effect that could perhaps have been matched in bronze but hardly in marble. The status of these paintings within the history of the production of the frieze is obscure. Coetzer obviously placed value on them, as he reproduced them in *My kwas vertel* in 1947, in contrast to the omission of his sketches for the frieze. In the book he referred to the monochromes as studies for the Monument, 'painted in bas-relief',637 and the paintings themselves are inscribed on the back 'Skets vir Fries in Voortrekker Monument' (sketch for frieze in Voortrekker Monument), although there is no reference in SVK minutes or other publications to them, or to their being made available to the sculptors. They are closely related to the sketches: while the compositions of some of the oil paintings are different from those of the drawings ('Treaty'*,* for example), they address the same subjects, and the varied formats of the paintings correspond to those defined for the different episodes of the frieze at that stage, such as the elongated horizontal for *Departure*. Many of the details are the same, and some of them incorporate modifications suggested by the committee on 4 September 1937, which confirms that they were made after the initial sketches, and no earlier than late 1937.638

**637** Coetzer (1947, 29) explains: 'This panel and a series of others of the time of the Voortrekkers are preliminary sketches intended as a guide for the sculptors who would carve the different scenes in marble for the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria' (Hierdie paneel en 'n reeks andere uit die tydperk van die Voortrekkers, is voorlopige sketse wat bedoel was as 'n leidraad vir die beeldhouers wat die verskillende taferele in marmer vir die Voortrekker monument in Pretoria sou uitkap). This volume includes *Uittog* (ibid., 28); *Soutpansberg* (72); *Die Moord op Retief* (110); *Dirkie Uys*  (130); *Terug oor die Drakensberg* (132). The oil compositions are all listed as in the collection of the artist at that time. **638** For example, a farmhouse is introduced into the scene of the Departure; Soutpansberg is represented by Pfeffer and the schoolchildren, carpentry work and women harvesting mealies; and Retief's murderers use knobkieries and stones, not assegais.

It might be conjectured that they were the works that Coetzer had in mind when he approached the SVK for permission to show paintings at the Monument during the celebrations in 1938; the committee did not agree, but offered to assist him to find an exhibition venue in Pretoria.639

Narrative and aesthetic value aside, Coetzer's drawings met the requirements of the SVK to tell the story of the treks through selected episodes that would represent the Afrikaner character of the Voortrekkers and their achievements, episodes which had been carefully chosen by SVK committees, and vetted by the Historiese Komitee. Minutes of that committee meeting of 13 November 1937 noted that Coetzer was to be invited to explain his response to their criticisms, and he was present to discuss his amended sketches at the Dagbestuur of 22 November (although unfortunately no details are recorded in the minutes). At the first SVK meeting of 1938, on 12 February, Moerdyk announced that 'it was time to convert the sketches to plaster models' for the frieze.640 The SVK undertook to approach a number of artists, and specifically mentioned (Ivan) Mitford-Barberton, Coert Steynberg, Hendriks (possibly Willem de Sanderes Hendrikz, also named in rough notes in the Jansen file),641 as well as Teitge and Bronkhorst whose names had come up previously; if any others wanted to compete they would be allowed to do so.642

We know from Teitge's letter of 1943 cited earlier that artists were offered access to sketches in 1938, presumably Coetzer's, to prepare their submissions. But his letter makes clear that there was no conclusive outcome to the invitations, or certainly not in his case, although members of the SVK visited him to see his designs. After the invitations had been sent, the committee's attention turned to the urgent matter of organising the celebrations for the centenary at the end of the year, as discussed in the previous chapter. While these matters were being debated, the pursuit of the frieze went into abeyance, a situation that was prolonged by the demands of World War II.

But plans for the sculptures were firmly in place and could be picked up as soon as circumstances allowed. And in the meantime Moerdyk had released the grand sectional drawing of the interior of the proposed Monument with the frieze in place, previously discussed as Drawing 3, that was published in the *Pretoria News* of 13.12.1938 and in the *Voortrekker Centenary Supplement*  of *The Cape Times* 7.12.1938 (fig. 53b). Close scrutiny of the depiction of the frieze shows that the scenes correspond to those designed by Coetzer. Because of the nature of the drawing, the scenes selected for the east and west walls have been reduced, while those for the south wall in the centre have been curiously stretched to fill the space. From the five scenes finally used on the south wall only three have been chosen: *Treaty* with Dingaan, *Murder of Retief* and *Bloukrans*. The distribution of the scenes on the east and west walls does not follow the final layout exactly either, probably because of the limited foreshortened space for them in the drawing. We can identify *Vegkop* and *Inauguration* on the east wall, with *Blydevooruitsig* over the doorway in that corner, and *The Vow* with part of *Blood River* on the west wall, with the *Arrival* over the adjacent doorway. Scenes relating to Coetzer's drawings can also be seen in the friezes of Drawing 4 (fig. 54b), although the angled presentation shows only the east and south walls. It now includes *Descent* and part of *Bloukrans*  on the south, scenes omitted in Drawing 3, despite apparently repeating *Bloukrans* on the long side of the sarcophagus below, which is visible in this view. These drawings corroborate that the final organisation of the frieze would only be worked out once the sculptors were involved, some four or five years later.

**639** Dagbestuur 13.8.1937.

**640** SVK 12.2.1938: 24. 'Mnr.  A further name handwritten on a loose sheet from the Jansen files is Florencio Cuairan, a Spanish sculptor who came to South Africa in 1938, apparently recommended by Dr Bodenstein for relief work according to the note (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/8).

**642** SVK 12.2.1938: 24. It was next recorded that the invitations had gone out, with the SVK undertaking to pay reasonable costs for materials and transport, but not for the artist's work as such, and Coetzer was asked to send in his corrected sketches as soon as possible (Dagbestuur 2.3.1938: 4).

The sectional drawing also indicates murals in the two visible pendentives of the dome. They were described in the centenary issue of *Koers* as representing the relationship of the Voortrekkers to the sea, to demonstrate that they wanted to preserve contact with the outer world and were not, as often presented, only concerned to get away from all civilisation.643 As early as 14 February 1840, Andries Pretorius had officially declared in the Volksraad that most of Natal and its sea-coasts were considered to be the Boer society's property, as discussed in *Mpande*. The *Pretoria News* of 13.12.1938 defined the themes as the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape of Good Hope on the right, and, on the left, Louis Trichardt's crossing of the Drakensberg Mountains to Delagoa Bay, and said they would be coloured mosaics. Moerdyk, however, had referred to them as paintings.644 It is clear from all these discrepancies that final decisions about the artworks for the Monument were still to be made.

Nonetheless, even if the layout of the frieze was not yet finalised, topics for the reliefs had largely been decided and important principles established – that the scenes would avoid giving prominence to a single leader or trek, but create a unified 'Great Trek'; that the scenes would together form a continuous, probably chronological sequence, with a clear beginning and end, and some scenes treated as dramatic highlights; and that the scenes would depict Voortrekker culture and events with careful historical accuracy to underpin the authenticity of the story.  UP Archives, Moerdyk files). **644** For example, SVK 15.1.1937: 9.

**Figure 114:** Interior of Harmony Hall, Pretoria. Sculptors at work on *Departure*. 1942 (photo courtesy of HF Archives F 39.10.7 k)

### **3 Process**

*The maker was central to a thing coming into being. What that thing was, and how it looked, was the result of a complex set of interactions between the desires of the customer, the time at which, and the place in which, it was made, and the individual skills and training of the maker or makers … Giving the maker a more active, transformative role in the production of things is crucial to enhance our understanding of how and why things were made.*645

The process of creating the frieze for the Voortrekker Monument began in its earliest conceptualisation, just as its conceptualisation continued throughout the process of its making. Content cannot be disaggregated from form, and our division of the narrative of the frieze's complex creation into chapters is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. While the previous chapter concentrated on the intentions and ideas that informed the frieze and the choice of topics to meet the SVK's goals, this chapter will focus on the physical making of the frieze and its materialisation in sculptural form. But the two are intimately intertwined, and Coetzer's sketches, considered at the end of the last chapter, act as a bridge in providing the first visual manifestation of the Voortrekker story, albeit in two rather than three dimensions.

SVK reports again provide a skeleton of progress on the reliefs, although there is less detail recorded than there was for the definition of topics. Sculptor Hennie Potgieter's account of the frieze and his memories of its making, published as *Voortrekker-monument Pretoria* in 1987 from an earlier manuscript, is a useful source of information as well as amusing anecdotes. We draw on it for our account, together with the rather sparse writings about the individual sculptors and the valuable recollections of others who were present during the production of the frieze, notably Werner Kirchhoff, the son of sculptor Peter Kirchhoff, and Martso Strydom (née Terblanche), who like him was a model for some of the figures represented. Also of great importance for understanding the process of making the frieze are photographs that survive from the time, some that have been published quite widely, such as one of the sculptors at work at Harmony Hall (fig. 114), and others in private collections.646

### **The sculptors**

After the SVK's extensive discussion about the content of the frieze and Coetzer's sketches for it, the record of the appointment of the sculptors to carry it out seems remarkably terse. There is no discussion recorded. Moerdyk merely reported on the matter to the Dagbestuur in November 1941,647 saying he had consulted with various artists.648 Moerdyk explained that Coert Steynberg, by then a well-established Afrikaner sculptor, had been approached but was not interested in taking on the

**647** Dagbestuur 28.11.1941: 3.

**645** Russell and Wootton 2017, 253.

**646** In this regard, photographs still owned by the Romanelli family in Florence, those in the collection of Werner Kirchhoff, and some in the UP Archives (Postma Folder 13) have been particularly valuable.

**648** The name of Van Wouw, raised so often previously, was not mentioned again. As it happened, he was to die on 30 July 1945, long before the frieze was completed.

**Figure 115:** The four sculptors at Harmony Hall: Peter Kirchhoff, Laurika Postma, Frikkie Kruger and Hennie Potgieter in his working smock (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

> project.649 However, Peter Kirchhoff and others, as yet unnamed, were prepared to assist. Moerdyk said that, if four artists were approved (the precise number suggests that he already had specific sculptors in mind), they should work together in one place, and he also mentioned using students of the local university to set up tableaux for the sculptors to work from. He surmised that, once plaster models of one-third scale had been produced, the artists would go to Italy to carry out the work under a famous master.

> The four sculptors were subsequently named at the SVK meeting of the following January – Peter Kirchhoff, Frikkie Kruger, Laurika Postma and Hennie Potgieter (fig. 115), the first as 'primus inter pares' with a salary of £50 per month, as opposed to £40 per month for the others.650 It seems as though it had been Moerdyk who had investigated sculptors and made the choices, on what grounds is uncertain. The SVK approved Moerdyk's recommendations and gave him the authority to appoint the four artists to begin the work, confirming at the same time that the frieze would be carried out in marble.

> We do not know how many sculptors other than Steynberg might have turned down the opportunity to work at the Monument. Moerdyk claims that there were twenty-one 'professional' sculptors in South Africa – it would be of great interest to know which he was thinking about. Apart from those named in the 1938 SVK minutes mentioned in Chapter 2, perhaps one of them was Ernest Ullmann (1900–75), a Munich-trained German-Jewish sculptor who had emigrated to South Africa in 1936. He was to be approached late in 1941 to make the wildebeest reliefs on the walls flanking Van Wouw's bronze in the forecourt of the Monument, at a cost of £100.651 Other than those

```
650 SVK 15/16.1.1942: 11b.
```
**649** Gerard Haag (1989, 15) cites Steynberg's objections that 'the proposed panels were theatrical, and the character of the monument un-Afrikaans and Roman Catholic' (die teatraliteit van die voorgestelde panele, en die on-Afrikaanse, Rooms-Katolieke karakter van die monument). One wonders too whether Steynberg might have harboured a sense of pique if he had heard that the subcommittee had recommended his design for the Monument, only to be overturned by the full Vormkomitee in favour of Moerdyk's design (6.4.1936), as discussed in Chapter 2.

**651** Dagbestuur 8.12.1942: 3G. For Ullmann, see Berman 1983, 460; Ogilvie 1988, 672; Jooste 2016. A certificate of payment to him for £100 dated 21 April 1943 is in the HF Archives (old numbering) VTM vol. A2.

discussed, the identity of Moerdyk's twenty-one sculptors can only be a matter of speculation, as is the thinking that lay behind his selection of artists for the making of the Monument frieze. The names of those appointed had not been mentioned in any of the minutes recording earlier discussions about the frieze, either as artists who had approached the SVK with suggestions, or as recipients of letters from the SVK requesting input.

