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 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 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 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 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. [164] 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. [165]
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 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”. [166] 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, [167] 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.
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. [168] 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. [169]
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;” [170] 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,” [171]
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,
[172] which was supposed by them 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. [173]
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′ [174] and 79° 42′, [175] 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, [176] 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”, [177]
can only be Weide Bay. Finding that its southern extremity “reached to
the firme land”, they were forced to 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”. [178] 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. [179]
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. [180] How far he carried his 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 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. [181]
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′, [182] 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 Ice Haven, where they were forced, in
great cold, poverty, misery, and grief, to stay all that winter.” [183]
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.” [184]
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 Veer, especially in the Table given near the end of his
third voyage. [185]
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, [186] 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. [187] A remarkable confirmation of this fact is
afforded by Henry Hudson’s journal of his visit to Novaya Zemlya,
printed in the Appendix to the present work, [188] 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. [189] 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, [190] 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°; [191] the observation not being further particularized,
as in most other cases. This would make its difference of longitude
from Langenes to be 55′; whereas, in De Veer’s map, the difference is
only 20′. Lütke [192] identifies Loms Bay with Cross Bay, though
without sufficiently stating his reasons for so doing. Baer [193]
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 gives [194] 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. [195] 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” [196]
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 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 Island [197] will be
respectively their “Capo de Plantius” and their “small Island seawards
from the point.”
The Admiraliteyts Eyland of the Dutch [198] 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′, [199] and answers to the first prominent cape in
Lütke’s maps, after passing Admiralty Island, which lies in 75° 28′.
Willems Eyland [200] 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′, [201] 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, 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, [202] 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 argues [203] 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, [204] 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 calculated by Mr.
Edward Vogel (assistant at Mr. Bishop’s observatory), [205] 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, [206] 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 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; [207] 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, [208] 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 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;” [209] 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,” [210] and they
“could hardly thrust their heads out of the dore.” [211] 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
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”; [212] 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”. [213] 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.” [214]
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 observes [215] that “it
is most remarkable that in the account of their long sufferings this
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, [216] 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, [217] 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, [218]—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. [219]
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 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 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 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, [220] 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 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: [221] 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 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. [222]
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.
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.” [223] 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
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. [224] He reports that he, in 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 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. [225]
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, 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 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.
We have therefore no alternative but to receive the facts recorded by
De Veer as substantially true, and to believe that owing to the
peculiar condition of the atmosphere, there existed an extraordinary
refraction, not merely on the 25th of January, but continuously during
fourteen days afterwards, at first amounting to nearly four degrees,
but gradually decreasing to about one degree and a half.
The true facts of the case having at length been clearly made out, they
are left for elucidation by those who are best qualified to investigate
and explain them. The problem is a curious, and, with our still
insufficient knowledge of the laws of atmospheric refraction in high
latitudes, a difficult one. Nevertheless we may confidently rely on the
result being such as eventually to establish the entire veracity of our
Dutch historian. [226]
With respect to the personal history of Gerrit de Veer we know almost
nothing. From his familiar allusion to “the salt hills that are in
Spaine”, it is to be inferred that he had visited that country at some
time previously to the year 1595, when he joined Barents’s second
expedition. From Robert le Canu’s letter we learn that he had studied
navigation under him, and also that his death occurred some time
previously to the year 1627, when that letter was written. The position
of his name in the two lists of the crew of Heemskerck’s vessel,
between those of the first mate and the surgeon, shows that he was one
of the officers—probably the second mate; and we learn incidentally
that he was a small man, “being the lightest of all their company”.
More than this we know not.
Of the various editions, abridgments, and summaries of De Veer’s work,
we have collected the following particulars.
