Ancestry of Isaac Johannes Lamotius

1The ancestry of Isaac Johannes Lamotius can be traced back to the first half of the sixteenth century (Figure 1):

2Great grandfather. – Isaac Johannes Lamotius’s great grandfather was Johannes (or Jan) Lamotius, a weaver in Ieper, who was the son of Gheleyn Lamoot and Vincence Melneyts. The family name was also written Lamoot (in Dutch) or Lamotte (in French), with a few other variants. The Latinized form Lamotius is the best known. The town of Ieper lies in the province of West-Vlaanderen (West Flanders) in the southwest part of present Belgium. It is also known under its French name Ypres or the Dutch names Ieperen or Yperen, and was a notorious battlefield during World War I. Johannes was born around 1530. His parents were Roman Catholic. About 1550 Johannes became Protestant. His choice for the new religion made it necessary for him to leave his home country and from 1554 to 1566 and again from 1569 to 1574 he lived in England. There he joined the Dutch refugee church in London and soon became a teacher and a member of the church council. In 1568, primarily for reasons of religion, the Netherlands revolted against its ruler Philip II of Spain, thus initiating the 80-years war against Spain. The Dutch Reformed Church was officially recognized in the Netherlands and from 1574 on Johannes Lamotius served as vicar in various Dutch towns. He died probably before 1592.

3Grandfather. – Isaac Johannes Lamotius’s paternal grandfather, son of the above-mentioned Johannes Lamotius Sr, was also named Johannes Lamotius. He was born about 1570, possibly in Ieper. Johannes Lamotius Jr also became a vicar. In his youth he received some schooling in London (between about 1576 and 1583), and then went to the University of Ghent in the southern Netherlands, nowadays in East Flanders, Belgium. In 1588 he became a student at the German University of Heidelberg, where he finished his studies in 1590 with the publication of his thesis De Deo et essentia ejus (About God and the essence of God). The Dutch church council in London paid for his studies. After returning from Heidelberg he became vicar in various places in the northern Netherlands. In 1604 he was appointed vicar at The Hague and stayed there until his death on 9 October 1627. He preached both for the Dutch Reformed Church (in Dutch) and the Walloon Church (in French). He was married twice: his first wife, Marijken van Hille, whom he married in September 1592, gave him two children; she died before 1604. His second wife was Catharijne de la Planca (sometimes written de la Planke or even de la Prinze). From this second marriage at least five children were born, two of these were Johannes Lamotius (the father of I. J. Lamotius) and Godefridus Lamotius (born The Hague 1617, died The Hague 1674). The latter, like his father and grandfather, was a well-known vicar.

4Father. – Johannes Lamotius (the third) was born around 1610 at The Hague. Against the family tradition, he chose a military career in the service of the V.O.C. (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or United Dutch East Indies Company). For the company, he went to the East Indies (1634-1643) as a soldier, but was soon promoted to ensign (1637), captain (1639), and sergeant-major (1642), later becoming a member of the Council of Justice in the Indies. He served in the Moluccas, North Sumatra, Formosa (Taiwan), and Tonkin, and directed the capture of Malacca from the Portuguese (1640-1641). In 1642 he married, in Batavia (now Jakarta, Indonesia), Catharina (or Lijntje) Havers (sometimes written Hagers or Havart or Havaert), who was born in Amsterdam sometime before 1626, daughter of Isaac Havers (a merchant in the service of the V.O.C. who went to the Indies in 1626) and Catharina de Clercq. Catharina Havers had been married twice before: in 1634 to Daniel Van Vliet, and in 1639 to Mathijs Hendricksz Quast, who died 5 October 1641. From this second marriage she had one daughter. The eldest son of Johannes Lamotius (III) and Catharina Havers was named Johannes, he was born in Batavia in 1643, and later (c. 1660) studied at Leiden University. Johannes Lamotius III, his wife and infant son, left the Indies for the Netherlands on 23 December 1643, with the ship Breda of the return fleet; Lamotius was made chief of this fleet. The Breda arrived at Texel, Netherlands, on 19 August 1644. The Lamotius family then evidently settled in Beverwijk, a small town north of Haarlem where three more children were born.

Early years in the Netherlands (1646-1676)

5The oldest of these three children was Isaac Johannes Lamotius, the main subject of this book. He was baptized in the Netherlands Reformed Church at Beverwijk on 29 May 1646 under the name Isaac; the patronym Johannes was added later. He must have been born a few days before his baptism, but his exact birth date is not known. His uncle Vicar Godefridus Lamotius and his grandmother Catharina de la Planca were his godparents. Two more children were born in Beverwijk, a girl, Anna Maria Lamotius (baptized 18 November 1648) and a boy, Jacob Lamotius (baptized 3 September 1651). Apart from the oldest son Johannes, born in Batavia, no other children are known.

6Of the early years of Isaac Johannes relatively little is known. In official documents of 1671 he is mentioned as bailiff (baljuw) and member of the water board (heemraad) of Rhoon and Pendrecht, a region just south of Rotterdam; he occupied this post from about 1669 to about 1672. From about 1670 to 1673 he lived in Charlois, now a part of Rotterdam, but 1674 finds him at The Hague. He sold his house in Charlois in 1675. In 1673 he requested a patent for an invention that he made for the drainage of agricultural land, consisting of a pump driven by horses. The farmers of his district had complained about the water that remained on their fields in early spring, making it impossible for them to cultivate the land. Lamotius’s invention was designed to drain the fields in a rather short time; on 12 May 1674 the patent on this invention was granted for 15 years by the patent board. He made several more inventions: in 1674 and 1675 he submitted a request for a second patent, namely one supposedly concerning models for making coins. He also invented a better way to saw ebony wood, and used this later when he was on Mauritius. From about 1674 to 1676 Lamotius served an apprenticeship with a certain W. Van Mansvelt, a merchant in gloves, oil, spices, and perfume, to be taught the trade of perfumery. In June or July 1674 he went with Van Mansvelt to England to buy gloves. He married, probably in 1675, and had a child from this marriage; in a document of 22 November 1675, Mrs Lamotius is said to be pregnant. Documents about Lamotius’s marriage or the baptism of his child could not be found and may have gotten lost during the World War II bombardment of Rotterdam.

7On 16 October 1676, the directors of the V.O.C., the so-called Heeren XVII (the 17 gentlemen) decided to keep the western Indian Ocean island of Mauritius as a revictualing station for their East India fleet. Hubert Hugo, the commander of the island, was transferred to Batavia and as the new chief (opperhoofd) of the island they appointed Isaac Johannes Lamotius, to whom their attention probably was drawn by his invention of a way to saw ebony wood. On 20 October 1676, Lamotius appeared before a meeting of the directors of the V.O.C. and gladly accepted the post with a salary of 36 guilders per month. He was allowed to take his wife and daughter with him to Mauritius and also a maid. During this meeting it was decided to place Mauritius under the supervision of the government at Cape of Good Hope.

8The Lamotius family left the roadstead of Texel on 14 December 1676 on the ship Ceylon, which was the flagship of the outgoing fleet. However, the fleet then was forced to seek refuge at Wielingen roadstead at the extreme southwest coast of the Netherlands, probably because of bad weather. It left there as late as 11 March 1677 and arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on 30 June 1677. During the voyage Lamotius was a member of the ship’s council. During his short stay at the Cape, Lamotius also became a member of the council of Cape Town. On 27 July 1677, the Lamotius family left Cape Town on the hooker De Bode and arrived at Fort Frederik Hendrik (Figure 2), Mauritius, as late as 17 September 1677.

Chief of Mauritius (1677-1692)

9Lamotius’s stay on Mauritius was a tragic one in more than one respect. In 1679, during the third year of his stay, the lodge of the company and the warehouses were destroyed by fire through carelessness of one of the employees. Lamotius’s pregnant wife and their young daughter died in the fire. This terrible loss is considered by some to be the cause of a change in Lamotius’s mental state, because during the second half of his stay on Mauritius he experienced many difficulties with the inhabitants of the island.

