It may well be conceived that it was no easy task for a bold and resolute sailor, and at the same time a devout and conscientious man, as William Barents undoubtedly was, to “protest before God, as he wished He might act in the salvation of his soul”, that it was impossible for him to do more than he had done, so long as his ship was staunch [cxxii]and he had a crew willing to go forward with him, or even to brave a winter residence in those inhospitable regions. Linschoten speaks of the dissentient Amsterdammers in the plural number; whence it is to be inferred that Barents did not stand alone, but that Harmen Ianszoon, the master of the other Amsterdam vessel, was at first of the same opinion; and, most probably, it was only when he yielded, that Barents saw himself, however reluctantly, forced to give in.
After the protest had been so signed, the fleet proceeded on its homeward voyage, and on the 30th of September reached Wardhuus, where it remained till the 10th of the following month. The vessels then again set sail all together; but the vice-admiral’s ship, the Hope, on board of which was Linschoten, managed to get the start of the rest, arriving at the Texel on the 26th of October. It was not till the 18th of the following month that Barents’s vessel arrived in the river Maas.
The journal of the proceedings of the fleet, which was kept by Linschoten in pursuance of his instructions, was communicated by him to the Government immediately on his arrival; but it was not till six years afterwards that he published his very interesting and valuable narrative of this voyage, as well as of that of the preceding year so far as concerns the Enkhuysen vessels, which had sailed through Yugorsky Shar—“Pet’s Strait” or the “Strait of Nassau”—into the Sea of Kara.
So little appears to be known by bibliographers respecting Linschoten’s narrative of these voyages, that we have scarcely the means of describing any other editions than those which happen to exist in the British Museum.
The earliest of these appeared in Dutch, in 1601, in folio, under the following title:—
Voyagie, ofte Schip-vaert, van Ian Hvyghen van Linschoten, van by Noorden om langes Noorwegen, de Noortcaep, [cxxiii]Laplant, Vinlant, Ruslandt, de Witte Zee, de Custen van Candenoes, Swetenoes, Pitzora, &c. door de Strate ofte Engte van Nassau tot voorby de Revier Oby. Waer inne seer distinctelicken Verbaels-ghewijse beschreven ende aenghewesen wordt, alle t’ghene dat hem op de selve Reyse van dach tot dach bejeghent en voorghecomen is. Met de af beeldtsels van alle de Custen, Hoecken, Landen, Opdoeningen, Streckinghen, Coursen, Mijlen, ende d’ander merckelicke dingen meer: Gelijc als hy’t alles selfs sichtelicken en̄ waerachtelicken nae’t leven uytgeworpen ende gheannoteert heeft, &c. Anno 1594 en̄ 1595.
Ghedruct tot Franeker, by Gerard Ketel.
The colophon has—
Ghedruct tot Franeker, by Gerard Ketel, voor Ian Huyghen van Linschoten, resideerende binnen Enchuysen, anno 1601.
This rare edition consists of thirty-eight numbered leaves, with a dedication to the States General, dated June 1st, 1601, on two leaves unnumbered, and contains numerous maps and coast views by Johannes and Baptista a Doetechum. It was reprinted at Amsterdam in 1624, likewise in folio, with the same plates.
In the first edition, between the dedication and the text, are inserted several eulogistic poems, the longest of which is an ode on “Vaygats ofte de Straet van Nassau”, by C. Taemssoon van Hoorn, and another is a “Lof-dicht”, by Jacobus Viverius, which is directed to be sung to the tune of the forty-second Psalm. It is worthy of remark, that, even so early as 1595, allusion was made to the first north-east voyage of Linschoten in the commendatory verses (which included also the poem on Vaygats above referred to) at the commencement of the “Reys-gheschrift van de Navigatien der Portugaloysers in Orienten.….….door Jan Huyghen van Linschoten. Amstelredam, MDXCV. folio”; which work, though it bears the date of 1595, the register shows to be a portion of the author’s “Itinerario, Voyage ofte Schipvaert van Jan Huygen van Linschoten naer Oost [cxxiv]ofte Portugaels Indien”, the title-page of which is dated a year later. This was reprinted in 1604 with the same verses.
An abstract in Dutch of Linschoten’s narrative was printed at Amsterdam by G. J. Saeghman, in 4to., with the following title:—
Twee Journalen van twee verscheyde Voyagien, gedaen door Jan Huygen van Linschooten, van by Noorden om, langhs Noorwegen, de Noordt-Caep, Laplandt, Findlandt, Ruslandt, de Witte Zee, de Kusten van Candenoes, Sweetenoes, Pitzora, etc., door de Strate ofte Enghte van Nassouw, tot voorby de Reviere Oby, na Vay-gats, gedaen in de Jaren 1594 en 1595. Waer in seer pertinent beschreven ende aen gewesen wordt, al het geene hem op de selve Reysen van dagh tot dagh voor gevallen is, als mede de Besschryvingh van alle de Kusten, Landen, Opdoeningen, Streckingen en Courssen, etc. T’Amsterdam, Gedruckt by Gillis Joosten Saeghman, in de Nieuwe-Straet, Ordinaris Drucker van de Journalen ter Zee, en de Reysen te Lande.
This has no date, but was probably printed in or about 1663, the year in which Saeghman printed the “Verhael van de vier eerste Schip-vaerden der Hollandtsche en Zeeuwsche Schepen naar Nova Zembla, etc.”, which will be more particularly described when we come to speak of the editions of Gerrit de Veer’s work.
We learn from Mr. Henry Stevens that a copy of this abstract is in the possession of John Carter Brown, Esq., of Providence, Rhode Island.
In 1610, appeared a French translation of Linschoten’s voyages, with the following title:—
Histoire de la Navigation de Iean Hvgves de Linscot, Hollandois, et de son voyage es Indes Orientales: contenante diuerses descriptions des Pays, Costes, Haures, Riuieres, Caps, et autres lieux iusques à present descouuerts par les Portugais: Obseruations des coustumes des nations de delà quant à la Religion, Estat Politic et Domestic, de leurs Commerces, des Arbres, Fruicts, Herbes, Espiceries, et autres singularitez qui s’y trouuent: Et narrations des choses memorables [cxxv]qui y sont aduenues de son temps. Avec annotations de Bernard Paludanus, Docteur en Medecine,.….. à quoy sont adiovstées quelques avtres descriptions tant du pays de Guinee et autres costes d’Ethiopie, que des nauigations des Hollandois vers le Nord au Vaygat et en la nouuelle Zembla. Le tovt recveilli et descript par le mesme de Linscot en bas Alleman, & nouuellement traduict en Francois. A Amstelredam, de l’Imprimerie de Theodore Pierre, MDCX. folio.
Although the voyages to the north are thus announced in the title-page, they are not inserted in the only copy which we have been able to consult, namely, that in the British Museum; nor is any light thrown on the matter by bibliographers.