The first printed account of these interesting voyages was published in
Dutch at Amsterdam in the year 1598, under the following title:—
Waerachtighe Beschryvinghe van drie seylagien, ter werelt noyt soo
vreemt ghehoort, drie jaeren achter malcanderen deur de
Hollandtsche ende Zeelandtsche schepen by noorden Noorweghen,
Moscovia ende Tartaria, na de Coninckrijcken van Catthay ende
China, so mede vande opdoeninghe vande Weygats, Nova Sembla, en̄
van’t landt op de 80. gradē, dat men acht Groenlandt tezijn, daer
noyt mensch gheweest is, ende vande felle verscheurende Beyren ende
ander Zeemonsters ende ondrachlijcke koude, en̄ hoe op de laetste
reyse tschip int ys beset is, ende tvolck op 76. graden op Nova
Sembla een huijs ghetimmert, ende 10. maenden haer aldaer onthouden
hebben, ende daer nae meer als 350. mylen met open cleyne schuyten
over ende langs der Zee ghevaren. Alles met seer grooten perijckel,
moyten, ende ongeloofelijcke swaricheyt. Gedaen deur Gerrit de Veer
van Amstelredam.
Ghedruckt t’Amstelredam, by Cornelis Claesz, op’t water, int
Shrijf-boeck. Ao. 1598. Oblong 4o.
This rare and valuable book, a copy of which is in the British Museum,
does not appear to have been hitherto noticed by bibliographers. It
contains sixty-one numbered leaves, in addition to the Dedication on
two leaves not numbered, six maps by Baptista à Doetechum, and
twenty-five plates, which are coloured. The title-page also bears a
plate, in eight partitions, four of which contain reductions from
plates in the volume.
The following is a translation of Gerrit de Veer’s Dedication.
To the Noble, Mighty, Wise, Discreet, and very Provident Lords, the
States General of the United Netherlands, the Council of State, and
the Provincial States of Holland, Zeeland and West Friesland; and
also to the most illustrious Prince and Lord, Maurice, born Prince
of Orange, Count of Nassau, Catzenellenbogen, Vianden, Dietz, etc.,
Marquis of Vere and Flushing, etc., Lord of St. Vyt, Doesburg, the
city of Grave, and the countries of Kuyct, etc., Stadtholder and
Captain-General of Gelderland, Holland, Zeeland, West Friesland,
Utrecht, and Overyssel, and Admiral of the sea; and to the Noble,
Honorable, Wise, and Discreet Lords, the Commissioners of the
Admiralty in Holland, Zeeland, and West Friesland.
My Lords: the art of navigation, which in utility surpasses nearly
all other arts, has now in these latter years and within the memory
of man been wonderfully improved, and has more especially
contributed to the welfare of these States. This has been mainly
the result of the skilful use and practice of navigation, and of
the measurement of the latitudes and bearings of countries
according to the rules of mathematical science; whereby countries
lying on the very confines of the world have been reached, and
their products imported for our use. Thus this child of Astrology
has proved of greater service on the ocean than on land; for, there
it is merely a science, whereas here its usefulness is so much
extended, that various bearings, courses, headlands, and
promontories unmentioned by Ptolemy and Strabo, and unknown for a
long period after that time, have now become known by the
investigations and experiences of this science. And as many
previously unknown places were not found till after repeated
search, so now three unsuccessful trials have been made from these
States to find a passage round by the north to the kingdoms of
Cathay and China; which although hitherto unsuccessful, have not
been altogether useless, nor have they shown the attempt to be
hopeless. For these reasons I have drawn up a brief description of
the three aforesaid voyages (in the last two of which I myself was
engaged), which were made from these States by the north of Norway,
Muscovy, and Tartary, towards the aforesaid kingdoms of Cathay and
China. And I have done so because many interesting circumstances
happened in those voyages, and because I think that the right
course may still be discovered; inasmuch as the direction and
position of Vaygatz and Nova Zembla, and also the eastern part of
Greenland (as we call it) in 80°, are now ascertained, where it was
formerly thought there was only water and no land; and because
there in 80° it was less cold than at Nova Zembla in 76°, and in
80° aforesaid, in June early in the summer, plants and grass were
growing and beasts that feed on grass were found, while on the
contrary in 76°, in August in the hottest of the summer, there were
found neither plants nor grass, nor animals that feed on grass.