10The population of the island consisted of the employees of the V.O.C., who lived mostly in the fortress Frederik Hendrik (named for a brother of Prince Maurits of Orange). This “fortress”, consisting of only a few simple stone and wooden buildings, with roofs of palm leaves, was the headquarters there of the V.O.C. (Figure 3). It was situated on the southeastern margin of the island on Warwijck Harbor, which today is named Grand Port Bay in the area of the present town of Mahebourg. More to the north lived the so-called vrijluiden (free men) or vrijburgers (free burgers) who were partly former V.O.C. employees, who stayed on after their term with the company had ended, and partly people who wanted to try their fortune in the tropics with agriculture and other occupations. Pitot (1905: 210) enumerated the population of Mauritius as it was in 1679, as follows: V.O.C. employees, including the chief, 28 persons; slaves of the Company, 63 persons (39 men, 22 women, two children); two male exiled convicts, with two women and two children; 43 vrijluiden (16 men, nine women, and 18 children), who owned 13 slaves (11 men and two women). The island had no native population. Some of the vrijburgers were an asset to the island, like Daniel Zaaijman who was rather prosperous and lived until 1708 in the north of the island (near present Port Louis), with his wife and eight children, 10 slaves, and a herd of about 37 cattle; he moved to the Cape of Good Hope in 1708, where he died in 1714. But many other vrijluiden were inexperienced or uninterested in their jobs and easily discouraged if things did not go right; and of course there was a certain percentage of adventurers and ruffians who only caused trouble. Most of them lived in the “Noortwijk vlakte”, in the present day district of Flacq. The company had no jurisdiction over the vrijluiden and could act against them only if they threatened the interests of the company. Very severe misbehavior of inhabitants of the island (by both vrijluiden and V.O.C. personnel) could not be punished by the chief of the island without permission from the government of the Cape of Good Hope, under the jurisdiction of which Mauritius was placed; mostly such people accused of a very serious crime were sent to the Cape for trial.

11Lamotius’s title was opperhoofd (chief) of the island and he had to take his orders from the governor of the Cape of Good Hope. His rank in the V.O.C. was that of onderkoopman (second merchant). His predecessor Hubert Hugo had the rank of coopman (merchant) and the title of Commander of the island, which then did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Cape, but was more or less independent. Hugo’s salary was 100 guilders a month. Lamotius rank of oppperhoofd was lower, as was his salary (36 guilders a month). On arriving at Mauritius the government of the Cape provided Lamotius with very detailed instructions for his job, which severely tied his hands. Lamotius’s personality was very different from that of Hugo, who, although a servant of the V.O.C. from 1640 to 1655, before his Mauritian job, had been a pirate in the service of France.

12Most accounts mention that Lamotius, at the beginning of his stay on Mauritius, did very well: “He started off as an excellent commander and did his utmost to turn Mauritius into a successful establishment” (Moree 1998: 84). But there is much conflicting evidence: Moree (1998: 84) praised his “stern measures against the vrijluiden”. Pitot (1905: 195), on the other hand, basing his opinion on an account by Lamotius’s successor Deodati, stated that Lamotius in the beginning became over-familiar with the vrijburgers, who then took advantage of the situation; and every day great parties were given, “one dined, one drank in company, and on the mornings when the governor was late in appearing, the joyful companions went so far as to penetrate his bedchamber and pull him out of bed.” This clearly is grossly exaggerated; but in Lamotius’s instructions it was mentioned that he should be friendly with the vrijluiden in order to attract more settlers.

13Many of the vrijburgers, being a “wild gang of ruffians” (Moree 1998: 85), were later severely (too severely?) treated by Lamotius. However, it was the Dubertin case that caused his downfall. The lieutenant Jean-Baptiste Dubertin had been commander of the garrison of the Cape of Good Hope, but was severely punished for embezzlement of V.O.C. property and exiled from the Cape for 25 years. With his wife Aletta Dubertin née Uytenbogaard, he was banished to Mauritius. The two arrived there about January 1685 and settled in the Noortwijk vlakte, where many vrijburgers had their homes. Dubertin, who Lamotius usually referred to as Jan Baptista Dubbertin, evidently was a smooth talker and a rebel-rouser. When he arrived at Mauritius he claimed that he was sent there as a member of a commission to judge the government of the island and especially Lamotius. He would stay only a few years and the other members of the commission would arrive with the next ship. He claimed also that Lamotius would be relieved from his post and that most likely he himself would become the next chief. Almost right from the beginning Dubertin agitated among the vrijluiden and the company personnel against Lamotius. In 1686 he even planned an uprising against Lamotius, which was discovered early and nipped in the bud. The council of Mauritius then decided to have Dubertin arrested and banished to Tabaks Eijland (Tobacco Island, probably present day île Marianne, off the southeast coast of Mauritius). When arrested, Dubertin was found hiding in a cupboard in his house. But during his transportation he managed to escape to the woods (other accounts say that he escaped from Tobacco Island; or even that he was brought to the fort where he was heavily flogged and then sent to Batavia for trial). For about six months, Dubertin stayed in the woods of northern Mauritius, helped secretly by some of the vrijluiden. Finally, Dubertin escaped from the island on an English ship. Mrs Dubertin was forced by the council to live closer to the fort so that she could then be monitored more easily. But she too secretly escaped in 1689 on an English ship and reached the Netherlands (information provided by Lamotius to the council of the Cape). Lamotius rather severely punished the vrijluiden who had helped Dubertin, and sent an extensive report on the situation to the Cape authorities.

14All this might have gone off without any action against Lamotius, had it not been for Mrs Dubertin née Uytenbogaard.1 When in Holland she convinced her father, Mr Joan Uytenbogaard, who was then judge of the Court of Justice of Utrecht, that she had been treated very badly and that Lamotius should not go unpunished. The Uytenbogaard family was a very important patrician family in the Netherlands (and still is) and clearly had great influence on the directorate of the V.O.C., possibly being familiar with most of the directors personally. Mr Uytenbogaard and several “friends of Aletta Uytenboogaard” (letter of Lamotius to the Cape Council defending his actions) submitted an accusation against Lamotius that by necessity was based solely on the information provided by Aletta Dubertin. These accusations were so severe that the Governor General in Batavia ordered Cape Commander Simon Van der Stel and his Council to arrest Lamotius and his Mauritian council members, Abraham Steen and Jacob Ovaar, and have them sent to Batavia for trial. The accused were transported on the flute ship Duijf (pigeon), which left Mauritius in December 1692 and arrived at Batavia on 21 February of the following year. Lamotius was jailed in the castle of Batavia on 23 February 1693. His trial, however, was held as late as 23 August 1695. Strangely enough, the first accusation was that Lamotius had fought with his co-defendant J. Ovaar, who he wounded so badly that a doctor had to be called in. Furthermore, it was said that Lamotius, at first with presents and “civilities”, had tried to seduce Mrs Dubertin and when she ignored his efforts, he became very abusive. Lamotius, however, showed a letter, dated 6 October 1686 (nine months after the arrival of the Dubertins on Mauritius), that he had received from Mrs Dubertin, in which she very strongly expressed her feelings of disappointment that Lamotius had not visited them on a certain occasion. Lamotius explained this, saying that he had not tried to seduce Mrs Dubertin, but that just the opposite was true; that to escape her advances, he avoided her, and during some of his trips on the island he made a long detour away from her home. He also explained his actions against various people on the island who had tried to conspire against him and the council. The punishments that he had given them indeed were quite severe, but still within the limits that were allowed him. One of the most severe punishments was leersen (an old Dutch term derived from leers, presently laars, meaning “boot”). According to the well-known Dutch dictionary, Van Dale’s (1914) Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal (fifth edition, p. 1008), laarzen was a certain punishment for sailors consisting of castigation with a piece of rope on their wetted trousers (it is not clear to us where the boots come in). At the trial in Batavia the official accusation was based almost exclusively on the Uytenbogaard document. In this accusation, the death penalty was asked for Lamotius, lesser penalties for the other two defendants. The outcome of the trial must have been a great disappointment for Aletta: instead of the death penalty, Lamotius was sentenced to six years of banishment to the island of Rosengain in the Banda Archipelago (a very light sentence indeed, certainly when compared to the 25-year banishment of Dubertin). Lamotius also lost his job with the company and was given a rather heavy fine. Evidently his defense must have made a good impression on the court. Also the fact that he had already spent two years in jail was taken into account. The conflicting statements about Lamotius’s behavior on Mauritius make it difficult to get an unbiased idea of what actually happened. The explanation that his mentality suddenly changed from an enthusiastic idealistic chief to a blood-thirsty tyrant seems very unsatisfactory and unrealistic, and it is rather interesting that this change evidently should have started at the time that the Dubertin’s arrived at Mauritius. Also, the rather light sentence seems to show that the judges were not too impressed with the accusations.

15A more pleasant aspect of Lamotius’s stay on Mauritius was his study of the island itself and its natural products (Pietsch 1991; Pietsch & Holthuis 1992). Pitot (1905: 192) described him (in translation) as “a very intelligent and for his time a well-educated man, who had an extensive knowledge of most of the exact sciences.” During his first year as chief he toured the island coasts on foot and compiled a relatively detailed map (Figure 4). He was able to determine, as nearly as possible, given the imperfect instruments available to him, the circumference of the island as about 180 English miles (about 290 km). To do this he traveled on foot for 21 days, following the coasts and cutting across the angles of the shore, in three-to six-mile stages. He also attempted various explorations in the interior, which did not come to much, although he is credited with the discovery of a large plateau in the center of the island.

