BY

LIEUT^T. KOOLEMANS BEYNEN, R.N.N.

The re-publication by the Hakluyt Society of the first true polar voyage ever made, is very opportune, now that the people of England have revived their interest in maritime enterprise and are waiting with anxiety the results of the Government expedition up Smith’s Sound, where the brave explorers in the Alert and Discovery are enduring the hardships of an Arctic winter. A deep interest in this expedition, manifested in various ways, is felt throughout the whole civilised world, and never did ships sail to the Arctic Regions which were followed with greater sympathy or warmer wishes both at home and abroad. While we are waiting with increasing impatience for the first news of their proceedings, the voyages of the stout-hearted Dutch pioneers of Arctic exploration will be found exceedingly interesting, showing what the human constitution can endure under good leadership, and stimulated and controlled by [ii]faith and discipline. They have set an example to all other Arctic navigators, by showing the necessity for being well prepared to sustain a winter in the polar pack. If future explorers should find themselves surprised amidst the ice, and consequently be obliged to winter, let them bear their hardships as those Dutchmen did, under the command of Heemskerck and the leadership of William Barendsz.

The narrative of the three voyages undertaken by the Dutch, towards the close of the sixteenth century, with a view to the discovery of a north-east passage to China, was printed for the Hakluyt Society in 1853. Then the learned Dr. Beke, the eminent traveller and geographer, wrote the introduction. But since that time Novaya Zemlya has been circumnavigated, the house in which Barendsz and his gallant companions wintered has been found, whilst its true position and those of many other points along the coast have been accurately determined. Moreover, the researches into the Archives and old State papers of the Netherlands have thrown much new light on the proceedings of the early Dutch Arctic explorers, and on the circumstances under which these voyages were undertaken.

For these reasons, it has been thought advisable, in this second edition, to lay before the members of the Society the results of subsequent research.

It will not be necessary to recall to mind the condition of the Netherlands at the close of the sixteenth century, now that the fascinating work of Motley, [iii]on the Rise of the Dutch Republic, is familiar to every one. The heroic Dutchmen, assisted by their not less gallant English friends, had to fight against superior forces, composed of the best soldiers and led by the ablest generals of Philip of Spain. Disposing of resources such as no other prince of the period possessed, backed by the most renowned captains of the age, and aided by the religious fanaticism of his subjects, Philip was nevertheless unable to maintain his hold over the United Provinces, which sought to render their land independent of Spain, as they had formerly freed it from the sea. This land had been reclaimed by their fathers in ever recurring struggles, not only with the ocean, but likewise with the rivers Rhine, Maas, and Scheldt, which discharge their ice and waters into the North Sea. Their descendants still continue fighting against heavy odds to keep their land and property above water, notwithstanding the progress made in engineering and hydraulics. As an old ship at sea is kept afloat by continual pumping, caulking, and repairing, so, too, are the Low Countries preserved from destruction. This constant labour and enormous expense may be rendered useless at any moment by a sudden rise in the rivers, an equinoctial storm from the ocean, the breaking up of the ice, or the melting of the snow on distant mountains; so that, notwithstanding the indefatigable industry of the people, the bulwarks may be destroyed behind which they are never safe. In such a school were the old Dutchmen trained. They knew by sad experience [iv]that their country could only be held by hard fighting with the sea, and it was also by hard fighting that they were enabled to gain their political independence, and the liberty to worship God as they pleased. But the war against Philip was very expensive, and laid a heavy charge upon the already over-burdened shoulders of the people. Agriculture and dairy farming could scarcely supply the means to cover the indispensable outlay necessary for keeping their land above water. Already, in a petition for the remission of taxes, addressed by the States of Holland to the Emperor Charles V, we read as follows:—

Thus from the earliest times they had looked upon navigation and commerce as the great source of their wealth, and from this source they expected to get the means to carry on the war. It may be true that they worshipped the “almighty dollar”, but not for itself, not only from a hope of gain, but also from the purest patriotism, because they could not continue their struggle for independence without money, and this could only be gained by giving more expansion to commerce, and not despising small advantages. Hence their natural resolution to search in every [v]direction for new trade routes, and to risk so many lives and ships on their desperate exploring expeditions in frozen latitudes, hoping to reach Cathay and the Spice Islands by going north-about. In that direction they expected to avoid the superior Spanish naval forces, which in the infancy of the great struggle they could not expect to conquer, as very soon afterwards, in 1609, was done by Heemskerck. He burned the Spanish fleet on their own shores, and thirty years later the gallant Admiral Marten Harpertszoon Tromp carried his broom at the mast-head. The cosmographers of the Netherlands were among the very best in the world, and were well acquainted with all the fruitless endeavours to find a shorter route to the Indies by the north-west.

Several voyages had been made by Englishmen, mentioned in Dr. Beke’s introduction, towards the north-east, concerning which every particular was known in the Netherlands. This has since been proved by an irrefutable fact; for the so-called journals of Barendsz, which were in 1875 brought back to Norway, turned out to be a Dutch translation of the journals of the English navigators, Pet and Jackman, who, in 1580, endeavoured to find the north-east passage. This translation was found in the old wintering house of Barendsz in Novaya Zemlya, and consequently he must have taken it with him on his last voyage. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Netherlanders had watched eagerly, and with intense interest, the attempts made by the English to find the north-east passage to [vi]the Indies. This may be the reason why a few Netherlanders tried at first to penetrate over-land in that direction, for a certain Olivier Brunel succeeded in reaching as far as the Obi river, travelling all the way on terra firma. Thanks to the industrious and intelligent researches of the historian of “De Noordsche Compagnie”, Mr. S. Muller, Fz., we now know a great deal more of this Olivier Brunel than Dr. Beke did in 1853.

The history of Brunel has especially roused Mr. Muller’s interest, and the facts discovered during his researches are so surprising that we think we cannot do better than give them nearly verbatim.

At the time that the English settled themselves at the mouth of the Dwina river, in the neighbourhood of the monastery of St. Nicholas, they had spared no trouble to maintain themselves continually in the exclusive possession of the trade in these regions. In this they succeeded but for a short period.

Twelve years after their arrival on the shores of the White Sea, the Dutch had found, at least partially, the track of their predecessors.

In the year 1565, a certain Philip Winterköning, an exile from Wardöhuis, entered upon a negotiation with the Netherlanders. By his intervention a ship was sent out from Enkhuizen, and arrived at a spot, where a settlement was soon formed, to which they gave the name of Kola.

In the following year, 1566, two merchants of Antwerp, Simon van Salingen and Cornelis de Meyer, steering from Kola along the coast, ventured [vii]to follow in the track of the English to the White Sea. They landed at the mouth of the Onega, and travelled, disguised as Russians, overland to Moscow. This courageous voyage was undertaken for no other object than to settle private affairs; and they did not avail themselves of the opportunity that thus occurred of establishing commercial relations with the White Sea.

However, the settlement at Kola now existed, and from thence efforts were made to carry on a direct trade with the Dwina. A trustworthy person was sent for that purpose on board of a Russian ship to Kholmogory, a town situated in the neighbourhood of the English settlement of Rose Island. He was instructed to learn the Russian language, and to try to obtain all possible information respecting the best manner of establishing commercial relations. That man was no other than Olivier Brunel, a character well known at that time, but in these days almost forgotten.

His name ought to be remembered and honoured as it deserves, for Brunel was not only the founder of the White Sea trade of the Dutch, but he was also their first Arctic navigator. For this reason a better account of him than has been given in the former edition, will not be found out of place here. Dr. Beke saw in Olivier Brunel and Alferius two distinct persons, and did not agree with Hamel that they were the same individual. It is, therefore, necessary in the first place to give Mr. S. Muller’s arguments as to why he considers Hamel’s opinion the most trustworthy. [viii]

We know (he says) that, in 1581, two persons, both going under the uncommon name of Olivier (of whom the one was “natione Belga”, the other “domo Bruxella”), lived on the shores of the White Sea. When it is remarked that, in 1578, only a few Netherlanders went to those shores, this conformity of name and country is indeed very remarkable. The scholarship of both was the same. The one, Alferius, was, as Balak says, no scholar, but a man of skilful practice; the other, Brunel, had passed his life as a commercial discoverer in the north. There is also a striking conformity in the condition of life of the two men. Alferius, “captivus aliquot annos vixit in Moscovitarum ditione, apud viros illic celeberrimos Jakonius et Unekius.” Brunel was for a few years a prisoner in Russia, and was delivered from his captivity by the Ameckers, who were very clever Russian merchants, living at Coolwitsogda, whom Brunel afterwards served. Jakonius and Unekius had already been taken by Lütke, who probably knew nothing of Brunel, to be the same as Jakov and Grigory Anikiew.

Hamel was convinced that by the “Ameckers” the Anikiews from Sol-Wütschegodsk only could be meant, although Scheltema, his authority, had changed arbitrarily “Coolwitsogda” (Sol-Wütschegodsk) into “Cool” (Kola).

To continue:—Alferius was sent to the Netherlands in 1581; Brunel went there every year. We find Alferius journeying along the coast of the Baltic; Brunel often travelled overland to Europe. [ix]Alferius, in the service of his masters, had often been at the Obi; Brunel had been for years commercial agent of the Russians, who yearly traded with the Obi. Alferius started from the Netherlands with the design of seeking out the north-east passage; Brunel is known as the first Dutch Arctic traveller.

In fine:—Brunel was one of the inciters of the Dutch Arctic voyages, and spoke, therefore, with the South-Netherlander Moucheron. Alferius is known to have had the intention of visiting the South-Netherlander Mercator, with whose co-operation Moucheron gave that impulse which resulted in the first expedition of the Netherlanders to the Arctic regions.

From all this circumstantial evidence we must draw the conclusion that Alferius is the same personage as Olivier Brunel, and, based upon this conclusion, the following history of Brunel has been given by Mr. S. Muller.—

Olivier Brunel was born at Brussels in the first part of the sixteenth century. Of the early years of his life absolutely nothing is known. It may be that he went in 1565 with the first ships of Enkhuizen to Kola, or that, escaping from the tyranny of the Spanish Duke of Alva, he came over to Holland, together with a number of South Netherland merchant families, such as the Moucherons, the Le Maires, the Usselins, and others. However, it is quite certain that, soon after the establishment of the Netherlanders at Kola, he undertook the voyage to Kholmogory already alluded to. He was not lucky [x]on that occasion, for, watched by the English, who feared him as a rival, he was handed over to the Russian Government as a spy, and remained for several years a captive at Jaroslav. At last assistance made its appearance in the persons of the brothers Jakov and Grigory Anikiew, who belonged to the celebrated commercial house of the Strogonoffs at Solvitchegodok. These latter asked and obtained his liberty of the Czar.

The generous merchants had every reason to felicitate themselves on the benefit conferred upon Brunel. Their protégé took a zealous and active part in the yearly expeditions which were made by the Russians towards the East.

Brunel passed overland through the territory of the Samoyeds to Siberia, as well as by sea along the coast, and in one of his voyages, crossing the river of Petchora, at last he reached the long-desired Obi river. In one of these expeditions, which probably now and then went through the Matthew’s Strait, a passage well known to the Russians, his guide, a Russian, brought him to Kostin Shar, a strait which by this means became known to Europe.

