This article reflects on the research required in biographical studies. The biographical focus is on the role of three generations of the Schreiner family: W.P. Schreiner (one-time Prime Minister of the Cape Colony), Justice O.D. Schreiner (judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court) and Professor G.D.L. Schreiner (scientist, academic, liberal and early conceptualiser of alternative models to apartheid). All three were involved in developing, defending and sustaining liberal policies and values in South Africa from the late 19th century until the advent of democracy in 1994. The clarifications and contradictions within and between oral and written sources are examined, and individual cases are discussed in which they are highlighted. The research sources include family papers, official archives, publications and, crucially, oral testimony. The oral testimony includes formal and informal interviews. This study is a contribution to the history of a family, a university and a set of values. It covers a long period in South African history during which colonialism tightened into apartheid, resistance developed and the eventual vision of a democratic South Africa came to fruition.
The primary scientific contribution is the exploration of liberal policies and values in South African political and academic history through the prism of biography. Methodologically, the article discusses possible shortcomings with oral testimony when relied on as a sole source and examines how oral evidence can be utilised in conjunction with research based on archival and published sources to develop a fuller and more nuanced picture in biographical research.
The contributions of the Schreiner family to South African history and culture span nearly two centuries, and their influence has been profound. The most well-known member of the family is O.E.A. (Olive Emily Albertina) Schreiner, author of the classic
For most of his career (from 1959 to 1987), Deneys Schreiner taught at, and later administered, the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg (now part of the University of KwaZulu-Natal). Both the university and the city of Pietermaritzburg were centres of South African liberalism in ways that other English language universities and centres were not. Alan Paton (1903–1988), a graduate of the university, author of
The university’s credentials were also enhanced by its association with another great South African liberal icon, E.H. (Edgar Harry) Brookes (1897–1979). Edgar Brookes served as a diplomat, senator, professor and ordained Anglican priest during an illustrious career. He was also one of the founders and leaders of the Liberal Party (Webb
Liberalism is often attacked in the democratic South Africa, as it is sometimes confused with neo-liberalism, which is an economic theory advocating privatisation and the free market (Cardo
In South Africa, liberalism grew out of the Cape Liberal Tradition, which, in turn, had evolved through British Liberalism from the French Revolution and the ideals of the Enlightenment. One feature of British liberalism was its gradualist top-down approach. Over decades and even over centuries, Whig aristocrats conceded rights to the wealthy middle classes and in turn rights were conceded to the labouring classes until eventually universal franchise was conceded, including votes to women (Taylor
Two strands of liberalism entered South Africa through the Cape Colony. Firstly, there was a structural, or constitutional, strand providing an elected legislature, independent courts and the rule of law. Secondly, there was a humanitarian strand, strongly propagated by missionaries, in whose ranks Gottlob Schreiner, the father of William Schreiner and Olive Schreiner, was to be found. Freedom of speech and human dignity were of major import to followers of this strand of liberalism. The three generations of male Schreiners fought for both strands as did Olive Schreiner who exercised a great influence on her politician brother throughout their lives.
History needs to be rewritten in every generation because although the ‘past does not change the present does’ (Hill
Historical and biographical research can, perhaps, be best placed within the ambit of qualitative research methodology. Briefly, qualitative research methodology entails the study of the nature of phenomena, the context in which they appear ‘or the perspectives from which they can be perceived’ (Busetto, Wick & Gumbinger
Online sources, published books, reports and journal articles, registers, guides, public archives
Twenty-seven interviews ranging from formal and structured, usually with academics or university administrators, to more casual conversations in social or other informal surroundings were conducted. These involved friends
Oral history is not only getting the facts, it is the process of pushing memory, language and ideology as far as possible to bring into articulation the horizon of the interviewee, to understand how those facts are understood. (p. 1)
The image of Deneys Schreiner, as constructed in family, collegial and associated memories, has been described as that of a central figure (Gardner
He and his thinking stood out firmly and visibly; there was something permanent and reassuring about him … In fact, he was in his own very special way, an icon … A cross between some of the old fashioned depictions of God the Father … and Charles Darwin … But if he was a sort of god or a venerable hero-figure, he was an extremely friendly and kindly one. (p. 85)
The informants were told in advance what the purpose of the interviews was and that what they said would be used for research purposes and may well be published. All agreed to this, except for one family member who flatly refused to cooperate in any way whatsoever with the project.
