ceylonese/South Indian political exiles at the Cape, such as the scholar Nicolaas Ondaatje, who received books of traditional family medical remedies and botanical roots directly from Ceylon (Sri Lanka).

The remedies relied on active botanical ingredients and were essential for treating common ailments and epidemic infections in the unsanitary conditions of the Slave Lodge. The journal reveals how Asian Siddha (Vedic) botanical knowledge crossed the Indian Ocean and was repurposed to treat illness inside the Lodge.

Some of the remarkable botanical recipes recorded in Smiesing's manuscript include:

1. Treatments for Venereal Diseases (STIs)

To combat the rampant venereal infections inside the Lodge, Smiesing documented herbal remedies aimed at soothing severe inflammation:

Dwarf Morning Glory (Vishnukranthi): Prepared as a decoction or paste using Evolvulus Alsinoides to treat acute genital inflammation and infection.

Thorn Mimosa / Acacia Bark: Utilizing the tannin-rich bark of Acacia Nilotica as an antimicrobial wash and astringent to treat skin ulcers and discharge.

2. Cures for Fever, Vomiting, and Food Poisoning

Unsanitary rations and poor water quality made stomach illnesses constant threats:

Siddha Root Paste: The manuscript instructs that the root be mashed in hot water or ground into a paste in a mortar to treat stomach pain, fever accompanied by diarrhea, and food poisoning.

Bael Root & Ginger Concoction: Boiling equal parts Bael root (Aegle marmelos) and dried ginger into a medicinal tea to relieve severe fever and vomiting.

3. Relief for Morning Bloating and Dropsy

Ginger-Pill Powder: Medicinal pills crushed and mixed with ginger water or hot water to relieve digestive bloating and fluid retention (dropsy).

Historical Significance of the Medical Recipes

These recipes reveal how Asian Siddha/Vedic botanical knowledge crossed the Indian Ocean and was repurposed by enslaved people inside the Cape Slave Lodge. Smiesing acted as a "barefoot doctor," using local Cape plant substitutes alongside imported Asian roots to provide healthcare to children in his Lodge school and his fellow captives.

Freedom, Legacy, and Setting the Record Straight

Smiesing lived through incredible hardship, including surviving the catastrophic 1713 Cape smallpox epidemic as a youth—an outbreak that wiped out nearly half of the Lodge's population and devastated indigenous Khoisan communities.

After 34 years in bondage, his freedom was finally secured in 1731 when his brother purchased his manumission. As a free man (Vrijzwart), Smiesing married Anna van Dapoer, a freed woman of Tamil descent, on 30 December 1731 and started a family. Their son Pieter Lambertús Smiesing is assumed to have been born before 1729.

Tragically, his time as a free man was brief. Jan Smiesing passed away in 1734 at the age of 37. (Note for history buffs: Contrary to older popular myths, archival records confirm he died in 1734 and was not a victim of the subsequent 1735 smallpox outbreak!)

Why Jan Smiesing’s Story Matters Today

The story of the VOC Slave Lodge is often dominated by horror and hardship. While those realities must never be sanitized, Jan Smiesing reminds us that enslaved people were not merely passive victims of colonial empire—they were teachers, doctors, scholars, and authors.

Through his quill and botanical remedies, Smiesing cultivated dignity, literacy, and healing in the darkest of places. His life remains a powerful testament to the resilience of the human spirit.