by Mike Dash
The fleet at the Cape of Good Hope The identity of the ships that arrived in company at the Cape is revealed in a letter written by an anonymous survivor of the Batavia on 11 December 1629 and published in the pamphlet Leyds Veer-Schuyts Praetjen, Tuschen een Koopman ende Borger van Leyden, Varende van Haarlem nae Leyden (np [Amsterdam: Willem Jansz], 1630).
The Cape of Good Hope The English and Dutch left records of these visits in the shape of “post-office stones”—slabs of rock that they picked up on the sea shore and engraved with the names of their ships, their skippers, and the date of their arrival. Post-office stones had two functions. They marked the spots along the beach where the crew of each East Indiamen deposited ships’ papers and letters for their families at home, wrapped in waxed cloth to keep out the rain until a vessel homeward-bound could find them and take them back to Europe. And they proved the men had at least reached the Tavern of the Ocean safely—a matter of importance at a time when it was all too common for ships to vanish without trace on the passage out or home. Often the evidence of a post-office stone was all there was to show whether a vessel had been lost in the Indian Ocean or the Atlantic. Cf. R. Raven-Hart, Before Van Riebeeck: Callers at South Africa from 1488–1652 (Cape Town: C. Struik, 1967), pp. 116, 207. On the situation at the Cape in 1629, the Hottentots and the wildlife, see ibid., pp. 14–21, 23, 38, 95, 120, 122–4, 175; Bruijn and Gaastra, Ships, Sailors and Spices, p. 192; Boxer, The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600–1800, pp. 242–6. For the fleet’s dates of arrival and departure, see Bruijn et al., Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, II, 60. For Pelsaert’s landing and the skipper’s drunkenness, see Confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 161] and Pelsaert’s “Declaration in short [of] the origin, reason, and towards what intention, Jeronimus Cornelissen, undermerchant, has resolved to murder all the people, with his several plans, and in what manner the matter has happened from the beginning to the end,” JFP nd [DB 162–3]. (In the former, the Assendelft is mentioned as one of the ships that Jacobsz visited, but in the latter the vessel in question becomes the Sardam. I prefer the original account.) For the average duration of visits to the Cape in the 1620s, see Bruijn et al., Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, I, 69. The other vessel in the Batavia convoy, the Hoorn chapter’s jacht, Kleine David, was bound for Pulicat in India and does not appear to have called at Table Bay. Bruijn et al., Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, II, 60–1.
Jacobsz’s dressing-down According to Pelsaert’s journals, the skipper “excused himself that on the one hand he had been drunk, and on the other hand that he did not know that one would take a thing like that so seriously.” “Declaration in Short,” JFP nd [DB 248].
“ ‘By God . . .’ . . . It was a while before apothecary spoke . . . ‘And how would you manage that?’ ” Ibid. and confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 162].
Chapter 4: Terra Australis Incognita
The only surviving material concerning the beginnings of the Batavia mutiny can be found in Pelsaert’s journals. Much of the information was extracted under torture and—given the potential impact that the mutiny was likely to have on the commandeur’s career—it is unfortunate that there is a total lack of corroboration. The accuracy of the testimonies recorded thus remains open to question; nevertheless, the account that emerges from the journals is internally consistent and—in places—so outrageous that it seems unlikely to be outright invention.
The beginnings of the Batavia mutiny “Declaration in short [of] the origin, reason, and towards what intention, Jeronimus Cornelissen, undermerchant, has resolved to murder all the people . . . ,” JFP nd [DB 248–51]; interrogation of Jan Hendricxsz, JFP 17 Sep 1629 [DB 178].
“In his journal . . .” “Declaration in Short” JFP nd [DB 249–51].