The writing of the biography of Deneys Schreiner was shaped by a choice and an absence. A comprehensive three-volume history of the University of Natal has recently appeared (Guest
Oral testimony is of immense value to a biographer. It can confirm or clarify obscure textual references and provide insights into personalities rarely found in written texts. The practice of oral history in South Africa since the advent of democracy has been promoted as a means of capturing and conserving the stories of marginalised and neglected people whose lives and struggles are not highlighted in the official documentation. These are, therefore, not often found in libraries and archives. However, as a technique, it also illuminates what remains opaque in official records and provides context to otherwise narrow or dry narratives.
When one considers the intrinsic male bias in official documentation, oral history offers a unique method for balancing the record. Testimony provided by women demonstrates a ‘text’ that is a composite of history, community, family and cultural memories. This goes beyond a self-centred focus, but indicates concern and care for families, community interests and other people (Magwaza
Two key informants were Colleen Vietzen, a former University Librarian, and Jennifer Verbeek. Colleen Vietzen,
Jennifer Verbreek
The oral testimony obtained from the Schreiner family, colleagues and friends was, therefore, invaluable. A total of 27 interviews were conducted. Some were formal and structured, some were informal and some originated in conservations at social gatherings that were followed up and contextualised in exchanges of emails. Evidence given orally was, whenever possible, cross-checked against published sources or oral testimony from other witnesses of (or participants in) the same events. When discrepancies were discovered, the informants were notified, and sometimes, they modified their information, or justified their interpretations, more coherently or emphatically.
Deneys Schreiner’s life has been explored from both private and public perspectives. His family life, his academic career and his involvement and leadership in public affairs have been examined. His military service during the Second World War represents a crossover between the personal and the public. The stress of wartime revealed many of his personal qualities, and the correspondence with his father revealed the thoughts and opinions of an intelligent young man well informed about world events and South African politics. His political activism and his family background led to his most public and consequential involvement, namely, his appointment as Chairman (as it was then described) of the Buthelezi Commission in the early 1980s. This was the first time that black South Africans had initiated an investigation into the constitutional future of South Africa. KwaZulu Chief Minister, Mangosuthu Buthelezi selected Deneys Schreiner for this task because of his prominent public profile and his liberal reputation and because his grandfather had defended Buthelezi’s grandfather, King Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo against treason charges in 1909 (Dominy
To place all this in context, one must begin with the grandparents as critical relationships in the 1980s had their roots in the first decade of the 20th century.
William Philip Schreiner was the son of Gottlob Schreiner and his wife Rebecca Lyndall, both missionaries (Schoeman
William was admitted as a barrister in London but began his legal career in Cape Town. He was an adviser to the Governor and many leading politicians before moving into politics himself. Elected to the legislature in 1893, he immediately became Attorney General and supported Cecil John Rhodes until he broke with him over the Jameson Raid. In 1898, he was elected as the Premier of the Cape Colony and clashed with the High Commissioner, Sir Alfred Milner. William campaigned for the holding of an Anglo-Boer conference in Bloemfontein in May 1899 in an effort to forestall the outbreak of war (Pakenham
William Schreiner married F.H. (Frances Hester) Reitz, a sister of the President of the Orange Free State, F.W. (Francis William) Reitz. This gave him a strong connection to the leadership of the Boer republics and reinforced his antipathy to the aggressive and imperialistic policies of top British officials such as Alfred Milner and Joseph Chamberlain, the Secretary of State of the Colonies. Milner interfered in Cape politics and succeeded in undermining William’s position as Premier, forcing his resignation in June 1900, although they parted with many expressions of mutual esteem (Walker
William Schreiner’s views evolved throughout his political career. When seeking office in the Cape, he annoyed Olive by repeating the paternalistic and almost contemptuous remarks of the colonists towards the African population. His election manifesto in 1893 contained a ‘robust keep-the-native-in-his-place effusion’ (Walker
William discovered that he was talking to an educated, intelligent man who was being discriminated against. William’s period in the political wilderness, from late 1900 until 1908, also gave him time to reflect and rethink his own casual and ignorant bigotry. The war being fought so savagely between the two so-called civilised white groups in South Africa, while the black communities by and large conducted themselves in a more civilised manner, also had a profound impact on him. Then, as he began to look to fight for a seat in Parliament again, he realised that John Jabavu could mobilise those black voters on the roll in support of him; after all, William was a politician (Walker