Soon, however, Brunel rendered himself of greater use to his masters by opening new roads for their trade. Being acquainted with the Dutch colony at Kola, and with the requisites for Dutch commerce, Brunel urged the plan of seeking towards the west for a mart to dispose of Russian produce. To put his plan into execution he himself started, accompanied by two relations of the Anikiews, and [xi]provided with passports from the Czar. He hired a Dutch ship, and arrived safely at the city of Dort. There the Russian visitors found a ready market for the greater part of their goods. The rest was advantageously sold at Antwerp and Paris, and when Brunel next year returned to his patrons, the latter were well contented with the results of the voyage. They decided upon entering into a negotiation with Kola, and from thence with the Netherlands. In this manner Brunel, as commercial agent of the Anikiews, yearly visited both places. This state of things did not last long. Brunel made use of his favourable position to put into execution the plan to accomplish which he had gone years before to Russia but with such bad success. He made arrangements with a certain Jan van de Walle, and in 1577 persuaded him to make a journey overland to Russia, accompanied by Brunel himself. Van de Walle made excellent use of the knowledge gained by him on this expedition, for the year following a Dutch ship under Captain Jan Jakobszmette Lippen, of Alkmaar, anchored for the first time in the Pudoshemsco mouth of the Dwina. This ship, having on board Van de Walle as agent, had sailed from Flushing and belonged to an Antwerp merchant named Gilles van Eychelenberg. Almost at the same time another ship arrived, belonging to the well-known Balthazar de Moucheron, and under the command of Adrian Crijt, a captain in the service of Balthazar. Thus the commerce of the Netherlands with the White Sea was established. [xii]

Soon after this, Melchior de Moucheron, as commercial agent of his relation Balthazar, settled at the mouth of the Dwina, and the trading establishment was then transferred to a harbour in the neighbourhood of the monastery of Saint Michiel. On this spot, a few years subsequently, rose the city of Nova Kholmogory, commonly known as Archangel.

After some hesitation the English left their settlement on Rose Island and betook themselves to the young, but already prosperous, city of Archangel.

Two years had hardly passed after Brunel had set the Dutch trade with Russia on a secure footing, when we find him occupied with still more gigantic and adventurous designs.

As we know, in the year 1580 the English expedition, under the commanders Pet and Jackman, set out in search of the north-east passage. It was accompanied by the good wishes of thousands of persons who assembled to see it start, whilst the whole scientific world awaited with breathless expectation the result of this further effort. The Russians, also, who at the mouth of the Dwina daily came into contact with the servants of the Muscovy Company, doubtless heard of the expectations which were fostered about the north-east passage.

This being the case, surely it is not surprising that the Russians, possessing much more accurate knowledge of the Siberian coast than the English, should try to make use of that knowledge and also form plans to find the desired passage.

A Swedish ship-builder, who had for some years [xiii]been occupied in the service of the Anikiews, received the order to construct two ships fitted up with everything requisite for the exigencies of an Arctic expedition; and, on the other hand, Brunel, the Dutch voyager, was instructed to proceed to Antwerp and there hire, at almost any price, hardy sailors and mates, with whom these vessels were to be manned.

On his way thither, Brunel, in 1581, arrived at the Island of Oesel, in the Gulf of Riga. Here he had an interview at Arensburg with a cosmographer named John Balak, a friend of the renowned Gerard Mercator.

Balak, who took much interest in voyages of discovery, and who seems to have appreciated the enterprising genius of Brunel, gave him a letter of recommendation to Mercator at Duisburg. From that letter, happily preserved by Hakluyt, we know the plans and intentions of Brunel.1 But Brunel desired that his native country, and not his Russian benefactors, should have the advantage of his researches. Acting upon this impulse, he, immediately after his arrival in Holland, tried to find acceptance for his favourite scheme.

It may, therefore, be supposed that a few merchants, and amongst them, beyond all doubt, De Moucheron, influenced by the zealous persuasions of Brunel, proposed to the noble Prince William the Taciturn a project for sending out an expedition in order to try and discover the north-east passage to [xiv]the Indies. Probably they claimed the aid of the Government to support their efforts; but the political situation of the country was too unsettled to allow the States to risk their money in so doubtful an undertaking. Nevertheless, the prince himself was greatly in favour of the expedition; yet, to support it with the funds of the nation was out of the question.

However, two such enterprising men as Brunel and De Moucheron were not so easily daunted; for the first Netherland Arctic voyage was undertaken in 1584, and, in all probability, was fitted out entirely at the expense of De Moucheron. But to Brunel belongs the honour of the voyage. This indefatigable traveller sailed with a ship belonging to the city of Enkhuizen, towards the north, to reach the far-off Empire of Cathay. Brunel, like a true Dutchman of the period—for the Dutch were then merchants to the very core—occupied himself on the way with entering into commercial relations with the Samoyed tribes.

In the records of the Archives of Utrecht, among the papers of Buchelius, Mr. Muller has discovered an old letter, in which it is recounted that Brunel had tried in vain to pass through Pet Strait.

Be this as it may, it is quite certain that his expedition was most unfortunate. On his return home, his ship, freighted with a rich cargo of valuable furs, mountain-crystal, and Muscovy glass, was wrecked in the shallow mouth of the Petchora river. Brunel, after this sad occurrence, being [xv]perfectly aware that his country was unable at the moment to assist him in making a new effort, and not daring to return to the service of his former masters, the Russians, resolved to seek a new scene of action. Accordingly he presented himself to the King of Denmark, and offered him his services, in order to try and find the long-lost Greenland colonies. The proposal of the able Arctic traveller was eagerly accepted. Brunel immediately entered into the Danish service, and did not abandon the task before three vain attempts, made one after another, convinced him of the fruitlessness of his endeavours. But little more is known of the remaining period of his life.

Mr. Muller has called attention to some information furnished by Purchas’ Pilgrimes iii, p. 831, of which the following is an extract:—“The rest of this journall, from the death of Master John Knight, was written by Oliuer Browne” (or Brownel,2 this last letter l is unfortunately not distinct).

It may appear strange that so distinguished a seaman should have been on board a ship in a subordinate position. Yet, in all likelihood, this is the true Brunel, for other reasons justify the idea that he was in English service.

Firstly, Josiah Logan, in 1611, knew very accurately how to describe the manner in which Brunel had found “Kostin Shar”.3 Those particulars he could not have known from the very brief [xvi]details given in the Dutch accounts. Either he must have been personally acquainted with Brunel or have read something that was written by him.

And, secondly, the fact that Brunel, after his failure in his Arctic voyage (1584), had been constantly in Danish and English service, would account for his absence in the later Dutch Arctic voyages, and would sufficiently explain the want of acquaintance of Hessel Gerritsz with Brunel’s further researches.

It, therefore, is by no means impossible that Brunel, together with Knight, quitting the Danish for the English service, again visited the north-west. After this we lose sight of Brunel. It is a great pity that the evening of the life of this great man should be lost in total obscurity. Even the year of his death is not exactly known. However, it is supposed to have taken place in the first years of the seventeenth century, because, in 1613, Hessel Gerritsz wrote of Brunel’s voyage, as that of “Oliverii cuiusdam Brunelli”.

The above is the history of Brunel, as related by Mr. S. Muller.

If his views are correct, then, in all probability, the first Dutch Arctic expedition took place in 1584. Now, in that same year, the King of Spain prohibited to the inhabitants of the Netherlands all trade with Portugal. Thus it is easy to comprehend that attention was drawn towards the finding of a northern passage, which would have enabled the Dutch to open a direct trade with the Indies. Consequently [xvii]during three successive years we see different expeditions leaving the Netherland ports, and boldly penetrating into the Arctic seas.

Dr. Beke has given, in his introduction, the principal outlines of the route taken by these expeditions. However, led away by the example of the German geographer, Petermann, Dr. Beke has made a mistake in laying down the track of Barendsz in his third voyage. This can be proved almost mathematically by an extract taken from a log, probably of Barendsz himself, which is preserved in the very rare work, “Histoire du Pays, nommé Spitsbergen, etc., par Hessel Gerard, à Amsterdam, 1613.” This extract runs thus:—

This is all that Hessel Gerritsz has copied out of the log of Barendsz himself, as he earnestly assures us. [xxii]

Dr. Beke, speaking in his introduction of this extract, says:—

Dr. Beke then gives his arguments in support of this opinion, and in order to refute them Mr. Muller makes the following remarks:—

I do not see (he says) why, after the death of Barendsz, the important ship’s log should have fallen into the hands of an inferior officer, even had he been a friend of the deceased. It would seem more probable, that after Barendsz’s death the skipper and supercargo, Jakob Heemskerck, would have taken all possible care of that interesting document, and, on his return to his native country, would have delivered it to Plancius, or others entitled to it. Admitting that the log came into the hands of Plancius, we are not at all surprised that he should allow the perusal of its contents by his friend Hessel Gerritsz, to assist him in his work of proving that the Dutch were the real discoverers of Spitsbergen.

Dr. Beke’s chief argument against the authenticity of the extract above given, is that in it, instead of Greenland, the newly discovered land is spoken of as being Spitsbergen, a name, according to him, only given to that island years afterwards. But Barendsz’s [xxiii]opinion that they sailed along Greenland is no reason why they should not have given the name of Spitsbergen to a part of that coast.

Mr. De Jonge, assistant-keeper of the Royal Archives at the Hague, and author of the “History of the Dutch East Indies Company”, sets at least this question at rest by making mention of evidence which he found in the Archives at the Hague, given by Barendsz’s companion, Captain Rijp, before the magistrates of Delft, in which it is said:—“And we gave to that land the name of Spitsbergen, for the great and high points that were on it.”

De Veer,7 it is true, does not make any mention of this name in his account, but the extract from the ship’s log of William Barendsz, as Hessel Gerritsz gives it, contains other peculiarities, which are not found in “De Veer”.

Dr. Beke, moreover, brings a charge against Hessel Gerritsz of having intentionally invented wrong courses, but there is no reason why he should have done so. For, in order to prove the discovery of Spitsbergen by the Dutch, he had only to refer to the work of “De Veer”, and the invention of new courses would in no respect have [xxiv]strengthened his arguments. The difference in the statements of the courses, and here and there in the account of the circumstances, proves sufficiently that we have here to do with two quite distinct documents.

And then, as Mr. Muller remarks, the journal of Barendsz, which gives fewer anecdotes but more courses, merits even more confidence than the indistinct statements of De Veer. The very accurate account kept of the courses, as well as of the observations, the total neglect of all that could give the journal an agreeable form, everything, in fact, concerning it, marks the extract as being a log, that is to say, a work not destined to be used as a pleasant history of the voyage. Moreover, Barendsz’s statements are much more correct. Barendsz gives continually, and with great accuracy, the courses which are often changed several times on the same day, whilst De Veer says repeatedly: “The courses were about northerly”, without giving any further indication. Barendsz gives what happened every day, whilst De Veer sometimes omits a few days. But the journal of De Veer especially loses in value when we come to compare his account with that of Barendsz. At once we perceive that he did not keep a strict daily account, but rather that he had written it at different intervals during the voyage; for whilst in the main points both accounts quite coincide, the chronology of De Veer is entirely incorrect. Combining all these arguments, we may come to the final conclusion:—that the extract given [xxv]by Hessel Gerritsz is truly taken from Barendsz’s log, and as such merits more credit than the account of De Veer.

This granted, we see that Barendsz’s true track does not go north along the east coast, as Dr. Beke believes, but runs up along the west side of the land. Dr. Beke and Dr. Petermann have supposed Barendsz to have sailed up the east side, and to have circumnavigated the largest island in the group. This is not possible, for then Barendsz would have known it to be an island, and therefore could never have thought it to be a part of Greenland. The track as Dr. Petermann lays it down, has, up to the present day, never been followed by any known ship, although in the last ten years many attempts have been made.

