No. 58. — 1907.] JOAN GIDEON LOTEN, F.R.S. 



233 



acquitted only in 1708. To this had undoubtedly powerfully 

 contributed his valiant bearing, of which Valentyn himself 

 was a witness, at the storming and capture of the fortress of 

 Bangil, in which, in spite of the lack of storming ladders, he 

 was the first on the wall, was thrown down from it by the 

 blow of a pike, which luckily glanced off on his sword-knot, 

 thereupon succeeded in getting upon the wall once more and 

 planted the standard on it, whereby the honour of the capture 

 was due to him. 



Valentyn further relates that in 1708 de Bevere, still with 

 the rank of captain, was sent to Ceylon, and there took part 

 in an expedition against the emperor of Candi,* but there- 

 after again had unpleasantnesses with the Company, which 

 Valentyn hopes to recount later. I have however sought in 

 vain in this writer's great work, in the part that treats of the 

 affairs of Ceylon and describes the periodical events in that 

 island only to 1707,| for anything further regarding de Bevere. 



There is no doubt, however, that he was the major of whom 

 Loten makes mention as the grandfather of our artist. That 

 the latter was named de Bevere, is probably in consequence 

 of the often careless spelling of those days ; but the difference 

 may also be intentional on account of the illegitimate origin. J 



Perhaps the papers left by Loten and perused by Prof. P. J. 

 Veth might have furnished some further light, both as re- 

 gards the de Beveres and as regards the testator himself and 

 his family. It is therefore doubly unfortunate that they were 

 presumably considered by one or other of their possessors as 

 of no value and destroyed. 



When Prqf . Veth consulted them they belonged to Mr. J. A. 

 Orothe, who, as I am told by Mr. S. Muller, Fz., the national 

 archivist at Utrecht, on several occasions presented the manu- 

 scripts that he possessed to the Utrecht archives, the Academy 



* This is incorrect, as will be seen by the quotation I give under Sec. 

 III. The expedition was to, and not against, the "emperor of Candi." 



t Mr. van Houten has been misled by the date erroneously continued 

 at the top of the later pages of Valentyn's history. As a matter of fact , 

 the affairs of Ceylon are chronicled (in a very summary manner, it is 

 true) down to 1724 on p. 360. 



% The former explanation is the more probable : Valentyn himself 

 uses both forms. 



K 2 