The re-elected Member of Parliament was already an elder statesman in 1908, and South Africa was on the path to unification. William was nominated as a Cape delegate to the National Convention that was to be held in Durban in 1909. However, William went to Natal on a different mission: he had been asked by the Governor, Sir Matthew Nathan, supported by the British Colonial Office (with Winston Churchill as a junior minister), if he would conduct the defence of the deposed Zulu king, Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo, who had been arrested by the Natal Government on very dubious treason charges in the aftermath of the Bambatha Rebellion (Marks
William faced an acute dilemma: should he attend the National Convention and work towards a new liberal constitution? Or should he follow his humanitarian impulse and defend Dinuzulu from the spurious charges against him? He tried to manage both, but the authorities in Pietermaritzburg manipulated the court dates and the schedule of the convention so William was forced to pick one or the other. He chose to defend Dinuzulu and hence spent his time at the special court in Greytown rather than at the political convention in Durban (Walker
William was praised for his legal achievement. Dinuzulu was acquitted of most of the major charges, but nevertheless the Natal Government jailed him after he was found guilty on some of the minor charges. This aroused protests from London to Pretoria, let alone from the Zulu people themselves. The important London journal
The most powerful figures at the National Convention were the Transvaal leaders, generals Louis Botha and Jan Smuts who favoured a close union between the four component parts of what was to become one country. Natal, under weak political leadership, favoured federation, but did not favour political rights for Africans and Indians. The Transvaal and the Orange Free State favoured close union but were also against political rights for Africans and Indians. The Cape wanted to retain its own non-racial political franchise (Thompson
There were very few politicians of stature who favoured federation and the extension of political rights across racial lines, and one of them was William Schreiner. The machinations of the Natal Government kept William out of Durban so he could not influence the convention and fight for the inclusion of non-racial political rights in the draft
Narrow, illiberal and short sighted in conception of the people of South Africa. The great majority are not of European race or descent and their rights and future are not adequately safeguarded or provided for by maintaining temporary privileges of Cape natives or coloured electors. (pp. 313–314)
William then joined a delegation to London to try to persuade the British Government and Parliament not to approve of the
When the Union Parliament was constituted, William Schreiner accepted the nomination as a senator representing the interests of the disenfranchised African population. He was alarmed by the illiberal direction of the new Union Government, but his concern was tempered by the respect he had for General Louis Botha whose act in releasing Dinuzulu had resulted in widespread approval being expressed (Marks
William tried to resist the slide. He opposed the
William Schreiner was not a liberal at the beginning of his career, but his views were changed by his interactions with members of the educated African elite in the Cape. He came to realise that a political system wherein an ill-educated white wagon driver could vote, but an African university graduate could not, was utterly flawed. He was also challenged and inspired by other members of his family, including Olive Schreiner, but above all he was motivated by a sense of duty and a commitment to service (Walker
It is an unanswerable question as to whether William Schreiner’s presence at the National Convention would have significantly influenced the
The flaws in the
William Philip (W.P.) Schreiner was survived by his widow Frances Reitz and their adult children, two boys and two girls. One of the boys was Oliver Deneys (O.D.) Schreiner who followed his father’s footsteps into a brilliant legal career and has been described as, ‘the greatest Chief Justice that South Africa never had’ (Kahn
Oliver was born in 1890, and his childhood and adolescence paralleled his father’s progression into liberalism. As he came to understand these principles, initially in the context of the events of his father’s life, they underpinned the philosophical influences imparted through his education. After studying in South Africa, he went to Britain and completed his studies at Trinity College, Cambridge University. Oliver Schreiner could easily have won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford but, given his father’s disillusionment with Rhodes over the Jameson Raid, this would not have been possible as ‘no Schreiner […]’ would take ‘[…] such a gift from such a man’ (Paton
Towards the end of Oliver’s time at Cambridge, the First World War broke out and he joined the British Army. He saw active service as an officer in the trenches in France and was wounded in action at the Battle of the Somme. He was awarded the Military Cross for his gallantry (Kahn
Oliver’s career progressed impressively, and in 1937, he was offered an appointment as a judge on the bench of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. Before accepting the appointment, he wrote
I have the clear impression that he would have been appointed had he not been a Jew. If this is so it would be extremely distasteful to me to commence my work as a dispenser of justice by being, in effect, a party to an injustice.