From all which it appears that it is not the proximity of the Pole
which causes the ice and cold, but the Sea of Tartary (called the
Frozen Ocean), and the proximity of the land, round about which the
ice remains floating. For, in the open sea between the land
situated in 80 degrees and Nova Zembla, which lie at a distance of
full 200 (800) miles E.N.E. and W.S.W. of each other, there was
little or no ice; but as often as we approached land we immediately
fell in with the cold and the ice. Indeed, it was by means of the
ice that we always first perceived that we were near land before we
saw the land itself. At the east end of Nova Zembla also, where we
passed the winter, the ice drifted away with a W. and S.W. wind,
and returned with a N.E. wind. Hence it certainly appears, that
between the two lands there is an open sea, and that it is possible
to sail nearer to the Pole than has hitherto been believed; and
this notwithstanding that ancient writers say that the sea is not
navigable within 20 degrees of the Pole because of the intense
cold, and that therefore nobody can live there; whereas we have
both been as far as 80 degrees, and in 76 degrees have with small
means passed the winter; and thus it appears that the said passage
may be effected between the two above-named countries by taking a
N.E. course from the North Cape in Norway. This too was the opinion
of the renowned pilot Willem Barentsz., as well as of Jacob
Heemskerck, our captain and supercargo, who would have dared to
undertake it by keeping that course, its accomplishment being left
to God’s mercy. Yea, notwithstanding that on our last voyage,
through our manifold difficulties, we were entirely exhausted and
ofttimes in peril of death, yet our courage was not so broken but
that if our ship (which became fast in the ice) had been set free a
little sooner, we would once more have made the attempt in that
direction, as a proof that we believed the passage might thereby
have been effected; although this last voyage had been very
troublesome, wherein we (speaking without vanity) made no account
either of labours, difficulties, or danger, in order to bring it to
a successful end, as will appear from the relation thereof; but
neither the time nor the opportunity permitted it. And as the
aforesaid three voyages were made through the gracious assistance
of your Lordships, and thus the fruits which may still result from
them belong to your Lordships, I have taken the liberty of
dedicating to you this narrative, which, if not an eloquent, is at
least a faithful one.
Praying to God that he will bless with success the government of
your Lordships, in honour of his name, and for the welfare of these
States,
Your noble, mighty, illustrious, wise, and provident Lordships’
obedient servant,
Gerrit de Veer.
From Amsterdam, the last day but one of April, in the year 1598.
Stuck, in his Verzeichnis von aeltern und neuern Land und
Reise-beschreibungen, mentions an edition of De Veer’s work [227] in
1599; but this appears to be purely an error in date,—1599 for 1598,—as
he leaves it to be inferred that he alludes to the first edition. It
was reprinted at Amsterdam in 1605, at the same press.
Another edition was brought out, as the first part of a collection of
early Dutch voyages at Amsterdam, with the following title:—
Oost-Indische ende Uvest-Indische voyagien, Namelijck, De
waerachtighe beschrijvinge vande drie seylagien, drie Jaren achter
malkanderen deur de Hollandtsche ende Zeelandtsche Schepen, by
noorden Noorweghen, Moscovien ende Tartarien nae de Couinckrijcken
van Catthay ende China ghedaen.
Tot Amsterdam. By Michiel Colijn, Boeck-verkooper, op’t Water, in’t
Huys-boeck, aen de Kooren-marckt. 1619. Oblong 4to.
This edition contains eighty numbered leaves. De Veer’s Dedication is
omitted. The plates are copies from those in the former editions, but
smaller and reversed. The colophon reads:—
Ghedruckt tot Enchuysen, by Jacob Lenaertsz. Meyn, Boeckvercooper
op de Nieuwe straet int vergulden schrijfboeck. Anno 1617.
Latin. In the same year that the first edition of these voyages was
published in Dutch, viz., 1598, a Latin translation was brought out at
Amsterdam by the same publisher. The translator signs himself C. C. A.,
and dates his preface, Leyden, July 7th (“nonis Julij”) 1598; thereby
showing that little more than two months had elapsed since the
appearance of the original work. It bears the following title:—
Diarivm Navticvm, seu vera descriptio Trium Navigationum
admirandarum, & nunquam auditarum, tribus continuis annis factarum,
à Hollandicis & Zelandicis navibus, ad Septentrionem, supra
Norvagiam, Moscoviam & Tartariam, versus Catthay & Sinarum regna:
tum ut detecta fuerint Weygatz fretum, Nova Zembla, & Regio sub 80.