However, Kirchhoff was implicitly present in SVK proceedings, in that he was the unnamed assistant appointed to help Van Wouw to complete his full-scale clay model for the *Voortrekker Mother and Children* (fig. 49),652 so would have been known to the committee; Kirchhoff's acceptance by the Afrikaner community is confirmed by the fact that he and his wife were invited to the centenary celebrations in 1938.653 In his work on Van Wouw's sculpture, Kirchhoff had already given evidence of his skills, and his readiness to play a part in the project of memorialising the Voortrekkers. In addition, a handwritten note, probably by Jansen, on the Dagbestuur minutes of 6.9.1941 in NARSSA, recorded that Moerdyk should approach Kirchhoff as well as Steynberg about models for the corner figures at the Monument. When plans to appoint artists for the frieze were discussed at the SVK meeting of January 1942, it was reported that Kirchhoff was already busy with the figure of the unnamed Voortrekker.654

The strongly expressed opinion that a unified style was a paramount prerequisite for the frieze, and that its making would be supervised by the architect and overseen by the SVK and its Historiese Komitee, may well have been unattractive to established artists, who might have deemed such constraints inhibiting on individual creativity, as Steynberg apparently did.655 Moerdyk emphasised the desire for unity when he said that it was necessary to select artists with compatible styles, and this could have influenced him in his choice of the other three artists, considerably younger than Kirchhoff, who would probably not yet have developed a strong personal direction. Whether this would apply to Kruger, evidently little known although then in his thirties, is difficult to judge, but Potgieter had not long finished art school, and Postma, although of an age with Kruger, had begun her art career only relatively recently. It could be surmised that because they were not well established they were more likely to be compliant with directions from the committee or the architect.656 After the work had been completed, Moerdyk felt able to write in the essay on the historical frieze in the *Official Guide* that the sculptors had been successful in adapting themselves to each other, after he had given them the (bizarre) advice to model themselves on Renaissance sculptors Donatello and Verrocchio, discussed in Chapter 4.

**652** SVK 5.3.1937: 11. Peter Kirchhoff's son Werner remembers that it was Jansen himself who asked his father to assist Van Wouw.

**653** The invitation is in the Kirchhoff files.

**654** SVK 15.1.1942: 11. What seems to be a model for one of these figures of Voortrekker leaders can be seen on the extreme left of one of the photographs of the wooden armature for the south frieze of the Monument at Harmony Hall (fig. 178), probably around 1943 or 1944. There is an architect's certificate authorising the payment of £30 to Hendrik Potgieter dated 23 March 1943 that is inscribed 'hoekfigure' (corner figures), although there is no other record of his involvement with this aspect. There is also a note of a payment of £200 to Mitford-Barberton for 25.4.1944 annotated G[eneral] Pretorius, which may be related to this (HF Archives [old numbering] VTM vol. A2). What became of any early attempts to model these figures is unknown. Their execution was in fact delayed until after the completion of the frieze, when models were prepared by Frikkie Kruger and carved in granite in situ by Zeederberg, referred to by Potgieter (1987, 50) as a 'gifted stonecutter' who was employed by the monumental masons Sinclair.

**655** It seems likely that others too had refused, judging by comments in the letter from Dekker to Bosman referred to in Chapter 2 (27.1.1943; ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7). Dekker implies that established artists had not wanted to be part of a project that had already been defined for them by the architect and the historical committee.

**656** In the *Official Programme* for the inauguration (1949, 46–49), however, Moerdyk writes of the sculptors being 'strongly individualistic artists' although they 'successfully submerged their own personalities' for the task. Based on an interview with Hennie Potgieter (28.8.1990), Nico Coetzee proposes a different motivation, that, 'all too aware that the sculptor of the Vrouemonument was far better remembered than the architect, … [Moerdyk] wanted to pre-empt that from happening with his Voortrekkermonument. Therefore he preferred "unknown" sculptors' (Coetzee 1995, 21).

By following those examples and constantly consulting one another, the four sculptors succeeded wonderfully well in submerging their own individuality and achieving a harmonious whole. They modelled and re-modelled with diligence, patience and a sense of dedication until the desired unity was achieved.657

There was another factor that certainly played a part in selecting the artists: their suitability for a project that lay at the heart of Afrikaner beliefs. Even more pointed than the insistence on using white builders at the Voortrekker Monument, discussed in Chapter 1, would have been an SVK intention to employ Afrikaans sculptors, such was the desire to ensure that the project had an appropriately nationalistic spirit. An early handwritten document entitled 'What will the form of the Monument be?' had said that the Monument must be designed by a South African artist or artists;658 Moerdyk was more specific and stated forthrightly in the *Official Guide* that, 'The committee wished to appoint Afrikaans sculptors.'659 Kirchhoff was the only one selected who did not meet that requirement. In addition to being Afrikaners, the other three sculptors represented the three main Afrikaner churches: Kruger was a member of the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk, Postma of the Gereformeerde Kerk, and Potgieter of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk. Postma and Potgieter later told Alexander Duffey that the inclusion of a representative range of religious affinities had been taken into account in the appointments.660

Unlike his fellow sculptors, Peter Kirchhoff was neither a member of a Dutch Reformed Church nor an Afrikaner, but a professed atheist, and a German.661 He had presumably shown sufficient affinity with the Afrikaner cause in the work he had already done with Van Wouw for Moerdyk to feel confident in putting his name forward.662 Kirchhoff's previous work on architectural sculpture projects would also have recommended him, and made him suitably qualified to lead the relatively inexperienced group. In his case, this probably overrode other considerations, as such a large project needed someone well-versed in sculptural processes.663 Yet, perhaps because he was not an Afrikaner, Moerdyk did not name him as the chief sculptor and the others as assistants, instead dubbing Kirchhoff 'primus inter pares'. It is notable that when Hugo wrote to Jansen at the beginning of 1943 to recommend that a committee of established sculptors be set up to guide the making of the frieze, he remarked that, while Kirchhoff was more experienced than the younger artists, he was not 'centred in Afrikaner life and tradition'.664

**664** '… hy staan nie te midde van die Afr. lewe en tradisie nie!' (Hugo to Jansen, 19.1.1943, ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**657** *Official Guide* 1955, 40–41.

**658** '… sal ontwerp moet word deur 'n Suid-Afrikaanse kunstenaar of kunstenaars' in 'Wat gaan die vorm van die Monument wees?' (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/8). The document is undated, but clearly precedes the appointment of Moerdyk in 1936.

**659** *Official Guide* 1955, 40.

**660** Duffey 2006, 38 n 40. He notes that Moerdyk had said in an interview with the *Sunday Express* of 21.4.1937 that the Monument 'would include all different kinds of religions' (alle verskillende soorte godsdienste sou insluit), although, if this was the case, Moerdyk's concept of the 'different kinds' would seem to have been prescribed in solely Afrikaner terms. Potgieter (1987, 41) mentions that the sculptors were from different Christian backgrounds in his account of the frieze, but does not specify which churches. Van der Westhuysen (1984, 6) sees this as a happy coincidence rather than a deliberate choice.

**661** Kirchhoff's German background might in some ways have encouraged his appointment because of Afrikaner sympathy with German national ambitions, as part of their anti-British sentiments dating back to the Anglo-Boer War. However, when asked why his father was not interned as a German alien during the war, Werner Kirchhoff cited not only the fact that he had taken South African citizenship, but that he was vocally anti-Hitler.

**662** Kirchhoff was apparently not even a fluent Afrikaans speaker, as Potgieter (1987, 42) mentions that he spoke German with Laurika Postma when they started their work together until he was more confident using Afrikaans. Letters by Kirchhoff from the later 1940s show him using Afrikaans comfortably.

**663** Van der Westhuysen (1984, 15) makes a similar point, writing in his thesis on Potgieter that Moerdyk selected Kirchhoff, despite his being German, because he had been in South Africa for ten years, had a proper training, and had experience in making large panels, and also because, apart from Van Wouw and Steynberg, there were no appropriate senior Afrikaner sculptors available.

Very little is published about Peter Kirchhoff (1893– 1978).665 We have been reliant for much of our information on his son, Werner Kirchhoff, born in 1931.666 He is our chief source for our biographical summary, and for many details about the process of making the panels and casting them in plaster. When his father took on this major commission in 1942 he moved with his family to Harmony Hall, attended the German School in Pretoria, and Pretoria Boys High, coincidentally the school that Moerdyk had attended when it was known as Pretoria College. As a schoolboy Werner Kirchhoff was witness to the making of the clay and plaster panels for the Voortrekker Monument (fig. 116). Particularly during the holidays he would often help in the studio, and clearly developed considerable skills himself, since he was also later to assist his father with the reliefs at the Anglo American building (see below).667

Peter Kirchhoff was born in Magdeburg in Germany (fig. 117), but his son Werner recounts that Kirchhoff spent much time in England, where his father, Werner's grandfather, had business connections in the jute trade and owned a holiday home.Kirchhoff took some of his schooling there, and graduated in science at the Imperial College London in 1913. He was to return to Germany to serve as a cavalry officer on the Russian front in World War I, however.668 After the war he studied at Göttingen and Berlin, and took his doctorate in physical chemistry, with a thesis on allotropic modification. His PhD was awarded in 1924 but, when there was little work in his field during the Depression years in

Germany, he returned to what had been a spare-time although long-standing interest that dated back to his schooldays, modelling portraits. After his marriage to Margarete Bose, he was awarded a bursary in 1928 to undertake professional training as a sculptor at the Landeskunstschule in Hamburg. At the beginning of 1931, at the invitation of his older sister, a botanist who was studying Cape flora, Kirchhoff went to Cape Town. By September 1931 he had already been elected a member of the K Club, founded in 1922 for those interested in arts and crafts, whose members included artists Ivan Mitford-Barberton, Maggie Laubser, Lippy Lipshitz, Hugo Naude and Ruth Prowse, as well as patrons Lady Phillips and Lady Michaelis.669 Although his sister returned to Germany that year, Kirchhoff decided to stay permanently in South Africa, where his wife, their daughter and their son, the latter born after Kirchhoff had emigrated, would join him three years later in 1934.

**Figure 116:** Werner Kirchhoff, son of Peter Kirchhoff, at Harmony Hall, about to set out on his first day cycling to Pretoria Boys High School. 1943 (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

**669** Letter to Kirchhoff from the Honorary Secretary of the K Club, 29.9.1931; membership list of K Club (Kirchhoff files).

**665** Duffey (2008) and an entry in Ogilvie (1988, 338), where his name is misspelt 'Kirchoff', as is also often the case in the SVK records.

**666** He generously agreed to lengthy personal interviews in December 2013; January, February and December 2015; and further communications by telephone and email. He and his wife, Anna-Marie, also made family records available, including a typed curriculum vitae for Peter Kirchhoff and other descriptions of his life, which have likewise been drawn upon for this account. An invaluable recent addition is *Peter Kirchhoff: Lebenskünstler*, privately published in 2016 (referred to as Kirchhoff 2016).

**667** As well as his knowledge about art and technique that these experiences fostered, Werner Kirchhoff was influenced by his father's keen interest in astronomy, and himself specialised in astronomical surveying, working for fifteen years for the Smithsonian Institution, six of them in the USA.

**668** Kirchhoff's abiding interest in horses, reflected in his later interpretation of the Battle of Blood River, apparently dated from this time. Werner Kirchhoff recalls that he was a dressage champion in South Africa, and a judge at the Rand Easter Show in 1961.

During 1932 he set up a studio at Martin Melk House, the old Lutheran Parsonage in Strand Street, which had reopened in 1931 after restoration by the K Club as a cultural centre and club headquarters.670 Kirchhoff's confidence in his new career is suggested by the fact that he offered to create a portrait of George Bernard Shaw when the playwright and Nobel Prize winner was visiting South Africa in 1932.671 Once Kirchhoff's family had arrived, they settled in Johannesburg in 1934, probably as a result of Kirchhoff's commission to carve the roundels on the side walls of the city's new Public Library, built from 1931 to 1935. While the Voortrekker Monument frieze was being made, they let their Parktown home to live in Pretoria at Harmony Hall, but returned after its completion.

Kirchhoff was particularly active as a portraitist and as an architectural sculptor. It was the latter experience that was to be of most importance for the Monument commission, as he had developed a thorough understanding of the needs of large architectural works and the necessary processes involved. When, for example, he carried out the twelve relief roundels that alternate with arched windows on the flanking walls of the Johannesburg Library in 1934 (fig. 118), he used a pointing machine to transfer the forms of the models he had made of portrait heads of famous literary and scientific figures to the sandstone of the wall, and carved the more than twice life-size heads in situ.672 In addition, he had experience in working with a team, as he supervised nine assistants to carve the designs of English artist, Donald Gilbert, for the stone sculptures of the Anglo American Corporation building at 44 Main Street, Johannesburg, in 1938. His success in this regard may be judged by his being awarded a further commission by Anglo American to carry out his own designs for a new building at 45 Main Street in the later 1940s, after the Monument panels had been completed in plaster and sent to Italy to be carved.673

**Figure 117:** Peter Kirchhoff in the 1930s (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

**Figure 118:** Peter Kirchhoff at work on the relief tondos at Johannesburg Library. 1934 (courtesy of Kirchhoff files; photo Anna-Maria Kirchhoff)

**670** Berman 1983, 229.

**671** A letter from Shaw to Kirchhoff, written at the Queen's Hotel, Cape Town, on 21 January 1932, declines the offer (Kirchhoff files).