16Lamotius gave his full attention to agriculture. His first act as the new chief was to restore the garden of the Company at Noortwijk, which the former administration had allowed to fall into disuse. He had the plot cleared and planted, primarily with rice, barley, and wheat. By late summer of the following year the crops had grown so well – the rice superb, although not yet producing; the barley producing fairly well, the wheat becoming hay – that Lamotius on 2 August 1678, rather proudly invited Wobbema, captain of the ship Bode, to come see the change that had taken place. Unfortunately, before the crops could be harvested, they were completely destroyed by locusts and other pests. Lamotius also tried to cultivate many other plants, like coconut palms, grape vines (for wine production), sugar cane, corn, and tobacco, and experimented with their culture. The tobacco experiment led to nothing because of inexperience and disinterest of the colonists, and by the fact that large quantities could be obtained rather easily from English ships; Lamotius asked the Cape authorities to send someone who knew about tobacco growing. As for grape vines, 20 000 to 30 000 plants were planted and did quite well until a rainstorm washed away most of them; here too, Lamotius asked the Cape for help and suggested that he be sent an assistant wine grower. Also 1400 coconut palms were planted as well as sugar cane and both did quite well: “to Lamotius goes the honour, not of having introduced it [sugar cane], because [when he arrived at Mauritius] it was there in small quantities, but to have it propagated; it grew remarkably well, and the colonists made small hand-mills that they used to extract the juice from which they prepared a syrup that was very soft and very white; for the production of actual sugar, anyone with the right knowledge and implements could obtain considerable quantities, providing a worthwhile object for export” (Pitot 1905: 223, in translation; at the present time, about 90% of the agricultural land in Mauritius is used for sugar cane, which evidently is one of the main sources of income for the island). But all of this good work came to an end when on 17 March 1679 Lamotius received orders from the Cape to give up the plantations, to otherwise stop all agriculture at Noortwijk, and to divide all the land among the colonists.

17On 21 December 1677, soon after his arrival, Lamotius began the construction of a dam on the River Nyon (the present name), which empties into the northern part of Grand Port Bay. The reservoir of water that formed was designed to operate a sawmill and tannery that he proposed to establish. The dam was completely finished by 27 February 1678, but construction of the mill took much more time, because of the prolonged illness of two workers and the death from a fall of the builder. And then, too, construction could not be done lightly; the mill had at all costs to offer as much resistance as the dam, and thus various ironwork was needed from the Cape to consolidate the horizontal shaft. Therefore the mill was not inaugurated until February 1681. Established primarily for the rendering of ebony into boards for export, the sawmill gave good enough results at the beginning, but soon fell into disuse because of an extraordinary drought.

18The colonist Ian Yser, who had been assigned to the operation of the tannery upon his arrival on the island, also had good success initially: in 1681 he sent to the Cape 300 pairs of shoe vamps, 30 hides for heels and 52 forms, and 516 pairs of shoes in two different styles. But coming up against regulations, Yser began to sell large quantities of skins and shoes in secret to the crews of English ships. After a resolution passed by the Council, Lamotius forced Yser to surrender to the Company what he had received in payment from the English ships. Shortly afterwards, the tannery was destroyed by a hurricane and Yser gave it up to turn to agriculture.

19During Lamotius’s time, some of the plantations suffered from depredations by insects, rats, and even deer. The deer were not indigenous to Mauritius, but were formerly introduced from Java, and had become a pest. Hurricanes, floods, and droughts also took their toll. As most of the vrijluiden were inexperienced in agriculture, Lamotius asked for specialists in the various fields, but these evidently were quite difficult to get. Another difficulty involved the English ships to which several products were illegally sold by the colonists instead of to the company. Being usually undermanned these ships also took onboard those people who wanted to flee the island to escape punishment for misbehavior. As England was not at war with the Dutch Republic (actually, Stadholder Willem III of the Netherlands was at that time king of England, being the William of William and Mary), little action could be taken against them.

20In a letter dated 10 November 1690 to Simon Van der Stel, governor of the Cape, Lamotius gave an extensive description of the island of Mauritius, which as François Valentijn (1726b, vol. 5B, no (4), p. 155) mentioned in his Oud-en Nieuw Oost-Indiën had been thoroughly explored (wel doorkropen) by Lamotius. In this account, Lamotius shows the richness in usable wood, the possibility to make alcohol (aracq) from palms and leather from the skins of goats and deer, and that lime can be burned from coral. And he further mentioned the results of his experiments with several plants, like Pattattos (potatoes?), beans, and Cape wheat (corn?); he experimented with vineyards, coconut plantations, sugar cane, and other things. He also indicated that cattle were doing well. About the fishes of the island, Lamotius wrote (in translation): “The mountains have useful forests and are separated from each other by fertile valleys and by rivers rich in fishes. [...] [They] can be caught in such quantities in the rivers and in the sea around the island, as is possible only in a few parts of the world. [...] Meat and fish are so abundant here that it would be possible to ship annually a great quantity to the Cape of Good Hope or any other settlement of the Company. [...] The rivers of the island, and especially [...] the sea around it [...] provide many kinds of fishes, which when salted and dried can be kept for years and can be transported. The most appropriate to this end are the sea fishes, which are here so abundant that sometimes one or two hauls with a sufficiently large seine can fill an entire sloop.” Ambergris was also found plentiful on the coast, thrown up by the sea; the difficulty here being that it was eaten by the pigs and land crabs and taken by the vrijluiden to sell to the English ships. At the end of his description of the island, Lamotius listed “various herbs, seeds, and roots, that occur here on the Island of Mauritius that are used in medicine against various diseases and complaints.” He then names 39 species, mostly with Dutch names and/or with (pre-Linnean) Latinized names. Practically all of these are West European species that were probably introduced or were native Mauritian species that somehow or other resembled species that Lamotius knew from Holland.

21Here we reproduce Lamotius’s list of plants in full. His text of each species is copied verbatim and placed in quotation marks. The literal English translation of the Dutch names is given in parentheses, our identification and other remarks are added in brackets. Lamotius’s identifications are probably based primarily on the old Dutch language herbal of Rembert Dodoens (Rembertus Dodonaeus), the Cruijdeboeck, published in Antwerp in 1554 (818 p., plus several unnumbered pages with indices and contents). For the identity of these old names we also consulted H. Heukels’s Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Volksnamen van Planten (1907, Amsterdam, p. i-viii, 1-332). We received most valuable help with the identifications from Mr W. J. Holverda of the National Herbarium in Leiden, and from Mrs Dr Gerda Van Uffelen of the Hortus Botanicus also of Leiden; they helped us with the names that otherwise baffled us and we are thus most indebted to them for the time that they spent with our queries. Pitot (1905: 193-194, footnote) gave a French translation of Lamotius’s list with his own identifications; these are listed here also. Lamotius enumerates the following species:

22-“Vesicaria alkakengi, krieken over Zee” (cherries over sea). [Physalis alkekengi L., Winter Cherry. Dodoens (1554: 476, 477, fig.) gave this species the Dutch name Criecken van over zee, and the Latin name Vesicaria vulgaris; his figure of it is excellent and leaves no doubt about its identity. The present Dutch name is Lampionplant (Chinese lantern plant). Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Vésicaire officinale, but the genus Vesicaria at present is considered a synonym of Alyssum, family Brassicaceae].

23-“Trifolium acetosum, koekoex suering” (cuckoo sorrel). [Oxalis acetosella L., Common Wood Sorrel; the present Dutch name is Klaverzuring (clover sorrel). Dodoens (1554: 544, fig.) gave the species the Dutch name Coeckoecks broot (Cuckoo bread), and the Latin name Oxys; his figure leaves no doubt about the identity. Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Oxalis repens (Alleluia). The French name Alleluia is given because the plant flowers at Easter].

24-“Erigeron tertium, grijs kruyd” (grey herb). [This name evidently was taken by Lamotius from Dodoens (1554: 607, fig.), who mentioned Erigeron tertium, Grijscruyt, being the third species of Erigeron after Erigeron primum & secundum, Groot ende cleyn Cruyscruyt (large and small groundsel). The name Grijskruid at present is the official Dutch name for Berteroa incana (L.), but that vernacular has also been used for Filago minima (Sm.), for Gnaphalium and for Senecio; Mr Holverda mentioned that Dioscorides used the name Erigeron for Senecio vulgaris L., a species very common in the Netherlands. Mrs Van Uffelen pointed out that, judging by Dodoens’s figure, his grijscruyt could be a species of any of several genera related to Erigeron or Senecio. Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Erigeron canadiense (Vergerette)?, which is the same as Conyza canadensis (L.)].

