(Author: Janus J Gluck, Vol. 65, No. 3, Chanukah 2010)
How do we know? How can we know? History has preserved few name-lists on crew
level or of the enlisted men beyond what they called themselves. Typically Jewish names
are hardly met with in South Africa prior to the 19 th century. However, the Church’s
conversion records when available, are reliable indices of Jewish presence. Thus in 1669
mention is made of the conversation of two youngsters, a certain Jacobsohn and a
Heijlbron and a year later two others without mentioning their names. These
conversations took place quite a few years after the retirement of Van Riebeeck in 1662,
therefore the above Jews were not likely to have been the protagonists of this account that
took place within days or weeks after the landing of the first boats of Van Riebeeck’s
party on the shores of today’s Cape Town. Consequently there must have been some
others of Jewish origin who actually arrived on the very boats of Van Riebeeck without
caring to advertise their Jewishness.
EPILOGUE
Jewish presence in the maritime adventures in the 17 th and 18 th Centuries seems
something of an enigma. Neither the poor living conditions, nor the low pay, the high
mortality rate or the semi-criminal company could possibly attract a Jew to seafaring or
army career. Yet Jewish presence in the service of the Dutch East or even more with the
Dutch West India Company, the British and other armies is a fact.
The reason for this seemingly strange phenomenon is the second-class, indeed the
powerless civic status of the Jewish at that time in Western Europe.
The ghetto system ensured their physical safety but their numbers in the ghettos were
prescribed and limited by law and those beyond the quota had no legal status or indeed
legal existence and were left at the mercy of their fate. The only openings to legitimacy
were joining the army or navy, or some big organization like the Dutch East (or West)
India Company and many of the young Jews did just that.
As soon as Van Riebeeck landed in the Cape he sought contact with the indigenous
population, the Khoikhoi, whom the Dutch called Hottentots, as he was instructed to do
by the Company in Amsterdam.
For the first few decades, the policy of the Dutch East India Company was preoccupied
with creating a working friendship with the local native population. The reason for this
policy was the Company’s immediate and ever-growing need for cattle supplies, the only
food item the Khoikhoi produced, since the main purpose of the Cape venture was to
establish a victualling station for seafarers. The newcomers soon learnt the locals’
ignorance of agriculture and even of fishing for that matter, though sitting on the world’s
richest seas in fish, but they were engaged in animal husbandry of cattle and sheep. The
cattle the Khoikhoi readily supplied, helped the Dutch to survive in the first few years
and even to sell some of it to passing ships.
Though the Khoikhoi showed friendship towards the Europeans, communications
between the two groups were hindered by language problems. The Dutch not only found
the Khoikhoi dialects difficult to master, but even to distinguish properly between many
of their sound elements. This may account for local personal names appearing in so many
different spellings in the governors’ journals. Whether it was the difficulty in
distinguishing foreign-sounding names or the innate sense of humour of the Dutch, it was
an accepted practice to call local Khoikhoi leaders and tribes by Dutch nicknames instead
of their real names. Thus Gogosoa, the chief of the Goringhaiquas, the first big Khoikhoi
tribe to meet the Dutch was referred to by Van Riebeeck in his journal as the Fat Captain,
for his corpulent physique. His eldest son and soon to be heir to the leadership, form
whom Van Overbeke, the then chairman of the Dutch East India Company bought a part
of the Western Cape, was called by the Dutch “Schacher”, though his actual name was
something that sounded like Osinghkhima. After succeeding his father as the chief of the
South-Western clans of the Khoi, Schacher assumed the name Mankgou; but for the
Dutch he remained forever Schacher.
This brings us to the topic of this communication, which endeavours to clarify this
appellation, Schacher, and its possible historical significance.
The Dutch etymological dictionary of Jan de Vries knows this word and even its first
appearance in Dutch literature in 1613. It suggests that the word actually was a borrowing
from the Yiddish “schacher” derived originally from the Hebrew socher, meaning
“merchant” or “pedlar”. 1
Yiddish lexicography 2
Whoever, the original jokers might have been, the name Schacher was eventually
accepted as a bona fide name and might even have lost its undertones.
1 a. Jan de Vries: Nederlands Etymologisch Woordeboek (Revised by F de Tollenaere.) Leiden, 1971;
b. cf. Franck, Van Wijk and Van Haeringen: Eytmologisch Woordeboek der Nederlandsche Taal,
Martinus Myhoff, 1971;
c. J L Terwen: Etymologisch Handwoordeboek, etc. Gouda 1844;
d. All larger German dictionaries record it as an old German word with the earliest known appearance in
the 15 th century. The etymology claimed by them is either Old Germanic (sic!) with the meaning “robber”
or the Hebrew “socher” = pedlar (travelling) merchant. Most lexicographers seem to connect it with
Yiddish. Cf. F Kluge (revised by W Mitzka) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. Berlin,
1957.
2 2. a. Cf. Beem, H: Resten van een Taal. Assen-Amsterdam, 1975, knows this lexeme, especially in its
verbal forms and spells it as “sjacheren” or “sjachelen” and claims it to be a non-Yiddish word, originally
though part of the Yiddish vernacular later!?
b. The following two dictionaries do not record “schacher” as an individual word.
I. U Weinreich : Modern English-Yiddish, Yiddish-English Dictionary, N.Y. 1968.
II. A Harkavy: English-Yiddish Dictionary, New York, 1910.
III. The opinion of R Dozy (in the Verklarende Lijst der Nederlandsche Woorden die uit het says that
this word is of Hebreeuwsch … afkomstig zijn. Leiden, 1867) has always been the most important opinion.
He records ‘sachern’ “Schacheren” = koopman, handelaar.
On the land purchase document of commissioner Aernout van Overbeke on the 19 th April
1672, Schacher, having gained by then further stature, was called Prince Schacher.
The Yiddish name given to the son of a chief has an historical significance as far as South
African Jewish history is concerned. It shows Jewish presence among the first groups of
Europeans in the Cape, although there are no typically Jewish names mentioned in the
relevant sources. Moreover, for witticism to be appreciated it needs an appreciative
audience, that is, at least one or two others who followed the fun, and these had to be
Yiddish speakers, namely Jews. The rest of the onlookers just joined in the hilarity, for
the spread of merriment is contagious.
Yes, history is gleaned from the quaintest sources.
Professor J J Gluck is a former lecturer in the Department of Semitics at the University of
South Africa[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