One of the most successful of these voyages was that of Captain Nilsen, a Norwegian, who, in the remarkably favourable season of 1872, with his schooner De Freia, pushed as far as 79° 20′ N. latitude, the farthest point yet attained, on the east coast of Spitsbergen, coming from the south. Arriving at the very entrance of Hinlopen Strait, Captain Nilsen was prevented by impenetrable pack-ice from entering that strait, and had, after sighting Cape Torell, to retrace his steps.

The question whether Barendsz went north along the west or along the east coast of Spitsbergen, has been fully treated by Mr. P. A. Tiele, archivaris at Leyden, who has also demonstrated that the ship’s track, laid down in the chart of J. Hondius, “Tabula [xxvi]Geographica” of the year 1598,8 has been printed after a drawing of William Barendsz himself.

With the extract from the log of Barendsz in our hand, and following the chart, we believe the true track of Barendsz’s third voyage to have been as follows:—

On the 18th of May, 1596, the two ships left the Netherlands, and arrived on the 10th of June at Bear Island; from whence they departed on the 13th, shaping their course in a north-westerly direction.

In the evening of the 14th, or in the morning of the 15th, they fancied they saw land.9

On the 15th they made more easting, till at the beginning of the first watch, when they began to steer again more north. On this course they made, till noon of the 16th, 84 nautical miles. The weather was foggy, and prevented their seeing any land towards the east. There they encountered ice, and sailed along the edge of it as much as the wind allowed, and late on the 17th they saw high land, entirely covered with snow.

Till noon of the 20th they continued, in latitude about 80°, to sail along that land, when they had the western point of the land S.S.W., only 20 miles. Continuing to sail S.S.W. and S.W. ¼ S., they passed two bays, which both stretched into the land towards [xxvii]the south.10 In the evening of that day they made a fresh effort towards the N.W., but were again hindered by the ice from pushing further north, and had to return, anchoring on the evening of the 21st close under the land, in 18 fathoms, sandy bottom, surrounded by several rocks, of which one was split, “very good to recognise”.11

On the 22nd they inspected, with one of their boats, the north-westerly point of the land, which they found to be only islands with many good anchorages.12

The following day they went out of the bay, and, the weather being very clear, they saw the coast stretching in a southerly direction, and found at midnight the latitude to be 79° 34′. In the evening they again made a vain effort to push farther in a more westerly direction.

On the 25th they anchored in a bay,13 about 10 miles north of a high point, which they afterwards christened Cape Bird. That bay ran rather far inland, and by sailing round its northern shore, it was possible on the south side of the bay to find shelter from all winds behind a low point.

Early in the morning of the 26th they weighed the anchor, made sail, and arrived at noon between the [xxviii]mountainous cape and the terra firma.14 After sailing about 20 miles in a southerly direction, they saw much ice aground, and on sounding they found only 5 fathoms. These shallows15 obliged them to return, but having to strive with foul winds, and being becalmed, they only, on the 28th, rounded the mountainous cape, which they called “Cape Bird”, “because there were so many birds upon it and in the neighbourhood.” This cape lay in 79° 5′ N. latitude.16 Steering about 60 miles in a southerly course, they came close to a large bay, which ran into the land E.N.E.17 Twenty miles farther they passed another large bay,18 in which was “much ice under the land.” To keep clear of the ice the course now became more westerly, and at noon on the 29th, in latitude 76° 50′, they lost sight of the land.19 Sailing S. and S.S.E. they, on the 1st of July, returned to Bear Island, where they agreed to separate.

Barendsz, as we know, went to Novaya Zemlya, and Rijp steered again towards the north.

In deciding whether Rijp steered along the west, or went north along the east coast, opinions are again at variance. Hessel Gerritsz, in the same work, “Histoire de Spitsbergen, etc.”, speaking on this question, says:— [xxix]

This statement of Hessel Gerritsz that Rijp proceeded to the same spot in 80°, where he had already been in company with Barendsz, agrees with the account of Pontanus in his work on Amsterdam, published in 1614; as well as with the information of Rijp himself, found in the old records by Mr. De Jonge.

Pontanus (p. 168), says: “That Rijp pretended they ought to retrace their steps till 80°.” Whilst Rijp himself says “that they returned to the same spot where they had first been” (et prévient au lieu où ils avoyent esté premièrement).

This granted, and with the experience of past navigators before us, to prove the almost impossibility of going north along the east coast of Spitsbergen, [xxx]one would be inclined to conclude that Rijp must again have gone up along the west coast.

Dr. Beke’s opinion, “that nothing worthy of remark can have occurred to him, or otherwise it could not have failed to be recorded”, seems fully borne out by later research.

Sailing up to 80° N. latitude, Rijp found his further passage again intercepted by that ice-barrier which (as we are now aware) yearly obstructs the sea north of Spitsbergen. Not long after he sailed to Kola, and from thence returned home.

It is perfectly clear why Barendsz and Rijp should have followed the west coast in preference to the east. In his previous expeditions towards Novaya Zemlya, Barendsz had had to contend with masses of ice constantly driven towards the west, so that he had a perfect knowledge of the western current; and, consequently, he could not expect to penetrate along the east coast, against which the ice would be accumulating.

Not daunted in his heroic purpose by the remembrance of all the difficulties with which he had to grapple along the coast of Novaya Zemlya in penetrating through the pack ice, Barendsz decided upon again trying what could be done in that direction.

Subsequent research has added nothing to Dr. Beke’s Introduction, as far as the further voyage of Barendsz is concerned; but we are able to lay before our readers the results of several other Arctic expeditions made by the Dutch after the return [xxxi]on the 29th of October, 1597, of the survivors of Barendsz’s heroic companions.

The results of the three voyages made before that date had been, as far as their real object was concerned, insignificant, and could not be called an encouragement to make another attempt to find the north-east passage; and, besides this, the necessity to search for it no longer existed.

In the same year in which Heemskerck and his companions entered the Maas, Houtman returned to the Netherlands with the first Dutch fleet coming from the East Indies. He had found, without great difficulty, his way to the East Indies, around the Cape of Good Hope, and consequently there was no longer any necessity to find a new route through the Polar ice.

But when, in 1602, the Dutch East India Company was established, and received, by its charter (to the detriment of all other Netherlands ship-owners), the exclusive permission to sail to the East Indies round the Cape of Good Hope or round Cape Horn, a new inducement was given to the interlopers to seek the northern passage. The East India Company saw the danger which threatened it on that side, and was compelled, in its own interests, if possible, to be the first to discover the north passage, hoping thus to obtain the monopoly of the northern, as it already possessed that of the southern route.

The origin of most of the subsequent expeditions can be traced back to the contest between monopoly and free trade. [xxxii]

Hudson, the celebrated English navigator, had just returned from his voyage in 1608, when the East India Company seized the opportunity, and invited him over to the Netherlands, desiring to retain him in their service. After long negotiations, an agreement was entered into, in which Hudson engaged to seek the north-east passage. Accordingly, on the 6th of April, 1609, Hudson started from the Texel in a small vessel called De Halve Maan (the Half Moon).

But among the interlopers was one Isaac le Maire, a clever merchant and an inveterate adversary of the Company, who, seeing the preparations made for the departure of Hudson, had not remained inactive. Thirty days later, by his zealous exertions, another ship was fitted out, in order, if possible, to out-do Hudson, and, consequently, the hated East India Company. This expedition was under the command of Melchior van Kerckhoven, who left the Dutch ports on the 5th of May, 1609.

Hudson had gone out with instructions to follow the example of Barendsz, in seeking for a passage north of Novaya Zemlya. On this occasion he was again unfortunate; for, as on his preceding voyage in 1608, he could not succeed in rounding Novaya Zemlya.

On the 5th of May he arrived at the North Cape of Norway; but before he had sighted Novaya Zemlya he was obliged by his mutinous crew to return.

On the 19th he again passed the North Cape, and [xxxiii]from thence sailed towards the N.W. to make new discoveries in that direction. In this he was much more successful.

On the other hand, the expedition of Isaac le Maire came to no better result. Melchior van Kerckhoven penetrated some distance into Pet Strait, but finding it perfectly blocked by ice of extraordinary thickness, he was obliged to return without having effected his object.

Both these expeditions tended to confirm the opinion already entertained of the great difficulty of finding, in that direction, the passage to the Indies. The number of those who maintained the possibility of finding a way straight across the Pole daily increased. So early as 1527 an Englishman, Robert Thorne, who lived at Sevilla, had strongly recommended this direction for reaching the Indies. A warm defender of his doctrines was found in the Dutch cosmographer Plancius. Maintainer of the existence of an open Polar Sea, Plancius argued that the cold gradually augmented as far as 66° latitude, but that from thence to the Pole it again decreased.

Accordingly, when in 1610 a certain Helisarius Roslin, medical doctor at Buchsweiler and court physician to the Count of Hanau, presented to the States a small book, in which he attributed the ill-luck of the former expeditions only to taking the wrong direction, this coincided with the views of the supporters of the doctrines proclaimed by Plancius.

Consequently, in the year following, two Netherlanders, [xxxiv]Ernst van de Wal and Pieter Aertsz de Jonge, requested the States-General and the Admiralty of Amsterdam to assist them in fitting out a new expedition. They positively believed they would find the northern passage, and jokingly remarked: “That the sun at the far north was rather a manufacturer of salt than of ice”. The plan, notwithstanding the disapprobation of many, found support, and in 1611 the Admiralty of Amsterdam decided on giving their sanction to the new expedition. Two ships, De Vos and De Craen, were fitted out for the voyage. As commander of the expedition, Jan Cornelisz May, surnamed “The Man-Eater”, was appointed. This experienced and skilful sailor had already been, in 1598, among the first Dutch navigators to round the Cape of Good Hope on his way to the Indies. On board of the ship De Vos Ernst van de Walle was appointed supercargo and Pieter Fransz mate. The ship De Craen, with Pieter Aertsz de Jonge as supercargo and Cornelis Jansz Mes as mate, was commanded by Symon Willemsz Cat.

On the 18th of March, 1611, the ships started; but, instead of going straight north, they again sailed towards Novaya Zemlya, visited Kostin Shar, but were prevented by the ice from penetrating into the Kara Sea. The ships were so damaged by their collisions with the ice, that they were obliged to return to Kildin to repair. From thence they sailed to North America, wintered there, and afterwards explored the coast-line between 47° and 42½′ N. latitude. [xxxv]In one of the attempts to land, Pieter Aertsz de Jonge was killed by the natives.

In the beginning of 1612 the De Craen returned to Holland, but Captain May, with his ship the De Vos, sailed again towards Novaya Zemlya, where he arrived on the 30th of June, 1612. Setting out from thence he sailed to the north, along the coast of the island; but, notwithstanding his great perseverance, he met with no better success. He was checked by a vast barrier of ice, which stretched itself from the land in a north-westerly direction. He followed the edge of it until the 14th of July, when he had attained the latitude of 77°, and then returned to the coast of Novaya Zemlya, where he arrived on the 20th.

Between the 29th of July and the 9th of August he renewed his endeavours, and came as far as 77° 45′ N. His attempt to sail straight to the Pole proved a complete failure.

On the 26th of August he resolved to give up his trials, and to return to Holland, where he safely anchored about the 15th of September. Yet all these misfortunes did not affect the courage of the enterprising Netherlands merchants.