Jan Smuts hastened to reassure him that no prejudice or anti-semitism was involved, so Oliver took the position and Philip Millin became a judge a few months later (Anon,
Before considering these challenges, it is necessary to highlight an important trial Oliver presided over during the Second World War. South Africa’s war effort was hampered by anti-British sentiment and by a vocal segment of outright pro-Nazi support in sections of the Afrikaner community. One Nazi supporter, who was arrested in 1942 and charged with treason, was Robey Leibbrandt, an extreme Afrikaner Nationalist, fervent Nazi, German spy and former South African Olympic boxer. The case was heard before Oliver Schreiner who found Leibbrandt guilty of treason and sentenced him to death (Kahn
The National Party won the general election in 1948 with a slim majority of seats in Parliament, despite receiving fewer votes overall than the United Party. D.F. Malan, the new Prime Minister, set about entrenching racial segregation, which rapidly became known as ‘apartheid’. He was also determined to entrench his party in power, and removing mixed-race voters from the common voters’ roll in the Cape province would kill two birds with one stone for him. However, the D.F. Malan Government lacked the necessary two-thirds majority required to amend this clause in the constitution, the old
Despite this hurdle, D.F. Malan forced the
Undaunted, the Malan Government decided that Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of its own legislation and passed the
The first that Oliver Schreiner heard of the appointment of the new judges on the court was from the court registrar who heard it on the radio. ‘There it is’, Oliver wrote to his wife Edna, ‘[…] the only course is to take things philosophically, reminding oneself of the relative unimportance of the affair in the general scheme of things’.
The odds were now totally stacked in the government’s favour, the legislation entered the statute books and the enlarged Appellate Division acquiesced, with Justice Oliver Schreiner as the only dissenter. From then until 1994, mixed-race people in South Africa lost their voting rights, except for token representation under the Tricameral system in the 1980s (Dominy
Oliver Schreiner’s dogged resistance to the apartheid government’s legal machinations accounts for the fact that no Nationalist Prime Minister, or Minister of Justice, was prepared to allow him to become Chief Justice, no matter how senior he was, and what the precedents were. In 2008, then Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke
He did not need a social conscience or public spiritedness. He could have lived his life without the political fallout that led to the stunting of his bright judicial career by political executive disapproval. If he had stayed within his elitist confines he would have risen to become the Chief Justice, which he never was. (n.p.)
The mantle was passed on to the next generation, and so, the focus shifted to Oliver’s second son.
Professor George Deneys Lyndall Schreiner (hereafter referred to as Deneys), the second son of Oliver and Edna Schreiner, was born in Johannesburg in 1923. He completed his schooling at St John’s Diocesan College, matriculating in 1939 at the age of 15 years, shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War. As he was not old enough to join the armed forces, he registered at the University of the Witwatersrand for a BSc degree in chemistry. Completing his qualification in 1942, he immediately enlisted in the Union Defence Force as a gunner in the artillery (Gardner
Deneys served in North Africa and in Italy with the South African 6th Armoured Division. He was part of the force that liberated the Renaissance city of Florence later that year before the campaign bogged down in front of strong German fortifications, known as the Gothic Line (Orpen
Deneys was a regular and lively correspondent. His letters to his father, William, his mother, Edna and other family members provide colourful detail about life for young South Africans during wartime in Egypt and the Mediterranean theatre of operations. Strict military censorship precluded him from commenting on actions and campaign matters, but his entertaining writing style vividly conveyed the tedium, discomfort, stresses, tensions and humour of army life. His insights into politics and world affairs were astute for a young man in his early twenties (Schreiner Letters: Files 1943, 1945).