**672** Kirchhoff 2016, 19 The twelve portraits represented Goethe, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Dante, Virgil, Homer, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin, Newton, Spinoza and Socrates. It had originally been intended to have the signs of the zodiac, and Werner Kirchhoff recounts that his father was upset that the original fee of 25 guineas apiece was not increased when this was changed to more demanding portrait subjects that involved considerable research on his part, and that he had to grapple with carving on a surface that was not sufficiently deep for the reliefs. For images of the library and its decoration, see http://able.wiki.up.ac.za/index.php/Johannesburg\_Public\_Library

**673** This commission may explain why the experienced Kirchhoff was not chosen to go to Italy, but the decision might also have related to the tensions that had built up between Kirchhoff and the younger artists, which had led to

**Figure 119:** Frikkie Kruger. The artist at Harmony Hall with full-scale model of wagon for laager around Voortrekker Monument. 1948. Clay, h. 2.7 × w. 4.6 m. (photo courtesy of HF Archives F 39.10.8 k)

There is little recorded about Frederik Johannes (Frikkie) Kruger (1907–66), the second sculptor (fig. 119).674 He was next in experience to Kirchhoff, and also a family man to judge by the inclusion of portraits of his sons as the boys with Retief in *Treaty*. Kruger trained at the art school at the Witwatersrand Technical College in Johannesburg, and worked with F.W. Armstrong, who was head there from 1929–32, as well as Anton van Wouw, the latter experience possibly providing the appropriate artistic recommendation for the SVK.675 There is record of his making a small mining scene, cast by Vignali, commissioned by six East Rand towns for presentation to Prince George during his visit in 1934,676 which suggests that he was already quite well established in the 1930s. And, although we have not found images of them, Kruger is also said to have made Voortrekker panels for schools on the East Rand in 1938,677 a similar commission to Van Wouw's for Johannesburg schools in the centenary year. Werner Kirchhoff also recalled him making multiple casts of small busts of President Kruger, which likely dated from the period when Frikkie Kruger was working with his father, as he still owns plaster casts of it (fig. 120), as well as another of M.K. Gandhi made for sale to Indians. He also made a small bronze of the Monument (fig. 349).678 Kruger's standing at the time

complaints from both sides. It is also possible that it was felt preferable to have Afrikaners in charge, as part of their brief was to prevent undesirable 'un-Afrikaans elements stealing into the work' (*Official Guide* 1955, 41).

**674** The birth date of 1907 was supplied by Gerard de Kamper at the University of Pretoria, but it is given as 1906 in 'Geniale Beeldhouer' 1949, 15. Kruger is not included in the standard South African art reference texts by Berman and Ogilvie. **675** Ibid. However, the two accounts published in *Voorslag* differ, the general article, 'Agter die skerms by die Voortrekkermonument' (5) states that Kruger trained with Armstrong then spent a further six years studying with Van Wouw, while the article devoted to Kruger reverses this, claiming that he worked with Van Wouw then spent seven years with Professor Armstrong (15). Hennie Potgieter stated in an interview that Frikkie Kruger was possibly the first sculptor who trained exclusively in South Africa (Rankin 1989, 68 n 91).

**676** See Du Plessis 1996, 99.

**677** 'Geniale Beeldhouer'*,* 15.

**678** A cast was included in the exhibition *Monumentaliteit / Monumentality*, curated by Cecilia Kruger, at the Heritage Centre, Voortrekker Monument, Pretoria, 2014/15.

**Figure 121:** Gerard Moerdyk and Frikkie Kruger. Anglo-Boer War Memorial erected in Middelburg for the centennial, 1938 (photo Roger Fisher; https://www.artefacts.co.za/main/ Buildings/bldg\_ images.php?bldgid =13440#352088)

is suggested when he was not only given coverage in the general article on the Monument in the journal *Voorslag* at the end of 1949, as were Postma and Potgieter, but also had a full-page article dedicated to him, where he is described as a painter as well as a sculptor.679 Fisher and Clarke record him as the sculptor for Moerdyk's Anglo-Boer War Memorial in Middelburg, where carvings of vertical ranks of rifles are depicted at both sides of the monument's hewn granite stonework (fig. 121).680 The polished memorial plaque with an image of an ox wagon tells us that it was dedicated at the time of the symbolic trek in 1938, which meant that Moerdyk had already worked with Kruger some years before proposing him as one of the sculptors for the Voortrekker Monument frieze.

In the case of Laurika Postma (1903–87),681 her family background would have made her an appealing appointment to a committee seeking sound Afrikaner credentials (fig. 122). She was one of ten children of the Rev. Willem Postma (1874–1920), a pastor in the Gereformeerde church.682 He was also a well-known writer under the name of Dr O'Kulis, who had long been active in the promotion of the young Afrikaans language, and resisted the imposition of English-medium teaching, founding one of the first schools for Afrikaans Christian National education in Bloemfontein.683 He had encouraged his daughter's art making as a child, but his death in 1920 meant that Postma had to leave school and work, as did her older sister, to support her ailing mother and her siblings. She retained her interest in art, however, and attended classes with J.W.D. Muff-Ford and read avidly to educate herself while a typist at Grey College in Bloemfontein (later the University of the Orange Free State; today University of the Free State). Saving up enough for some art studies, she took a year's unpaid leave to go to

**681** Postma is the most extensively covered of the frieze sculptors in South African art literature. See in particular Duffey 1993 and Pillman 1984; also Ogilvie 1988, 529. Hennie Potgieter wrote some articles about her at the time they were working together, such as 'Ons kunstenares Laurika Postma', *Die Taalgenoot,* January 1948; Pillman also lists ''n Waardering', *Die Huisgenoot* 21.5.1946.

**682** *DSAB* 2, 1972, 554–556.

**683** Postma's status is suggested by the fact that after his death his portrait appeared on the cover of *Die Huisgenoot*  January 1921, and a 'lewenskets' (life sketch) was devoted to him (20–21), a type of entry that had previously been devoted to Voortrekker heroes, such as Retief, Trichardt, Pretorius and Cilliers.

**679** 'Geniale Beeldhouer'*,* 15. Peter Kirchhoff is incorrectly referred to as dr. Hirchhoff here, and not mentioned at all in the general article on the sculptors in the same issue, 'Agter die skerms by die Voortrekkermonument', 4–5. **680** Fisher and Clarke 2010, 154. They also record that Moerdyk and his wife wore Voortrekker attire when giving talks

at Middelburg at the time. It is noteworthy that, although this was a monument to the Anglo-Boer War, it was firmly associated with the Trek and the centenary of Blood River. For photographs and inscriptions, see www.eggsa.org/ library/main.php?g2\_itemId=2358895

**Figure 122:** Laurika Postma in her studio in Bloemfontein. c. 1940 (courtesy of UP Archives, Postma Files)

Berlin in 1935, already in her thirties. There her tutor, the artist Milly Steger, encouraged her to become a sculptor, and Postma, determined to pursue an art career, made artworks to raise more funds once back in South Africa so that she could continue her training in Germany. Steger's influence and Postma's further studies at the Akademie der Bildenden Künste in Munich in 1938 are discussed in Chapter 4.

Postma's work abroad was cut short by the outbreak of World War II, when she had to abandon a sculpture of a young Voortrekker girl she was making there for her first sizeable commission for the Oranje Girls School in Bloemfontein (fig. 123).684 She remodelled the 1.56 metre figure, entitled *Vooruit* (Forward)*,* once she had returned to South Africa. Installed at the school in a specially designed garden of indigenous plants on 19 October 1940,685 it had been cast at the Vignali foundry in Pretoria, where Van Wouw's *Voortrekker mother and children* (fig. 49) had been produced the year before.686 Postma also made portraits of presidents Steyn and Reitz in 1940. So there were a number of ways that she could have come to the attention of Moerdyk and others in the SVK group. It is noteworthy that J.J. Kruger wrote a substantial article about her dated 1940, in which he admiringly emphasised her Afrikaner qualities:

Laurika Postma grew up in a home that honoured real Afrikaans morals, traditions and religion; in her first work as an artist she showed a deep reverence and love for figures that symbolised the noblest in Afrikaner life. We can await her further development and mature achievement in this direction with confidence.687

**684** Duffey (1993, 51–52) recounts that the abandoned model was double life-size, also reported in *Die Volksblad*  27.7.1939, which would have made it an interesting parallel to Van Wouw's *Voortrekker mother and children.* However, a nude figure photographed in Pillman (1984, 35), captioned as the unfinished Voortrekker girl that had to be left in Munich, seems about life-size.

**685** Our thanks to Jeanine Kuntzman of Meisieskool Oranje for information about the work. See also www.oranjemeisies.co.za/pre/geskiedenis.php

**686** It seems likely that she had earlier contact with the Vignali foundry. Pillman (1984, 27) describes Postma making plaster works which were painted bronze, but mentions that her portrait of President Josias Hoffmann, made before she returned to Germany, was cast in Pretoria; although the name is not recorded, Vignali's was the only bronze foundry in Pretoria at the time.

**687** '… Laurika Postma [het] in 'n huis opgegroei waar die egte Afrikaanse sedes, tradisies en godsdiens in ere gehou is; in haar eerste werk as kunstenares het sy 'n diepe eerbied en liefde getoon vir figure wat die edelste in the

The youngest sculptor of the group, Hendrik Christoffel (Hennie) Potgieter (1916–92) would also have met the requirement for an Afrikaner sculptor (fig. 124); he is called 'an artist of the people, for the people' by Pieter van der Westhuysen, who was in contact with Potgieter when researching his 1984 MA thesis on him at the University of Pretoria. He suggests that the sculptor was overlooked by critics and art historians because his art had a stronger national than individual quality.688 One could argue that, if this was indeed its overriding characteristic, it was probably developed during the years that he worked on the Voortrekker Monument frieze, as this was Potgieter's first major commission and occupied him almost continuously from 1942 to 1950. He had been a sickly child who grew up in a poor farming family, and only completed Standard 8 schooling before he received a bursary in 1936 to study art at the Witwatersrand Technical College, Johannesburg, where Kruger had also trained.689 His work attracted some favourable comment at the South African Academy in 1939 and 1940,690 and he received his first assignment in 1940, two panels for Lichtenburg High School where he had been a pupil, during his final year at the Technical College.691 He may have come to the attention of the SVK because he made small portrait busts of Paul Kruger at the time of the 1938 centenary, in an unsuccessful effort to raise funds to study abroad.692 Van der Westhuysen writes that the sculptor met Moerdyk in 1941 and soon received his first commission for the Voortrekker Monument from him;693 this was the buffalo head over the doorway of the Monument that Potgieter made the year before he was invited to work on the frieze (fig. 125).694

Clearly, the sculptural team was not drawn from the most established South African artists. While Moerdyk may have seen this as an advantage, allowing him to control the process more easily, not everyone was in agreement, although it seems that no

**Figure 123:** Laurika Postma*. Vooruit.*  1940. Bronze, h. 1.56 m. Christelike en Nasionale Meisieskool Oranje, Bloemfontein (photo Gerhardus Bosch)

Afrikanerlewe simboliseer.  Apart from this thesis, the most important source for Potgieter is his own writing on the Voortrekker Monument (Potgieter 1987). There is an entry for him in Ogilvie 1988, 530.

**689** Van der Westhuysen 1984, 6.

**690** Marais 1947, 21. The article also refers to a less flattering review of an exhibition of Potgieter's sculpture at the art room of *Die Transvaler* in 1945, opened by Moerdyk, who was 'honoured' by a 'dough-like' (deegagtige) portrait on the show.

**691** Van der Westhuysen 1984, 11.

**692** Ibid., 9–10. Potgieter apparently advertised the 20 cm high busts in various newspapers, but received not a single order. He also made a relief of an ox wagon for a distributor who marketed 10 000 of them, although the sculptor was only paid £1.17.6d for the design.

#### **693** Ibid., 13.

**694** Potgieter 1987, 40. He does not mention that it was carried out by a professional stone carver (Van der Westhuysen 1984, 13), as were the wildebeest reliefs by Ullmann. Builder Danie de Jager recalled that the buffalo head was carved by Barney Botha and finished by a carver called Bond, who also produced the wildebeest panels (De Jager CD transcript). There is a certificate authorising payment of £50 to A.C. Bond for 'klipkappery' (stone cutting) dated 21 April 1943, as well as further payments to him in detailed invoices of 29.6.1943, 31.8.1944 and 16.11.1944, although these records are incomplete (HF Archives [old numbering] VTM vol. A2).

objections were recorded until some progress had been made. After members of the Akademie had viewed the small plaster maquettes at the beginning of 1943, there was a flurry of concern, and suggestions were made about bringing in more senior artists to advise the sculptors. T.J. Hugo, who had served on the Vormkomitee, wrote at length to Jansen to stress that historians were not qualified to make aesthetic judgements and ensure that the frieze was a unified composition.695 Although Moerdyk had assured him that he was himself taking care of this, Hugo felt that the frieze must inevitably be perceived by the architect as secondary to his overall design – despite the fact that the frieze was a prime element of it.696 Hugo urged that an art advisory committee be set up right away while it was still possible to intervene and modify the maquettes without difficult and costly consequences, adding (grudgingly) that a few of the panels had met with general approval and would

**Figure 124:** Hennie Potgieter. Early 1950s (photo courtesy of HF Archives F 19.1.4 k)

not need to be changed. It seems that this advice was never taken, however, and Moerdyk continued to be the main advisor for the four sculptors. His control of the studio extended even to paying the artists. The earliest architect's certificate authorising payment of costs related to the frieze, including the sculptors' salaries, was made out to him personally, even though he was also the signatory.697 And their salaries continued to be drawn monthly as a lump sum by him, together with other items required for the studio.