The many ships which in the following years left the Dutch ports, bound on voyages of discovery, were, however, without one exception, sent towards the north-west, where Hudson, in the last years, had gathered such unfading laurels. All these trials to the north-west gave, however, no better results than those to the north-east, and after many fruitless expeditions [xxxvi]in a north-western direction, we see, in the year 1624, a return to the old plans of the sixteenth century, which were all based on the principle of following a coast-line.

A ship called De Kat, with twenty-four hands on board, and provided with stores for two years and a half, was fitted out to renew the investigations towards the north-east. Cornelis Fennisz Bosman was appointed commander of the expedition, whilst Willem Joosten Glimmer accompanied him as supercargo.

As late as the 24th of June they left the Texel with the design to sail along the Russian coast through Pet Strait, in the direction of the Obi. From thence they intended to try to reach Cape Fabin, and seek through Strait Anian the way to Cathay. The highest expectations were entertained of this expedition, but the result did not bear them out.

On the 24th of July, passing the island of Kalgojew, they reached Novaya Zemlya on the 28th in 70° 55′ N.

On the 10th of August they entered Pet Strait, and only by great exertion did they succeed in pushing through it.

But on the 17th, when the sails were frozen as hard as a plank, so as to render all working of the ship impossible, the wind drove the ice-floes with such force against the ship, that it was driven back in the direction of Pet Strait. Anchoring in the strait, they had to contend with very heavy storms. [xxxvii]The ship was parted from her anchors, and the strait getting choked with ice, they resolved to retreat.

Upon the return of Bosman to Holland in the beginning of September, without having effected his object, the public was greatly disappointed, and almost denied the strenuous efforts he had made to conquer all difficulties. It seems that after this bad success the Netherlands merchants gave up all trials towards the north-east.

The English and Russians who afterwards continued to seek for a passage in that direction did not meet with better success.

In the year 1676 an English expedition was sent towards the north-east; but the commander, Wood, only explored the edge of the ice between Spitsbergen and Novaya Zemlya, without rounding this latter island.

Russian walrus-hunters and fishermen have also made many excursions in the seas around Novaya Zemlya. The greater part of the Russian expeditions were made with the object of reaching the Siberian rivers. Seldom did they go along the east coast northward of Matthew’s Strait. In the Archiv für Wissenschäftliche Kunde von Russland, these excursions are described more or less completely. Chronological order is adhered to, and this rather detailed account of the Russian expeditions extends from the year 1690 down to the voyages of Lütke, Bäer, and Krüsenstern.

One of the most remarkable recorded is that of [xxxviii]the Russian navigator, Sawwä Löschkin, in 1760, of which it is written:—

This information leads Mr. de Jonge to the conclusion that Löschkin must have wintered much more southwardly than Barendsz, else he would not have wanted three summers to reach the north-east point. For the rest, that the Russians seldom visited the north-east coast of Novaya Zemlya may be proved from the fact that, on a chart of the Northern Polar Sea of 1864, drawn after Russian data and published in the review of Erman, above alluded to, the north-east coast of Novaya Zemlya is laid down between 75° N. and 76° 59′, as being very uncertain and doubtful, and only with the three old Dutch names—“Ice Harbour, Cape Flessingue, and Cape of Desire”.20

The Russian admiral, Lütke, who was employed in surveying the coast of Novaya Zemlya from 1821 to 1824, made all his attempts along the west coast, without being able, however, to round Cape Nassau. [xxxix]All these trials, made towards the north-east, fully show us the great difficulties which Barendsz had to encounter, and the gallant perseverance which enabled him to penetrate thus far into the frozen seas. A greater proof of this exists in the fact that in 1872 we find that the steamer Tegethof, under the skilful command of Lieutenant Weyprecht, not only failed in rounding Novaya Zemlya, but was entirely closed in by the mighty ice-floes, and driven powerlessly towards the north-east. However, the sea north of Novaya Zemlya was not always found obstructed by the ice. During a favourable season ships could penetrate far to the north-east without the slightest difficulty. This was often proved by the old Dutch whalers or walrus-hunters, who, sailing north of Novaya Zemlya, even passed into the Kara Sea.

The journal of Gerrit de Veer sufficiently proves that the year 1596 was by no means a favourable season. The Dutch walrus-hunters, among others Theunis Ys, Cornelis Roule, and William de Vlamingh,21 repeatedly frequented these seas north of Novaya Zemlya; but we find no mention made of their having discovered Barendsz’s winter quarters. Skipper William de Vlamingh seems to have passed nearest to it. Witsen, in his work, North and East Tartary, speaks of this skipper’s voyage thus:—22 [xl]

Combining all the information we find in the work of Witsen, there are reasons for believing that De Vlamingh went on shore on the west and on the north coasts of Novaya Zemlya, but not on the east coast.

Mr. de Jonge, speaking about this whaling cruise, remarks:—

For the rest, the account of Witsen is rather vague, and exclusively depends upon verbal communications. These old voyages of the Dutch walrus-hunters, as well as those of the Norwegian fishermen in the present day, clearly show us that here, as well as in every other part of the Arctic Regions, a favourable season might allow the fortunate [xli]navigator who happens to be on the spot to penetrate in a few days further than any of his predecessors, notwithstanding their unequalled perseverance and energy.

Within the last ten years the Norwegians, like the Dutch walrus-hunters of old, have been making continual inroads into the Kara Sea. This has been principally due to the discovery of rich fishing-grounds in that direction. The first of these Norwegian explorers was Captain Carlsen. With a small fishing-boat of Hammerfest he sailed through Pet Strait, and, following the Siberian coast, he reached White Island, near the mouth of the Obi river, without having fallen in with any signs of ice. It was, indeed, a bold undertaking to penetrate thus with so small a boat into the Kara Sea; but Captain Carlsen was fully rewarded for the risk he had run, in making a vast capture of blubber-yielding animals, which handed him over a profit of £1,100.

The voyage of the intrepid English walrus-hunter, Captain Palliser, who in that same season sailed as far as the north coast of Novaya Zemlya, was of no less importance. Being about half a degree north of Cape Nassau, he fell in with extensive ice-fields, which, however, were soon broken up by stormy weather.

Captain Palliser writes:—

Captain Palliser then shaped his course south, came through Matthew’s Strait into the Kara Sea, and penetrated to within three or four miles of White Island.

However, both these voyages were surpassed in intrepidity by the interesting cruise of the Norwegian, Captain Johannesen.

On the 1st of May 1869, the schooner Nordland, Captain E. H. Johannesen, anchored at the Mersduscharsky Island, south of Kostin Shar. After sailing for some time in the direction of Burrough Strait, Captain Johannesen changed his course northwardly, and keeping the west coast continually in sight, he eventually passed Matthew’s Strait on the 9th of June.

Ten days later he was close to Cape Nassau, where he experienced a strong easterly current.

From here, turning south, the Nordland sailed on the 17th of July through Matthew’s Strait, and running south in the land-water along the east coast, Captain Johannesen was, on the 26th July, in Burrough Strait. At once he resolved to penetrate into the Kara Sea. He followed the low coast of the country of the Samoyeds in an easterly and afterwards north-easterly direction, and found himself on the 8th of August in the immediate neighbourhood of White Island without having been hindered by the ice. [xliii]

The day following he shaped his course north-west, and attained, on the 15th of August, the estimated latitude of 75° 6′ N. and 71° E. longitude, where he encountered his first ice. Thence, in a westerly direction, he returned to Novaya Zemlya, which he sighted on the 20th in 75° 10′ N. latitude and 64° E. longitude. He now sailed along the east coast, and passed through Burrough Strait on his homeward voyage. He had repeatedly encountered a heavy swell from the south-east, but had scarcely met with ice. He must, undoubtedly, have been close to Barendsz’s winter house, which is placed by Captain Carlsen in 76° 12′ N. latitude and 68° E. longitude.

Induced by these advantageous voyages, several Norwegian fishermen entered the Kara Sea in the following year.

Again the skilful Captain Johannesen made a cruise which almost surpassed his former one, having this time circumnavigated Novaya Zemlya, a feat never before achieved. He visited the east coast of that island, passing close to, but without perceiving, Barendsz’s winter quarters.

F. Torkildsen, commander of the schooner Alpha, was less fortunate. On the 24th of June he passed through Burrough Strait and entered the Kara Bay, where he, on the 13th of July, in 68° 40′ N. latitude and 68° E. longitude, lost his ship. The crew was, however, saved. Captain E. A. Ulve sailed with his schooner Samson along the west coast of Novaya Zemlya, and on the 1st of August attained the high [xliv]latitude of 76° 47′ in 59° 17′ E. longitude, without sighting any ice.

Entering on the 8th of August through Matthew’s Strait into the Kara Sea, and keeping between White Island and the Island of Vaigat, he, on the 24th of August, when homeward-bound, sailed through Burrough Strait.

F. E. Mack, with his schooner Polarstern, found, on the 5th of July, Matthew’s Strait blocked up with ice; but thirteen days afterwards he sailed through it, and after crossing the Kara Sea in all directions, returned on the 21st of August through Burrough Strait.

Another navigator, Captain P. Quale, pushed more eastwardly. With his yacht, the Johan Mary, he, in the latitude of 75° 20′ N., attained the longitude of 74° 35′, and thus found himself eastward of the meridian which goes across the mouth of the Obi River.

The following year, encouraged by the partial success of these cruises, we find the Norwegian seal-hunters again entering this new and prosperous ground. The southern entries being closed by the ice, the captains directed their course northwardly, in order to penetrate into the Kara Sea by rounding Novaya Zemlya.

Passing over in silence the cruises of Captain F. C. Mack and those of the brothers Johannesen, we come to the interesting voyage of Captain Carlsen, the first navigator, who, since 1597, has entered the Ice Harbour of Barendsz. Captain Elling Carlsen, with [xlv]his sloop The Solid, left the harbour of Hammerfest on the 22nd of May, 1871. When rounding the North Cape of Norway, he met with very heavy squalls and snow-storms from the north-west.

On the 28th he passed Vardo, and on the 10th of June, in 68° N. latitude and 40° 36′ E. longitude, at the northern outlet of the White Sea, he fell in with the first ice. On the 16th of June he met two other ships, of which the one had already killed five hundred and the other a thousand seals.

On the 19th of July Captain Carlsen reached the coast of Novaya Zemlya, in the neighbourhood of Mersduscharsky Island, and shaping his course towards the north, he passed Cape Nassau, rounded Novaya Zemlya, and anchored on the 18th of August at Cape Hooft, on the east coast.

On the 24th of August, when he had advanced in a southerly direction almost as far as 76° N. latitude, he observed much drift ice at a distance of forty miles from the coast.

On the 29th of August Carlsen again steered north, and anew anchored at Cape Hooft. North of Matthew’s Strait, Captain Carlsen had fallen in with Captain F. Mack, who was provided with better instruments, supplied by the Meteorological Institution at Christiania. By means of these instruments, both captains made very correct observations, with such success that they noted down the north-east point of Novaya Zemlya as lying in 67° 30′ E. longitude, instead of in 73°, as was given in the latest charts. They found that the land to the north-east [xlvi]of Novaya Zemlya lay pointing more towards the north than to the north-east, as given in the previous charts. These observations proved the calculations of the old Dutch navigators to have been perfectly correct, and restored to them the reputation of which they had been so long defrauded.

As for the subsequent part of Captain Carlsen’s voyage, we had better follow his own ship’s log. In it he says:—

Thus far, we have let the log speak for itself. After having quitted the house, Carlsen intended to return home by circumnavigating the island. Following, therefore, the east coast in a southerly direction, he soon passed several icebergs.