In the title of the third edition, published at Amsterdam in 1638, fol., these northern voyages are not announced, nor are they given, but the edition is described as “troixiesme édition augmentée”.
The second French edition has not fallen within our reach, but we believe the date to be 1619.
The only French version of Linschoten’s narrative of his northern voyages with which we are acquainted, is that inserted in the fourth volume of the “Recueil de Voiages au Nord”, published in eight volumes, Amsterdam, 1715–27, 12mo.; of which another edition, in ten volumes, 12mo., was published at the same place, 1731–38.
This French version formed the basis of the German description of these voyages given by Johann Christoph Adelung, at pp. 107–213 of his Geschichte der Schiffahrten, published at Halle, 1768, 4to.
An abstract of Linschoten’s work is given in Latin, at fol. 31 of the first volume of Blaeu’s “Atlas Major sive Cosmographia Blaviana, qua Solum, Salum, Cœlum accuratissime describuntur”. Eleven volumes in folio, Amsterdam, 1662.
In the French edition, entitled “Le Grand Atlas ou [cxxvi]Cosmographie Blaviane”, etc., 12 vols. in folio, Amsterdam, 1663, and republished in 1667, the same appears at fol. 35 of the first volume of the latter edition, which is the only one in the British Museum.
It is also at fol. 52 of the first volume of the Spanish edition, entitled “Atlas Mayor, Geographia Blaviana”, etc.; Amsterdam, 1659–72, 10 vols., fol.
In the elaborate dissertation on the works of John Blaeu, contained in the fourth volume of Clement’s “Bibliothèque Curieuse”, mention is made, at page 277, of an “Atlas Flamand de l’an 1662”. This is apparently a Dutch edition, to which reference is made by Lütke, under the title of “J. Blaeu’s Grooten Atlas, of Werelt Beschrijving, Erste Deel, ’t Amsterdam, 1662”. Beyond this reference, we know nothing of that edition.
A German edition is also described by Brunet as announced in a catalogue of Blaeu’s; but it is not alluded to by Clement, nor can we find any other trace of it. If ever printed or in progress of printing, it may have been consumed in the great fire, by which, on the 22nd February, 1672, nearly all Blaeu’s stock in trade was destroyed.
In part XII, pp. 20–23, of Levinus Hulsius’s Collection, is an extract from Linschoten’s Navigation, stating the progress of the Dutch in the attempt to find the passage, the discovery of which formed a favourite scheme of his countrymen at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries.
Summaries more or less concise, derived apparently from Blaeu’s abstract, the French “Recueil de Voyages au Nord”, or Adelung’s “Geschichte der Schiffahrten”, have also been given in most of the histories of Arctic discovery.
Gerrit de Veer’s description of the second voyage, contained in the present volume, must be understood to relate almost exclusively to the proceedings of Barents’s vessel, as forming one of the fleet under Nai’s command. This reconciles [cxxvii]or explains away such differences as may appear to exist between his narrative and that of Linschoten.
Seeing the signal failure of the second expedition, the States General, after mature deliberation, decided that no further attempt should be made at the public expense to discover a north-east passage. Nevertheless, they were still willing to encourage any private undertaking, by the promise of a considerable reward in the event of success.141 And Plantius and Barents persisting in their opinion that a passage might be effected by the north of Novaya Zemlya, the authorities and merchants of Amsterdam were induced to take on themselves the fitting out of another expedition to proceed in that direction. It consisted of only two vessels—the names and tonnage of which are not mentioned—of which the one was commanded by Jacob van Heemskerck, who was also supercargo, and the other by Jan Corneliszoon Rijp, in the like double capacity. Barents accompanied Heemskerck, with the rank of chief pilot (opperste stuerman). Surprise has been expressed that though Barents thus occupied a subordinate station, yet in the narrative of the voyage he is made to perform the principal part. This is, however, a mistake, arising from the fact that in the abridgements and summaries of this narrative, which alone appear to have been consulted by modern writers, most of the personal matters are omitted. For it will be seen that in De Veer’s original work, the skipper (or “maister”, as he is called in Phillip’s translation) is repeatedly mentioned, and Barents’ subordinate position is clearly and unequivocally shown.142
A better founded cause of surprise might be, that Barents himself had not the command of the expedition. Yet for this a sufficient reason suggests itself. He was evidently resolved to perform (as it were) impossibilities, rather than fail in a project on which he had set his heart; and the [cxxviii]merchants, however willing to risk their property on the adventure, may naturally have been disinclined to entrust it absolutely to one, who would not have hesitated to sacrifice it, or even his own life, in the attempt to accomplish his long-cherished undertaking.
In being made subordinate to a nobleman like Jacob van Heemskerck, who, though no seaman by profession, had already sailed with him, and had thus had an opportunity of learning and appreciating his many estimable qualities, Barents, a man of humble birth, could however in no wise have felt himself humiliated or aggrieved. It was a case similar to that of Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor, and was moreover quite in accordance with the practice of those times, which afford repeated instances of the command of a naval expedition being entrusted to a soldier, who had probably never before been on salt water.
But while Heemskerck thus held the superior rank of captain, Barents’s relation to him was evidently that of an equal, rather than that of an inferior. This is particularly evidenced in the conversation which took place between them shortly before Barents’s death, when the latter called his nominal commander “mate”.143 And that the crew looked on Barents as virtually the leader of the expedition is shown, not only by their appeals to him on all important occasions, but by the curious fact that in the signatures to the “letter” which they wrote on the eve of their departure from their winter quarters,144 the name “WILLEM BARENTSZ.” is printed in capital letters, while that of Heemskerck, though placed in rank above Barents’s name, is only in ordinary type, like those of the rest of the crew.
We have now to take a rapid glance at some of the most important results of this third voyage, into the particulars of which, as they are recorded in De Veer’s journal, it is unnecessary to enter. [cxxix]
The experience of the two former voyages appears to have impressed Rijp, even more than Barents himself, with the expediency of giving the land to the east a wide sea room; for, notwithstanding that they at first steered their course much more to the northward than before, yet it was not long before disputes arose between them, Barents contending that they were too far to the west, while Rijp’s pilot asserted that he had no desire to sail towards Vaigats.145 Barents gave way; and the result was, that on the 9th of June they came to a small steep island, in latitude 74° 30′, to which they gave the name of Bear Island, from the circumstance of their killing there a large white bear.146
Seven years later this island was visited by Stephen Bennet, who called it Cherie Island, after his patron, Master (subsequently Sir) Francis Cherie, a distinguished member of the Russian Company. This latter name has usually been inscribed in our English maps, though unjustly, inasmuch as the merit of the first discovery of the island unquestionably belongs to the Dutch. Captain Beechey says, indeed, that “a passage in Purchas seems to imply that it had been known before Barents made this voyage;”147 but the only passage bearing on the subject which we have been able to find, is the statement of Captain Thomas Edge, in “A briefe Discouerie of the Northern Discoueries of Seas,” etc., that the Dutch came “to an iland in the latitude of 74 degrees, which wee call Cherie Iland, and they call Beare Iland,”148 as if the former name had been given before the latter. It is to be hoped that in future English maps, the original and correct name will always be inserted.