25-“Portulaca sijlvestris”. [Portulaca oleracea L.; Dodoens (1554: 612, figs) described and figured two species of Portulaca: Portulaca hortensis, Tamme Porceleyne (cultivated Portulaca) and Portulaca sylvestris, Wilde Porceleyne (wild Portulaca), which at present are considered to be the cultivated and wild forms of a single species, Portulaca oleracea L. Lamotius referred to the second form. Pitot (1905: 193) identified this as Quadripeda pilos; P. oleracea (Pourpier marron). In the Netherlands only the one species, Portulaca oleracea is recognized, both in the cultivated and in the wild form].

26-“Semper vivum”. [In his description of the island, Lamotius wrote that “In many places, here grows in great abundance the Sempervivum, which gives the Aloé”; it is possible therefore that Aloe is meant here. Dodoens (1554: 139-141, figs) mentioned several species of Sedum and Sempervivum under Sempervivum; he also (p. 393) gives a description and good figure of Aloe (using Aloe as both Latin and as Dutch names). Pitot (1905: 193) identified Lamotius’s species as Joubarbe, orpin (Herbe aux cors)?, which is the same as Sempervivum tectorum L., family Crassulaceae. Rouillard & Guého (1999: 556) suggest that Lamotius referred to Lomatophyllum purpureum (Lam.) Dur & Schinz (Mazambron, Socotrine du pays), an endemic Liliacean, reputed medicinal species].

27-“Sinapi sylvestre, moostaard” (mustard). [Sinapis alba L.; for this species, Dodoens (1554: 660-661, figs) used the name mostaert, recognizing two forms: Sinapi hortense, Tamme Mostaert (cultivated mustard) and Sinapi sylvestre, Wilde Mostaert (wild mustard). It is the latter form to which Lamotius refers. The present Dutch name is mosterd or witte mosterd (mustard or white mustard). Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Sinapis chinensis, Brassica sinapistrum (Moutarde)].

28-“Cypres”. [Identity unknown, but Dodoens (1554: 399) used the names Tithymalus Cyparissias, Cypressen wolfsmelck for Euphorbia cyparissias L. Pitot (1905: 193) read the name as Cypris, and gave the identification Taxodium distichum (Cyprès chauve). Taxodium is not a Dutch tree, but as Lamotius gave no details, positive identification is impossible. Mrs Van Uffelen remarked that Dodoens (1554: 808-809, fig.) listed Cupressus, Cypressenboom, which is possibly Cupressus sempervirens L.].

29-“Hedera nigra, swarte veijl” (black ivy). [Hedera helix L; Hedera is of course ivy and the word veijl was used by Dodoens (1554: 714) for ivy. Dodoens recognized two species: Hedera nigra, Swerte Veyl (Black Ivy) and Hedera helix, Cleyne Veyl (Small Ivy). Mrs Van Uffelen pointed out that the name Hedera nigra was used by Dodoens for the climbing form, covering walls, trees, etc., and Hedera helix for the form that covers the ground. Mr Holverda informed us that the name nigra at present is used by some nursery gardeners for a culture variety of ivy. Pitot’s (1905: 193) identification provides two possibilities: Hedera helix and Glecoma hederacea. (lierre.): the climbing ivy; and Glechoma hederacea L., the ground ivy].

30-“Solanum solatrum.” [Atropa belladonna L.; under the name Solanum lethale, Groote Nascaye (= Atropa belladonna L.), Dodoens (1554: 478, fig., in translation) says: “This herb is now known as Solanum lethale. In the pharmacy it is named Solatrum mortale.” Mr Holverda pointed out to us that Solatrum minus was used by Saladinus (1450), for Atropa belladonna L. Pitot (1905: 193) identified the species as Solanum nigrum. (morelle noire, herbe à gale, brède martin.)].

31-“Parietaria, glas cruijd” (glass herb). [Parietaria officinalis L.; Dodoens (1554: 58, fig.) used the name Helxine seu Parietaria, Glascruyt for this species, which clearly is the plant meant by Lamotius. Pitot (1905: 193) also suggested that identification: Parietaria off. (queue de rat)?].

32-“Verbena recta, ijser cruijd” (iron herb). [Verbena officinalis L.; Dodoens (1554: 154, fig.) used the name Verbenaca recta, Verbene and remarked (p. 156) that in Dutch it was called Verbene ysercruyt en yserhert (Verbena, iron herb and iron heart). Mrs Van Uffelen gave the identification Verbena officinalis L. Also Pitot (1905: 193) arrived at the same result: Verveine off. (herbe à tous maux, herbe au foie)].

33-“Lamium, dove netelen” (deaf nettles). [Lamium sp., dead nettles; the genus was indicated by Dodoens (1554: 160, 161, fig.) as Lamium, Doovenetelen, but he did not distinguish the separate species. At present the Dutch vernacular name dovenetel (deaf nettle) is still used for species of the genus Lamium. Pitot (1905: 193) identified Lamotius’s Lamium as Lamium album (lamier, ortie blanche)].

34-“Ophioglossum natertongskens” (adder tongues). [Ophioglossum officinale L.; Dodoens (1554: 166, 167, fig.) used the names Ophioglosson, Natertonghesken for Ophioglossum officinale L., of which at present the official Dutch name is Addertong (adder tongue); Pitot (1905: 193) called it O. ovatum (oreille de souris, I’un dans I’autre, herbe paille en queue)].

35-“Menta Wilde” (wild mint). [Mentha spp.; the Dutch name Wilde munt (wild mint) has formerly been used for two species of Mentha. Dodoens (1554: 279-282, figs) recognized six species of Munte (mint), two of which were wild, the rest obviously cultivated. The wild ones are called Mentastrum, Roode water Munte (Red water mint), i.e., Mentha aquatica L., and Sisymbrium, Witte water Munte (White water mint), i.e., Mentha rotundifolia L. Pitot’s (1905: 193) identification is Menta [sic] viridis (Menthe)].

36-“Salvia Wilde” (wild sage). [Teucrium scorodonia L.; to this species, Dodoens (1554: 288, fig.) gave the name Sphacelus Theophrasti, Wilde Savie (see Heukels 1907: 252). This then evidently is the species meant by Lamotius. Dodoens also used the name Savie for Salvia but with different adjectives. At present, the name Wilde Salie is the official Dutch name for Teucrium scorodonia. Pitot (1905: 193) gave Sauge écarlate (aigrette d’Égypte). The French name is Germandrée scorodoine or Sauge des bois].

37-“Unifolium, eenblad” (one leaf). [Maianthemum bifolium (L.); Dodoens (1554: 218, 219, fig.) used the name Unifolium, Eenblat for Maianthemum bifolium as clearly shown by his illustration. This evidently is the species meant by Lamotius. Although the vernacular name is still locally used for the species, the official Dutch name is Dalkruid (herb of the valley). Pitot (1905: 193) gave the name Uniole? The French name is Maianthème à deux feuilles].

38-“Melanthium nigella.” [Nigella damascena L.; Dodoens (1554: 306-308, figs.) recognized three species of Nigella: Melanthium sativum, Tamme Nigelle (cultivated Nigelle); Melanthium sylvestre, Wilde Nigelle (wild Nigelle); and Melanthium Damascemum, Nigella van Damasco (Nigella of Damascus). Of these three only the last is reported with certainty from the Netherlands, where it is a popular garden plant. Pitot (1905: 193) gave Nigella sativa (cumin)?].

39-“Peucedanus, verkens venkel” (pig’s fennel). [Peucedanum officinale L.; this species is still known under the Dutch vernacular names Varkensvenkel (Pig’s fennel) or Varkenskervel (Pig’s chervil). Dodoens (1554: 330-331, fig.) named it Peucedanus, Verckens Venckel and gave a good figure. Pitot (1905: 193) also gave the identification P. officinalis (Peucedan)].

40-“Arum palustre, water Aren” (water ears or spikes). [Calla palustris L.; Dodoens (1554: 359-360, fig.) used the names Arum palustre, Water Aron. for Calla palustris, of which he provided a good figure. Mr Holverda pointed out that Lamotius’s Aren clearly is a copyist’s error for Aron. Pitot (1905: 193) gave the identification Arum maculatum, calla palustris (Gouet, herbe à pain)? The French name is Calla des marais].