On the 16th of September he fell in with much ice, which probably by the west and north-west wind was driven from the land.

On the 18th it froze so stiff that they had to cut their way through the ice.

On the 19th, being becalmed, the ship could move neither forward nor backward. During the afternoon the wind freshened from the south-west, upon which they tried to approach nearer to the land.

On the 20th they had again to cut their way through the ice, which was already strong enough to bear them. Till eight o’clock in the evening they worked to reach a lead close to the land.

On the 21st, Carlsen, in about 74° N. latitude, was, during a storm from the north-east, in great danger of losing his ship. Closed in by the ice, he drifted that and both the following days with the ice, in a south-western direction, during which time he could see from the crow’s nest open water towards the north-east and east. Not before the 30th of [xlix]September, in 72° 25′ N. latitude, did he again succeed in reaching open water, thus, fortunately, escaping a fate similar to that of Barendsz.

The 3rd of October he sailed through Burrough Strait, and anchored on the 4th of November at Hammerfest, thanking God for his prosperous voyage. Thus Carlsen (like a true seaman) ends his log.

News of the discovery, by Captain Elling Carlsen, of a great number of relics on the beach of Ice Harbour, was soon spread in Hammerfest. In consequence, on the 12th of November, 1871, in the Hammerfest newspaper called Finmarksposten, there appeared a leading article entitled “Captain Elling Carlsen’s Voyage around Novaya Zemlya”. A detailed account was given in it of the old Dutch voyages towards the north-east. Notwithstanding some faults, the article was in its main points correct, and proved that in the far North of Europe the expeditions of Barendsz had attained a legendary celebrity.

About the discovery of the winter quarters at Novaya Zemlya the Finmarksposten communicates a few details which seem to have been given to the writer by Carlsen himself.

Such are the particulars about the discovery of the relics in the winter-house of Novaya Zemlya.

Up to February 1872, the public in Holland remained ignorant of the discovery of the winter quarters of Barendsz, and that several objects, including a few books written in the Dutch language, were brought home. This news, however, when spread, caused a general sensation throughout the Netherlands, and measures were immediately taken by the Government to obtain possession of these interesting relics. Information was at once obtained as to their whereabouts, and it became known that they were already in the possession of Mr. Ellis C. Lister Kay, who, travelling as an English tourist in Norway, and being by chance at Hammerfest on the arrival of Carlsen, had immediately bought them. Upon learning the interest which the Netherlands Government took in these relics, Mr. Kay kindly gave them [lii]up, accepting only the same amount as he had given to obtain possession of them. This courteous behaviour of Mr. Kay restored to the native land of the great explorer these precious relics, which had remained hidden for nearly three centuries. They were afterwards deposited in the model-room of the Naval Department at the Hague, where a model-house, having an open front, has been constructed for their reception. This is an exact imitation of the original at Novaya Zemlya. There these old and touching memorials of a noble achievement have found a final resting-place in the worthy company of a number of ancient objects, which each for itself silently points to some one of the many glorious pages in the annals of Dutch naval history. To demonstrate that these objects found by Captain Carlsen originally appertained to Barendsz and his companions, Mr. De Jonge says:—

On the 17th of August, 1875, M. Gundersen, commander of the Norwegian schooner Regina, was the first after Carlsen who visited Barendsz’s Ice Harbour. In a chest, the upper part of which was quite mouldered, he found an old journal, two charts, and a grapnel with four flukes, three of which seemed to have been purposely broken off. The charts, pasted upon sail-cloth, are much injured. The words “Germania inferior” may be read on them. The journal has proved to be a manuscript Dutch translation of the narrative of the English expedition of Pet and Jackman, 1580.

For the numerous abridgements and summaries of De Veer’s work, I refer to the learned book of Mr. P. A. Fiele, at Leyden, entitled Mémoire Bibliographique sur les journaux des Navigateurs Néerlandais: Amsterdam, 1867. [lxiii]

BY

CHARLES J. BEKE, Phil.D.

The three voyages undertaken by the Dutch, towards the close of the sixteenth century, with a view to the discovery of a north-east passage to China, are deservedly placed among the most remarkable exploits of that enterprising nation; while the ten months’ residence of the adventurous seamen at the furthest extremity of the inhospitable region of Novaya Zemlya, within little more than fourteen degrees of the North Pole, and their homeward voyage of upwards of seventeen hundred geographical miles in two small open boats, are events full of romantic interest.

The republication by the Hakluyt Society of the narrative of these three voyages, is most appropriate at this particular juncture, when public attention is so painfully absorbed by apprehensions as to the fate of Franklin and his companions. At all times would this work be read with interest, as giving in plain and simple language, which vouches for its truth, the first account of a forced winter residence in the Arctic Regions, patiently and resolutely endured and successfully terminated; but at the present moment it acquires a far deeper importance from its representation—faint, perhaps, and wholly inadequate to the reality—of the hardships which must have been undergone by our missing countrymen; happy if some of them shall have survived, like Gerrit de Veer, to tell the tale of their sufferings and of their final deliverance from their long captivity. [lxiv]

In adverting to the causes which led to these three expeditions, it would be quite superfluous to enter upon the general history of Arctic discovery. All that is requisite for the proper elucidation of the present subject, is an investigation of the actual state of our knowledge respecting the precise field of the labours of our Dutch navigators, previously to the date of their adventurous undertaking.

Three centuries have now elapsed since the first attempt was made to discover a north-east passage to China and India. The circumstances under which this took place, cannot be better detailed than in the words of Clement Adams, in his account of “the newe Nauigation and discouerie of the kingdome of Muscouia, by the north-east, in the yeere 1553”, which is printed by Hakluyt in the first volume of his Principal Navigations.

The three vessels thus fitted out sailed in company from Ratcliff on the 10th of May, 1553. On their arrival at Harwich, they were detained there some time; “yet at the last with a good winde they hoysed vp saile, and committed themselues to the sea, giuing their last adieu to their natiue country, which they knewe not whether they should euer returne to see againe or not. Many of them looked oftentimes backe, and could not refraine from teares, considering into what hazards they were to fall, and what vncertainties of the sea they were to make triall of.”3

These gloomy forebodings were not long in finding their realization. In a violent tempest off the coast of Norway, two of the vessels, the Bona Esperanza and Bona Confidentia, in the former of which was Sir Hugh Willoughby, captain-general of the fleet, were driven far out to sea, and at length put into a small haven on the coast of Lapland, near the mouth of the river Warsina,4 where the entire crews of [lxvi]both vessels, amounting in all to seventy souls, miserably perished from cold and hunger.

Before meeting with his untimely end, Willoughby, on the 14th of August, “descried land, which land (he says, in a note found written in one of the two ships) we bare with all, hoising out our boat to discover what land it might be; but the boat could not come to land, the water was so shoale, where was very much ice also, but there was no similitude of habitation; and this land lyeth from Seynam5 east and by north 160 leagues, being in latitude 72 degrees. Then we plyed to the northward”.6 As the subject of Willoughby’s voyage has been discussed by Mr. Rundall in a recent publication of the Hakluyt Society,7 it is here unnecessary to say more than that, whatever may formerly have been the notions of geographers as to the coast reached by our hapless countryman, and to which the name of “Willoughby’s Land” was given, the almost universally received opinion now is8 that it was that portion of the western coast of Novaya Zemlya, which is called by Lütke the Goose Coast (Gänseufer in Erman’s Translation9),—doubtless from the numbers of water-fowl found there,—and of which the North and South Goose Capes (Syevernuy Gusinuy Muis and Yuzhnuy Gusinuy Muis) form the two extremities. Mr. Rundall is therefore fully justified in claiming for Sir Hugh Willoughby, as he so earnestly does in his work just cited,10 “the credit of having been the first Englishman by whom the coast of Novaya Zemlya was visited”; and as, further, Willoughby was not only the first Englishman, but also the first European, who had ever been there, the rule and usual practice in regard to new discoveries fairly warrants the application [lxvii]of the name of “Willoughby’s Land” to this “Goose Coast”, which our countryman was thus the first to visit and make known to us.

In thus attributing the discovery of Novaya Zemlya to Sir Hugh Willoughby, it is in no wise intended to deny that that island—or chain of islands, as it may be more correctly designated—was previously known to the inhabitants of the northern coasts of Russia. The name itself,—Novaya Zemlya, which in the Russian language signifies “the New Country” or “Newfoundland”,—and the fact that the early European navigators, both English and Dutch, who followed in Willoughby’s footsteps, met with native vessels on the coast, from the crews of which they learned their way and obtained various particulars of local information, are quite sufficient to establish the priority of the Russians.

Still, the discovery of a country, like any other discovery or invention in science or the arts, dates properly from the time when the knowledge of that discovery is first recorded and publicly communicated to the civilised world; and in this sense even the Russian admiral Lütke,11 the great explorer of Novaya Zemlya in modern times, does not hesitate to acknowledge, that, owing to the absence of all written records bearing on the subject, his countrymen cannot pretend to lay claim to the “discovery” of Novaya Zemlya.

Richard Chancellor, pilot-major of Willoughby’s fleet, was far more fortunate than his hapless chief. In the third vessel, the Edward Bonaventure, commanded by Stephen Burrough, he succeeded in entering the Bay of St. Nicholas, since better known as the White Sea, and on the 24th of August, 1553, reached in safety the western mouth of the river Dwina, whence he proceeded overland to the court of the Emperor of Muscovy or Russia, at Moscow. The result was the foundation of the commercial and political relations [lxviii]between England and Russia, which have subsisted, with but brief interruptions, till the present day.

Shortly after Chancellor had brought his section of Willoughby’s expedition to so successful an issue, the company of merchant-adventurers, by whom the three ships had been fitted out, received a charter of incorporation, bearing date February 6th, 1 and 2 Ph. and Mar. (1554–5); and subsequently, in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth (1566), they obtained an Act of Parliament, in which they are styled “the Fellowship of English Merchants for Discovery of New Trades”; a title under which they still continue incorporated, though they are better known by the designation of the “Muscovy” or “Russia Company”.

It is not here the place to discuss the general proceedings of the Russia Company, important though they be, and highly deserving of being made the subject of special investigation. All that we have to do is to notice the expeditions which were undertaken under the auspices of that company, for the purpose of exploring the seas bounding the Russian Empire on the north, with a view to the discovery of a north-east passage to China.

Of these expeditions, the first was that of Stephen Burrough, who had in 1553 been the master of Richard Chancellor’s ship, the Edward Bonaventure, and who now, in 1556, was despatched in the pinnace Searchthrift to make discovery towards the river Ob.12

Leaving Gravesend on the 23rd of April of the latter year, Burrough, on the 23rd of May, passed the North Cape, which he had so named on his first voyage, and on the 9th of June reached Kola, where he fell in with several small Russian vessels (lodji), all “bound to Pechora, a fishing for salmons and morses”.13 The master of one of these boats, named Gabriel, rendered good service to Burrough, who is [lxix]diffuse in his praise of Gabriel’s conduct, as contrasted with that of other Russian seamen with whom he had to do.