Ariaen Jacobsz’s guilt It has been suggested, by Philippe Godard, in The First and Last Voyage of the Batavia (Perth: Abrolhos Publishing, nd, c. 1993), pp. 81–5, that Jacobsz was innocent of the crime of mutiny and that events on the Batavia were solely the work of Jeronimus Cornelisz and his associates. It is true that the Dutch authorities were later unable, even with the application of torture, to conclusively establish the skipper’s involvement in the plot, and it is undoubtedly hard to explain why a full-fledged mutiny did not break out on board soon after the Batavia left the Cape, when the ship was still within easy reach of havens such as Madagascar and Mauritius. Some have also found it incredible that the skipper should allow Pelsaert to survive the open boat voyage he and Jacobsz undertook after the wrecking of the ship. See chapters 6 and 9 for a further discussion of these points. The case in favor of Jacobsz’s guilt, which I tend to accept, lies in the allegations made by known mutineers during their later interrogations. Jacobsz was accused of plotting mutiny by Jan Hendricxsz and Allert Janssen as well as Jeronimus Cornelisz, and whispers of his complicity reached both the predikant and the commandeur. None of these men, with the exception of Pelsaert and Cornelisz, had much to gain by implicating the skipper, and their accounts are strikingly consistent. In the absence of records of Jacobsz’s interrogation at Batavia, which seem to have been lost, the matter will remain for ever unresolved. Interrogation of Jan Hendricxsz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 178]; verdict on Allert Janssen, JFP 28 Sep 1629 [DB 198]; Specx to Gentlemen XVII, 15 Dec 1629, ARA VOC 1009, cited by Drake-Brockman, Voyage to Disaster, pp. 62–3.
“Though it was common for the masters of East Indiamen to chafe . . .” As Jan Coen, the greatest of all governors of the Indies, observed of the VOC’s skippers, “ ‘The months go by,’ they say,” ‘[and] at sea we are lords and masters, whereas we are only servants in India . . . let us see if we cannot pick up a rich prize.’ ” Cited by C. R. Boxer, “The Dutch East-Indiamen: Their Sailors, Their Navigators and Life on Board, 1602–1795,” The Mariner’s Mirror 49 (1963): 90.
Jeronimus Cornelisz’s reasons for not returning to the United Provinces We do not know what sort of relationship Cornelisz enjoyed with Belijtgen Jacobsdr, or whether he loved her. The period following the death of a young child is naturally a traumatic one for any parents, and in addition to the normal feelings of guilt and despair, there may well have been recriminations between the parents concerning the choice of a wet nurse for their son and the reasons for the poor state of their business. In Cornelisz’s absence, Belijtgen was evidently impoverished and she was forced to move to an alleyway in a much less desirable part of Haarlem (see chapter 9). It is not unreasonable to suppose that husband and wife may have parted on bad terms.
Conditions for mutiny Jaap Bruijn and E. S. van Eyck van Heslinga (eds.), Muiterij, Oproer en Berechting op de Schepen van de VOC (Haarlem: De Boer Maritiem, 1980), pp. 7–8, 21–2, 26. For an equivalent study of Spain’s Indiamen, see Pablo Pérez-Mallaína, Spain’s Men of the Sea: Daily Life on the Indies Fleets in the Sixteenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), pp. 211–2. The VOC experienced at least 44 mutinies during its two centuries in business, beginning with one on board the Middelburg in 1611. The Batavia mutiny was by far the bloodiest of them all. The rebellion that bore the closest resemblance to it occurred on board the ship Westfriesland in 1652. This mutiny was led by the upper steersman, Jacob Arentsen, who, thanks to his deficient navigation, had been passed over for promotion when the skipper died. Arentsen gathered 60 men around him and plotted to kill the other officers and sail the ship to Italy. Details of the plot leaked to the loyal officers on board; the upper-steersman was shot and four of his confederates thrown overboard. In this case, as in that of the Batavia, the presence of women on the ship was held to be a partial cause of the trouble. On the Windhond, in the eighteenth century, another group planned to seize the ship and turn pirate, and in this case they actually succeeded. Muiterij, pp. 22, 31–4.
The Meeuwtje mutiny Ibid., pp. 28–31.
Discipline on board Boxer, “The Dutch East-Indiamen,” pp. 98–9; C. R. Boxer, The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600–1800 (London: Hutchinson, 1965), p. 71. Nevertheless, knife fights certainly did occur, and not just in the
service of the VOC. One authority on the Spanish treasure fleet has estimated that half of all Iberian sailors bore the scars of such an encounter. Pérez-Mallaína, op. cit., pp. 220–1.
Keelhauling and dropping from the yard Bruijn and van Eyck van Heslinga, op. cit., pp. 23–4; Pérez-Mallaína, op. cit., p. 206.
“A man in whom Jacobsz had full confidence . . .” Another of the skipper’s relatives, a brother-in-law, also served on the Batavia. He was one of the two under-steersman. Pelsaert’s journal is not precise on this point, but the skipper must have meant either Gillis Fransz or Jacob Jansz. In any event, the man was not told of the plan to mutiny, Jacobsz confiding to Jeronimus that he could “put little trust” in him. Confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 164].