41-“Tithijmalus Characias, wolvs-melk” (wolves milk). [Euphorbia characias L.; Dodoens (1554: 397, fig.) described and figured this species as Tithymalus Characias, Wolfsmelck manneken (male spurge). The name Tithymalus Tourn. is sometimes used for a subgenus of Euphorbia. Pitot (1905: 193) correctly identified Lamotius’s species as Euphorbia characias (Euphorbe, herbe de lait)?].

42-“Latijris, spring kruijd” (jumping herb). [Euphorbia lathyrus L.; this species was given the name Lathyris, Springcruyt by Dodoens (1554: 403, fig.). Pitot (1905: 193) also identified it as such: Euphorbia lathyris (Herbe à l’épurge)?].

43-“Peplos, duijvels kruijd” (devil’s herb). [Euphorbia peplus L.; for this species Dodoens (1554: 405, fig.) gave the name Peplos, Duyvels melck (devil’s milk). Pitot’s (1905: 193) identification was Euphorbia peplus, Opuntia vulgaris (dentelaire grimpante, raquette)?].

44-“Snistax levis, klocxkens winde.” [Convolvulus sp.; the name klocxkens winde (bindweed with bells) was formerly used for various species of Convolvulus. Dodoens (1554: 427, 428, figs) used the names Smilax lenis maior, Groote clocxkens winde (large convolvulus) for Convolvulus sepium L. and Smilax lenis minor, Cleyne clocxkens winde (small convolvulus) for Convolvulus arvensis L. The spelling Snistax levis clearly is a copyist’s error for Smilax lenis. Pitot (1905: 193), who recognized Snistax as an erroneous spelling of Smilax, identified this species as Smilax anceps (Salsepareille, croc de chien)].

45-“Cassijtha of Cuscuta, Schorvte.” [Cuscuta sp.; the name Cassytha, Scorfte was used by Dodoens (1554: 434, 435, fig.) to indicate the genus Cuscuta, and Lamotius used it also in that sense; the name Schorfte is still used in some districts of the Netherlands. Pitot’s (1905: 193) suggestion was Cassytha filiformis (cuscute, liane sans fin). Lamotius’s plant can only be identified to genus].-“Felix mas, varen mannetjen” (male fern). [Dryopteris filix-mas (L.); Dodoens (1554: 437, 438, fig.) used the name Filix mas, Varen manneken (male fern) for this species. Pitot’s (1905: 193) solution was Nephrodium (fougère mâle)].

46-“Felix famina, varen wijfjen” (female fern). [Athyrium filix-femina (L.); Dodoens (1554: 437, 438, fig.) named it Filix foemina, Varen wijfken (female fern). Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Davallia tenuifolia (petite fougère, tambavine)? According to Rouillard & Guého (1999: 44), it could be Sphenomeris chinensis (L.) Maxon var. chinensis, an indigenous Lindseaceae].

47-“Felicastrum, groot varen” (large fern). [Osmunda regalis L.; the vernacular name Groot varen has formerly been used in Dutch for Osmunda regalis L., of which at present the official name is Koningsvaren (Royal fern). Dodoens (1554: 438, 439, fig.) used the name Sideritis altera, Osmunda, Groot Varen for Osmunda and made the remark (p. 439) that some people call it Felicastrum. Pitot (1905: 193) read the name written by Lamotius as Filices suum and identified it as Aspidium Sw. coriaceum?].

48-“Felicula polijpodium, boomvaren” (tree fern). [Polypodium vulgare L.; Dodoens (1554: 440, 441, fig.) named this species Polypodium, Boomvaren and remarked in the text “In Latijn Filicula en Polypodium” (in Latin Filicula and Polypodium). Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as Filices polypodium, P. Phymatodes (Polypode.). The present Dutch name is Eikvaren (oak fern)].

49-“Scolopendria honds-tongen” (dog’s tongues). [Scolopendrium vulgare L.; the present vernacular Dutch name is Tong varen (Tongue fern). Dodoens (1554: 442, 443, fig.) used the names Phyllitis, Steen Hertstonghe (Rock deer-tongue). Heukels (1907: 230) already showed that Dodoens’s Hertstonghe is identical with Scolopendrium vulgare, as shown also by Dodoens’s figure. Pitot (1905: 193) gave the name Sc. officinale (scolopendre, herbe à la rate). The name Hondstong at present is used in the Netherlands for Cynoglossum].

50-“Longitus aspera, gragt varen” (canal fern). [Blechnum spicant L.; Dodoens (1554: 443, fig.) used the name Lonchitis aspera, Gracht varen for Blechnum spicant L., and this clearly is the species meant by Lamotius. Pitot (1905: 193) gave the doubtful identification Lonchitis?].

51-“Asplenium, steenvaren” (rock fern). [Asplenium ruta-muraria L.; this species, which often grows between the stones of old brick walls, was named by Dodoens (1554: 444-445, fig.) Asplenum, Steen varen; his figure confirms the identity. Pitot (1905: 193) provided the identification Asplenium nidus (langue de bœuf)].

52-“Polutrijchon, wederdood.” [Asplenium trichomanes L.; Wederdood or Wederdoot is a Dutch vernacular name formerly used for this species. Dodoens (1554: 447, fig.) named it Trichomanes, Wederdoot and mentioned that the name Polytrichon was used for it in pharmacies. Also Pitot (1905: 193) identified it as such: Asplenium trichomanes, Polytrichum commune (capillaire)? The name Wederdood is still used for the species in parts of Flanders; the official Dutch name is Steenbreekvaren (saxifrage fern)].

53-“Pulmonaria, longenkruijd” (lung herb). [Lobaria pulmonaria (L.); this species is a lichen, the thallus of which is leaf-shaped and grows on trees and rocks. Dodoens (1554: 449, fig.) called it Pulmonaria, Longhen cruyt; it is a well-known medicinal herb and clearly the species meant by Lamotius. The Latin name Pulmonaria was also used by Dodoens (1554: 153, 154, fig.) for a phanerogamous plant, to which he gave the vernacular name Onser vrouwen melckcruyt (Our Lady’s milk herb). This species belongs to the family Boraginaceae and is at present known as Pulmonaria officinalis L.; it has the official Dutch name of Longkruid (Lung herb). Dodoens (1554: 154) also mentioned the use in pharmacies of that vernacular name for this species. Pitot (1905: 194) came to the correct conclusion: Pulmonaria off. (lichen, herbe aux poumons)].

54-“Pomum spinosum, doorn appel.” [Datura stramonium L.; this species is named by Dodoens (1554: 472-473, fig.) Stramonia, Doren appel and he notes that in Italy it is called Pomum spinosum. At present it bears the official Dutch name Doornappel and the English name Thorn apple. Pitot (1905: 194) also came to that conclusion calling it Datura stramonium (herbe des démoniaques, herbe du diable)].

55-“Dufter.” [The word dufter is entirely unknown to us. The possibility that it belongs to the last word of the previous line, appel (because there is a short horizontal line after that word) is unlikely because appeldufter makes no sense either. It is possible that the spelling of the word is due to a copyist’s error, but even then it is not clear what the original spelling could be. Pitot (1905: 194) read the word as Dutter and doubtfully identified it with Detarium (detar)?, a genus of the family Leguminosae. This, however, seems far-fetched].

56-“Arachis of wilde visschen [the last word is corrected in a different, but contemporary, hand to “vitzen”] 2 a 3-derley soort.” [Vicia spp.; the original sentence says Arachis or wild fishes, which makes no sense; the correction of visschen to vitzen, however, does make sense: Vitsen is the Dutch name used by Dodoens (1554: 524-527, figs.) for species of the genus Vicia L. He recognized three species: Vicia, Vitsen; Arachus, Crock; and Wilde Vitsen. The translation of Lamotius’s entry then would be “Arachis or wild Vicia in 2 or 3 species.” Therefore the identification is Vicia spp. Pitot’s (1905: 194) identification is Arachis (arachide, pistache de terre)?].

57-“Claveren twee a 3derleij soort” (clover in two or three species). [Trifolium spp.; the present Dutch name for clover, Trifolium L., is Klaver. Dodoens (1554: 535-536, fig.) dealt with various species, including White and Red Clover, under the single name Trifolium pratense, Ghemeyn claveren (Common Clover). Thus the identification is Trifolium spp. Pitot (1905: 194) went entirely wrong because he thought that the Dutch name Claveren stood for the fungus Clavaria; his identification was Clavaria (clavaire, champignon)?].

58-“Corex.” [This name did not mean anything to us. Mr Holverda suggested that it might be an erroneous spelling of Carex, a genus of which there are many species in the Netherlands, at least one of which, Carex arenaria L., is of medical interest. Mrs Van Uffelen mentioned that Dodoens (1554: 548, fig.) described Carex, Rietgras, which clearly is Sparganium, probably S. erectum L., judging by Dodoens’s figure. Pitot (1905: 194) identified it with some doubt as Corisen (coris, ginseng)?, Coris being a Mediterranean genus (family Primulaceae)].