From Bear Island our adventurers continued their course northwards, and on the 19th of June, when in latitude 79° 49′ N., they again saw land,149 which was supposed by them [cxxx]to be a part of Greenland, but which subsequent investigation has shown to be the cluster of islands known by the name of Spitzbergen. Round this land they coasted till the 29th, when they again sailed southwards towards Bear Island.150
The first discovery of this country by our Dutch navigators is now universally admitted, though formerly the idea was entertained that they had been anticipated by Sir Hugh Willoughby. But that Spitzbergen was actually circumnavigated by them is a fact which, as far as we are aware, has never been adverted to by any writer on Arctic discovery. The details of this portion of Barents’ and Rijp’s voyage are neither full nor precise enough to enable us to follow them minutely in their course; added to which, the maps of Spitzbergen, especially of its eastern side, are still not sufficiently trustworthy to render us much assistance in laying down their track. There can, however, be no doubt that they sailed up its eastern shores, passed along its northern extremity, and returned by the western coast. That part of Spitzbergen which they first saw in 79° 49′ N. lat., seems to be the south-east coast of the Noord Ooster Land of the Dutch maps, along which they sailed in a westerly direction, and entered Weygatz or Hinlopen Strait. This assumption agrees with the above latitude and with those of the subsequent positions in 79° 30′151 and 79° 42′,152 as also with the time it took—several days—to get out of that strait. The two havens described under the date of June 24th,153 may be the Hecla Bay and Lomme Bay of Parry. The considerable bay or inlet (gheweldigen inham) under 79°, to which they came on the following day, and “whereinto they sailed forty miles at the least, holding their course southward”,154 can only be Weide Bay. Finding that its southern extremity “reached to the firme land”, they were forced to [cxxxi]work their way back against the wind, till they “gate beyonde the point that lay on the west side, where there was so great a number of birds that they flew against their sailes”.155 This point, in consequence, received the name of Bird Cape. From thence their course is plainly to be traced along the western coast of Spitzbergen, and so back to Bear Island.
On the 1st of June, when near that island, disputes again arose between Rijp and Barents as to the course which they should take. The result was that they separated, Rijp returning northwards, while Barents proceeded southwards because of the ice.156
Of Rijp’s subsequent proceedings nothing is known except that he is stated to have sailed back to Bird Cape, on the west side of Spitzbergen, whence he returned with the intention of going after Barents.157 How far he carried his [cxxxii]intention into effect is not said; but nothing worthy of remark can have occurred to him, or otherwise it could not have failed to be recorded. We may therefore conclude [cxxxiii]that he soon gave up his search after Barents and returned to Holland, and that, in the following year, he went from thence on a trading voyage to the coasts of Norway or Russia, and was on the point of sailing from Kola on his way home, when Heemskerck and the survivors of his crew arrived there, as is related by De Veer.158
Meanwhile Barents, having cleared the ice, held on his course to the east till he reached the western shore of Novaya Zemlya, in about latitude 73° 20′,159 whence he coasted along the land till he had passed considerably beyond the furthest point reached by him on his first voyage, and had rounded the north-eastern extremity of that country. Here, being at length quite shut in by the ice, and unable to make his way either forwards towards the north-east, or round by the eastern side of the land, or even back again by the way he had come, he and his adventurous companions, on the evening of the 26th of August, “got to the west side of the [cxxxiv]Ice Haven, where they were forced, in great cold, poverty, misery, and grief, to stay all that winter.”160
Before adverting to the subject of the memorable wintering of the Dutch at this spot, it is necessary to make a few remarks with respect to the identification of the several points along the coast, which were reached and noted by them during the course of their first and third voyages. This is the more needful, because widely different opinions are entertained by two of the highest living authorities on the subject, Admiral Lütke and Professor von Baer.
The former, as is well known, was engaged in surveying the Northern Ocean between the years 1821 and 1825, during which period he visited many parts of the western coast of Novaya Zemlya between its southern extremity and Cape Nassau to the north, and identified most of the points visited by the Dutch, which he laid down in the map accompanying the published account of his four voyages, to the German translation of which allusion has already been made. Professor von Baer, on the other hand, who also made a scientific visit to Novaya Zemlya in the year 1837, read in the preceeding year, before the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, a “Report of the latest Discoveries on the Coast of Novaya Zemlya”, an illustration of a map of that country constructed by a pilot in the Russian navy, named Zivolka; of which report a German translation is published in Berghaus’s “Annalen der Erd-Vôlker- und Staatenkunde.”161
In this report the learned Professor comes to widely different conclusions from those of Lütke with respect to the identification of the several stations visited by the Dutch; the great point of difference between them being, that Baer bases his arguments almost exclusively on the distances along the western coast of Novaya Zemlya recorded by De [cxxxv]Veer, especially in the Table given near the end of his third voyage.162
This Table, however, we cannot but regard as little better than a mere list of the various stations reached by the Dutch on their return voyage; the distances, and even the bearings, therein recorded, being quite untrustworthy, as may indeed be perceived on the most cursory inspection. Every allowance has, of course, to be made for any inaccuracies that may exist in that Table, in consideration of the circumstances under which the return voyage was made; but, even were we to assume the distances sailed by them in their two small open boats to have been correctly noted down, still there is a sufficient reason for contending that those distances, in themselves, are no sure guide, but, on the contrary, only lead to very erroneous conclusions. For, on a comparison of them with the differences of latitude recorded by De Veer,—which, as being the results of astronomical observations made by so experienced a navigator as Barents was, are subject only to the imperfections of the instruments employed by him,—it will be seen that the former, especially between Langenes and Cape Nassau, are throughout much too small. No reason is given by De Veer for this discrepancy; and, indeed, it would be difficult to account for it, were it not for the fact established by the observations of Admiral Lütke, that a very powerful current from south to north sets along the western coast of Novaya Zemlya as far as Cape Nassau. The velocity of this current was ascertained by that intelligent seaman to be as much as sixty miles per diem,163 and owing to it he frequently found himself in a latitude from forty-five to fifty-five miles further north than was shown by his dead reckoning.164 A remarkable confirmation of this fact is afforded by Henry Hudson’s journal of his visit to Novaya Zemlya, printed in [cxxxvi]the Appendix to the present work,165 in which, under the date of 28th June 1608, it is stated that, between eight o’clock on the previous evening and four o’clock in the morning, they were drawn back to the northwards, by a stream or tide, as far as they were the last evening at four o’clock. Applying this, then, to the case of our Dutch navigators, we obtain a satisfactory explanation of the apparent discrepancies in their several data.