In the company of these native boats Burrough passed by Svyátoi Nos, called by him Cape St. John; Kanin Nos (Caninoz); the island of Kolguev, by mistake called in his journal Dolgoieue; then the second Svyátoi Nos, and so to “the dangerous barre of Pechora”. Passing still onwards, he, on St. James’s day, July 25th, “spied certain islands”, lying to the south of Novaya Zemlya, under one of which he anchored, naming it “St. James his Island”,14 and making its latitude to be 70° 42′ N., which according to Lütke15 is about 10′ too far north. The next day they “plyed to the westwards alongst the shoare” of the southern extremity of Novaya Zemlya, where they met with another small native vessel, the master of which, named Loshak, told them that they were past the way which should bring them to the Ob;—that the land by which they were was “called Noua Zembla, that is to say, the New Land;”—and that “in this Noua Zembla is the highest mountaine in the worlde, as he thought, and that Camen Bolshay,16 which is on the maine of Pechora, is not to be compared to this mountaine; but” (adds Burrough cautiously) “I saw it not”.17

On the 31st of July, Burrough was “at an anker among the islands of Vaigats”; on one of which islands he went on shore the following day. On Monday, the 3rd of August, he continues: “We weyed and went roome with another island, which was five leagues east-north-east from us; and there I met againe with Loshak, and went on shore with him, and hee brought me to a heap of the Samoeds idols, which were in number aboue 300, the worst and the most unartificiall worke that ever I saw. The eyes and mouthes of sundrie of them were bloodie; they had the shape of men, [lxx]women, and children, very grosly wrought; and that which they had made for other parts was also sprinckled with blood. Some of their idols were an olde sticke, with two or three notches made with a knife in it. I saw much of the footing of the sayd Samoeds, and of the sleds that they ride in.”18

These particulars clearly prove that the spot thus described by Burrough is Bolvánovsky Nos (Image Cape), at the north-eastern extremity of the island of Vaigats, in 70° 29′ N. lat., which place, according to Lütke,19 was visited by Ivanov in 1824, and found to be in precisely the same state as represented by its English discoverer. There is a second cape of the same name at the south-eastern extremity of Vaigats Island, in 69° 40′ N. lat., which is the Afgodenhoeck (Idol Cape) of Linschoten and the Beeldthoeck (Image Cape) of De Veer, and which is described by the latter in his account of their second voyage, at pages 53 and 60 of the present volume. Lütke20 erroneously identifies this latter cape with the one discovered by Burrough; but this is evidently a mere oversight, as the two capes of the same name are distinctly laid down in his chart.

On the 5th of August, fearing to be hemmed in by the ice, which approached his ship in immense masses, Burrough returned westwards, and then southwards; and on the 22nd of the same month, on account of the north and north-easterly winds, the great quantity of ice, and the advanced season of the year, he determined on not attempting to proceed further to the east, but returned round Kanin Nos into the White Sea, and so to Kholmogorui (Colmogro), the Russian port on the Dwina previously to the foundation of Archangelsk,—Archangel, or Novo-Kholmogorui, as it was at first called,—where he arrived on the 11th of September.21

The passage by which Burrough thus sailed between [lxxi]Novaya Zemlya and Vaigats into the Sea of Kara, is that which by the Russians is called Karskoi Vorota—the Kara Gate or Strait; and as he was the first navigator who is recorded to have been there, he must be regarded as the “discoverer” of that Strait. And that he was so considered by his contemporaries is established by the fact, that, in the instructions given by the Russia Company, in 1580, to Pet and Jackman,22 that entrance into the Sea of Kara is actually denominated “Burrough’s Strait”.

For several years after Stephen Burrough’s voyage in the Searchthrift, the Russia Company appear to have directed their attention principally to the trade with the White Sea, and thence, overland, with the interior of the continent both in Europe and in Asia. Still, it must not be imagined that they at all abandoned the idea of a north-east passage to China. On the contrary, there is evidence in the instructions given by them on the fitting out of two expeditions, at intervals of twelve years each, that the subject was not lost sight of by them, and that they neglected no means of obtaining information, with a view to the eventual realisation of the scheme which was their principal object in the original formation of the company.

The former of these two expeditions was in the year 1568, when James Bassendine, James Woodcocke, and Richard Browne were appointed to undertake a voyage of discovery along the northern coast of Russia, “from the river Pechora to the eastwards”. Of this undertaking no memorial appears to be extant, except the “Commission” issued to the adventurers; so that it is impossible to say what its success was. But the instructions contained in that Commission are in themselves of so interesting a character, as showing in a precise and definite form the extent of the knowledge of the Arctic Ocean to the east of the White Sea, possessed by the English at a date mounting up to nearly three centuries [lxxii]from the present time, that no apology will be necessary for here reprinting it from the pages of Hakluyt.23 It must be premised that the date attributed by that author to this document is 1588; which is, however, clearly a misprint. For, in the first place, it was in 1568 (not 1588) that Thomas Randolph, by whom the Commission was signed only a few days after his arrival in Russia,24 was appointed ambassador to that country, he having in the following year returned to England;25 while in the year 1588 it was Dr. Giles Fletcher who was our ambassador.26 And, secondly, this Commission, though appearing to bear the latter date, is placed by Hakluyt in chronological order among the documents of the year 1568.

As has already been stated, the results of this expedition are not known. We may, therefore, pass to the consideration of the voyage of Arthur Pet and Charles Jackman in the [lxxv]year 1580. For this undertaking written instructions were in like manner given by the Russia Company, which have also been preserved by Hakluyt.29 But as these instructions correspond in many respects with those given to Bassendine and his companions, it is here unnecessary to cite more from them than some few passages requiring particular notice.

The Commission from the Russia Company to Pet and Jackman was “for a voyage by them to be made, by God’s grace, for search and discoueries of a passage by sea by Borough’s Streights and the island Vaigats, eastwards to the countries or dominions of the mightie prince, the emperour of Cathay, and in the same unto the cities of Cambalu and Quinsay, or to either of them”. And for that purpose they were directed to “saile from this river of Thames to the coast of Finmarke, to the North Cape there, or to the Wardhouse”; and from thence, continued their instructions, “direct your course to haue sight of Willoughbies Land, and from it passe alongst to the Noua Zemla, keeping the same landes alwayes in your sight on your larboord sides (if conueniently you may), to the ende you may discouer whether the same Willoughbies Land be continent and firme land with Noua Zemla or not; notwithstanding we would not haue you to entangle your selues in any bay, or otherwise, so that it might hinder your speedy proceeding to the Island Vaigats.

“And when you come to Vaigats, we would haue you to get sight of the maine land of Samoeda, which is ouer against the south part of the same island, and from thence, with God’s permission, to passe eastwards alongst the same coast, keeping it alwayes in your sight (if conueniently you may) untill you come to the mouth of the riuer Ob: and when you come unto it, passe ouer the said riuers mouth unto the border of land on the east side of the same (without any [lxxvi]stay to bee made for searching inwardly in the same riuer), and being in sight of the same easterly land, doe you, in Gods name, proceed alongst by it from thence eastwards, keeping the same alwayes on your starboord side in sight, if you may, and follow the tract of it, whether it incline southerly or northerly (as at times it may do both), untill you come to the country of Cathay, or the dominion of that mightie emperour.”30 But in case they should not be able to reach Cathay, they were directed to attempt to ascend the river Ob; and if they should not succeed in this, they were then to “returne backe through Boroughs Streights”, and “discouer and trie whether Willoughbies Land ioyne continent with Noua Zembla or not”.31

In pursuance of these instructions, Pet and Jackman sailed from Harwich on the 31st of May, 1580, in two small barks: namely, the George, of the burthen of forty tons, under the command of the former, with a crew of nine men and a boy, and the William, of twenty tons, commanded by the latter, with a crew of five men and a boy. On June 23rd they reached Wardhuus, which place they left in company on the 1st of the following month. On the next day, however, as the William seemed “to be out of trie and sailed very ill”, she “was willing to goe with Kegor”, where she might mend her steerage; “whereupon Master Pet, not willing to go into harborough, said to Master Jackman that if he thought himselfe not able to keepe the sea, he should doe as he thought best, and that he in the meane time would beare with Willoughbies Land, for that it was a parcel of our direction, and would meete him at Veroue Ostroue, or Vaigats”.32

The name of Veroue Ostroue, here given to the island of Vaigats, does not occur elsewhere. It is manifestly Russian; though it is difficult to say what is its correct form, and consequently [lxxvii]what its signification. As to the designation by which that island is generally known, Witsen states, though without further explanation, that it was acquired from one Iwan or Ian Waigats;33 in commenting on which statement, Lütke says that the name should properly be written Waigatsch, the Russian termination tsch having been changed by the Dutch into tz, in the same way as in Pitzora for Petschora, etc.34 The correctness of this criticism is, however, questionable. For, long before the Dutch visited or knew anything of these parts, we find Englishmen,—who certainly had no difficulty in pronouncing the sound ch (tsch), which is common to our language, and who in fact always wrote Pechora (Petschora), and not, like the Dutch, Pitzora,—invariably writing not Vaigach (Vaigatsch), but Vaigats or Vaygatz. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Vaigats is the original pronunciation of the name, and that the Russian form is merely a corruption.

But to return to Pet, who after parting from Jackman continued his course eastwards, apparently following in Willoughby’s track, till, on the 4th of July, he saw land in latitude 71° 38′ north, being the coast of Novaya Zemlya, somewhere about the South Goose Cape. Thence he coasted along the south-western end of Novaya Zemlya, keeping the same in sight on the larboard side, as instructed to do, but not nearing it, on account of ice and fog.35 On the 10th of July, he approached the north-western extremity of Vaigatz Island, and landed on a small island near the coast, where he took in wood and water.36 Here he remained till the 14th, when he got out with difficulty on account of the ice, and “lay along the coast north-west, thinking it to be an island; but finding no end in rowing so long”, he “supposed it to be the maine of Noua Zembla”, in which, however, he was in error, and thereby missed the entrance into the Sea of [lxxviii]Kara by Burrough’s Strait. He now altered his course, and on the 15th “lay south south-west with a flawne sheete, and so ranne all the same day”; and, after meeting with much more ice, he on the 17th came into the “Bay of Pechora”. Thence, again taking an eastward course, he on the 18th had sight of the southern extremity of Vaigatz, and on the following day entered the passage running between that portion of the island and the main land of the Samoede country; to which passage the Dutch, in the voyages which form the subject of the following pages, gave the name of “the Straits of Nassau”, and which the Russians call Yugorsky Schar, that is to say, the Ugorian Strait. Nevertheless, if the first European explorer on record be entitled to the credit of his discovery, this entrance into the Sea of Kara ought to bear the name of “Pet’s Strait,” in like manner as the passage into that sea at the other extremity of Vaigatz Island received the name of “Burrough’s Strait”.