59-“Zeugdistel” (sow thistle). [Sonchus sp.; the Dutch name zeugdistel is used locally for species of the genus Sonchus L.; the present Dutch name for the genus is Melk distel (milk thistle)].

60It is amazing that Lamotius knew all these plants, nine of which are ferns and three or four Euphorbia, clearly showing that his knowledge was not superficial. He evidently had no botanical literature available in Mauritius, as he himself implies: “Furthermore there are here many other Dutch herbs, the names of which will not now come to mind.” He must have paid much attention to plants during the time that he lived in the Netherlands. He may then have used the book by Rembert Dodoens (Rembertus Dodonaeus 1554) as suggested by his extensive use of vernacular and Latin names contained in that volume. As most of the species listed by him are of medicinal importance, or otherwise useful in some other way, it is possible that he took seeds or roots with him from Holland and tried to grow them on Mauritius. His statement that there were “many other Dutch herbs” there, supports our surmise that the 39 plants of his list also came from the Netherlands.

61Lamotius was in contact with naturalists and collectors in the Netherlands as shown by the fact that he sent seeds and animals to Mr Joan Huydecoper van Maarseveen (21 February 1625-1 December 1704), burgomaster of Amsterdam, who was one of the directors of the V.O.C. and Commissioner of the Hortus Medicus in Amsterdam. Lamotius sent Huydecoper seeds of Momordica charantia L., which were planted in the Hortus Medicus and produced fruit in the year 1686 (see Wijnands 1983: 92, 211). Lamotius also sent animals to Huydecoper: P. Smit (1986: 132, 133) mentioned that in Huydecoper’s collection there were “from Mauritius: fishes and a parrot presented by Isaac Lamotius.” In the archives of the Huydecoper family there is a copy of a letter dated 7 December 1685 from Joan Huydecoper to I. J. Lamotius, in which Lamotius is thanked for three letters (dated 28 November 1682, 29 February 1683, and 1 December 1683; and received respectively on 1 November 1683, 29 August 1684, and 30 June 1685). In this same letter to Lamotius, Huydecoper mentions that he has not received birds and drawings of trees and fishes (from Lamotius?). Furthermore he states that his godson, the assistant Huybert Jongmaier, was drowned (evidently on Mauritius) when crossing a river and that with him drawings that he had made of birds were lost. Huydecoper hoped that Lamotius could find another artist and he sent him therefore a box with paintbrushes and paint and a catalogue of various plants, which he and Mr Commelijn (C. Commelin) should like to have for the Hortus Medicus. The artist Huybert Jongmaier is mentioned by Pitot (1905: 223), who spelled his name Hubert Jongmaayer. Pitot wrote also that in 1681 Jongmaier was made a member of the Mauritius council, when two other members left the island. He does not say anything about the artistic qualities of this young man, and neither that he later drowned.

62During his stay on Mauritius, Lamotius not only studied its animals and plants, he also made the drawings of fishes and other marine animals that we publish here. It is most interesting that several of these figures are dated. We know, therefore, that at least seven of the figures were made on Mauritius: figure no. 29, “Mauritius, 13 November 1680”; no. 57, “Mauritius, 20 March 1680”; no. 59, “Mauritius, 3 Apri1 1680”; no. 114, “Tabaks Eijland situated 3 miles off Mauritius, 19 October 1692”; no. 124, “Tabaks Eijland, 20 October 1692”; no. 125, “Tabacs Eijland, 17 October 1690”; no. 171, “Paaij en Maaijs Eijland situated at 3 miles off the island of Mauritius, 26 November 1691.” Although undated, many of the other paintings must have also been made at Mauritius, judging by the names given to them by Lamotius: no. 103, Mauritius Voorn (Mauritius Roach); no. 109, Cabbelliauw van Mauritius (Mauritius Cod); no. 140, Mauritius Grundel (Mauritius Gudgeon); no. 146, Sardijn Mauritius (Mauritius Pilchard); no. 149, Mauritius Bot (Mauritius Flounder); no. 153, Mauritius Braassem (Mauritius Bream); no. 164, Mauritius Gulletje (Mauritius Codling); no. 170, Mauritius Knor Haantje (Mauritius Gurnard); no. 185, Mauritius Bliek (Mauritius Sprat); no. 231, Mauritius Caantje (Mauritius Brill); no. 237, Mauritius Schol (Mauritius Plaice); no. 239, Mauritius Grietje (Mauritius Brill); no. 240, Mauritius Tarboth (Mauritius Turbot).

63Lamotius’s interest in fishes is best shown by the fact that even after his arrest, when he was on his way to trial in Batavia on the flute Duijf, he still continued to paint fishes that he obtained during this sea voyage: no. 30, “caught 12 February 1693 at the Latitude of 5 degrees 31 minutes, Longitude, 124: 32, Southern latitude, sailing to Batavia with the flute d’Duijf”; no. 31, “caught at S. latitude 7 degrees 31 minutes, Longitude 116: 34 on 24 January 1693, sailing to Batavia on the flute De Duijf”; no. 126, “caught at S. Latitude 7 degrees 3 minutes, Longitude 116 degrees 34 minutes on 24 January 1693.” Mr W. J. F. Mörzer Bruyns, head curator of the Nederlands Scheepvaart Museum (Netherlands Maritime Museum) in Amsterdam, kindly informed us that in Lamotius’s time, the charts of the V.O.C. indicated longitude from Tenerife, Canary Islands, eastward (0-360°). Because the position of Pico de Teide, Tenerife, is 16° 38’west of Greenwich, one has to deduct that amount from the longitudes given by Lamotius. Thus, for the fishes shown in figures 30 and 31, the correct position is 107° 54’E (north of Jakarta) and for that of figure 126, it is 99° 96’E (southwest of Sumatra). These data also show that he made the paintings himself: it is clear that during his voyage to Batavia no artist would have been placed at his disposal.

64It is interesting to note that during Lamotius’s time there was a closed season for hunting on Mauritius. In a document of 4 September 1687, Lamotius mentioned that the free burger Daniel Zaayman had been fined 10 rijxds (10 rijksdaalders) or 25 guilders, for hunting out of season: environmental protection in 1687 on Mauritius! Deodati, Lamotius’s successor as chief of Mauritius, was obviously quite mistaken when he reported that Lamotius did nothing to enforce these laws and that he even encouraged the hunters to kill game and turtles (Pitot, 1905: 195). Like much of Deodati’s information concerning Lamotius, which of necessity was hearsay evidence, this too is either false or grossly exaggerated.

65Lamotius in the documents that we consulted made hardly any mention of the bird fauna of the island. However, recently he figured in the question about the date of extinction of the Dodo, Raphus cucullatus (L., 1758). Moree (1998: 87) and Hume et al. (2004) reported that in his daily journals of 1685 to 1688 Lamotius mentioned that his hunters on 12 separate occasions brought in dodaersen. The authors cited evidently were inclined to accept these records as being of the true Dodo even though they referred to Cheke (2001: 348), who had shown that “the name “dodo” had generally [been] transferred by 1668 to the Red Rail, Aphanapteryx bonasia”. Furthermore, the Dutch name dodaers (or more modern dodaars) is not specific for Raphus and does not prove the identity with that genus. At present, in Dutch ornithological literature the name Dodaars is the official Dutch name for the Little Grebe, Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas, 1764). We have not seen Lamotius’s 1685-1688 diaries, but evidently they contain no other information, descriptive or illustrative, that may make the identity of these dodaersen certain. We therefore cannot confirm that Lamotius ever saw a true dodo, or that that species was still extant in Mauritius during Lamotius’s stay there. In his description of Mauritius Lamotius made no mention of dodo’s or any other bird; we even do not know whether he had any interest in birds, though that seems rather likely.

Exile in the Moluccas (1695-?1702)

66We know hardly anything at all about the time Lamotius spent in exile on the island of Rosengein in the Banda Archipelago (Figure 5). There is nothing to show that he actually did hard labour in chains. Valentijn (1726a, vol. 3B, no (2), p. 93) mentioned that Lamotius became befriended by Balthasar Coyett, the governor of Banda, who Lamotius had met on Mauritius when Coyett traveled from the Netherlands to the East Indies. They evidently became very good friends. Coyett was appointed secunde of Banda in 1691, in 1694 he became provisional governor and in 1697 governor. Judging by the localities where he made his paintings, Lamotius was allowed to travel widely within the Banda Archipelago. And, as mentioned again by Valentijn (1726a: 93), when Coyett was promoted to governor of Ambon in 1701 he took Lamotius with him. However, shortly afterwards the authorities in Batavia ordered Lamotius to be sent back to Banda. On Ambon Lamotius might have even met G. Rumphius. These indications, and also the numerous paintings that he made during his stay in the Moluccas, show clearly that Lamotius’s exile was not a very difficult time for him, and that his life there was rather pleasant with lots of fishes and other marine animals to depict, and with much freedom of movement.