Having premised thus much, and remarking further that the southern portion of the coast of Novaya Zemlya, and also the northern coast of Russia, require no discussion here, we shall proceed to the investigation of the position of the principal points between Langenes and Cape Nassau, with respect to which a difference of opinion exists. The former point (as has already been stated) is that which was first approached by Barents on his first voyage. On the 4th of July 1794, he found himself, by observation, in latitude 73° 25′, being then about five or six miles west of Langenes,—a low projecting point reaching far out into the sea.166 This agrees best with the Dry Cape (Trockenes Cap) of the Russian map, which lies in latitude 73° 45′; and Lütke accordingly identifies Langenes with it. Baer, however, contends for Britwin Cape,167 which, after Dry Cape, is the nearest projecting point of importance. But that cape lies a whole degree further to the south, and would consequently differ as much as 40′ from Barents’s observed latitude; and such a difference is more than we are justified in admitting, inasmuch as 15′ or 20′ must be taken as the maximum of error.
The next point to be noted is Loms Bay, which is stated by De Veer to lie under 74⅓°;168 the observation not being further particularized, as in most other cases. This would make its difference of longitude from Langenes to be 55′; [cxxxvii]whereas, in De Veer’s map, the difference is only 20′. Lütke169 identifies Loms Bay with Cross Bay, though without sufficiently stating his reasons for so doing. Baer170 follows Lütke’s example, saying, however, still less on the subject. The latitude of Cross Bay is 74° 10′ (Lütke says 74° 20′, but this must be an error, as his map shows 10′, as does that also of Ziwolka), making a difference of 25′ from Dry Cape. This would agree with De Veer’s map, and might, in this case, constitute a reason for considering the latitude of Loms Bay, as stated by him in his text in so very general a way, less trustworthy than that in his map. De Veer also gives171 a separate plan of Loms Bay, which neither Lütke nor Baer alludes to, evidently from their not being acquainted with it. On a comparison of this special plan, as also of De Veer’s general chart, with the Russian maps, it seems much more probable that Loms Bay is not Cross Bay, but the bay immediately to the south of it. For Cross Bay is, in fact, not a bay, but an extensive inlet, of which the end has not yet been explored, and which is indeed regarded by the best Russian authorities as forming a strait or passage completely across Novaya Zemlya, and communicating with Rosmuislov’s Unknown Bay.172 The Dutch, however, anchored in Loms Bay, went ashore, erected a beacon there, and made a plan of the surrounding country; so that they must assuredly have ascertained whether Loms Bay was a bay or strait. Moreover, they distinctly describe a “great wide creek or inlet”173 as lying to the north-east of Loms Bay, which is also shown in their plan, and which cannot be any other than Cross Bay itself; and from this alone it would seem to follow that the bay to the south of that inlet must be Loms Bay. Had Lütke made a careful survey of the bay, which he was prevented from doing, and had he also been acquainted with the Dutch plan, he would [cxxxviii]no doubt have been able to set this point at rest. Meanwhile we deem ourselves justified, from what has been adduced, in regarding the Flache Bay of Lütke, or the Seichte Bay of Ziwolka (both terms meaning “Shallow Bay”), as the Loms Bay of the Dutch; and hence Cross Bay will be their “great wide creek or inlet,” while Lütke’s Cape Prokofyev and Wrangel’s Island174 will be respectively their “Capo de Plantius” and their “small Island seawards from the point.”
The Admiraliteyts Eyland of the Dutch175 is unquestionably the Admiralty Island or Peninsula of the Russians, there not being any other point to the northward which answers to the description. Its latitude is not given; but the Dutch and Russian maps agree satisfactorily.
Capo Negro, or De Swart Hoeck (Black Point), is stated to be in latitude 75° 20′,176 and answers to the first prominent cape in Lütke’s maps, after passing Admiralty Island, which lies in 75° 28′.
Willems Eyland177 is the Wilhelms Insel of Lütke, and the Bücklige Insel of Ziwolka. For this point the elements of Barents’s observation for latitude are given, and they can consequently be checked. It is most satisfactory to find that it differs only 9′ from the latitude given in the Russian maps, the former being 75° 56′, and the latter 75° 47′. This also confirms the probable correctness of the identifications of Admiralty Island and Black Point.
De Hoeck van Nassau, placed by Barents in 76° 30′,178 can be no other than Lütke’s Cape Nassau, in 76° 34′. Not only does the latitude agree within 4′, but likewise its general bearing. There is also another point of correspondence. It was not till the Hollanders reached Cape Nassau that their real difficulties began, especially on the first voyage. This was the most northerly point ever attained by Lütke, [cxxxix]and twice did he come within sight of this cape, but without being able to reach it. Adverse winds and currents seem always to prevail here, even in the height of summer. Baer differs, however,179 from Lütke’s opinion, and regards his Cape Nassau as the north-easternmost point of Novaya Zemlya, and identical with either the Ice Cape or Cape Desire of the Dutch, while he places their Cape Nassau much further down towards the south-west, though without being able to fix its precise position. But, for the reasons which have already been adduced, we feel bound to dissent entirely from the learned Professor’s conclusions; and we cannot but think that, had he been acquainted with De Veer’s original narrative, he too would have seen that Lütke’s general identifications cannot well be disturbed.
As regards the north-eastern portion of Novaya Zemlya beyond Cape Nassau, Lütke justly argues180 that the general accuracy of Barents’s coast-line, as far as he has been able to check it,—namely, as far as Cape Nassau,—warrants the assumption that those parts which lie beyond that cape are in a similar degree correct; and, accordingly, he adopts from the Dutch map the entire extent of country to the eastward of Cape Nassau, as laid down in De Veer’s chart. This sound conclusion is, however, impugned by Baer,181 who does not hesitate to erase the whole from his predecessor’s map, and to round off the north-eastern extremity of Novaya Zemlya at a short distance beyond Cape Nassau.
Nevertheless, after mature consideration of the entire subject, we are bound to declare that not only do we concur in Lütke’s opinion generally, but we must add that no part of the coast of Novaya Zemlya was so thoroughly explored by Barents as just that portion which Baer has thus thought fit to dispute. Barents traced that coast no less than four times, and his observation of the longitude of his winter station, which has now for the first time been accurately [cxl]calculated by Mr. Edward Vogel (assistant at Mr. Bishop’s observatory),182 shows a difference of only about twenty-five miles in the distance between that spot and Cape Nassau, as laid down in Gerrit de Veer’s chart:—a result which, as being derived from totally independent data, is conclusive as to the general accuracy of that chart.