The young war veteran did not return to South Africa at the end of the war but travelled directly from Italy to Britain where he registered at Trinity College, Cambridge, as his father had done before him. Deneys embarked on an abbreviated version of the Natural Science Tripos (having been given some credits for his University of the Witwatersrand BSc). He was a food lover who had experienced several years of army rations, and consequently, he objected to the rationing system still enforce in post-war Britain (Dominy
In 1946, Deneys was able to return home for the first time since 1943. On this visit, he renewed a brief and slight acquaintance he had made at the University of the Witwatersrand, with a young woman named Else Kops who had also been studying for a BSc, but a year or two behind him. On this occasion, they clicked. Else Kops obtained a research grant and followed him to England in 1948, the year in which the Nationalists came to power in South Africa and the year in which Deneys sat his final undergraduate examinations. It was also the year Deneys and Else Kops became engaged and they were married on 22 January 1949 (Dominy
Deneys and Else Kops settled in a flat in Cambridge, while he tackled his PhD in inorganic chemistry, which he completed in 1951. During this time, Else gave birth to their first child, a boy, and they named him Oliver. Over the years, the family grew to include two boys (Oliver and Deneys) and two girls (Jennifer and Barbara). Their son Oliver died in a tragic accident in Cambridge in 1977, leaving a young wife and a baby daughter (Dominy
Having completed and defended his PhD, Deneys and his little family moved to the United States where he took up a visiting position at Pennsylvania State College, now Pennsylvania State University (Dominy
Oral testimony from a single individual requires verification, and Pennsylvania State University was contacted. The response was to acknowledge that the broad outline of the oral information was accurate, but Deneys’ original letter could no longer be located. The respondents at Pennsylvania State University also shared their surprise at discovering that the oath of loyalty was still on the books although it was no longer enforced (Dominy
The Schreiner family returned home in 1953 to find his father Oliver was deeply embroiled in the legal crisis over the removal of the mixed-race people from the common voters’ roll. The Nationalists won the general election in 1953, and this prompted a split in the opposition United Party with the more enlightened members forming the Liberal Party (Vigne
The break was not complete, and young African intellectuals paid heed to some of the liberal voices. Chief Justice Pius Langa said during his 1999 Alan Paton Lecture:
We did listen intently to what was being said about us in Parliament and elsewhere, the Margaret Ballingers, Edgar Brookes, Helen Suzman and others. I think these, Helen Suzman in particular, were classified as good guys. (n.p.)
In 1959, Deneys left the University of the Witwatersrand and became a professor of inorganic chemistry at the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg. He was drawn into local liberal politics from the very start. White English-speaking Natal was strenuously opposed to South Africa becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth. Deneys joined the committee organising the 1960 Natal Convention, which was one of the first attempts to devise a constitutional alternative to the oppressive central government’s racially defined structures. His participation was at a junior level, and the minutes of the organising committee in the Alan Paton Centre refer to the fact that Professor Deneys Schreiner was responsible for arranging the ashtrays.
In the year of the Soweto Uprising, 1976, Deneys was appointed as the Vice Principal and Head of the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg. He held this post until his retirement in 1987 (Gardner
With the support of the university authorities behind him (and funding from big business), Deneys arranged an academic conference, ‘Constitutional Models and Constitutional Change in South Africa’, that was hosted at the university in Pietermaritzburg from 14 to 16 February 1978. Given the restrictions imposed by the apartheid government, a wide range of opinions were represented, from what the media called
This conference marks the point in the research project where oral testimony concerning a public event became as important as documentary and other sources. Two academics, professors John Benyon
P.W. Botha had put his faith in a new nominated legislative and advisory body known as the President’s Council, which fleshed out what was to become the Tricameral Constitution. This provided the Indian and mixed-race communities with representation in ‘toothless’ chambers in an enlarged parliament. However, no move was made to address the fundamental inequities of apartheid or confront the unworkable concept that Africans would only have political rights in the independent homelands: P.W. Botha was adamant that the Bantustan policy was not up for discussion (Worden
This intransigence was challenged by the leader of the KwaZulu homeland, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who, while he had begun treading a different path to that of the ANC to which he had once pledged allegiance, nevertheless refused all offers of ‘independence’ for the scattered fragments of KwaZulu from Pretoria. He decided to establish his own commission in opposition to the proposals of the President’s Council, and he had been studying the process that Deneys had initiated a year or two earlier (Dominy
In early 1980, Buthelezi arrived in Deneys’ office at the university to ask him to lead his proposed new commission. Deneys was a chemist by training, and there were numerous eminent lawyers and judges who could have undertaken the task (Dominy