The letters of appointment had gone out to the sculptors in March 1942, according to Hennie Potgieter, who recorded that he received a letter dated 13.3.1942, inviting him to begin work on either 16 March or 1 April.698 The tone of the letter implies that there had been a prior agreement,

**695** Hugo to Jansen 19.1.1943. Similar suggestions were made by Dekker to Bosman on 27.1.1943 (both ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**696** This view is encouraged by the factual errors that Moerdyk makes in his descriptions of the panels of the frieze, which suggests a somewhat off hand attitude. For example, in the *Official Programme* for the inauguration, he describes Dirkie Uys 'spurring on his horse to go to the assistance of his father', Andries Pretorius arriving with his wife, and Boers who, at the coronation of Mpande, 'joyfully fire shots into the air' – all obviously incorrect (1949, 55, 56, 57). Such careless errors were not even fully corrected in the *Official Guide,* where the Boers are still 'firing salutes from their guns' (1955, 52). **697** According to the Audit of 15.6.1943, p.5, £200 was paid into Moerdyk's account every month to cover the sculptors' salaries and related costs (ARCA PV125 2/2/1/1/3). Amongst the (incomplete) set of certificates for 1942 to 1945 relating to the frieze in the HF Archives (old numbering) VTM vol. A2, there are none made out for the sculptors individually. Some are accompanied by letters to SVK treasurer Lombard that usefully detail the expenses (occasionally signed by the sculptor's daughter Irma). The recurring amount for salaries of £199.10.8d (later rounded to 0d) is puzzling, as they were set at £50 for Kirchhoff and £40 for the three other sculptors, but this probably takes account of an increase in their salaries and also cost-of-living allowances, as Potgieter (1987, 43) speaks of £45 a month plus £3.10.0d for living expenses. Ploeger's salary of £41 is itemised separately, as is a payment to photographer Alan Yates of £11.17.0 (5.8.1944). There are a few other recipients, not to our knowledge associated with the frieze, such as a number of payments to works overseer C. Seymen and stone mason A.C. Bond, and two to sculptors Ullmann and Mitford-Barberton (25.4.1944). The sums claimed also included amounts for models, clay, steel reinforcing, incidentals, and cash payments. The last certificate in the Archives of 22.5.1944 records that overall payments had reached £11 296.0.0. **698** Potgieter 1987, 40. Potgieter opted for the second date, in order to complete some commitments he had, but the other three sculptors started earlier. Pillman (1984, 44) mistakenly writes that the SVK appointed the four sculptors in October 1940. However, as discussed above, Moerdyk had had earlier contact with Kirchhoff, Kruger and Potgieter, and it seems very likely that there was at least informal contact with the sculptors earlier than 1942, since Moerdyk was able to name the four to the SVK on 15.1.1942.

**Figure 125:** Hennie Potgieter. Buffalo over entrance to Voortrekker Monument. 1941. Granite (photo the authors)

and earlier mention of the appointments in the press confirms this. There was apparently some intention to keep the project confidential at that stage, however, and the sculptors were warned not to speak to journalists; the reason given was that funding might be withdrawn as money was needed for the war effort, although Potgieter stated that Prime Minister Smuts was supportive.699 There was very little coverage of the frieze in the press initially. We have come across a brief mention of the appointment of the four sculptors in *Die Vaderland* on 3.3.1942, which reproduced Moerdyk's sectional Drawing 3 (fig. 53) to give some idea of what the frieze would look like inside the Hall of Heroes when completed. The same newspaper had a photograph of Postma on 7.3.1942, the caption reporting that she and three other sculptors had been appointed.700 There was evidently less of a fanfare about the selection of the sculptors than there had been about the appointment of the architect, which had received wide coverage in the press at the time.

### **Harmony Hall**

The site for the making of the frieze was a studio where they all worked together as Moerdyk had planned. He even supplied the venue at 137 President Street, Pretoria – the Harmoniesaal (hereafter Harmony Hall), today the Breytenbach Theatre of the Faculty of Arts, Tshwane University of Technology, in the street that was later renamed after the architect.701 He owned the building and was paid rent for it during the period it was used for work for the Monument from 1942, with the lease of £15 per month only terminated on 30 April 1950.702

**699** Potgieter 1987, 43. Under Smuts, South Africa had declared war on Germany in September 1939. However, Parliamentary support was slim, so conscription was not an option and the army had to rely on volunteers; hence there would have been no question of the sculptors becoming targets for conscription. Ongoing anti-British sentiments meant that there were many who did not volunteer.

**700** As discussed in Chapter 2, Teitge claimed in January 1943 to have learned about the appointments through an article in *Die Brandwag*; we have not been able to locate this article*.*

**701** Now 137 Moerdyk Street. According to old photographs on site and the still extant dedication inscription, it was built as the Deutsche Turn Halle by the Deutscher Turn Verein, and inaugurated on 6 June 1903.

**702** Dagbestuur 13.6.1942: 6; and Dagbestuur 24.4.1950: 9.

**Figure 126:** Deutsche Turn Halle (German Gymnastic Club). c. 1910. Later Harmony Hall (Harmoniesaal), 137 Gerard Moerdyk Street, Pretoria (photo courtesy of Tshwane University of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Pretoria)

It had previously been a German sports hall, and the main area where the work took place was the former 'Deutsche Turn Halle' (fig. 126). It had a veranda down one side and an expansive yard, large enough for the Kirchhoffs to have a run for fifty chickens. All areas were used for the project. The main hall, measuring roughly 12 × 20 metres, with specially installed roof lighting, housed the supporting large wooden backboards and pulleys required for the making of the full-scale clay reliefs, with the small maquettes set up around the walls for ready reference.703 It provided ample space for the four sculptors to work together (fig. 114), and for visits of models, friends and more official visitors, such as Moerdyk and members of the SVK. The veranda was used for making the initial small clay maquettes and their plaster casts (fig. 127), and then for storing the full-size ones when they had been completed and cast in plaster sections, until the building of the Monument was far enough advanced for their temporary installation there. The yard provided space for making sketches and photographs of models in different poses, some of the latter kept in the Kirchhoff files, although different models might be used for the full-scale relief when portraits were incorporated (figs 128, 129). The yard also accommodated the livestock that was borrowed from time to time to make models for the frieze.704 Also available was a rest room for the younger sculptors (who resided elsewhere), and living quarters at the back of the building at its western end, which were assigned to Kirchhoff and his family (with bedrooms for the children at the front);705 they lived on site for the duration of the project until later 1946. Thereafter, while the models for the ox wagons for the laager encircling the Monument and the Voortrekker figures for the four corners of the building were being made by Frikkie Kruger, he lived and worked there too.

**703** There are traces of the markings of a badminton court, part of the hall's previous use, in photographs of the workshop, pointed out by Werner Kirchhoff, which suggests that the hall was about 12 × 20 metres. We confirmed the estimated accuracy of these measurements on a visit in February 2015 to the Breytenbach Theatre, whose inner auditorium follows the basic layout of the 'Deutsche Turn Halle'. We gratefully acknowledge the help of Masegegeya Tjale and Wandile Mgcodo from Tshwane University of Technology, Faculty of Arts, for support on the visit.

**704** Potgieter (1987, 44–45) recounts a number of entertaining anecdotes about the sculptors working with live animals.

**705** According to notes in the Audit of 15.6.1943, p.5, Kirchhoff's occupation saved the cost of a nightwatchman. He also paid the electricity account (ARCA PV125 2/2/1/1/3).

**Figure 127:** Laurika Postma. *Arrival*. 1942–43. Plaster maquette on an easel in Harmony Hall (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

> Harmony Hall was to be the centre of the all-important process of shaping the frieze that would be the narrative heart of the Monument.706 We do not know when and for what purpose Moerdyk had acquired this structure. However, we are tempted to speculate that he might have bought the hall in anticipation of the massive sculptural work needed to design the marble frieze and the opportunity the premises would provide him for controlling the entire process of production. Our assumption was recently endorsed by Moerdyk's grandson, Gerard Vermeulen, who also suggested that the building might have been acquired especially for the sculptural project, since it was a venue close to Moerdyk's home and office, allowing him to monitor daily progress.707

> Until the full-scale plaster casts were installed at the Monument, shifting the focus, Harmony Hall was the place where all the interested parties would come to view, discuss and offer advice on the reliefs. For the sculptors, a dedicated studio was no doubt a privilege, and the shared workspace and on-site residence for the Kirchhoffs reflected their complete involvement, and the

**706** A rare cross-cultural study about the importance of artists' workshops is the 1993 volume edited by Peter M. Lukehart.

**707** In our email correspondence (18.6.2014) he further reported that his mother, Irma Vermeulen, had no clear recollection of the acquisition of Harmony Hall, and it is not mentioned in her book on the architect (Vermeulen 1999).

**Figure 128:** Models posing for *Women spur men on* in the yard at Harmony Hall. 1942? (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

**Figure 129:** *Women spur men on*. 1943– 45. Clay. Full-scale relief (courtesy of UP Archives; photo Alan Yates)

dedication expected of them. But it also meant that they were under constant scrutiny and control over a lengthy period of time. Although the project spread over almost five years from early 1942 to late 1946, this does not seem a disproportionate length of time in relation to the extraordinary scale of the task; yet Potgieter remembered that they were always being pressed to work faster.708 Van der Westhuysen reports in his thesis on Potgieter that, despite some of the frustrations of working on a joint project of this kind, it provided a valuable lesson for their art and their characters.709 Potgieter, when writing about Laurika Postma in *Die Taalgenoot* of January 1948, expanded on a similar point, which is repeated by Pillman in her monograph on Postma.710 In Potgieter's words:

The time was an enormous learning process for all four sculptors; a period when discipline was essential, where direct criticism had to be borne, or more, valued. It was a learning process to make life-size figures, to undertake large-scale work in plaster and to work according to set hours, in opposition to the very idealistic idea of 'work when you become inspired'.711

One wonders whether any of the artists fully realised what an all-consuming commitment this was to be, and how long it would endure, when they first agreed to take on the commission.

It was challenging to work constantly in proximity with other artists and to learn to collaborate in the very close way that was expected of them, especially when they did not even know each other at the outset. Although by all accounts they worked well together initially, tensions were felt as work progressed, and there appears to have been a rift between the younger artists and Kirchhoff, who apparently had rather different interpretations of the amount of responsibility implied by his higher salary and honorary title of 'primus inter pares'.712 Hennie Potgieter generally avoided airing grievances in his 1987 account, saying diplomatically that they 'could and did constantly give each other advice and criticism, which required enormous adjustment'.713 And that, when there were disagreements about the demands made by the sculptor who had designed a particular scene and was in charge of its execution on a large scale, the sparks might fly, but tension was invariably relieved by humour.714 Some of the surviving records speak more candidly of what such 'adjustment' and 'disagreements' involved, such as a set of undated handwritten documents in the ARCA Jansen archive. One unsigned complaint recorded unreasonable demands to rework panels that were nearly complete, and an overall lack of respect, as when Kirchhoff did not ever greet the complainant in public, spoke to him disparagingly about Potgieter's work, and claimed that the complainant understood nothing about the casting process – even though he had undertaken such work for Van Wouw (a point which identifies the writer as Frikkie Kruger).715 While Laurika Postma also wrote of Kirchhoff's lack of respect for his colleagues, she expanded on the situation, and explained how, because of the importance of the task and because they did not want a scandal in the press, the younger members of the group had attempted to keep to the initial agreement among the four sculptors that they would settle any arguments amongst themselves and not run

**708** Potgieter 1987, 43.

**709** Van der Westhuysen 1984, 20.

**710** Pillman 1984, 45.

**711** 'Hierdie tydperk was 'n geweldige leerskool vir al vier beeldhouers; 'n tydperk waar dissiplinering nodig was, waar reguit kritiek verdra, of nog meer, waardeer moes word. Dit was 'n leerskool om lewensgroot figure te maak, groot gipsgietwerk gedoen en volgens gereelde ure gewerk moes word, in teenstelling met die so veridealiseerde gedagte van "werk as jy geïnspireerd raak" (Potgieter 1948).

**712** Potgieter (1987, 41) observed that Kirchhoff did not fully understand the idea of senior among equals, but wanted at first to take the position of commanding officer, which unfortunately let to many disputes: 'Kirchhoff het dit egter nie goed begryp nie en wou aanvanklik die houding van bevelvoerder inneem – wat ongelukkig tot baie geskille gelei het.'