Consequently, without waiting for any corroboration to be obtained from future surveys, we deem it perfectly safe to reinsert in our maps the north-eastern portion of Novaya Zemlya, which has been omitted on the authority of Zivolka and Baer. This is a matter not without importance, inasmuch as an extent of at least ten thousand square geographical miles will thereby be restored to the Russian dominions. And we likewise consider it due to the memory of the first and only explorer of this region, that it should bear the specific designation of “Barents’s Land,” which name is accordingly given to it in the accompanying map. To that portion of Novaya Zemlya which lies between Barents’s Land and Matthew’s Land, we have further thought that no more fitting appellation can be given than “Lütke’s Land,” in honour of that able navigator, who has done more for the geography of Novaya Zemlya than any one since the time of Barents.
For a considerable portion of the preceding remarks on the geography of Novaya Zemlya we are indebted to Mr. Augustus Petermann, who has otherwise rendered us much assistance during the progress of our labours, and by whose care the track of Barents on his several voyages has been laid down in the accompanying charts,183 from the data furnished by Gerrit de Veer’s journals. The route from Kildin to Langenes on the first voyage, was found by him to agree precisely with the true distance between the former place [cxli]and Dry Cape; but the route from Bear Island to the coast of Novaya Zemlya, on the third voyage, from its not being so minutely described, could only be laid down approximately. Those along the more northerly portion of Novaya Zemlya are sufficiently correct, and some of them are exceedingly precise, as has been shown in the preceding pages.
On these voyages a number of soundings were taken in an otherwise unknown sea, the value of which will be appreciated by nautical men. Those to the north of Novaya Zemlya are most important. In about latitude 77° 45′, the highest point reached by Barents, they give a depth of one hundred and fifty fathoms, without bottom;184 showing the unlikelihood of the existence of any other land in that vicinity. We feel persuaded that navigators of all nations will concur with us in the propriety of distinguishing the mare innominatum between Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya by the appellation of “the Spitzbergen, or Barents’s Sea,” as it is called in Mr. Petermann’s chart.
Barents made so many discoveries and traced so large an extent of coast, both of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya, that the surveys of the whole of our recent explorers, put together, are insufficient to identify all the points visited by him. One inference is obvious, namely, that an able, fearless, and determined seaman like Barentz might yet achieve much in those seas. Admiral Lütke was twice prevented by the ice from proceeding beyond Cape Nassau; but he frequently alludes to the unfitness of his vessel to venture among the ice, and gives it clearly as his opinion, at the end of his work,185 that better success might be expected from vessels similar to those despatched from England to the Arctic regions.
The ten months’ residence of Barents and his companions at the furthest extremity of Novaya Zemlya, has so often formed the subject of comment on the part of writers on [cxlii]Arctic discovery, that we deem it unnecessary to dilate on it here, especially as our other introductory remarks have already extended to so great a length.
There can be no doubt that their stay at this particular spot was a forced one. At the same time, when we bear in mind that, on the second voyage in the year preceding, Barents and his colleague, Harman Janszoon, proposed that two of the vessels should winter in the Sea of Kara; and that, on the fitting out of this third expedition, they took up “as many vnmarryed men as they could, that they might not be disswaded, by means of their wiues and children, to leaue off the uoyage;”186 it will not be unreasonable to infer that they went fully resolved and prepared, if obliged, to winter in those inhospitable regions.
No words are sufficient to extol their exemplary conduct during their long and miserable stay there. Though no means are afforded of determining the precise degree of cold to which they were exposed, various incidents narrated by De Veer prove that it must have been intense; and it was not merely a sharp clear cold, which the experience of other Arctic explorers has shown may be borne to an almost inconceivable degree, but it was accompanied by terrific storms of wind and snow, so that “a man could hardly draw his breath,”187 and they “could hardly thrust their heads out of the dore.”188 One advantage was however derived from the snow which fell in such quantities as completely to cover up their house, and thereby imparted to it a degree of comparative warmth, without which it is most probable that their residence in it would not have been endurable.
Yet during the whole time perfect order, discipline, and subordination, joined to the greatest unanimity and good feeling, prevailed among them. Scarcely a murmur passed their lips; and when, in the beginning of May, after they had remained shut up more than eight months, and the [cxliii]weather had the appearance of favouring their departure, some of the men “agreed amongst themselues to speake unto the skipper (Heemskerck), and to tell him that it was more than time to see about getting from thence”;189 still each man was reluctant to be the spokesman, “because he had given them to understand that he desired to staie vntil the end of June, which was the best of the sommer, to see if the ship would then be loose”.190 And even when at length they “agreed to speake to William Barents to moue the master to goe from thence”, De Veer is careful to explain that “it was not done in a mutinous manner, but to take the best counsell with reason and good advice, for they let themselves easily be talked over.”191
Gerrit De Veer’s simple narrative has further an air of unaffected and unostentatious piety and resignation to the will of Providence, which contrasts remarkably with the general tone of Linschoten’s works, of which some instances have been given in the preceding pages; and we may perceive that the reliance of himself and his comrades on the Almighty was not less firm or sincere because His name was not incessantly on their lips. Cheerfulness, and even frequent hilarity, could not fail to be the concomitants of so wholesome a tone of mind; and these, joined to the bodily exercise which they took at every possible opportunity, and the labour which they were compelled to perform in preparing for their return voyage, must have been very instrumental in preserving them from sickness.
Still, with all the means employed to keep themselves in health,—and of these warm bathing was no inconsiderable one,—it would be wrong to imagine that they were able to preserve themselves from that dreaded scourge of Arctic navigators, the scurvy. Lütke observes192 that “it is most remarkable that in the account of their long sufferings this [cxliv]disease is not once mentioned, and that of seventeen men only two died in Novaya Zemlya.” But it is from having known only the abbreviated translations of Gerrit de Veer’s journal that the Russian admiral has been led to view the position of those unfortunate men in this favourable light. For we see from De Veer’s narrative,193 that as early as the 26th of January, 1597, when one of the crew died, he had even then long lain seriously ill: and two days later it is expressly stated,194 that, from their having “long time sitten without motion, several had thereby fallen sick of the scurvy.” Indeed, when we consider what they had to undergo for six months, during which period we find it positively recorded that they suffered from the scurvy, until on the 28th of July they first met with a remedy,195—and how long previously the disease had shown itself among them cannot be said,—it is almost miraculous that only five (not two) out of the seventeen should have fallen victims to it.