Deneys worked hard to obtain as broad participation as possible under the restrictions of the apartheid government. The Nationalists were utterly hostile to the commission and determined to treat it as entirely an internal Bantustan affair. Left-wing organisations were either banned internally, isolated or in exile, so there were no ANC or Pan Africanist Congress voices. The New Republic Party, the last remnant of the once powerful United Party of General Smuts, clung unimaginatively to its last vestiges of power in the Natal Provincial Council. It participated reluctantly and made no meaningful contribution. Nevertheless, a wide range of voices from civil society organisations, including labour and business, supported the strong academic and diverse contingent and were included (Dominy
Professor Lawrence Boulle compared the contents and quality of the Buthelezi Commission report and the report of the President’s Council, which came out at more or less the same time and took an unfavourable view of the latter report (Boulle
The Buthelezi Commission report did, however, have an influence on constitutional and administrative developments in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) region and, to a lesser extent, in the country at large. Buthelezi pressed for the establishment of a joint authority in KZN based on the report (Dominy
To Deneys’ deepest regret, the JEA also provided the framework within which harsh repressive measures in the province occurred during the dying days of apartheid. The menacing so-called Third Force (in which Inkatha was heavily involved) was sheltered behind the confidentiality of JEA operations. Local authorities, military and police commanders could cross provincial and homeland ‘borders’ in peri-urban and peri-rural areas without fear of official consequences (Maré & Hamilton
Another development in Deneys’ gradual break with Buthelezi came in early 1984 when the KwaZulu leader demanded that medical students on KwaZulu Government bursaries sign pledges of loyalty to Inkatha and agree not to denigrate him as the homeland leader. Deneys was one of the leaders of a university delegation that visited Ulundi to attempt to convince the Chief Minister of the intellectual need to respect academic freedom and of the practical need to staff the KwaZulu health service. While they achieved some success in their endeavours, the gap between the Inkatha leader and the university professor was widening dramatically. This incident also harkened back to Deneys’ own experiences
Yet from the bleak past came the new democratic dawn, and after fits and starts, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa and multi-lateral negotiating processes delivered the interim constitution, which was partly informed by the work of the Buthelezi Commission.
Deneys completed his term as Vice Principal in September 1987, but there was no pleasant glide into retirement (Gardner
What is relevant here is that the dominant family narrative is that of complete unity behind Jenny and implacable resistance in the face of the trauma and of oppression. However, a close Schreiner family friend and academic colleague of Deneys’ described the extent of the shock on the family at the time of Jenny’s detention. Deneys went through the stages of anger, remorse and grief, common to most trauma sufferers. He was particularly agitated by Jenny’s decision to resort to armed resistance when the family’s liberal traditions favoured peaceful protest.
The Schreiner family firmly believed a story that, during his military service in the Second World War, Deneys Schreiner disobeyed a direct order. The extent to which Deneys himself was the sole author of this story, as opposed to elaborations made by other family members over the years, is difficult to determine, as Deneys died in 2008. According to the family reminiscences, as the South African 6th Armoured Division advanced against German forces retreating from the ancient and historic city of Florence, a senior officer ordered the artillery battery in which Gunner Deneys Schreiner was serving to open fire on the dome of Florence’s magnificent Renaissance cathedral. The battery commander refused, and the senior officer ordered the second-in-command to open fire and he in turn refused. Down the line, the orders came to Deneys who also refused
Once this story was interrogated, firstly by checking the variations given in the accounts of various family members, the more suspect the story became. Extensive historical and archival research was then undertaken, and it became clear from a careful reading of the published military campaign histories that it was highly unlikely (Dominy
Alexander’s order was passed down by the general commanding the South African 6th Armoured Division, Major General Everard Poole (Orpen
According to Portelli (
There is also a very minor incident that arose where oral evidence corrected a mistake that arose from misinterpreting the written record. When he was writing home from Egypt, Deneys addressed a letter to the family dog, ‘Handy’, at least that is what the handwriting
Although this is not a discrepancy, comparing private writings and speeches with official records, helps in identifying unnamed compilers of official documentation. In the late 1960s, the government appointed a commission, chaired by Judge Van Wyk De Vries, to investigate university financing. The University of Natal, with campuses in both Durban and Pietermaritzburg, pleaded that it was a special case. Deneys, in his personal Curriculum Vitae, claimed to have played a large part in drafting the university’s input to the commission. The documentation exists in the National Archives of South Africa, and the special pleading for the maintenance of separate libraries in Durban and Pietermaritzburg (one of Deneys’ particular interests) and duplicated scientific equipment for both campuses clearly indicate Deneys’ input. However, the giveaway comes in the phraseology, the phrase ‘obvious desiderata’ of a 10.5 staff: student ratio echoes the tone of some of his public speeches.