Jan Evertsz Research in Monnickendam has revealed no new information about the high boatswain of the Batavia. He does not feature in the town’s scant surviving notarial archives, and Monnickendam’s registers of birth, marriage, and death do not begin until 1641, 1643, and 1650, respectively. It is possible, however, that a thorough search of the VOC archives at The Hague might reveal some details of his early service with the Company.
The office of boatswain Pérez-Mallaína, op. cit., p. 82. The high boatswain’s badge of office was usually a whistle, which he used to coordinate the activities of the crew. Although officers, many of the men who held the post were functionally illiterate, at least in English service. It has been calculated that in 1588 only one English boatswain in three could sign his name. N. A. M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea (London: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 309.
“As the master is to be abaft the mast . . .” Cited by K. R. Andrews, The Last Voyage of Drake and Hawkins (London: Hakluyt Society, 2nd series vol. 142, 1972) and quoted by Rodger, op. cit., p. 309.
Recruitment of the mutineers There is very limited evidence as to the mechanics of the recruitment. Under torture, Allert Janssen later confessed that “Jeronimus has come to him on the ship and has made a proposal to him, whether he would take a hand in the seizing of the ship.” Cornelisz, himself bound and made ready for torture, confirmed it. Janssen himself also mentioned his relationship with Jacobsz. Confession of Allert Janssen, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 194–5]. For further, fragmentary, details, see confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 161–2]; confession of Jan Hendricxsz [DB 162–3]; further confessions of Hendricxsz and Janssen, JFP 28 Sep 1629 [DB 196–7]; verdict on Allert Janssen, JFP 28 Sep 1629 [DB 198] (which mentions in passing his killing of a man in the United Provinces). Ryckert Woutersz was the man who betrayed the plot after the wreck (see chapter 5). It is worth pointing out that under later interrogation Cornelisz changed his story on many occasions, at first denying that he knew anything of the planned mutiny until after the ship was wrecked, but the considerable weight of evidence against him is compelling.
“Seducer of men” JFP 2 Oct 1629 [DB 213].
Van Huyssen, Pietersz, and the mutiny Confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, 19 Sep 1629 [DB 162]; confession of Jan Hendricxsz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 162–3].
Separation of the ships Drake-Brockman has written (Voyage to Disaster, p. 40) that the Batavia separated from the other ships in the convoy in a storm, but she gives no reference and I have not been able to find any confirmation in the primary sources. Indeed, according to the predikant, the Batavia simply “wandered away” from the other ships; LGB. An anonymous sailor from the ship wrote that the other four ships in the fleet “drifted away”; letter of 11 Dec 1629 in Anon., Leyds Veer-Schuyts Praetjen, Tuschen een Koopman ende Borger van Leyden, Varende van Haarlem nae Leyden (np [Amsterdam: Willem Jansz], 1630) [R 232–3]. Possibly Drake-Brockman was thinking of the storm that separated the vessels on the first day out from the Texel.
“. . . the little warship Buren . . .” She was only half the size of the Batavia and was possibly one of the new breed of fast frigates, which the Dutch had just introduced to help combat the Spanish-backed pirates of Dunkirk. Bruijn et al., Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, II, pp. 60–1; Rodger, op. cit., p. 390.
“. . . somewhere between eight and 18 . . .” Confession of Jan Hendricxsz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 162–3].
“Without taking any thought . . .” This quotation, and some of the background material in this section of the book, is drawn from Pelsaert’s “Declaration in short, of the origin, reason, and towards what intention Jeronimus Cornilissen, under merchant, has resolved to murder all the people, with his several plans, and in what manner the matter has happened from the beginning to the end,” JFP nd (Dec 1629?) [DB 248–54].
“. . . readily accepted the caresses of the skipper . . .” Ibid.
“. . . who has done his will with her . . .” Confession of Allert Janssen, 19 Sep 1629 [DB 196].
“He took from her the name and yoke of servant . . .” “Declaration in Short,” JFP nd (Dec 1629?) [DB 250].
“I am still for the Devil . . .” Confession of Jeronimus Cornelisz, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 164].
Pelsaert’s illness No details of the symptoms survive, and there are only the vaguest hints that it was the recurrence of a fever Pelsaert had experienced before. Drake-Brockman, Voyage to Disaster, p. 32, speculates that it was malaria. This is not unlikely, but it is no more than a guess.