67Like his Mauritian fish illustrations, some of those from Banda are also dated and provided with locality data: no. 50, “caught at Neira in the province of Banda, 16 October 1698”; no. 129, “caught at Neira in the moat of Nassau castle, 16 September 1698”; no. 188, “caught at the island of Gunung Api [Gunung Api = volcano] at Banda on 22 October 1698”; no. 203, “caught in a bobber [a kind of fish trap, see Beekman, 1999: 394, par. 8, fig.] at Pisang or Parampouan Island in the province of Banda, 9 October 1697”; no. 220, “caught at Neira in the province of Banda in a Ceri [a fish trap, see Beekman 1999: 394, par. 7, fig.]”. Figures 165 and 166, both labeled Steur Van Banda (sturgeon of Banda) and no. 236, with only the indication “Banda”, are undated. The figures that bear names in Malay, like those of all decapod and stomatopod crustaceans, most likely were also made in the Moluccas (i.e., Banda Island, etc.).

68It is quite likely that Coyett admired Lamotius’s paintings and that Lamotius copied these for him. This becomes the more probable by the fact that, as Dr. Christian Érard of the Paris Museum pointed out to us, in the plate of the Coyett set that Pietsch (1995, p. 46, fig. 60) reproduced, the handwriting of the legends is most certainly that of Lamotius. When in Ambon Coyett added to his collection of Lamotius copies numerous paintings made in Ambon by Samuel Fallours. Fallours, who had the title krankbezoeker (visitor of the sick), was curate of the vicar François Valentijn in Ambon. He was interested in marine animals and made numerous illustrations of those and also copied the Coyett-Lamotius set. He made several duplicate sets of his paintings and gave (or sold) these to various interested persons like F. Valentijn, B. Coyett and Coyett’s successor as governor of Ambon, A. Van der Stel. Pietsch (1995) gives a very extensive account of the history of those sets, several of which had been published in the 18th century. The sets owned by Coyett and Van der Stel, which were published in 1719 by Renard, are reproduced facsimile in color by Pietsch. The Fallours paintings were often rejected as fantastical except by some very well-known ichthyologists like Peter S. Pallas (1770: 19), Georges Cuvier (1828: 86-88), and Pieter Bleeker (1856a: 63), who although recognizing the poor quality of these illustrations, pointed out that they were not just products of fantasy, but that all must have been made after actual specimens. Bleeker (1856b: 29) called the figure of Irona renardi published by Renard (1719) “très-défectueuse et outrée,” but nevertheless sufficient to recognize the species. This has also been extensively discussed by Pietsch (1995).

Lamotius’s stay in South Africa (1702?-1718)

69Very little is known of the time spent by Lamotius in South Africa following the end of his exile on Banda. François Valentijn (1726b, vol. 5B, no. 4, p. 153), who in 1714, on his return voyage to the Netherlands, visited Lamotius in South Africa, made mention of his excellent collection of fish drawings, resembling the paintings that he (Valentijn) himself had collected on Ambon. Apparently, Valentijn did not realize that a great part of his own Fallours paintings were copied from copies of those of Lamotius. From the archives of the Cape of Good Hope we know that Lamotius was residing at the Cape in 1709: in a document dated September 1709, he reported the theft of a kabaai (kabaja or cabaya, the Malay word for a kind of blouse or jacket) and four shirts. On 1 February 1718, he petitioned the Governor and the Council of the Cape to be given passage back to Holland on one of the ships of the Company at his own expense. The request granted, Lamotius left the Cape on 7 April 1718 aboard the Huys ten Donck, which arrived at Texel on 17 July 1718. No further word of Lamotius has survived and it is thus tempting to surmise that he died at sea sometime between April and July 1718; this would not be unlikely as he would have turned 72 during this voyage. Unfortunately the logbook of this voyage of the Huys ten Donck has not survived so that our surmise that Lamotius died at sea has to remain only an interesting possibility.

History of the Lamotius paintings

70The earliest known Mauritian painting by Lamotius is dated 20 March 1680, but it is possible that some of the undated figures were made earlier. It is certain, however, that he started painting sometime between 1677 and 1680. The last dated painting from the Moluccas is labeled 22 October 1698. It is possible that some of the undated ones were made later, for example, between 1698 and 1702, or whenever he left the Moluccas.

71As shown above, Lamotius, when in Banda must have copied his own paintings and presented the duplicate set to Coyett. Coyett later (in Ambon) acquired similar paintings, but of a far inferior quality, from Fallours and had all of them published by Renard (1719). Fallours evidently also made copies of the Coyett-Lamotius set and included those in the many sets that he made of his own paintings. The history of these various sets, both the published and unpublished, have been extensively dealt with by Pietsch (1995). See also the chapter “Exile in the Moluccas”.

72Lamotius took his original paintings with him to the Cape of Good Hope where he settled after the end of his exile in the Moluccas. When Valentijn (1726b, vol. 5B, no (4), p. 153), on his homeward voyage, visited Lamotius at the Cape in 1714, he saw Lamotius’s collection of “255 fish paintings” and remarked that “These fishes had been extraordinary well drawn by Mr Lamotius himself and showed a variety of different colors. They were often similar in shape to the rare fishes illustrated in my chapter on Amboina [Ambon], but of an entirely different, though remarkably beautiful color. Furthermore, I saw in Mr Lamotius’s collection several very fine seahorses, sea crabs, sea stars, etc., worth to be preserved” (free translation). It is clear from this statement that Valentijn saw the collection reproduced here. Between 1714 and now, four paintings (perhaps only one page) of the Lamotius set evidently got lost as at present there are only 250 paintings (the last figure in the set is numbered 251, but the Vliegende Zee-Uijl is by accident assigned two numbers, 131 and 132; see pl. 54 below). Valentijn’s remark that the Lamotius collection contained paintings of “sea stars”, confirms that the collection reproduced here is that of Lamotius as none of the copied sets contains any figure of an echinoderm. For more than a century after Valentijn’s observations nothing about the Lamotius collection was published. It was not until 1828 that the drawings were mentioned again in the literature, namely by Cuvier (1828: 86) who reported on a manuscript held by the library of the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, the full Dutch title of which is: Zee Tooneel, verbeeldende een wonderbare verscheidenheit van zwemmende en kruipende Zee-Dieren, behorende tot de Geslachten der Visschen, Kreeften, Krabben en andere Water-Schepselen, die merendeels de Indische Zeen, of liever die wateren welleken de Eilanden der Moluccos bespoelen, opleveren. Zynde alle deze hier in afgebeelde Visschen enz., naar het leeven afgeteekent en geschildert door ordere en onder het opzicht van den Wel-Edelen Gestrengen Heere Cornelis de Vlaming; Eertijds Raad en Equipage meester op de Kust van Bengaalen: naderhand de Retourvloot in den Jaare MDCCXV. als Admiraal begeleid hebbende [Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Plon-Nourrit et Cie, Imprimeurs-Éditeurs, Paris, 1914, p. 68]. The English translation of this title is given on page 12, above.