We have something in common. You are first year University students. I am a first year Vice-Principal. I am therefore almost as bewitched, bothered and bewildered as you are. (n.p.)
The research also revealed an example of how not to conduct an oral history interview. The Alan Paton Centre and Struggle Archives on the Pietermaritzburg campus of the University of Natal (now the University of KwaZulu-Natal) conducted a series of interviews with leading liberal figures and other struggle veterans. Deneys Schreiner was interviewed by Randolph Vigne, author of
For more than a century, the Schreiners tried to exert liberal influences within South African public, political and academic life. William Schreiner developed as a liberal, thanks to the influence of John Tengo Jabavu. In 1909, WP faced the dilemma of acting on humane liberal impulses and defending King Dinuzulu or using his stature as a statesman at the National Convention to attempt to secure a better and more liberal constitutional dispensation for the new Union. He chose the former course that may have been a decision of higher moral value, but it prevented him from giving a more concrete constitutional expression to his values.
Oliver Schreiner returned to South Africa after the First World War and began his fight for human rights at the Johannesburg Bar. His battlefield was legal, his weapons were juridical. His aim was to defend the residual elements of structural liberalism in the Union of South Africa Constitution. Ultimately, he failed, because of the constitutional weaknesses in the law that allowed the protections to be circumvented by a determined apartheid government.
William’s grandson and Oliver’s son, Deneys Schreiner, took the slight opportunity that opened in the late 1970s, to move from reaction to action. Here the limitations were set by the farcical circumstances of the apartheid system. KwaZulu could not legislate for Natal, and the report of his commission was rudely rejected by the central government. The successor to the Buthelezi Commission created the JEA that helped ‘let slip the dogs of war’ in KZN in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, the work of the Buthelezi Commission remained relevant, and its documentation helped build the structures of our present constitutional order.
The research on William Schreiner was conducted through the study of published sources, with particular reliance on his biography written by Eric Walker (
Constructing a cohesive and credible narrative required both textual and oral research with one evidence stream providing a check on the accuracy of the other. This is particularly important because the oral testimony almost universally painted a particular memory picture that of a good, kind and intelligent man. The written and published sources also largely bear this out. This aligns with Grele’s (
We can conclude with the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande’s assessment of Deneys Schreiner, in his foreword to
Deneys expanded what I characterise above as the Schreiners’ tendency to rebel against the colonial and apartheid order, which became a greater struggle against the system. His was a strong and far-reaching disagreement with the colonial and apartheid regime, campaigning for desegregation within the framework of a liberal world view. Deneys grew his beard in opposition to segregation and in pushing the struggle for a common voters’ roll. (pp. xi–xii)
In a sense, Blade Nzimande is echoing Portelli’s (
This article represents a reflection on the methodology used in a biographical research project. The initial findings were first presented in the 2017 Alan Paton Memorial Lecture at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. It was reproduced in
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
G.D. is the sole author of this article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author. In the interests of full disclosure, the author served as a participant in the heritage structures of the KwaZulu and Natal Joint Executive Authority (JEA) in the late 1980s.
A biblical reference to the experience of St Paul on the road to Damascus.
Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke was denied the Chief Justiceship of South Africa for political reasons.
Interview: Else Schreiner, 01 September 2016.