**713** 'ons kon en het mekaar voortdurend van raad en kritiek bedien, wat ontsaglike aanpassing geverg' (ibid.).

**714** Ibid., 44. Potgieter relishes telling of some of these light-hearted moments (44–45).

**715** Unsigned and undated handwritten document (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/8).

to Moerdyk with complaints. But her statement reveals that Harmony Hall did not always live up to its name:

Therefore we endured the almost impossible, but that was not appreciated by one colleague as he has shown through his actions and statements that he does not share the same sentiments about things. The circumstances were sometimes so unbearable that we often considered resigning.716

But if she felt that they were 'contemptuously put down' (minagtend afgejak) by Kirchhoff, he felt that the others colluded against him, with Postma the ringleader, a complicity she strongly denied. Kirchhoff's sense that there was a conspiracy against him was also referred to by the carpenter, Hendrik Ploeger, in his account, where he records that Kirchhoff accused him of having come under the influence of the three other sculptors.717 Similar accusations can also be deduced from notes in the Jansen archive that seem to record a verbal interview between Jansen and Kirchhoff on 4.11.1946, soon after the sculptors' contracts had ended. This includes such remarks as 'Jealousy and resentment of my really knowing better', 'Intrigue, stirring up bad feeling', and 'End of job most unpleasant experience in his life', giving us a glimpse of Kirchhoff's unhappy reactions.718

At least on one occasion Moerdyk had to step in, as it is on record that, when the relationship between the four artists became very tense, he assigned one panel, *Saailaer* (sowing camp or laager), to Kirchhoff to work on alone.719 Even this had a rather unfortunate outcome. Kirchhoff was required to make certain changes at the end, chiefly to comply with the intended accuracy of historical details,720 and apparently had his contract extended for a month to undertake them. But the matter was not resolved to Moerdyk's satisfaction.721 Once Kirchhoff had left, one of the others was brought in to carry out Moerdyk's requirements, with rather acrimonious results, and solicitors involved.722 In the end, it was in many respects an extraordinary achievement that the sculptors were able to complete what Moerdyk could call a 'harmonious whole'.723

Occasional intriguing glimpses like these of the human interaction behind the making of the frieze allow us to guess at something of the human dynamics involved, but in general we are dependent on the formal written records, Werner Kirchhoff's accounts, and the works themselves to reconstruct how the frieze developed. The processes behind its making had of course been initiated much earlier in the discussions around suitable topics and the sketches commissioned from Coetzer, discussed in the previous chapter. When artists were appointed in 1942 to begin the task of shaping the frieze in sculptural form, they were given reproductions of the Coetzer sketches to work from, in order to make the small clay maquettes that were to be the first stage of production. As discussed in Chapter 2, despite the trouble that had been taken by the Historiese Komitee to review Coetzer's drawings and call for changes, it seems as though the revised original drawings were

**723** *Official Guide* 1955, 41.

**716** 'Daarom het ons verdra wat byna onmoontlik was, maar wat nie waardeer is deur een kollega nie aangesien hy deur sy optrede en uitlatings getoon het dat hy nie dieselfde sentiment omtrent dinge het nie. Die toestand was soms so onhoudbaar dat ons dikwels oorweeg het om to bedank' (Handwritten document signed by L. Postma; ARCA PV94 1/75/1/8). That the unpleasantness engendered by these personality clashes was acute is underlined by a polite letter from Postma to Jansen, dated 16.10.1946, declining 'under the circumstances' an SVK invitation regarding a farewell function for the four sculptors (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**717** Handwritten document in Dutch, signed by H. Ploeger (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/8). Ploeger's role is discussed below. **718** ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7.

**719** 'Toe die houding tussen die vier kunstenaars baie gespanne geword het, het hy [Moerdyk] dr. Kirchoff [sic] opgedra om alleen aan die panel "Saaiplaas" te werk' (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**720** The same document states that Mrs K. Roodt-Coetzee had informed Kirchhoff about changes needed to meet historical accuracy, but had been ignored.

**721** Ibid. Evidently the changes chiefly involved replacing the plaits in the hairstyle of the kneeling woman and the portrait of the woman sower on the far left. Werner Kirchhoff recalls that the hairstyle was that of the model, one of the Pirow family, who had particularly requested that her coronet of plaits be represented.

**722** See *Saailaer*. As will be discussed later, Kirchhoff considered that his intellectual property had been violated, and took the matter to his solicitor, resulting in endless interchanges (see documents in ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

never made available to them. While some of the discussion might have been passed on to them verbally, it is unlikely that they had the minutes of the Historiese Komitee of 4.9.1937 that explained the required changes, as they are not comprehensively implemented. Although the sculptors sometimes depicted forms similar to the suggested revisions, they were chiefly dependent on the reproductions of Coetzer's unchanged first sketches.

The use of one-third scale in clay for the maquettes had been cited since 1938, the very first time models for the frieze were called for.724 However, consideration of how the small maquettes that were proposed would be transformed into a full-scale frieze was not recorded, even as late as November 1941, when Moerdyk finally reported to the Dagbestuur on his progress in finding sculptors.725 It was implicit on this occasion, however, that it was intended that they would be enlarged for the full-scale frieze in Italy,726 as Moerdyk stated that once the small panels were completed the sculptors would go to Italy to work under the guidance of a 'one or other great master'. But Moerdyk and the Dagbestuur must soon have realised that conditions in Italy, when the country was at war, meant that this plan was not viable: in order not to delay progress indefinitely, the enlarging of the frieze would need to be undertaken in clay and plaster by the same sculptors in Pretoria.727

Although there is no record in SVK documents of exactly when this decision was made, the rental of the ample spaces of Harmony Hall, offered by Moerdyk as a studio-workshop for the sculptors, suggests that the need to enlarge the sculptures in South Africa had been realised at least from the outset of their contracts early in 1942. But it cannot be discounted that the suitability of the venue for such large-scale work might have been fortuitous. Likewise, Peter Kirchhoff moving his whole family to Pretoria suggests that he expected the production to be protracted, but his reasons cannot be verified. The change of plan regarding the enlargement of the reliefs is explicitly referred to only later, and in relation to quite different issues. For example, in September 1943 Moerdyk brought up the matter in his explanation of the increased cost of the sculptures to the Dagbestuur. He reported that, because of the war, when undertaking the making of the frieze in Italy was no longer possible, the enlargement to full scale could not be carried out with inexpensive Italian labour. Instead, the higher cost of South African sculptors making the frieze full scale in clay and plaster had to be met, and thereafter the cost of translation into marble in Italy.728 The need for enlargement in South Africa was also cited in a document dated 8.10.1947, which discussed the responsibilities of the sculptors in relation to a complaint laid by Kirchhoff.729 The 1987 account of the making of the frieze by Hennie Potgieter, which speaks from a sculptor's perspective, seems to take for granted the process of progressing from sketches to one-third-size maquettes, to full-scale clay, and finally to plaster casts in South Africa, which suggests that this had been the expected scenario for the sculptors from the start. In any event, the process of designing an ultimately 92-metre-long and 2.3-metre-high narrative from small maquettes so different in scale is unlikely to have been successful without the constant involvement of the four South African sculptors, and close communication with the man who could be called their chief client, namely Moerdyk.

As regards the allocation of the scenes, Potgieter recounted that when he arrived at the workshop, a little after the other three because he had chosen a later starting date, 1 April, the other

**724** SVK 12.2.1938: 24a.

**725** Dagbestuur 28.11.1941: 3.

**726** It was never spelled out explicitly whether it was intended that the small plaster maquettes would be enlarged directly to marble with the use of a pointing machine in Italy, or whether they would first be enlarged in clay there, as they were to be in South Africa.

**727** The question of cutting out Italy altogether never seems to have been considered, presumably because of the need for marble of a quality that was not available in South Africa. Those involved seem to have proceeded with the production of the full-scale frieze in plaster in the belief that, by the time it was ready, Italy would once again be accessible to them.

**728** Dagbestuur 30.9.1943: 6.

**729** This document (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7), annotated by the SVK secretary M.C. Botha with the date 8.10.1947, probably provided a supplementary record of the discussion at a non-quorate meeting of the executive the previous day, where only Jansen, Moerdyk and Botha were present (Dagbestuur 7.10.1947).

sculptors had already made their choices, and he had to take on the scenes that were left.730 There would have been a few different allocations initially – such as Coetzer's 'Allegory' which was later omitted – but the final distribution of the complete quota of panels is set out below. While we have devised short titles for our text for convenience, the full titles are given in fig. 130, where they are arranged in the sequence in which they appear in the Hall of Heroes.

Peter Kirchhoff had selected the scenes *Departure* (1)*, Blood River* (21)*, Church of the Vow* (22), *Saailaer* (23) and *Convention* (27)*.* Five is rather fewer than the others, possibly because he was the one in charge of setting up the workshop and equipment, but also, perhaps, because three of these were of larger format. And, as we shall see, there was also another that he was probably responsible for, which was later abandoned.

Frikkie Kruger undertook seven scenes: *Negotiation* (8)*, Descent* (11)*, Treaty* (12)*, Murder of Retief* (13)*, Teresa Viglione* (15)*, Mpande* (24) and *Return* (26).

Laurika Postma was responsible for eight, more than any of the others, although most of them were of smaller format: *Debora Retief* (10)*, Bloukrans* (14), *Dirkie Uys* (16)*, Marthinus Oosthuizen* (17)*, Women spur men on* (18)*, Pretorius* (19)*, The Vow* (20) and *Death of Dingane* (25)*.*

Like Kruger, Potgieter undertook seven scenes: *Presentation* (2), *Soutpansberg* (3), *Delagoa Bay* (4), *Vegkop* (5), *Inauguration* (6), *Kapain* (7) and *Blydevooruitsig* (9). By chance all the panels by Potgieter were on the east side and, other than Kruger's *Negotiation* (8)*,* he tackled the long east wall on his own, which he considered a fortuitous advantage.

It will be realised at a glance that this inventory does not correspond exactly to Jansen's list submitted to the government in 1937 (fig. 92), which set out the topics for Coetzer's drawings. So while Coetzer must be credited with the first visual conceptualisation of many of the topics, and with many of the details that found their way into the final frieze, it is clear that the sculptures for the frieze were in many respects new inventions. And, apart from the fact that many of the compositions were to be drastically modified, as will be discussed in more detail when the scenes are analysed individually in Part II, some of them did not number amongst Coetzer's drawings at all – Kirchhoff's *Saailaer*, Kruger's *Teresa Viglione,* Postma's *Debora Retief, Marthinus Oosthuizen*  and *Death of Dingane,* and Potgieter's *Kapain.* However, although the inventory of topics represented in the maquettes was not the same as the twenty-four selected for Jansen's list, apart from *Kapain, Debora Retief* and *Teresa Viglione*, they had all been noted as possibilities at some point during the discussions of the 1930s. So some topics may well have been put forward by people aware of the earlier suggestions and discussions of the SVK when more scenes were needed. Committee members of the SVK would no doubt have contributed to the process, and indeed this was stipulated at the lengthy SVK meeting in early 1942, which noted in particular that the Historiese Komitee was to remain constantly in touch with the artists.731 While it was also recorded that it would be left to the discretion of the chairman, Jansen, and the architect, Moerdyk, to decide when the SVK should be brought together again to view progress, it was specified that this must be early enough for changes to be easily made.732 However, as was the case in all the SVK discussions, the focus was almost certainly on the choice of topics and authentic detail, while style and composition were left, almost by default, to the sculptors.

It is irresistible to try to imagine how this complex project would have been presented to the sculptors when they began work at Harmony Hall, although we can only guess at the details. Potgieter's account describes how, when he first arrived, he was shown Coetzer's drawings pasted on

**730** Potgieter 1987, 41. His statement begs the question of whether the scenes additional to those drawn by Coetzer had been thought of at this stage. It seems likely not, as he was the one who suggested *Kapain.* Ultimately each of the men had one new topic to design, with no Coetzer drawing to guide them, while Postma had three (see below). **731** SVK 15/16.1.1942: 12.

**732** Ibid.: 12v.

**Figure 130:** Short and full titles of the scenes for the frieze, with initials of the artists who designed them

cardboard,733 probably the reproductions of his first sketches, as discussed in Chapter 2, which may have been accompanied by Jansen's list of twenty-four topics. As regards other documentation, we have argued in the previous chapter that how much they were shown or told of the revisions that the Historiese Komitee had required of Coetzer is hard to fathom, but it does not seem to have been systematic. For the actual arrangement of the scenes, they may have been shown a copy of Moerdyk's diagram that was used to map out the architectural layout of the frieze in late 1936 or early 1937, also discussed in Chapter 2 (fig. 90), but it seems unlikely initially, as the sculptors were apparently not fully aware of the layout when they made their choice of panels.734 Some updated version of the layout must soon have been discussed, however. How to adapt twenty-four scenes to the thirty-one panels in Moerdyk's architectural scheme had to be worked out, although this was modified as work progressed – both in terms of topics and their position in the frieze – with twentyseven scenes finally. The changes would in part be driven by the need to extend the frieze across the corner walls above the doorways, as shown in Moerdyk's sectional Drawings 3 and 4 (figs 53, 54), which immediately necessitated the invention of extra scenes.

Perhaps other lists were made available to the sculptors to suggest further topics to meet this requirement, or perhaps ideas were conveyed verbally by Moerdyk or Jansen, especially as a need for even more changes emerged. For, as the sculptors gave attention to how the scenes should be presented on the walls, and in what sequence, additional modifications were mooted and further topics required. It is even possible that written material was made available, such as standard histories and Preller's records of the memories of *Voortrekkermense,* or sought out by the artists themselves.735 They might also have consulted texts related to the Voortrekker Monument itself, such as Jansen's own article, 'The Voortrekker Centenary', published in the *Official Yearbook* No. 20 of 1939. His short history of the Trek and of the early stages of the Monument's development and the centenary celebrations would have provided a convenient framework for their task.