The tradition of the memorable wintering of the Hollanders in the Ice Haven (Ledyanoi Gávan) is still preserved among the Novaya Zemlya morse and seal hunters, who call the spot where they so resided Sporai Navolok. It is not known however whether any remains of the Behouden-huis, or “house of safety”, have ever been found.196
The most remarkable occurrence during their stay in Novaya Zemlya, was the unexpected reappearance of the sun on the 24th of January, 1597. This phenomenon not only caused the greatest surprise to the observers and their companions, but after their return to Holland gave rise to much controversy among the learned men of the day. Their opinion generally was unfavourable to the truth of the alleged fact, as being “opposed to nature and to reason”. Among these was Robert Robertsz. le Canu, “homme fort entendu en l’art de la marine, et qui faisoit profession de l’enseigner aux autres”, who wrote a letter on the subject [cxlv]to William Blaeu, the father of the celebrated John Blaeu, which was published by the latter in his Great Atlas. This letter shall be reproduced here, not merely on account of its giving the objections which were raised at the time, but because it likewise contains some curious matters relating personally to our author and his companions, which it would be wrong to omit.
Mon bon amy Guillaume Jansse Blaeu,
Puisque vous m’avez témoigné desirer que je vous envoyasse un extrait du discours que j’ay eu avec Jacob Heemskerck, Gerard de Veer, Jean Corneille Rijp, et plusieurs autres de mes escoliers, lesquels ayant fait voile en l’an 1596, retournerent en 1597, sans avoir rien effectué touchant la commission qu’ils avoyent de reconnoistre les Royaumes de la Chine, & du Cathay, & dans la mesme année 1597 me vinrent trouver pour me raconter les merveilleuses aventures de leur voyage, entre lesquelles la plus remarquable estoit, que le Soleil leur estoit disparu le IV de Novembre en l’an 1596, & avoyent commencé de le revoir l’an 1597 le 24 de Ianvier, sous la mesme hauteur de 76 degrez, sous laquelle ils avoient basty leur maison dans la Nouvelle Zemble, matiere suffisante, ainsi qu’ils ont escrit, pour exercer long-temps les beaux esprits: & puis qu’outre vostre propre satisfaction vous me conviez encor à vous declarer mon sentiment sur ce sujet par l’advis que vous me donnez des contentions & debats survenus à cette occasion entre tous les sçavans de l’Europe, je veux vous faire un court recit du Dialogue que j’ay eu là dessus avec tous ces Messieurs que j’ay deja nommez, qui avoyent esté spectateurs d’une chose si extraordinaire, & qui me la raconterent avec grand estonnement; je raisonnois donc avec eux comme il s’ensuit:
Considerant en moy mesme qu’ils avoient passé plus de dix semaines dans un jour perpetuel sans avoir eu aucune nuict, & que pendant un si long espace de temps le ciel n’avoit pas tousjours esté si clair qu’on pût, à la faveur de sa lumière, marquer & compter exactement chaque tour que le Soleil faisoit à l’entour de la terre, je leur demandois s’ils estoient bien asseurez, qu’il fust le IV de Novembre lors qu’ils perdirent de veuë le Soleil, d’autant qu’il estoit en ce temps-là plus de 15 degrez vers le Sud par delà la ligne; ils me respondirent qu’ils avoyent tousjours eu devant eux leurs [cxlvi]horologes, & leurs sables, en sorte qu’ils n’avoyent pas le moindre sujet de douter de cette verité. Je m’enquestay de plus, si leurs horologes, ou leurs monstres, n’avoient jamais manqué, ou s’ils n’avoyent jamais trouvé leurs sables vuides; & voulus outre cela sçavoir d’eux, de combien la Lune estoit âgée lors que le Soleil leur avoit failly: ils demeurerent court à cette interrogation; ce qui me donna lieu de croire qu’ils n’avoyent pas bien compté les jours, & que la supputation qui leur marquoit pour le IV de Novembre, le jour que le Soleil commença à s’absenter d’eux, estoit fausse. Mais supposé, dis-je, que vous ayez si bien rencontré dans vostre calcul qu’il fust alors le IV de Novembre, que mesme vous ayez avec tres-grande justesse compassé tous les jours d’Esté, d’où pouvez vous tirer certaine asseurance de ne vous estre pas mesconté d’un seul jour pendant l’Hyver, que la nuit duroit des onze semaines entieres, puisque vous demeuriez la pluspart du temps comme ensevelis dans vostre maisonnette, & que pour la crainte des extremes froidures, des tourbillons de neiges & des autres rigueures, auxquelles ce climat est exposé durant une si rude saison, vous n’osiez tant seulement mettre le nez dehors, & ne pouviez par consequent voir ny Soleil, ny Lune, ny Estoilles. Gerard de Veer me respondit, qu’ils avoyent perpetuellement veu l’estoille Polaire par le trou de leur cheminée, par où ils avoyent encor remarqué tres-distinctement tous les tours que la grande Ourse faisoit à l’entour de ce Pole; joint qu’ils avoyent tousjours eu devant eux des monstres, des horologes, & des sables, auxquels ils prenoyent tres-soigneusement garde tous les jours. Je ne voulus pas entrer en dispute avec luy là dessus, mais je ne pûs prendre ses raisons pour argent comptant, & je n’en demeuray nullement persuadé, veu mesme qu’en Esté ils estoyent assez empeschez à se defendre de l’attaque des Ours, ainsi qu’ils disoient; & en Hyver souvent occupez à la chasse des renards: de sorte que, selon mon advis, ils n’avoient pas tousjours le loisir de vaquer comme il faut aux observations celestes, ny de gouverner leurs monstres, horologes, & sables avec l’assiduité necessaire, lesquelles, peut-estre, ils ont fort souvent trouvé vuides, ou detraquées par la gelée. Vous croyez donc, Maistre Robert, comme vous nous donnez à entendre par vos raisons, repartit Iacob Heemskerck, que nous nous sommes grandement abusez dans nostre calcul? Je n’ay pas cette croyance là seulement, respondis je, mais de plus une ferme persuasion, que la faute en est si grande, qu’il vous est impossible de sçavoir au vray [cxlvii]si vous estiez pour lors à la fin de Ianvier, ou au commencement de Febvrier: car bienque je leur fisse plusieurs interrogations pour apprendre en quelles parties du ciel ils avoyent veu la Lune, les Planetes & les Estoilles, & par quel moyen ils avoyent pris leurs hauteurs le 24 de Janvier, auquel jour ils disoyent que le Soleil s’estoit monstré à eux, comme aussi pour sçavoir si c’estoit à six heures du soir, ou à minuit, ou le lendemain à six heures du matin, et dans quel rombe cette apparition s’estoit faite, ils ne sceurent neantmoins respondre à aucunes de mes demandes, d’autant qu’en ce temps-là ils avoyent manqué de faire telles observations: c’est pourquoy je conclus, qu’ils s’estoyent bien mespris dans leur compte de la valeur de dix ou onze jours, ou plus. Le lendemain ils accoururent tous chez moy, pour me dire qu’ils sçavoyent bien en quel endroit estoit la Lune le 24 de Janvier, mais je leur respondis que la lecture de quelques doctes Ephemerides les avoit rendu bien sçavans depuis quelques heures, & leur avoit