From the 19th till the 24th of July, Pet endeavoured to make his way eastwards in accordance with his instructions, by keeping “the maine land of Samoeda” always in sight on his starboard side, but was constantly impeded by the ice. At length he was “constrained to put into the ice, to seeke some way to get to the northwards of it, hoping to haue some cleare passage that way, but there was nothing but whole ice.”37

Meanwhile, Jackman and his crew of five men and a boy, in their frail bark of twenty tons, had gallantly followed after the George, and on the morning of the 25th July the two vessels again joined company, the William being, however, in so disabled a state when she reached her companion, as to require assistance from the latter. The two vessels now “set saile to the northwardes, to seeke if they could finde any way cleare to passe to the eastward; but the [lxxix]further they went that way, the more and thicker was the ice, so that they coulde goe no further.”38

At length, seeing the impossibility of advancing either to the east or to the north, on the 28th of July “Master Pet and Master Jackman did conferre together what was best to be done, considering that the windes were good for us, and we not able to passe for ice: they did agree to seeke to the land againe, and so to Vaygatz, and then to conferre further. At 3 in the afternoone, we did warpe from one piece of ice to another, to get from them if it were possible: here were pieces of ice so great that we could not see beyond them out of the toppe.”39

It was only with the greatest difficulty and peril that they occasionally made their way through the ice, in which for the most part they remained so enclosed “that they could not stirre, labouring onely to defend the yce as it came upon them”; but at length, on the 15th of August, “they entred into a cleare sea without yce, whereof they were most glad, and not without cause, and gave God the praise”.40 On the day after, they say, “we were troubled againe with ice, but we made great shift with it: for we gotte betweene the shoare and it. This day, at twelue of the clocke, we were thwart of the south-east part of Vaigats, all along which part there was great store of yce, so that we stood in doubt of passage; yet by much adoe we got betwixt the shoare and it.”41

They now bore away to the west, passing by the island of Kolguev (Colgoyeue), on the sands to the south of which both vessels went aground, on August 20th, in latitude 68° 40′ N., according to their calculation. Getting off, they proceeded together on their return voyage; but, only two days afterwards, Pet’s vessel parted from the William, and saw her no more.42 [lxxx]

Arthur Pet, in the George, reached home in safety, arriving at Ratcliff on the 26th December following; but “the William, with Charles Jackman, arrived at a port in Norway between Tronden and Rostock in October 1580, and there did winter. And from thence departed againe in Februarie following, and went in company of a ship of the King of Denmarke toward Island; and since that time he was never heard of.”43

This voyage of Pet and Jackman has been noticed more in detail than might otherwise have been necessary, for the purpose of defending those able seamen from the animadversions of a recent historian, who says: “From the meagre narrative of this voyage it is sufficiently evident that Pet and Jackman were but indifferent navigators, and that they never trusted themselves from the shore and out of shallow water, whenever the ice would suffer them to approach it; a situation of all others, where they might have made themselves certain of being hampered with ice.”44 It will, however, in the first place, have been seen that their express instructions were that they should follow the line of the Siberian coast, keeping it always in sight on their starboard side, which instructions they appear to have obeyed to the utmost of their ability. And, secondly, it was not so much the fixed ice along the coast which impeded their progress, as the immense masses of floating ice from the Polar Basin which had drifted into the Sea of Kara; for, on more than one occasion, it was precisely by getting into the shallow water, “between the shore and the ice”, that they were enabled to effect a passage, which in deeper water, where the ice-masses could float, was denied to them. The fact is that it was from no want of either knowledge or skill that they were unsuccessful, but from the like unsurmountable natural causes which, fifteen years later, compelled the Dutch [lxxxi]fleet under Cornelius Nai to turn back from somewhere about the same spot;45 and, as Captain Beechey justly observes, “to this day the hardy Russians have not been able to survey the eastern side of Nova Zembla; and the ships which passed through the Waigatz Strait have never been able to proceed far, owing to the quantity of ice driven into the Sea of Kara”.46

Further, when it is considered who these experienced seamen were, it will at once be manifest that under no circumstances ought they to be stigmatised as “indifferent navigators”. Arthur Pet was with Richard Chancellor and Stephen Burrough in the Edward Bonaventure, on their first voyage to the Bay of St. Nicholas in 1553, his name standing in the list of “mariners” sixth before that of William Burrough47 (Stephen’s brother). Seven years afterwards, in 1560, he commanded the Jesus, of London, in the service of the Russia Company.48 And now, twenty years later, in the year 1580, a convincing proof is afforded of the estimation in which he was held, by the interest taken in him and his expedition by several of the most distinguished navigators and cosmographers of his time. For, in addition to his Commission from his employers, in whose service he had been seven-and-twenty years,—whether constantly or not is immaterial,—he received “Instructions and Notes”49 from “Master William Burrough”, Comptroller of the Navy, who had been his messmate seven-and-twenty years before, together with “Certaine briefe aduices giuen by Master Dee”,50 as also “Notes in writing, besides more priuie by mouth, that were giuen by M. Richard Hakluyt, of Eiton, in the countie of Hereford, esquire”;51 and, further, his voyage [lxxxii]was deemed of sufficient importance to form the subject of a letter to Hakluyt himself from the learned Gerard Mercator.52

Of Charles Jackman we do not know so much. Yet he, too, had clearly had experience in Arctic exploration, having been “the mate” on board the Ayde, one of the vessels of Frobisher’s second expedition, when he was of sufficient importance to give his name to “Jackman’s Sound”, on the south side of Frobisher’s Strait.53 And it is not without significance that in all the documents above cited, except Mercator’s letter to Hakluyt, his name is coupled, without any distinction, with that of so old and experienced a navigator of the Russian Seas as Arthur Pet.

Notwithstanding the failure of Pet and Jackman’s undertaking, the Russia Company appear to have in no wise relaxed in their endeavours to effect a passage by sea along the northern coast of the Russian dominions. And that they were, to a considerable extent, successful in their exertions, is proved by the following two documents, which have been preserved to us by Purchas.54

From these documents we gather two very remarkable facts. The first is, that, previously to the year 1584, an English vessel had crossed the Sea of Kara, and penetrated as far eastward as the mouth of the river Ob, where it [lxxxvi]was wrecked and its crew were murdered by the natives. The second is, that, at that time, the best way from the White Sea and the mouth of the Pechora by sea was deemed to be “by the isles of Vaygats and Nouva Zembla, and by the Land of Matpheoue, that is, by Matthewes Land”; this being manifestly the same as that which is described as “another way by Noua Zembla and Mattuschan Yar to Ob, more north-eastward” than that along the Russian coast, by Kanin Nos, the mouth of the Pechora, and thence through Yugorsky Shar (“Pet’s Strait”) and across the Gulf of Kara. And there can be no question that we have here a record of the discovery of the entrance into the Sea of Kara by the strait, at present known by the name of Matochkin Shar, in which the Russian pilot Rosmuislov passed the winter of 1768–1769, and through which he penetrated into that sea, though prevented by the ice from proceeding far from the eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya.60

The singular description thus given by Marsh of this passage through “Mattuschan Yar”, between Novaya Zemlya and “the Land of Matfeov (Matpheoue)”, does not appear to have been hitherto noticed by any writer except Dr. Hamel.60 Unfortunately, that author, through what would seem to be a systematic omission of all particular reference to his sources of information, has rendered his work of little value as an authority; inasmuch as, without having the means of appeal to the originals, it is impossible to discriminate between the facts and opinions gathered by him from others, and the conclusions, or sometimes mere hypotheses, based by himself on such information.

On the present occasion, however, having the original statements of Anthony Marsh before us, we can have no hesitation in availing ourselves of Dr. Hamel’s comments on the same, and in agreeing with him61 that the present name Matochkin Shar appears to be merely a corruption of Matyushin [lxxxvii]Shar; Matyusha itself being the diminutive of the Russian proper-name Matvei, or Matthew, which name was probably that of the first discoverer of this passage. It would also seem that the expression “Mattuschan Yar”, made use of by Anthony Marsh, is intended for this Matyushin Shar, and not, as Dr. Hamel supposes,62 for the coast (yar?) lying opposite to Novaya Zemlya; and that the breadth attributed by Marsh to “Mattuschan Yar”, of “in some parts forty versts over, and in some parts not past six versts over”, is meant to apply to the supposed breadth of the passage itself.

There can, further, be no doubt that Dr. Hamel is right in his conclusion,—indeed, it is self-evident from Marsh’s statement,—that towards the close of the sixteenth century, and previously to the time when the Dutch visited those parts, Novaya Zemlya was looked on as an island extending from Burrough’s Strait (Karskoi Vorota) as far northwards only as “Mattuschan Yar” (Matyushin Shar): and that the land lying to the north of this latter passage was not deemed to be a part of Novaya Zemlya, but had a distinct designation, namely, Matthew’s Land, which in Russian would be Matvyéeva Zemlya,—an expression which corresponds precisely with Marsh’s “Land of Matfeov (Matpheoue)”.

How this Matvyéeva Zemlya, together with Matyushin Shar, should have been lost from our maps, may be easily explained, though not altogether in the way attempted by Dr. Hamel.63 The accompanying fac-simile of a map drawn by Isaac Massa, and published in 1612 by Hessel Gerard, in a small volume64 now very rare, contains (as will be seen) [lxxxviii]a delineation of Novaya Zemlya, there shown as an island of not large extent, and the surrounding regions. The strongly marked entire line along the western side of Novaya Zemlya, is that of the coast as furnished to Massa by his Russian authorities: the faint dotted line is that of the coast as corrected by himself or Gerard from Dutch sources of information. The proper names, as written in strong and faint characters respectively, indicate, in like manner, the several sources from which such names were derived. In this map a broad channel is laid down between the island of Novaya Zemlya and a terra innominata to the north of it, to which channel is given the name of “Matsei of tsar”, which was evidently intended for “Matſeiof tsar”, which again must be taken to have been written instead of “Matfeiof tsar”, through a mere clerical error.65 The faint dotted line along the west coast of Novaya Zemlya shows that it had been carefully and (considering the time when it was drawn) very accurately corrected; for we there see plainly laid down the Mezhdusharsky Ostrov and the two inlets—Kostin Shar and Podryesov Shar—between which [lxxxix]that island lies, and from which it derives its appellation.66

Had the name Kostin Shar, in any of its chameleon forms,67 been retained in its proper place, at the same time that the new name Matfeiof tsar was introduced to designate the more northerly channel,—and the map constructed by Gerrit de Veer from William Barents’s observations, does not warrant the former’s being carried much higher up than the 71st parallel,—there would most probably have been no occasion to notice this grave error. But the passage between Novaya Zemlya (Proper) and Matvyéeva Zemlya not having been observed by Barents and his companions, and De Veer having in his journal expressed the opinion that “Constinsarck” goes “through to the Tartarian Sea”,68 the corrector of Massa’s map was led to suppose that this passage must be the same as the “Matfeiof tsar” of the Russians, and he accordingly placed over the latter the name “Costint sarch” in faint letters. That in subsequent maps the former name should have been omitted, and the latter alone retained, is only natural: it is the usual progress of error. Accordingly, in Gerard’s map of Russia, dedicated to the emperor Michael Fedorowich in 1614,69 we find “Costint sarch” made to extend right across and through the land from west to east, its latitude being, however, brought down to nearly the same as in Gerrit de Veer’s map, from which the western coast-line of Novaya Zemlya is, in [xc]general, taken, while the more northerly passage is altogether lost sight of.

Still, the existence of this latter passage continued to be known more than a century later. For, in the year 1705, Witsen published in the second volume of his Noord en Oost Tartarye, a rough and, for the most part, very incorrect map of the Samoede country, obtained by him from Theunis (Antonis) Ys, the master of a trading vessel, who had visited Novaya Zemlya; in which map the southern portion of that country is represented as an island, cut off from the northern and far larger portion by a broad channel, running from north-west to south-east, and bearing the name of “Matiskin jar, of Mathys-stroom”; with respect to which channel Witsen remarks,70 that “it is a passage and thoroughfare, and not an inlet or river”.

Notwithstanding the length of time during which the name has been lost, there does not appear to be any good reason why the original and correct designation of Matthew’s Strait, Matvyéeva Shar (“Matfeiof tsar”), or Matyushin Shar, should not be restored to the channel between the two islands, instead of its continuing to bear the modern corrupted form of the latter name, Matochkin Shar.