There would also have been ongoing input from committee members. Although Moerdyk puts it on record on a number of occasions that the Historiese Komitee had not yet given assistance,736 as early as June 1942 he had arranged to take the Dagbestuur to see progress on the panels,737 and it is possible that individual committee members visited informally. According to Hennie Potgieter in an interview with Nico Coetzee (28.9.1990), the Historiese Komitee 'did visit the sculptors "once or twice" … to look at the panels, but … did not make any useful input'. There is good reason for Coetzee's claim that 'Moerdijk was the ostensible interlocutor between this "committee of experts" … and the sculptors'.738 We know from various accounts that Moerdyk dropped in to see the sculptors on a regular basis, not only to pay their salaries, but also to offer direction and advice,739 and it was he who oversaw required changes, as will be discussed later. Individual committee members might well have visited: Postma's biography recounts how Voortrekker clothing experts Kotie Roodt-Coetzee and Gertruida (Trudie) Anna Kestell, new appointments to the Historiese Komitee in 1942, as discussed in Chapter 2, came frequently to the studio, the latter 'holding inspections' to see

**733** Potgieter 1987, 41. Werner Kirchhoff also remembers the sketches on a board in the studio.

**734** See Potgieter (ibid.), who writes, 'The leftovers were mine, little knowing that, according to a chronological order, mine would all come on one wall. Where their panels consequently followed each other accidentally, mine were continuous …' (Die oorskiet was myne, min wetende dat, volgens chronologiese volgorder, myne almal op een muur sou kom. Waar hulle panele mekaar gevolglik onwillekeurig opvolg, is myne aaneenlopend …)

**735** We know from his own account that Potgieter discovered the story of Kapain in a book on the leader Hendrik Potgieter (1987, 42). See details below. But this was probably fortuitous and the consultation of historical texts was more the domain of SVK committees selecting topics than the artists.

**736** Dagbestuur 21.5.1943: 5ii and 30.9.1943: 3.

**737** Dagbestuur 13.6.1942: 3.

**738** Coetzee 1995, 20.

**739** Potgieter writes that 'Moerdyk … frequently looked in to see progress and to discuss the work with us' (Moerdyk … het dikwels ingeloer om die vordering te sien en die werk met ons to bespreek) (1987, 41); Van der Westhuysen adds that on his almost daily visits Moerdyk succeeded in never giving the impression that he was checking up on the sculptors, information he must have gleaned directly from Potgieter (1984, 20).

that everything was developing according to Afrikaner traditions.740 Discussions of this kind would have taken the form of verbal interchanges with the artists at Harmony Hall, rather than being part of the more formal debates of committee meetings, which would explain why there is no substantive record of how or when they took place.

Nonetheless it needs to be acknowledged that, as the initial conceptualisation of the frieze was developed exponentially in 1942, the sculptors were of prime importance in the visualisation of ideas to give them sculptural form, even if major decisions were made in consultation with SVK representatives. Overall there seems to have been remarkably little contribution from the committee on the form the frieze should take in terms of style and composition: it was as though, having made decisions five years previously on a sequence of twenty-four topics, their work was done. At that stage, when they were first deciding on the content of the frieze, and when they were critiquing Coetzer's preliminary drawings, there was virtually no consideration of how these ideas would be represented visually. And once work on the reliefs began, there appears to have been very little guidance for the sculptors, although it could be that there are no records of advice as the frieze progressed because it took place outside formal, minuted meetings. Once the sculptors were appointed, it seems they were largely left to get on with it, with responsibility for the outcome vested in the architect. From now on the process of making the frieze was no longer dominated by the patrons, but by the daily decisions and actual work of the sculptors.

Hennie Potgieter explained in his 1987 account that Coetzer's pictorial designs were not suited to relief sculpture, which, for example, deployed different ways of representing space. Yet the actual topics of the sketches were almost identical to those used by the sculptors, and in this aspect at least the small models followed the drawings fairly closely. Potgieter fully acknowledged that the sculptors drew on Coetzer for details based on his admirable understanding of Afrikaner history, but recorded that they had to make their own working drawings:

… we four sculptors then decided to make use of only the **knowledge** of Coetzer, as certainly the greatest specialist of Africana, and **not** of his compositions. If he had a certain Voortrekker implement in his drawings, we could know that such an implement was definitely used in the time of the Voortrekkers. …

Our work method was that, after we had made our drawings, each of us modelled his panels at onethird size in clay and cast it in plaster.741

Potgieter emphasised their initial hesitancy and experimental nature in a later interview: the first drawings were carried out 'searching and groping' (soekend en tastend), and only then discussed in the group.742 Unfortunately, none of their drawings seems to have survived. To judge by the clay models that followed, the new drawings must have vigorously rethought compositions and in some cases, such as Kirchhoff's interpretation of *Blood River*, completely reinvented the way that scenes had been represented by Coetzer (figs 131, 132). They would also have had to change the format of compositions to match the final layout of the frieze, since a number of Coetzer's scenes stretched across more than one panel, sometimes even crossing from one wall to another, as in Moerdyk's first proposed layout (fig. 90), a solution that would be rejected for the actual frieze. Coetzer had also not supplied sketches for the panels of the frieze over the corner doors. While the size and position of scenes were altered and new scenes developed in response to what was required for

**740** 'Dan het sy inspeksie gehou om toe te sien dat alles volgens volkstradisie verloop' (Pillman 1984, 44–45).

**741** '… ons vier beeldhouers het toe besluit om slegs van Coetzer se **kennis**, as seker die grootste kenner van Africana, gebruik te maak en **nie** van sy ontwerpe nie. As hy op sy tekeninge 'n sekere Voortrekker-implement gehad het, kon ons weet dat só 'n implement wel in die Voortrekkers se tyd in gebruik was. / Ons werkmetode was om nadat ons ons tekeninge gemaak het, elkeen sy panele op 'n eenderde-groote in klei te boetseer en in gips te giet' (Potgieter 1987, 41).

**742** 'Werk aan die fries in Voortrekkermonument' (Work on the frieze of the Voortrekker Monument), *Dagbreek en Sondagnuus*, undated newspaper clipping, UP Archives, Postma Folder 7.

**Figure 131:** W.H. Coetzer. 'Bloed Rivier'*.* After September 1937. Pencil, 13.3 × 23 cm, image size. Revised first sketch (photo courtesy of Museum Africa, no. 66/2194R)

**Figure 132:** Peter Kirchhoff. *Blood River.* 1942–43. Plaster, 79 × 147 cm. Damaged maquette (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

the new layout, the allegorical final panel by Coetzer, which Hennie Potgieter felt was 'not at all sculptural',743 was omitted altogether (fig. 108).

A rare record of a change being negotiated is provided in Hennie Potgieter's account of his proposal to include a new topic, the battle of Kapain (fig. 133), in which the Trek leader Hendrik Potgieter had defeated Mzilikazi's Ndebele forces in late 1837. The sculptor had read about this little known event in a recent book about the leader by 'Skaap' Theunissen and Carel Potgieter, Hendrik Potgieter's grandson, who had gifted it to the artist744 – not entirely selflessly.

**743** '… hoegenaamd nie beeldhoukundig sou wees nie' (Potgieter 1987, 43).

**744** Potgieter and Theunissen 1938 (see Potgieter 1987, 42).

**Figure 133:** Hennie Potgieter. *Kapain*. 1942–43. Plaster, 77 × 152.7 cm. Maquette (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott) Carel Potgieter would also become Hennie Potgieter's model for his Trek-leader grandfather, who is portrayed as the closest horseman in the new scene of *Kapain*, as well as the flanking Boer in *Vegkop.* Quite different from the Voortrekker's favoured military tactic of using a defensive laager as at the Vegkop clash, the running battle of 1837 at Kapain ended, according to the extravagant figures given by Potgieter and Theunissen, in the complete rout of Mzilikazi over nine days and the death of some 3 000 of his followers. The Boer commando with its deadly firepower, which numbered only around 330, suffered no losses.745 This stirring account claimed that the victory meant that the Boers were the 'legal owners' (wettige eienaars) of the chief's lands, and marked the beginning of the history of the Transvaal.746 It obviously caught the sculptor's imagination, particularly the (questionable) fact that the black forces at Kapain were mounted on oxen, and he proposed it as a fitting subject for the frieze. Potgieter's earlier victory over the Ndebele at Mosega had been included in the 'Voorstelle' list of topics, but that would have lacked the exotic use of fighting cattle.

There were probably many factors contributing to Hennie Potgieter's proposal. Design considerations would have been important to the artists, and another battle piece would act as a balancing counterpart to *Vegkop* in the composition of the east frieze, particularly apposite if there had already been a decision to centre *Inauguration* on that wall*.* It also balanced out the narrative, since *Vegkop* had been the Ndebele's first defeat at Hendrik Potgieter's hands and *Kapain* was the last. One might surmise too that the sculptor was drawn to an additional scene that focused on his historical namesake Potgieter (even though he stressed in his writing that his own family was not related to that of the Trek leader),747 especially as Potgieter might have seemed rather underrepresented in the frieze compared to three panels for Retief and four for Pretorius. On the other hand, Potgieter is given some preferential treatment in that he is shown as the heroic leader in both *Vegkop* and *Kapain,* at the cost of any role that Sarel Cilliers may have had in the first battle, as discussed in *Vegkop*, and Piet Uys as co-leader in the second. The paired battle pieces stress that Hendrik Potgieter had been a very successful military leader, a riposte perhaps to his rival

**745** Ibid., 93. In fact, the Boers had killed up to four hundred Ndebele, and the battle ran from 28 to 30 November; the history is fully discussed in *Kapain.*

**746** Potgieter and Theunissen 1938, 79–94, particularly 90–92.

**747** Potgieter 1987, 42.

Pretorius' triumph at Blood River directly opposite. The pair also (ironically) frames *Inauguration*, which shows Retief sworn in as commander-general, replacing Potgieter who was passed over for office on that occasion, yet went on to achieve major victories such as *Kapain*. But the sculptor could not simply introduce such a major change on his own, as is described in his publication on the frieze:

Included in the panels that I was required to do, among others, was an auction scene where the Voortrekkers sold their possessions, as well as a symbolic panel with wagon-wheels, rising sun with sunrays, a powder horn and other things that certainly do not lend themselves to sculptural depiction [fig. 108]. I then approached Mr Moerdyk for permission to use the combined space of the two panels to make a representation of the battle of Kapain. Permission was granted, but I was required to show him a drawing of the panels for the whole wall, which I did.748 This consequently makes 'The Battle of Kapain' the only panel where the sculptor selected his historical incident from the history books.749

It is clear that the sculptors were not free to simply change the scenes they were portraying at will, although it is surprising that Moerdyk's agreement was apparently all that was required to make modifications. After all the discussion about topics and historical correctness, one might have expected consultation with the committee, and perhaps this was done informally, but it is clear from the SVK minutes that the architect – and the sculptors – were given more and more responsibility for conceptualising the frieze as the years passed. And one can safely assume that the same held good for how the frieze was to be conceived overall, which was in some respects more of an architectural issue.

The most obvious new demand as regards the general layout was posed by the architect's decision to make the frieze continuous, extending over the doorways, which necessitated not only additional panels but a rethinking of the sequence. One could argue that this fundamental change of layout was at the heart of the ultimately rather irregular layout of the panels of the frieze: although centrepieces were retained on each wall, the symmetry and regularity in the size of the panels that Moerdyk had initially proposed in his layout design (fig. 90) was not maintained in the final frieze. We have already suggested that the corner panels were probably the basis of the 8-foot measurement that Moerdyk proposed as a standard panel size, which at roughly 2.4 m was just slightly wider than the 2.3 m height of the frieze. For the one-third-size maquettes, which were made to a standard height whatever the width, this translated into about 32 inches or 81 cm wide, while the large central panels were one-and-a-half times the standard size, measuring 12 feet or about 3.65 m, and thus 1.33 m for the maquettes. This seems to have provided a rough guideline for the sculptors but was not followed precisely. The central panel maquettes measure just over 1.2 m, with the single-panel ones in the region of 76 to 77 cm, while those on the corner walls are a little larger, varying between 83 and 89 cm. Where scenes traversed two panels, there was further inconsistency: *Descent* was 1.65 m, *Bloukrans* was 1.56 m, and *Saailaer*, a late addition to this group, was 1.42 m. *Departure*, which was allocated three panels, had two maquettes of 1.24 and 1.25 m. That many of the panels are a little smaller than the expected measurement suggests that at this early stage there might have been some thought of a slight break between the scenes when they were assembled. When considering Moerdyk's announcement in 1936 that the Monument required a

**748** Moerdyk's request 'to show him a drawing of the panels for the *whole* wall' (our italics) is evidence that Moerdyk was concerned with the overall composition, and may indicate that he could imagine *Vegkop* and *Kapain* as possible candidates to frame *Inauguration* in the centre.