Frans Jansz Research in the archives of Hoorn has failed to reveal any definite trace of this man, whose name, unfortunately, was one of the most common in the Dutch Republic at this time. The solicitors’ archives of the city, though indexed, are extremely incomplete for the period up to 1660.
Barber-surgeons The duality of their role was perhaps best expressed in their equipment. Frans Jansz took with him a set of matching brass bowls, which fitted together as a pair. One, which had a semicircle matching the diameter of a man’s neck cut from one side, was for shaving his patients. The other, which had a circle matching the diameter of an arm, was for bleeding them. The bowls were recovered from the seabed in the Abrolhos in the 1970s. Jeremy Green, The Loss of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie Retourschip Batavia, Western Australia 1629: an Excavation Report and Catalogue of Artefacts (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1989), pp. 95–6.
“. . . they would not cut veins instead of nerves . . .” G. A. Lindeboom, “Medical Education in the Netherlands 1575–1750,” in C. D. O’Malley (ed.), The History of Medical Education (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1970), p. 201.
Health care on board Sick parades were held on the main deck twice daily, immediately before or after morning and evening prayers. The provost summoned the sick by striking his baton against the mainmast and chanting
Kreupelen en blinden Cripples and blind men
Komt laat U verbinden Come and be bandaged
Boven bij den grooten mast Gather by the mainmast
Zult gij den Meester vinden Where you will find the master
Surgeons were naturally vulnerable to all manner of infectious diseases, and part of their standard equipment was a brush with which to remove any lice that might leap from their patients’ sick beds onto their own clothes. M. Boucher, “The Cape Passage: Some Observations on Health Hazards Aboard Dutch East Indiamen Outward-bound,” Historia 26 (1981); Jaap Bruijn and Femme S. Gaastra, “The Dutch East India Company’s Shipping, 1602–1795, in a Comparative Perspective,” in Bruijn and Gaastra (eds.), Ships, Sailors and Spices: East India Companies and Their Shipping in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries (Amsterdam: NEHA, 1993), p. 202; Iris Bruijn, “The Health Care Organization of the Dutch East India Company at Home,” Social History of Medicine 7 (1994): 371–2. By the second half of the seventeenth century, the typical staff of a retourschip was three surgeons, so the Batavia was in effect understaffed.
Sea exams Iris Bruijn, op. cit., p. 371. These examinations were easier to pass than the equivalent exam for surgeons intending to work on land, and were deliberately made so in order to attract candidates to the service of the VOC. Not every chamber insisted on them in any case, though at least one—the Zeeland chamber—introduced t
hem as early as 1610.
Jan Loxe Cited by Boxer, “The Dutch East-Indiamen,” p. 97. For a while, late in the century, VOC surgeons were required to keep journals and submit them to the Gentlemen XVII on their return. This archive provides rich detail concerning the day-to-day activities of surgeons in the service of Jan Company.
Amputations The contemporary English surgeon William Clowes set out the approved method of amputating a limb as follows:
• The surgeon should secure a good strong operating table.
• One assistant should sit astride the patient, holding both arms.
• Another should sit on the leg concerned athwart the thigh, holding it in place and applying a tourniquet to deaden sensation and staunch blood flow.
• Specially sharpened saws, double-edged amputation knives, and scalpels were to be used to cut through bone and tissue, muscle, and sinew.
• Severed blood vessels were to be stoppered with plugs or powder, the vessels stitched, and the wound packed.
As little as 4 oz. of blood, Clowes added, might be lost by this method. J. J. Keevil, C. S. Lloyd, and J. L. S. Coulter, Medicine and the Navy, 1200–1900 (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1957–1963), I, p. 133.
The sea surgeon’s apothecary’s chest Ibid., pp. 32, 200; Iris Bruijn, op. cit., p. 367.
Treatment of malaria Laurence Brockliss and Colin Jones, The Medical World of Early Modern France (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 160n.
Sick bays and sick visitors Bruijn et al., Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, I, p. 161. The recovery of those in the sick bay must usually have owed more to the better food they received there than to the quality of the medical treatment. Boxer, “The Dutch East-Indiamen,” p. 97; Pérez-Mallaína, op. cit., p. 183.
“Uncircumcised idiots” Boxer, The Dutch Seaborne Empire, p. 136.
13 May “Declaration in Short,” JFP nd (Dec 1629?).
Zwaantie’s pregnancy Interrogation of Allert Janssen, JFP 19 Sep 1629 [DB 194–7].