enseigné ce qu’ils ignoroient hier lors que je leur en fis la demande. Gerard de Veer, qui a esté escrivain de la navigation vers le Nord, me tint plusieurs discours aussi mal fondez que les precedents, lesquels je m’estois au commencement proposé de rediger par escrit; mais par apres je ne l’ay pas jugé necessaire, & m’en suis abstenu, par ce qu’il est demeuré ferme dans son opinion, & qu’il a du depuis fait imprimer son Journal, dans lequel il a deduit tout au long cette histoire dans la page 34, & 35, mais escritte en autres caracteres que le reste, afin qu’elle fust plus remarquable,197 comme on peut voir dans ce mesme livre imprimé à Amsterdam, en l’année 1598, où il escrit, que tres-voluntiers il rendra compte de son dire: mais je n’ignore pas quel est le compte, que Gerard de Veer a rendu & envoyé à Martin Everard de Bruges, demeurant pour lors à Leyde, qui le luy avoit auparavant demandé par lettre escritte à ce sujet; car luy mesme m’a monstré cette lettre, et demandé advis de ce qu’il devoit faire pour le mieux: je luy dis, que tout le conseil que j’avois à luy donner, estoit qu’il reconnust sa faute, & confessast ingenuement, que luy, & toute sa compagnie s’estoyent pû mesprendre de quelques petites journées pendant le grand jour [cxlviii]d’Esté qu’ils avoyent eu; & que pendant la longue nuit d’Hyver, ils en avoyent peu laisser escouler quelques petites, sans y prendre garde, pendant lesquelles les insupportables rigueurs du froid les auroient accablez de sommeil: mais toutes mes remonstrances ont esté vaines; car il n’avoit pas mis en lumière son Journal pour le corriger par apres; et jusques à la fin de sa vie il est demeuré dans l’erreur que ses observations estoyent tres-asseurées: & ce Gerard de Veer a bien sceu dans son Journal renfermer 56 jours entre le 24 de Ianvier & le 21 de Mars, dans lequel il escrit que le Soleil estoit pour lors elevé sur leur Horizon de 14 degrez seulement, au lieu que dans le mesme temps de ces 56 jours il devoit avoir monté sur le mesme Horizon à la hauteur de 19 degrez. Je tire cette conclusion de ce que Gerard de Veer a bien sceu faire entrer 13 ou 14 jours de trop dans le mesme espace compris entre le 24 de Ianvier & le 21 de Mars, lesquels il n’a pas craint d’inserer en son Journal, afin de maintenir & d’affermir son opinion, mais il n’a parlé d’aucune declinaison: de sorte que je demeure tousjours ferme dans ma premiere conclusion, à sçavoir, que durant la grande nuit d’Hyver d’onze semaines, le sommeil les avoit pû gaigner si souvent, & si long-temps, qu’il estoit le 6 ou 7 de Febvrier, lors qu’ils ont creu, à cause de leur assoupissement, qu’il n’estoit que le 24 de Ianvier, lesquels jours ils ont expres enfermez entre le 24 de Ianvier et 21 Mars, afin de triompher par leurs belles observations, et d’abuser ainsi les sçavans, & leur donner matiere de dispute touchant le Iournal de Gerard de Veer. Je laisse aux autres la liberté de juger ce que leur plaira sur cette affaire, mais je crois que Gerard de Veer ressemble au Sacristain qui fait aller l’horologe, laquelle n’ayant pas une fois sonné l’heure comme le Soleil marquoit, & quelques-uns luy demandant la raison de cette erreur, il respondit que le Soleil pouvoit mentir, mais que son horologe ne mentoit jamais:198 ainsi il me semble que Gerard de Veer a plustost voulu rejetter la faute sur le Soleil, sur la Lune, & sur les Estoilles, que de confesser pendant sa vie que son calcul estoit faux. Voilà en peu de mots ce que j’ay à respondre sur vostre demande, car je n’ay jamais crû, ny ne puis croire encor à present, que le Soleil, à quelque hauteur qu’il fust le IV de Novembre, pourveu qu’il passast par delà [cxlix]la ligne 15 degrez vers le Sud, manquast à paroistre sur l’Horizon, et commençast à se monstrer au mesme lieu le 24 de Janvier, eloigné de la ligne de plus de 19 degrez vers le Sud, & se retrouvast justement à la hauteur de 14 degrez sur le mesme Horizon; de façon que ce que Gerard de Veer escrit dans son Journal page 39, contrarie la nature & raison. C’est pourquoy je repete encor, que pendant le grand jour d’Esté ils ont obmis à compter quelques revolutions du Soleil; de mesme que durant la grande nuict d’Hyver le sommeil leur a derobé beaucoup de temps, & qu’ils n’ont pû asseurement dresser leur Journal comme auroient fait ceux qui auroient pû soirs & matins distinguer en jour & en nuict le temps de 24 heures, et compter ainsi nettement & exactement toutes les journées; chose impossible à faire aux Pilotes de la Navigation vers le Nord, & auxquels il faut pardonner en cette occasion; avec cela je finis. Le 15 Septembre, 1627.199
From this letter of Robert le Canu it will be perceived, that the fact of the sun’s disappearance on the 4th of November 1596 was equally denied by him with that of its reappearance on the 24th of January following. The former, though differing in degree, was, as far as regards the fact itself, deemed not less abnormal and “opposed to nature and to reason” than the latter. It is therefore of importance to demonstrate that the particulars recorded by Gerrit de Veer concerning the sun’s latest appearance and final disappearance, are in all respects absolutely and literally true. [cl]
On the 2nd of November, he states that the sun “did not show its whole disk, but passed in the horizon along the earth.” On that day, in latitude 75° 45′ (which was their true position, and not 76° as they supposed), the sun’s declination was—14° 53′,3; and the complement of the elevation of the Pole being 14° 15′, the sun’s centre was actually 38′3 below the horizon. But, with an assumed temperature of—8 Fahr., the refraction would have been as much as 39′,3; and, as “the land where they were was as high as the round-top of their ship”, an assumed height of thirty feet would give 5′,4 for the dip of the horizon. Hence, according to theory, 6′,4 more than the half of the sun’s disk should have been visible; that is to say, 22′ or 23′, or about seven-tenths of the entire disk. Consequently De Veer’s statement in this respect is literally true. On the following day the sun’s centre was actually 56′,9, and its upper edge about 40′,9, below the horizon. But the refraction 39′,3 and the dip 5′,4, would have raised it 44′,7 to the sight; so that 3′,8 or nearly twelve-hundredths of the sun’s disk ought still to have been visible. De Veer speaks therefore the pure truth when he says that, on the 3rd of November, “they could see nothing but the upper edge of the sun above the horizon.”200 On the day afterwards the sun’s declination was 15° 30′,5, and consequently its centre was 1° 15′,5, and its upper edge 59′,5, below the horizon. And taking the sum of the refraction and the dip at 44′,7, the sun’s [cli]upper edge would have been actually 14′,8 below the visible horizon. Strictly in accordance with this, we have De Veer’s statement on the 4th of November, “but that we saw the sunne no more, for it was no longer aboue the horizon”.