**749** 'Onder die panele wat ek moes maak, was daar, onder andere, 'n vendusietoneel waar die Voortrekkers hul besittings verkoop, asook 'n simboliese paneel met wawiele, opkomende son met sonstrale, kruithoring en dies meer, wat hoegenaamd nie beeldhoudkundig sou wees nie.    But, although his sectional drawings of the Monument do suggest that form (figs 53, 54), he did not in fact spell out what the relationship of the different scenes would be, and his layout diagram (fig. 88) suggested discretely defined elements of a fixed width that would be arranged in strict symmetry. In fact the scenes abutted tightly or even overlapped in their full-scale form with no clear breaks, and there was evidently no attempt to standardise the widths at this stage.

As the scenes had no clear frames and their measurements were transferred directly to the large panels, described later in the chapter, something of the inconsistency was maintained. Even more significant in upsetting the neat symmetry of Moerdyk's scheme was the decision to shift *Vegkop* away from its central position, replaced by *Inauguration*, and to introduce *Kapain* on the other side, with a maquette that was about 10 cm wider than *Vegkop*. It is an indication of the fluidity of the process that in the full-scale clay this difference was reversed, and *Vegkop* was 4.94 m wide as against *Kapain's* 4.32 m. It would be tedious to make a comparison of all the measurements for the scenes (and they are detailed in the individual discussions), but it is clear to even the casual view that, apart from the corner panels, the final scenes vary in size. While the difficulty of upscaling the small maquettes to such large reliefs should not be underestimated, it nonetheless seems that the sculptors and those who advised them lost sight of, or deliberately avoided, any architectural goal of symmetrical balance in the frieze, perhaps preferring a freer arrangement.

The design logic of Moerdyk's layout had already been challenged to some degree when topics were assigned to his diagram (fig. 90), with some scenes traversing more than one panel and two scenes straddling adjacent walls*.* However, the sculptors probably quickly saw that the lengthy format of *Departure*, as drawn by Coetzer to match Moerdyk's initial configuration, which required it to extend around the corner, would be an awkward solution that prevented compositional coherence. The full extent of *Departure* was instead consolidated on the north wall to the right of the entrance doorway, with one part of Coetzer's composition consigned to a separate panel initially, as will be discussed below. *Return* too was kept on the north wall, on the other side of the door, although it could not be as expansive as *Departure*, since space had to be left to accommodate *Convention* as the final scene (see foldout at the end of the book). Kirchhoff commented on 27.8.1946, in the critique that the SVK required from the artists as their work drew to an end, that it would have been a better solution aesthetically to balance the two scenes of journeying by presenting them symmetrically.

The last two scenes of the frieze, the return from Natal, and Sand River, would have been more impressive if the Convention could have been [on the wall] after the corner, and the whole wall available for the return. As things now stand, the masses of the left hand side of the relief do not harmonise with those on the right hand side.751

His idea that the *Convention* could have been placed on the adjacent short wall of the north-west corner would of course have disrupted the chronological order, but that happened elsewhere in the frieze anyway.752 One could also argue that the spectacle of *Return* and the static sobriety of *Convention* complement each other, visually and thematically. More significantly, however, Kirchhoff's idea was not viable because it would have prevented the narrative of the frieze ending with a scene that was an appropriate conclusion to the Voortrekker story. *Convention* in its own way also provided the perfect foil to the important opening scene of *Departure* on the other side of the entrance, the two framing the whole Trek chronicle in a comprehensible way.

Convention of 1852 marked Britain's acknowledgement of the independence of the Boer republic north of the Vaal River, an independence which had been the chief driver of the treks from the outset. It thus fulfilled the premier goal of the Voortrekkers and their reason for leaving the Cape, and provided a triumphant finale to the narrative. Moreover, as the founding moment of the first independent Afrikaner state, it matched the cherished aim of the Afrikaner National Party to transform South Africa into a republic – a goal finally achieved in 1961. The scene representing the Voortrekkers' return from Natal, on the other hand, was in actual fact a retreat, signalling that the Voortrekkers had been unable to uphold the first Boer Republic of Natalia (1839–43) when the British declared it part of the Colony, and as such was not an appropriately positive topic to close the narrative. This example of weighing up different criteria for subjects of the frieze offers some idea of the conflicting issues that had to be taken into account: in this case, history and ideology trumped aesthetics.

Although it would occupy the full extent of the north wall on the east side of the door, as we have seen, *Departure* had originally been conceived as even larger, occupying four units of the thirty-one defined in Moerdyk's early layout design (fig. 90), the longest composition in the frieze. Cutting it back led to the loss of many of the details that Coetzer had developed in compliance with the idea that this scene would incorporate numerous artefacts of Boer life, which had been further added to and modified by the Historiese Komitee. Losses included the left-hand group with an Englishman making a purchase from a departing trekker, and an auction taking place beyond it. This was initially thought of as a suitable subject on its own for the additional panel needed on the north-east corner, since *Departure* would no longer extend at right angles on to the shorter wall, for there is a small clay maquette depicting the topic that was never used for the frieze (fig. 134). And it is just visible in this position in a photograph of Harmony Hall where one can see a section of the frame holding the plaster maquettes for the north wall, set up for reference during the making of the full-scale clay panels (fig. 114).753

This maquette draws on Coetzer's first sketch of 'Departure from the Cape' which depicted the auctioneer and clients (fig. 135), not the revised second version of the drawing (fig. 103). It confirms yet again, as we argued in Chapter 2, that the sculptors used the earlier reproduced set of drawings, and so, for example, still had the Englishman paying the departing trekker with paper money, not the coins the Historiese Komitee had recommended. The auction group was rearranged to fit into the format of the almost square panel that would have been needed for the short corner wall. Included on the far left is a woman with a baby on her back, also only to be found in the earlier Coetzer drawing. She is presumably a black servant and a reference, as were the cultivated fields in the background and the sales that were taking place, to the comfortable circumstances of the Boers in the Cape, which they were prepared to give up to seek freedom on the treks (although in fact many servants travelled with them). Clearly this small maquette was what Potgieter referred to as the 'vendusie' (auction) scene, which was abandoned to make way for *Kapain*.754

If the 'Vendusie' panel (fig. 134) was positioned on the short wall in the north-east corner next to *Departure*, then the next scene *Presentation* would have been placed over the doorway on the south-west corner, which would have required a composition to accommodate the intruding doorframe. This implication might well have been another factor in deciding that 'Vendusie' should be abandoned, so that *Presentation*, which was a well-recorded episode related to the Voortrekkers' departure from the Colony, and had significant meaning for the concept of their Christian piety, could then be developed in the full-scale clay relief without the doorframe. As a result, *Soutpansberg*,

**753** That this photograph includes the later abandoned 'vendusie' panel in the miniature frieze, when the sculptors are busy working on the adjacent *Departure* in its large-scale clay version, demonstrates that changes must have been ongoing, instead of the overall design being resolved at the outset.

**754** This is also mentioned by Peter Kirchhoff in his letter of 27.8.1946, quoted below, where he talks of it as *his* panel, just as Potgieter does. The panel is so close to Coetzer's drawing that it is not really possible to distinguish the hand of the sculptor who modelled it; its relative lack of refinement suggests that it might have been Potgieter's, but Kirchhoff was the one undertaking *Departure*, of which this had been a part in Coetzer's drawing. As it was not developed beyond this point, there is nothing about it in the records that might identify the sculptor.

**Figure 134:** Peter Kirchhoff. Abandoned maquette 'Vendusie' (Auction), based on left-hand section of Coetzer's sketch for *Departure.* Plaster, h. 78 × w. 89.7 × d. 8.2 cm (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 135:** W.H. Coetzer. Left-hand section of reproduction of first sketch for *Departure*, detail of fig. 102 (courtesy of ARCA PV94 1/75/5/1)

which may initially have been thought of as the first panel on the long east wall, would have to be moved to the position over the doorway, but could still retain its position next to *Delagoa Bay,* the other scene related to Trichardt*.* Now the two scenes, different in place, time and content, were linked at right angles. *Soutpansberg* then had to be conceived to allow for the interruption of the door that would ultimately dictate its composition. We have no record of the appearance of two panels that would match the presumed first positions, or any discussion about it, only the outcome in the way they are handled in the surviving small plaster maquettes. The case provides a good example of the endless juggling and re conceptualising of compositions that must have taken place, and stresses the importance of this stage in the process for the overall layout of the narrative. It was critical to reach agreement on how the scenes would be arranged to correspond with the final layout around the Hall of Heroes, ideally before the making of the small models could even begin. But 'Vendusie' demonstrates that this did not necessarily happen at the outset.

The rethinking we postulate also makes it more than likely that not only the sculptors' drawings but some of their maquettes too have not survived. A close examination of the background of the photograph of the sculptors at work on the first full-scale clay relief for *Departure* reveals that there are other maquettes standing against the wall below the frame that holds the one-third-size plaster casts in place to create a miniature frieze (fig. 114). While they are difficult to make out, the nearest one, of which only half the panel can be seen, has a space for an intruding doorway, and is possibly a maquette for *Soutpansberg* or *Blydevooruitsig.* Both it and the part of a panel next to it are grey rather than white like the plaster casts in the small-scale frieze above and, just visible leaning against them, another that was presumably rejected since not installed although it appears to be white plaster. The darker tone of the other two implies that they were clay models, either waiting to be cast in plaster, or abandoned as the configuration of the frieze crystallised.

The proposal for the new scene of *Kapain* prompted a further substantial change. The decision to have *Vegkop, Murder of Retief* and *Blood River* as the larger centrepieces of the east, south and west, recorded at the SVK meeting of 15.1.1937, was maintained for the latter two walls. But on the east wall *Inauguration* was given pride of place in the centre instead of *Vegkop*, even though it remained a smaller panel (as can be seen in the foldout). The centring of Retief's oath was an appropriate choice when his role at the Monument was so significant – leader, hero and martyr – and this scene would lie on an axis that intersected with the position of his cenotaph in the lower hall, as did *Murder of Retief*  and *Blood River*, which avenged his death. But, as already discussed, there could have been many ideas contributing to the change, not least compositional ones. It cannot be deduced with any degree of certainty whether the centring of *Inauguration* was prompted by or itself prompted the moving of *Vegkop,* or whether these scenes were moved solely as a solution to incorporating *Kapain*. Each new decision had a knock-on effect, forcing other modifications of the original layout.

Something of the debates about the layout from a more aesthetic point of view is illustrated in Peter Kirchhoff's critique of 27.8.1946, which provides a slightly different account from Potgieter's explanation of the addition of *Kapain*. It draws attention to the overall compositional issues that the sculptors faced in addition to any decisions about individual panels and their topics.

When we had to put together the small scenes for the wall in their actual size, I asked Mr Potgieter, who was largely in charge of this wall, to propose to Mr Moerdyk that we change the original order of the reliefs somewhat, in order to achieve a certain measure of harmony and balance.  Potgieter, wat in hoofsaak vir hierdie muur verantwoordelik was, versoek om by mnr.

**Figure 136:** *Marthinus Oosthuizen.*  1943–45. Clay. Fullscale relief (Pillman 1984, 52; photo Alan Yates)

There was yet another adjustment. With *Inauguration* centred between the two battles, the panel portraying *Negotiation* with Moroka was moved to the extreme right of the east wall frieze, thus after the battle of *Kapain* of November 1837*,* when it in fact had occurred considerably earlier. The subject of *Negotiation* related to the assistance the Rolong chief Moroka had provided to the Voortrekkers when they suffered devastating stock losses after their victory in the battle of Vegkop in October 1836, well before Piet Retief had joined the trekkers and been inaugurated as their leader in June 1837*.* Although ultimately Kirchhoff was critical because the balance of the rearranged east frieze seemed to him to have been disrupted by the different compositional strategies used for the battle pieces – a relatively deep arrangement of the figures inside the *Vegkop* laager as opposed to the compressed and close-up *Kapain –* it is very likely that the change in the position of *Negotiation* was made chiefly for compositional reasons: to allow the two vigorous battle scenes to flank the static central panel of the crucial *Inauguration*, even though it would displace *Negotiation* (see foldout).

In the case of the positioning of the two panels related to Trichardt's trek on the far left of the east wall, it probably seemed sensible to have them grouped together to create thematic clarity, even though Trichardt arrived in Soutpansberg around May 1836, before the event of April 1937 portrayed in *Presentation* which precedes it in the frieze, and reached Delagoa Bay in April 1938, thus after all the subsequent scenes up to the massacre in *Bloukrans.* To consider a less understandable case of chronological misplacement, one could ask why the *Marthinus Oosthuizen* panel (fig. 136), which represents a scene at the same time as *Bloukrans*, and which had been included in the background of Coetzer's 'Bloukrans Murder' sketch, is positioned after that of *Dirkie Uys* (fig. 137), which represents the killing of father and son from the later Vlugkommando at Italeni. Both are smaller inde-

**Figure 137:** *Dirkie Uys.* 1943–45. Clay. Full-scale relief (Pillman 1984, 48–49; photo Alan Yates)

pendent panels on the short walls of the south-west corner, so could readily have been presented in chronological order. Perhaps *Marthinus Oosthuizen* was easier to fit into the awkward shape over the doorway with its intruding pointed door frame. And, as it glorifies Oosthuizen riding unscathed through the thick of Zulu lines, it is a more obvious prelude for the trekkers' overwhelming victory in *Blood River* staged centre in the west frieze, rather than the tragic end of the Uys father and son.