73We know that the information on the title page of this manuscript is incorrect: Cornelis de Vlamingh was born on the island of Vlieland, in the province of Noord Holland, and baptized on 12 December 1678. As Commander of the ship ’t Weseltje he formed part of the expedition to Western Australia led by his father Willem de Vlamingh. This expedition left Holland on 3 May 1696 and after having explored the west coast of Australia, arrived at Batavia on 20 March 1697. Soon after, Cornelis made a number of subsequent voyages on his own: to the island of Mony (Christmas Island), Bengal, and Bantam; but father and son returned to Holland together in 1698. The next year Cornelis sailed again to the east, this time as skipper of the ’t Huys te Bijwegh, arriving at Batavia on 28 January 1700. On 11 September 1705, he was appointed ship’s equipment supervisor of the Dutch East India Company in Bengal; in 1714, he was appointed commander of the return fleet, which he joined at Batavia on 16 October of that same year, and arrived with this fleet in Holland on 6 August 1715. Because at least three of the figures of the so-called Vlamingh drawings were made before C. de Vlamingh was two years old, they cannot possibly have been drawn under his supervision. Furthermore, most of the time spent by de Vlamingh in the Indies was as master of a vessel or as equipment supervisor at Bengal; there is no record of his ever having settled at Mauritius or the Moluccas, where the so-called De Vlamingh drawings are known to have originated. Holthuis (1959: 85-88) made clear that these figures cannot be anything but the original paintings made by Lamotius. It is not known how this set came into the hands of De Vlamingh. It is possible that he acquired them during his 1714-1715 homeward voyage when he visited the Cape of Good Hope. The next owner, after De Vlamingh, was evidently the stadhouder (stadtholder) of the Netherlands, Prince Willem V of Orange, whose collection of animals and library were deservedly famous. When in 1795 the French revolutionary troops occupied the Netherlands and the Prince and his family fled to England, the collection of the Prince was confiscated by the French and sent to France to be placed in the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle. The first part of the shipments, which arrived in Paris in 1795 (“Le cabinet du Stathouder est arrivé en grande partie de la Hollande; 150 caisses ont été portées au muséum d’Histoire naturelle, et on en attend encore un grand nombre”; see Magasin encyclopédique ou Journal des Sciences, des lettres et des Arts 2: 419, Paris, 1795), consisted of 150 packing cases; the following shipments were smaller. In 1815, after the fall of Napoléon, S. J. Brugmans, professor of natural history of Leiden University was sent to Paris to retrieve the property of the stadtholder. The opposition of some French scientists (among whom especially was Lamarck) and the difficulty in recognizing exactly which specimens had actually belonged to the stadtholder collection forced a compromise that required part of the collection to stay in Paris in exchange for a great number of duplicates of the Muséum collection. Evidently the Lamotius drawings (now catalogued as C. de Vlamingh’s Zee Tooneel) belonged to that part of the collection that was left in Paris. Madame Marie-Louise Bauchot of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, informed us in 1995 that the Lamotius manuscript indeed had formed part of the stadtholder’s collection, the evidence being the abbreviation Stath., for Stathouder, written directly on the manuscript, in the upper left corner on the reverse side of the cover page. It is interesting that notwithstanding many complications, the history of this set of drawings could be traced almost completely. Only the C. de Vlamingh period remains unknown; consultation of various archives showed no direct relationship between De Vlamingh and Lamotius.

The person of Lamotius

74It is difficult to form a correct opinion about the character of Lamotius, as most written opinions about him are biased in one way or another. Pitot (1905: 194) called Lamotius a “fort vilain hypocrite” because he was quite religious, said morning and evening prayers, and led the religious Sunday services at the fort. However, coming from a family with so many clergymen, it is no wonder that Lamotius was truly religious; also his fear of the devil on which Pitot commented was quite normal in that time. These sentiments were certainly sincere and not just “pour la montre” as Pitot described it. Aboard V.O.C. ships, the captain led the Sunday services if no clergymen were available. This custom probably also was observed in small settlements like Mauritius. We cannot see anything hypocritical here in Lamotius’s behavior; he simply was a good Christian, doing what he felt to be his duty.

75All authors agree that Lamotius started his job with youthful enthusiasm and energy (he was 31 years old when he arrived at Mauritius). Several of the projects that he started did well in the beginning, but many came to nothing because of natural causes (hurricanes, drought, torrential rain, and damage by insects and other pests). But also the inexperience of the colonists in these matters played a role, as well as the fact that they often were easily discouraged and/or simply not interested. Lamotius sent letters to the Cape authorities repeatedly asking for better implements, for instructors for the various agricultural projects, and for general help, but these requests could rarely be fulfilled because the objects and people were probably not available at the Cape or could not be spared. Many of the colonists blamed Lamotius for this.

76When in 1682 an epidemic of a malignant fever struck the island, Lamotius and a corporal were the only persons that were not ill. They took care day and night of all the others until a physician was sent from the Cape.

77Evidently the settlers did not take Lamotius too seriously, perhaps because of his youth and the fact that he had a much lower rank than his predecessor Hugo. They ignored many of his orders; for example, they sold much of their produce to English ships that frequented the bay on the northwest coast of the island, which at that time was called Engelsche Baai (English Bay), exactly at the opposite point of the island from the V.O.C. settlement in the southeastern part of the island. The colonists lived in the area in-between, but closer to English Bay.

78That Lamotius was not a tyrannical despot, but often quite the opposite is shown by the case of J. Molijn, J. Geel, and L. Van Swaanswijk, who had stolen f. 188 from the company’s chest. They were found guilty but pardoned. The Company berated Lamotius on that account, but Lamotius defended himself by saying that the three men were of more service to the Company if they worked rather than if jailed, especially with the shortage of Europeans on the island; and all three had earnestly promised to better their lives.

79Also, in his letter of 8 September 1690, to the governor general in Batavia, Lamotius announced that with the ship Het Haantje (the coquerel) he sent to Batavia two black female slaves, who had requested freedom for themselves and their children. As Lamotius had not the authority to grant this freedom, he sent them to Batavia. He was evidently favorably inclined to their request, as he mentioned that they had always behaved extremely well and had attained “a good old age.”

80Also in his judging of the rebels who under Dubertin had acted against the government of the island he did not behave like a rabid executioner: when the soldier Hans Balthasar was found guilty of helping Dubertin and of other offences, Lamotius actually should have sent him to the Cape for punishment, but as no ships were expected in the near future, it was decided that he be punished then and there, with the measures that the council of Mauritius was allowed to take. But Lamotius remarked: “as the physical constitution of the delinquent does not allow that he be geleersd [see above], as is the usual punishment for this offense, he is condemned to be severely and publicly caned by some employees of the Company in the square of the settlement.” Another offender, Ian Roelofsz, was actually geleersd. One gets the impression that each case was carefully considered by the council and that the penalties given were judged by them to be reasonable. Laurens Gabrielsz was given a fine of 16 rijksdaalders instead of “a corporal punishment, which he had rightfully deserved.”

81The language of the accusation brought by Uytenbogaard against Lamotius was often quite extreme: it twice used the terms “struykroovers en moordenaars” (robbers and murderers) to qualify Lamotius and his council. It mentioned also “ongehoorde persecutien en geweldenarijen” (unheard of persecutions and tyranny), and “woedende rasernijen” (infuriated frenzies) of the group. However, the punishments, for which details are given in the accusation, were not so inordinately extreme for the time: Michiel Rodermond was beaten black and blue and afterwards had to keep to his bed, while Ian Balthasar Pigt was locked up for six months and so badly beaten that he lost his health. The accusation also accused Lamotius of being too friendly with the commanders of the English ships that visited Mauritius; but, as mentioned above, the English at that time were not enemies, but more or less allies, although they remained competitors. One of the main accusations was that Lamotius had tried to seduce Aletta Dubertin and when she showed a lack of interest, he became abusive and tried to make life difficult for her. As already discussed above, it was more likely Mrs Dubertin who made advances to Lamotius (see her letter to him of 6 October 1686), from which he tried to escape. This is probably the main reason why Aletta got her father, the judge, to write the accusation, and that this is a case of “Hell has no fury than a woman scorned.”

82It is clear that the council’s treatment of the rebels that had helped Dubertin was quite rough and the methods used would be abhorrent to us today, but at that time they were generally accepted. It is likely that some of the punishments were thought up not by Lamotius, but by certain other council members, but that, of course, does not remove the fact that Lamotius was responsible for what happened. The number and quality of the words of abuse used in the accusation are quite different from the more level-headed wording of Lamotius’s defense. They most likely are greatly exaggerated. The court in Batavia evidently was also of this opinion and their judgment was a relatively very mild one. All in all, we can agree with Pitot (1905: 192) that Lamotius was intelligent and well educated. He certainly was an idealist who tried his utmost for the best of the island, but he was not a strong person. His youth, his character, and the rather low position that he occupied did not help to make him a respected leader. All of these factors, plus the presence of someone sly and overbearing like Dubertin, who took full advantage of Lamotius’s situation, combined to ensure his downfall. Without the Dubertin couple and the position of Aletta’s father, probably no trial would have ever taken place.

83The friendly treatment by governor Coyett during Lamotius’s exile in Banda, and the fact that when Coyett was appointed governor of Ambon, he took Lamotius with him, and, in addition to this, the fact that the reverend Valentijn in 1714 made a special visit to Lamotius in South Africa, all show clearly that neither the political not the religious authorities in the East Indies considered him a real criminal. Finally, despite all the troubles, it should be mentioned that of the 13 Dutch chiefs assigned to Mauritius between 1638 and 1710, Lamotius, with his 15 years, lasted longer on the island than any of the others, who were there from less than one to 11 years (see Van Vliet 1973, appendix 1).