Had Gerrit de Veer and his companions been weak enough to give way to the dogmatical assertion of their teacher, that “pendant le grand jour d’esté ils avoyent omis à compter quelques revolutions du soleil”, they might perhaps at the time, and during the two centuries and a half which have since elapsed, have enjoyed some little more credit than has been accorded to them; but they would eventually have deprived themselves of that triumphant vindication of their character for perfect truthfulness and sincerity which it is our good fortune to be the means of now affording to them.
The reappearance of the sun on the 25th of January 1597, is not, at least for the present, capable of so complete and satisfactory an explanation. But hitherto the subject has never been properly understood, because the facts have never been correctly stated. One of the most recent examinations of this phenomenon is that made by the Rev. George Fisher, in his remarks “On the Atmospheric Refraction,” contained in the “Appendix to Captain Parry’s Journal of a Second Voyage, etc.”, published in 1825.
Mr. Fisher’s words are:—“The testimony of De Veer, who wrote the particulars and who accompanied Barentz to Nova Zembla in his third voyage, where he wintered in latitude 76° N., in the year 1596–7, has been so often called in question, with respect to his account of the re-appearance of the sun, that it is but justice to state that he appears to be perfectly correct, and his observations consistent with those made during this voyage.201 He reports that he, in [clii]company with two others, saw the edge of the sun from the sea side, on the south side of Nova Zembla, on the 24th of January (or the 3rd of February, new style) at which time the sun’s declination when it passed the meridian in that longitude was about 16° 48′ S., and therefore the true meridian depression of the upper limb at noon was 2° 32′ nearly, which ought to have been the amount of the refraction [so] that the limb might have been visible. Now, if the observation at the least apparent altitude observed on the 23rd January, 1823, at Igloolik, which was 8′ 40″, be reduced to the horizon, by observing the rapid law of increase in the refraction visible in the series of observations made on that day, the horizontal refraction cannot be estimated at less than 2° 30′, and which, if increased by the apparent dip (which sometimes amounts to more than 20′ in the winter time, as I have mentioned when speaking of the terrestrial refraction), will be quite sufficient to render the upper limb visible; and there is still less difficulty in believing that they ‘saw the sunne in his full roundnesse above the horizon’ three days afterwards, since the daily motion in declination at that time of the year is nearly 18 minutes to the northward.
“M. Le Monier, from the observations made on these two days, assures us that there must have been more than 4½ degrees of refraction, and that he ‘could neither explain these observations, reject them as doubtful, nor suppose any error, as was done by most other astronometers.’ How this conclusion has been deduced from the facts related in the Journal does not appear, neither is there the least occasion to reject as doubtful the simple and honest account of the Dutchmen.”
Now the facts of the case are in reality as follows:—In the first place, the Dutch reckoned their time according to the new style, which had already been adopted in the Netherlands. This is not only to be deduced from [cliii]the correspondence of their several astronomical observations with this reckoning alone; but it also admits of direct proof from the express statement of William Barents, in his note on the tides at States Island, that the dates were “stilo novo.”
In the next place, Gerrit de Veer states explicitly that he and two of his companions “saw the edge of the sun” on the 24th of January, and that on the 27th of that month they “all went forth and saw the sunne in his full roundnesse a little aboue the horrison”; and again, that on the 31st they “went out and saw the sunne shine cleare”; and lastly, on the 8th of February, they “saw the sun rise south south-east, and went down south south-west.” On the intervening days, the weather being cloudy or otherwise unfavourable, they had no opportunity of observing the sun.202
Now, according to theory, the sun’s upper edge ought not, in 75° 45′ north latitude, to have been visible till the 9th of February; so that on the 25th of January (not the 24th, as De Veer erroneously supposed), at mid-day, the extraordinary and anomalous refraction was as much as 3° 49′, and on the 27th of that month it could not have been much, if at all, less. On the 8th of February, however, when they “saw the sun rise S.S.E. and go down S.S.W.”, the entire refraction would have been 2° 10′,7, which is about one degree and a half more than according to theory it ought to have been; and on the 19th of the latter month, [cliv]when they took the sun’s height, the refraction had again attained its normal amount.
Without attempting any explanation of the phenomenon thus described, what we have now to do is to show that Gerrit de Veer and his companions could not possibly have been materially in error with respect to their dates.
Commencing then from the 4th of November, when it has been demonstrated that their time was strictly correct, we have their subsequent astronomical observations on December 14th and January 12th, which establish that till the latter date they were still right in their time. If, therefore, they lost their reckoning at all, it must have happened between the 12th and the 25th of January—an interval of only thirteen days; and certainly neither their oversleeping themselves (assuming them to have done so), nor any error, however great, in the rate of their twelve hours’ sand-glass, could in that short interval have occasioned any gross miscalculation with respect to the time of a phenomenon which extended over a period of fourteen days. Then again, on the 19th of February, and also on the 2nd of March, they obtained by similar astronomical observations the means of checking their time; so that it is utterly impossible for them to have fallen into any material error. The mistake of a few hours, which caused them to place the conjunction of the moon and Jupiter, and consequently the reappearance of the sun, on the 24th instead of the 25th of January, is only an additional proof in favour of their general correctness, as it is just such an error as they were likely to fall into from their inability to measure their time with strict precision.
But the fact of the conjunction itself has yet to be noticed. De Veer tells us that they had watched the approach of the two planets to each other, till at length they came together in a certain direction and at a certain time; and that contemporaneously [clv]with this occurrence the sun reappeared. Now there was no other conjunction of those two planets till 27¼ days later, namely, at noon on the 21st of February, and at that date the sun had been at least nine days above the horizon; besides which, the conjunction would not have been visible, on account of the daylight. Consequently, if the conjunction on the 25th of January is not intended, the whole account must be an invention and a fabrication. And to suppose this would assuredly be imputing to De Veer, not only more deceit, but also very much more skill than he possessed. For, even assuming him to have been capable of calculating the place of Jupiter and the time of that planet’s setting, he would have found (as Mr. Vogel has now found) that at the time of the conjunction that planet had already set 1 hour and 48 minutes, and was at the time actually 2° 44′ below the horizon; and it is altogether too much to suppose that he would have adduced a conjunction, which according to calculation was invisible, as evidence of another phenomenon which was equally opposed to the recognized laws of nature.