Both compositional and thematic reasons probably explain the configuration of panels on the west wall, where *Saailaer* is on the far right, when it should possibly have been before the Battle of Blood River and most certainly before building the Church of the Vow in a chronological narrative; in Jansen's 1937 list of topics it was positioned before *Women spur men on.* It may be surmised that a scene representing the role of women was deemed easier to move around because it was chronologically less specific and historically more general. We will see in its detailed discussion that *Saailaer* was largely a composite invention of various recollections about the Trek. But a panel showing women who sow, plough and fight offered the opportunity to balance the frieze narratively. It offsets the scene at the other end of the west frieze that also focused on the role of Voortrekker women, *Women spur men on*, although it is strangely unconnected to the narrative sequence that precedes it and rather isolated. More importantly, however, it facilitated the centring of the all-important Blood River victory. The overriding principle must have been to have *The Vow* and the *Church of the Vow* flank the centrally positioned *Blood River*, in order to show that event's close ties to the covenant made with God before the battle, and its fulfilment thereafter in erecting the promised church. The upholding of their pledge, critical to an understanding of the Voortrekkers as dutiful and devout, is stressed by Moerdyk in his *Official Guide* essay:

**Figure 138:** Frikkie Kruger. Clay maquette of *Return* on an easel at Harmony Hall. 1942–43 (photo courtesy of Kirchhoff files)

> Vows have been taken history teaches us, and conveniently forgotten when the moment of danger has passed. Here we find a difference. A handful of people in dire need cried aloud in their extremity and made a solemn promise and their descendants a century later still felt themselves voluntarily bound by that Vow.756

This has been challenged by later historians. Leonard Thompson, for example, argues very plausibly that initially the vow was indeed forgotten – not least by Pretorius himself – but revived and given increasing prominence with the rise of Afrikaner nationalism from Paul Kruger's time onwards.757 And we argue in *Church of the Vow* that this church was in fact never built. Such issues are fully addressed in the discussion of the relevant scenes in Part II. In the composition of the frieze, however, the Afrikaner trinity with its key role in the national narrative – *The Vow*, *Blood River* and *Church of the Vow* – had to be given prime placement. This was also the case with the *Murder of Retief* in the centre of the south wall. For if, sanctioned by the help of God, the Battle of Blood River demonstrated the Voortrekkers' right to Natal by conquest, Retief's death showed their moral right to it by sacrifice and martyrdom.758

Apart from a few exceptions, already discussed, decisions like these about the general layout must have been made before work on the small clay maquettes began, in order to establish the choice of topics and the space allocated to each.759 Yet these models seem in themselves to have been conceived as independent units. The sculptors worked on their assigned maquettes individually at this point, although Potgieter reports that they constantly shared criticism and advice, no doubt from Moerdyk, and possibly from committee members, as well as amongst themselves.760 That this was the only form of compositional and aesthetic guidance for the sculptors led to some criticism once the maquettes were at a fairly advanced stage. We have already cited Hugo's letter

**756** *Official Guide* 1955, 51–52.

**757** Thompson 1985, 'The covenant', 144–188.

**758** See Du Toit and Giliomee 1983, 202, discussed in Chapter 1.

**759** Ultimately only one scene, *Departure*, was too long to be accommodated in a single maquette.

**760** Potgieter 1987, 41.

**Figure 139:** Frikkie Kruger working on first maquette for *Treaty*. 1942–43. Clay (courtesy of VTM Museum; photo the authors)

**Figure 140:** Frikkie Kruger. Second maquette for *Treaty*. 1942–43. Plaster, 77.5 × 76.7 cm (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

which recommended that senior artists be brought in to assist with advice. He stressed not only the need for compositional unity but the role of creative inspiration in producing a satisfactory artwork, so that the historically correct solutions, proffered by the Historiese Komitee and the architect, might not serve the artists well.761 Similar points were made by G. Dekker, who bemoaned the fact that the maquettes were so anecdotal, focusing on details of historical accuracy rather than issues of deeper meaning and compositional aspects such as line, light and shade, and plasticity of depiction, which he argued were essential for a successful and unified sculptural work.762

The four sculptors had little if any prior experience in creating narrative figure sculptures, and certainly not on this scale, so the task must have been a daunting one, and the way the scenes were conceived individually by the four sculptors made overall compositional unity problematic. It is telling that a close examination of the maquettes shows that there were no overlaps between the panels, even when the same sculptor was designing adjacent scenes. A single exception is found in *Return* and *Convention,* the final two scenes on the frieze, where part of the first scene runs over into the panel for the last, a tree acting as a divider between them. This was probably done to give more space to the wide landscape of *Return*, and also to enhance its complementary relationship to the continuous narrative and expansive landscape of *Departure*, its counterpart on the other side of the north wall. The independence of the compositions at the maquette stage had the advantage

**761** Hugo to Jansen, 19.1.1943 (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**762** Dekker to Bosman, 27.1.1943 (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

*2 Presentation 3 Soutpansberg*

*9 Blydevooruitsig 10 Debora Retief*

*16 Dirkie Uys 17 M. Oosthuizen*

*24 Mpande 25 Death of Dingane*

**Fig. 141:** The plaster maquettes (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photos Russell Scott)

that different sequences could be tried out in different positions if necessary, before the order of the scenes was finally determined. However, it meant that the visual transition from one scene to the next was something that remained unresolved when the making of the full-scale reliefs began.

We have little evidence of the appearance of the maquettes in their clay form, since, as they were finished, the sculptors cast them in plaster, so that they would be more durable for the next stage in the process, and to allow for recycling of the clay. A rare photograph shows the clay maquette of *Return* on a board supported on an easel, in the way these panels would have been during their modelling (fig. 138). Another shows Frikkie Kruger at work on his first design for *Treaty* (fig. 139), which would be modified in a second composition that took account of advice about Zulu customs, with the king's head higher than those of his followers (fig. 140): only the second maquette that provided the design that would be used in the full-scale frieze would be cast in plaster. It is these plaster replicas that have survived in the collection of the Voortrekker Monument, though mainly stored away for some seventy years, first at the amphitheatre and later in a storeroom adjacent to the museum on the lowest floor of the Monument (fig. 141).763 Unwrapped, they revealed a less than perfect state. They were repaired by a restorer in 2014/15, in order to mount a new exhibition,764 available for all to see, with moulds made from the originals to make copies for conservation

**763** An exception is the plaster maquette depicting *Teresa Viglione* which was on display in the museum.

**764** The exhibit in the lower hall of the Monument was on view to the public in December 2016, and opened officially on 29 March 2017.

purposes.765 Our photographs of the maquettes (all illustrated in the detailed discussion of each scene of the frieze in Part II) were taken before these procedures and record the surface and colour of the plaster prior to new moulds being made, although we have included some details of maquettes post-conservation, which were photographed in the direct top lighting provided for the exhibition.

While the overriding thematic control did not leave a great deal of room for individual creativity, a close examination of the small plaster panels does reveal some broad differences of style and approach, which were to some extent retained in the style of the full-scale reliefs that will be discussed in Chapter 4. Probably a reflection of their greater experience, Kirchhoff's and Kruger's small panels are more assured, revealing, for example, confidence in using different depths in the relief to signify nearness and distance, a sculptural equivalent of aerial perspective. Their depictions have more detail too, something that is especially evident in the fine particulars we see in the full-scale clay reliefs and finished marbles designed by Kruger. With Postma there appears to be less certainty compositionally, with a tendency to introduce figures in somewhat over-elaborate poses to add visual drama to the scenes. Her response to working with the tricky format of the corner panel with intruding doorframe for *Marthinus Oosthuizen* is particularly contrived, and there is a photograph from the time that shows the Zulu model supported on a precariously tilted box and stool to hold the difficult pose of the figure on the right (figs 142, 143).766 The figure proportions for her *Death of Dingane* are not convincing, with very thickset legs compared with the upper body of the nude female on the left, for example. This is resolved in the full-scale clay relief, however, presumably because she then had access to an unclothed model. Postma would have had little experience in multi-figure compositions, as the examples of her early sculptures that we know of, before her work for the Monument, are single figures or busts. Her only large scene for the frieze, *Bloukrans,* was not fully resolved compositionally in her maquette, and became even more problematic in the revised version she had to undertake in the full-scale panel.

But it is Potgieter's small maquettes that are most conspicuously different, reflecting his lack of experience. They are rather crude and unresolved, and uneven in design, with representations of figures that sometimes seem almost childlike, and in this respect closer to Coetzer's figures in the sketches. There is also evidence of more rethinking in his case. While Kruger and Postma each produced second versions of one of their plaster maquettes, it was in response to a requirement to change the iconography, rather than a reconsideration of the composition. Postma's changes to *Bloukrans* will be addressed in some detail later; in Kruger's case for the *Treaty* (figs 139, 140), it was a modification to the position of Dingane's followers*,* who in Zulu culture would not have been permitted to stand with their heads higher than that of the seated king.767 In Potgieter's case, however, three of the small panels were reworked and exist in two rather different versions: *Soutpansberg* (figs 106, 107), *Delagoa Bay* (figs 144, 145)*,* and *Blydevooruitsig* (figs 146, 147)*.* It may of course be purely by chance that we have multiple maquettes only for Potgieter's designs, as other aborted designs may not have survived, and there would have also been attempts that did not progress beyond the clay model and were never cast in plaster. However, the fact that there are three pairs of maquettes by Potgieter that repeat the same subject with considerable compositional

**765** The restoration was undertaken by Elize Cilliers who first cleaned the surface of the maquettes and filled holes. The surface was then sprayed with Super Seal to protect it during the process of making silicon rubber moulds with Mold Max30, which was coated with fibre glass to keep it stable before removing it from the maquette. Cilliers noted that after demoulding, the maquettes had to be restored again as the plaster of Paris was very brittle and broke easily. This confirms that the conservation process could itself interfere with the integrity of the maquette surface – which was probably equally true of earlier conservation work undertaken by Phil Minnaar in the 1980s. Our thanks to Etta Judson for supplying Cilliers' notes on the process.

**766** Pillman 1984, 53.

**767** This provides us with another example of the intervention of experts, in this case not even someone with official SVK status. Moerdyk reported that a Mr Feye had given advice on Dingane's generals not standing when the king was seated, and also that assegais would not have been used in the murder of Retief and his men (Dagbestuur 30.9.1943). In this case no second plaster model exists, only the old photograph of Kruger working on the clay.

changes suggests that he had to make more attempts to resolve his designs than the others. Perhaps the plasters were presented in some more formal critical session to members of the SVK or the Historiese Komitee, possibly once the maquettes were in position within the small-scale frieze model in Harmony Hall. Or it might have been criticism from his colleagues which was the prompt for Potgieter to revise his designs, leading to new clay reliefs and in turn new plaster casts. One might also speculate that *Soutpansberg* and *Blydevooruitsig*, designed for the short corner walls, were modified at the behest of the architect, as the intrusion of the doorway with its pointed frame is considerably greater in what can be identified as the second maquette of each of them, which were modified to be closer to what the actual architecture required. That both versions exist in plaster for these two scenes shows that changes were undertaken after the initial small clay maquettes had been cast. Whatever the reason for the changes, there would hardly have been any point in casting an unsuccessful design that had already been rejected. And we cannot know how many clay maquettes by any of the sculptors might have been abandoned.

For all the artists' designs there were further modifications at the time the full-scale clay reliefs were made, when the small designs of the maquettes were scaled up, and the four artists worked together on modelling them in their final form. Something of the lengthy and painstaking experience was reflected in Moerdyk's later statement, already quoted, that the sculptors 'modelled and re-modelled with diligence, patience and a sense of dedication'.768 Producing the full-scale clay reliefs in particular was to be an enormous task that required all the qualities that Moerdyk describes. But the maquettes were no small undertaking either and took about a year to complete.769 In addition, there must have been further maquettes developed even once they were working on the large panels, as will be discussed below.

The first year must have been an extraordinarily challenging period because, not only were there many decisions to be made about the overall design and the composition of the individual panels, but the sculptors also initiated their research to establish the correct forms of the various antiquarian items and Voortrekker dress. As well as visiting museum collections and receiving

**Figure 142:** Laurika Postma. *Marthinus Oosthuizen*. 1942–43. Plaster, h. 77.2 × w. 83 × d. 10 cm. Maquette. (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 143:** Model for collapsing Zulu in *Marthinus Oosthuizen*, in the grounds of Harmony Hall. 1943–45. (Pillman 1984, 53)

**768** *Official Guide* 1955, 41.

**769** Potgieter estimates a year, and Werner Kirchhoff recalls that work on the large reliefs began as he started high school in 1943. This also chimes with Hugo's letter of January 1943, which mentions maquettes in position (ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7).

**Figure 144:** Hennie Potgieter. First maquette for *Delagoa Bay*. 1942–43. Plaster, h. 77 × w. 76.5 × d. 8 cm (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 145:** Hennie Potgieter. Second maquette for *Delagoa Bay*. 1942–43. Plaster, h. 76 × w. 76.6 × d. 8 cm (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 146:** Hennie Potgieter. First maquette for *Blydevooruitsig*. 1942–43. Plaster, h. 77 × w. 89.7 × d. 10.3 cm (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1-28; photo Russell Scott)