gradu sita, quam Groenlādiam esse censent, quam nullus unquam
adijt: Deinde de feris & trucibus vrsis, alijsque monstris marinis,
& intolerabili frigore quod pertulerunt. Quemadmodum præterea in
postrema Navigatione navis in glacie fuerit concreta, & ipsi nautæ
in Nova Zembla sub 76. gradu sita, domum fabricarint, atque in ea
per 10. mensium spatium habitarint, & tandem, relictâ navi in
glacie, plura quam 380. milliaria per mare in apertis parvis
lintribus navigarint, cum summis periculis, immensis laboribus, &
incredibilibus difficultatibus. Auctore Gerardo de Vera
Amstelrodamense.
Amstelredami, ex Officina Cornelij Nicolaij, Typographi ad symbolum
Diarij, ad aquam. Anno M.D.XCVIII. Folio.
This edition contains forty-three numbered leaves, and has the same
plates and maps as the Dutch edition; but the Dedication is omitted. A
copy is in the British Museum.
French. In the same year, and probably near the same time as the
preceding edition, appeared a French translation under the following
title:—
Vraye Description de trois Voyages de mer tres admirables, faicts
en trois ans, a chacun an vn, par les navires d’Hollande et
Zelande, av nord par derriere Norwege, Moscovie, et Tartarie, vers
les Royaumes de China & Catay: ensemble les decouvremens du Waygat,
Nova Sembla, & du pays situé souz la hauteur de 80 degrez; lequel
on presume estre Greenlande, où oncques personne n’a esté. Plus des
Ours cruels & ravissans, & autres monstres marins: & la froidure
insupportable. D’avantage comment a la derniere fois la navire fut
arrestee par la glace, & les Matelots ont basti vne maison sur le
pays de Nova Sembla, situé souz la hauteur de 76. degrez, où ils
ont demeuré l’espace de dix mois: & comment ils ont en petittes
barques passé la Mer, bien 350. lieues d’eaue; non sans peril, a
grand travail, & difficultez incroyables. Par Girard Le Ver.
Imprimé a Amstelredam par Cornille Nicolas, sur l’eaue, au livre à
écrire. Anno M.D.XCVIII. folio.
This edition contains forty-four numbered leaves, and the same plates
and maps as the original Dutch edition. There is a copy in the
Grenville Library. It was reprinted in 1600 and in 1609. There is a
copy of the edition of 1609 in the British Museum, in which the same
plates and maps occur as in the first Dutch edition.
An edition in 8vo. was published at Paris by Chaudière in 1599, under
the title of “Trois navigations admirables faites par les Hollandois et
les Zélandois au Septentrion.”
Italian. An Italian translation, which was made at the instance of
Gioan Battista Ciotti, by whom it is dedicated to Gasparo Catanei,
appeared at Venice in 1599, in Italic characters. Its title runs thus:—
Tre Navigationi fatte dagli Olandesi, e Zelandesi al Settentrione
nella Norvegia, Moscovia, e Tartaria, verso il Catai, e Regno de’
Sini, doue scopersero il Mare di Veygatz, La Nvova Zembla, et vn
Paese nell’ Ottantesimo grado creduto la Groenlandia. Con vna
descrittione di tvtti gli accidenti occorsi di giorno in giorno a’
Nauiganti, Et in particolare di alcuni combattimenti con Orsi
Marini, e dell’ eccesiuo freddo di quei paesi; essendo nell’ ultima
Nauigatione restata la Naue nel ghiaccio, onde li Marinari
passorono infinite difficoltà, per lo spatio di diece mesi, e
furono forzati alla fine di passare con li Batelli trecento miglia
di Mare pericolosissimo. Descritte in Latino da Gerardo di Vera, e
Nuouamente de Giouan Giunio Parisio Tradotte nella lingua Italiana.
In Venetia, presso Ieronimo Porro, e Compagni. 1599. 4to.
It contains seventy-nine leaves, with copies of the usual maps and
plates, but badly executed.
This was reprinted in the third volume of the 1606 edition of Ramusio’s
Navigationi et Viaggi.
English. The only other language, as far as we are aware, into which De
Veer’s work has been translated, is English; the first and only edition
of which translation, now extremely scarce, is that reproduced in the
present volume.