It likewise seems only right that the name Matthew’s Land (the “Land of Matpheoue”) or Matvyéeva Zemlya, should not be lost from our maps; and it is therefore proposed to appropriate that designation to the small island extending from Matyushin Shar (“Matochkin Shar”) northwards as far as the channel, in about 74° N. lat., running across the land from Cross Bay to Rosmuislov’s “Unknown Bay”.

As to the name Novaya Zemlya, there can be no doubt that it ought still to continue the generic appellation of the entire series of islands, of which the country usually known by that name is now found to consist. But, at the same [xci]time, as it is highly expedient that each of those islands should possess some distinctive specific designation, there is a propriety in restricting the title of Novaya Zemlya (Proper), as it appears in the map of Isaac Massa and Theunis Ys, to the southernmost island of the series, lying between the Kara Gate or Burroughs Strait to the south and Matyushin Shar or Matthew’s Strait to the north.

The establishment of the English in the White Sea, and their explorations to the eastwards, soon induced others to become their competitors; and of these it is not unnatural that the Russians themselves should have been among the first. Accordingly, we find that a short time previously to the year 1581, “two famous men”, named Yacovius and Unekius—which, as Lütke observes,71 are manifestly the Latinised forms of the Russian names Yakov and Anikyi—employed a Swedish shipwright to build for them two ships in the river Dwina, and then sent one Alferius, by birth a Netherlander (“natione Belga”), to Antwerp to engage pilots and mariners, with a view to their employment on board those ships in discoveries towards the north-east. This Alferius—or Oliver, as Hakluyt translates the name—was the bearer of a letter from John Balak to Gerard Mercator, which letter, written in Latin, was published by Hakluyt in his Principal Navigations,72 together with an English translation.

On account of the very curious matter bearing on our subject which this letter contains, it is thought advisable to reprint it here in its English form, and also to give the original Latin in the Appendix,73 for the convenience of reference. [xcii]

It is not known what success attended this Alferius or Oliver in his scheme, or what subsequently became of him; unless, indeed, it be assumed that he is the Oliver Brunel (or Bunel), concerning whom several unconnected notices are met with, and with respect to whom various conflicting opinions have been entertained. The early history of the discovery of Novaya Zemlya would hardly be complete were these notices and opinions passed over in silence.

The first mention made of this individual is by Gerrit de Veer, when speaking, in page 30 of the present work, of “a great creeke, which William Barents iudged to be the place where Oliuer Brunel had been before, called Costincsarch”.

The next is Henry Hudson, who, on his second voyage to discover a passage to the East Indies by the north-east, in 1608, having entered into this same creek, in the hope of its affording him a way through into the Sea of Kara, expresses himself as follows:—“This place vpon Noua Zembla is another then that which the Hollanders call Costing Sarch, discouered by Oliuer Brownell: and William Barentsons obseruation doth witnesse the same. It is layd in plot by the Hollanders out of his true place too farre north; to [xcvi]what end I know not, unlesse to make it hold course with the compasse, not respecting the variation.”79

In this, however, Hudson was mistaken. The creek into which he entered was really Kostin Shar; and his error in supposing it to be another “than that which the Hollanders call Costing Sarch”, arose from the circumstance that in the Dutch maps that name had been removed northwards to Matfeiov-tsar (Matvyéeva Shar) or Matyushin Shar, and made to supersede the original name. The whole of Hudson’s account of his visit to Novaya Zemlya is of so interesting a character, that it is deemed deserving of a place in the Appendix to the present work,80 especially as it has hitherto been either overlooked or else made use of to very little good purpose.

In 1611, three years after Hudson’s visit to Novaya Zemlya, Josiah Logan went on a voyage to the Pechora, and on the 27th of August of that year we find the following entry in his journal, which, like that of Hudson, is published by Purchas:81—“We came to an iland called Mezyou Sharry, being sixtie versts to the eastwards of Suatinose, and it is about ten versts in length and two versts broad. At the east end thereof Oliver Brunell was carried into harbour by a Russe, where he was land-locked, hauing the iland on the one side and the mayne on the other.” It is here manifest that Logan’s “Mezyou Sharry” Island is the Mezhdusharsky Ostrov, or “the island between the two straits”, of the Russians.82

From these several statements of three seamen, who visited Kostin Shar at different periods between the years 1594 and 1611, the only facts to be elicited are, that, at some time previous to the former date, this strait was first discovered by some well-known individual, named Oliver Brunel, who was there exposed to some danger or difficulty, [xcvii]from which he was rescued by the crew of a Russian vessel. That he was, however, subsequently lost at the mouth of the river Pechora is made known to us in the work of Hessel Gerard already referred to.83

As this work of Gerard is but little known, the commencement of the author’s Preface (Prolegomena) shall be reprinted here, both on account of its clearing up the history of Oliver Brunel, and also because it shows the important bearing which his adventure had on the subsequent voyages of the Dutch, which form the subject of the following pages.

Oliver Brunel, or “Bunel”, was therefore no Englishman, but a native of Brussels; and if the particulars thus recorded of him and of the motives of his enterprise be correctly stated, he would scarcely seem to be the Alferius of Balak’s letter to Mercator. Still, the point cannot be looked on as absolutely decided. One further remark is necessary with respect to the spelling of his name. On the one hand, it will be seen that, according to De Veer and Logan, it is “Brunel” or “Brunell”, while Hudson makes it to be “Brownell”, which latter may, however, be regarded as merely a broad pronunciation of the word, or perhaps an attempt to give it a vernacular and significant form;—a process with respect to proper names not unusual among seamen of all nations. On the other hand, Gerard writes [xcix]“Bunel”. But this form cannot be allowed to stand in opposition to the conjoint authority of the three seamen, all writing separately and without concert; and we may quite reasonably conjecture the r to have been left out by Gerard, through some clerical or typographical error.

Gerard’s work must have come to the knowledge of Purchas soon after its publication; for, in the year 1625, it is referred to by the latter86 as his authority for the following statement:—“The Dutch themselues87 write that after the English Russian trade, one Oliuer Bunell, moued with hope of gaine, went from Enckhuysen to Pechora, where he lost all by shipwracke, hauing discouered Costinsarca in Noua Zemla. These nauigations of the English, and that of Bunell, and the hopes of China and Cathay, caused the States Generall to send forth two shippes, vnder the command of Hugo Linschoten, to the Streights of Wey-gates, and two others, vnder William Bernards, by the perswasion of P. Plancius, to goe right northwards from Noua Zemla.”

Nearly a century later, Witsen, in his oft-cited work,88 writes as follows:—“Het zijn veele jaren geleden, en lange voor Willem Barents-zoons reis, dat eenen Olivier Bunel, met een scheepje van Enkhuizen uitgevaren, deze rivier [Petsora] heeft bezocht, daer hy veel pelterye, Rusch glas, en bergkristal vergaderd hadde; doch is aldaer komen te blyven.” Witsen does not cite any authority for this statement; [c]but it bears internal evidence of having been taken from Gerard, whose work we know he had before him. That both he and Purchas should have written the name “Bunel”, and not “Brunel”, is perfectly natural, and adds nothing to the weight of evidence in favour of the former spelling.

The next writer to be mentioned is Johann Reinhold Forster, who, in his Voyages and Discoveries in the North,89 after referring to De Veer’s statement respecting Oliver Brunel,—whom, however, he styles “Bennel”, on what authority it is impossible to say—adds in a note:—“It is manifest that the navigators mentioned here, who had been in Nova Zembla previous to Barentz’s arrival there, were Englishmen; for the name Oliver Bennel is entirely English, and the name of the inlet, which Barentz calls Constint Sarch, can hardly have been any other than Constant Search; but in which of the known voyages of the English into these parts this place was thus named, or whether Oliver Bennel made a voyage for the sole purpose of making discoveries, or was cast away here in his way to other regions, cannot easily be determined, for want of proper information on the subject.”

The absurdity of Forster’s derivation of the name Kostin Shar is manifest from the explanation of it given in page 30 (note 4) of the present work. And as to the allegation that “the name Oliver Bennel is entirely English”, it could only have been made by a foreigner. On the contrary, it may be asserted that such a name as “Bennel” is altogether un-English; and were it not for the cosmopolitan character of our English surnames, it might—had it really been that of the individual in question—in itself be fairly taken as evidence that he was not an Englishman. With much more reason might we, at the present day, claim “Brunel” as an English name. Probably Forster had in [ci]his mind the “entirely English” name of Stephen Bennet, the well-known walrus-hunter on Bear (Cherie) Island.

But the confusion as to Oliver Brunel does not rest here. Sir John Barrow, in his work already cited,90 says:—“The Dutch themselves admit, that an Englishman of the name of Brunell or Brownell, ‘moved with the hope of gain, went from Enkhuysen to Pechora’, where he lost all by shipwreck, after he had been on the coast of Nova Zembla, and given the name of Costin-sarca (qu. Coasting-search ?) to a bay situated in about 71½°.” And in another place,91 the same writer speaks of Oliver Brunel as “an Englishman, of whom a vague mention only is made by the Dutch.”

With the statements of the various writers who preceded Barrow before us, we can see at a glance, though no authorities are cited by him, that he took that of Purchas as his basis, modifying it by means of those of Hudson, Logan, and Forster. It is to be regretted that he did not refer to the original Dutch authority cited by Purchas.

The last modern writer who treats of Oliver Brunel is Dr. Hamel, who, assuming him to be the Alferius of Balak, makes him, in his work already cited,92 the subject of an hypothetical biographical memoir, beginning with the words, “Ich finde es wahrscheinlich”, but without seeming to be aware of what Gerard says respecting his hero, except so far only as it is repeated by Witsen. By this writer, therefore, no additional light is thrown on the subject now under consideration; and, in fact, it is to the original authority, after all, that we must revert for the only information that is really available and useful.

From this authority, then, we learn that Oliver Brunel, a native of Brussels, went in a vessel belonging to the town [cii]of Enkhuysen on a trading voyage into the Russian seas, where, after collecting a valuable cargo, he was lost; and that his enterprise (though unsuccessful), together with those of the English in the same quarter, induced the Dutch to set on foot the memorable expeditions which form the subject of the following pages. If this person was really the Alferius who was recommended by Balak to Mercator in the year 1581, he must subsequently have been engaged in the Russian trade for several years before his unlucky end; or else Gerard, writing in 1612, would surely not have named him as an immediate cause of an undertaking which was not projected till 1593.

It is not, however, to be imagined that the Netherlanders—we can scarcely speak of the “Dutch” at the earliest period to which we are now adverting—had no previous connexion with the northern coasts of Russia, though it is true that that connexion was then but of recent date. For, as is stated by Edge, the English Russia Company having “made their first discoverie in the yeere 1553, there was neuer heard of any Netherlander that frequented those seas vntil the yeere 1578. At which time they first began to come to Cola, and within a yeere or two after, one Iohn de Whale [de Walle], a Netherlander, came to the Bay of Saint Nicholas, being drawne thither by the perswasion of some English, for their better meane of interloping; which was the first man of that nation that euer was seene there.”93 It was this same John de Walle, who was afterwards present at the coronation of the Emperor Fedor Ivanovich, at Moscow, on the 10th of June, 1584, when he had a dispute with Jerome Horsey, the English ambassador, as to precedency, which was decided by the emperor in favour of the latter. He is described by Horsey as “a famous merchant of Netherland, being newly come to [ciii]Mosco, who gaue himselfe out to be the king of Spaines subiect.”94

It is unnecessary, for the consideration of the subject before us, to enter into any details respecting the commercial and political relations with Russia of the Netherlanders generally, in the first instance, and eventually of the natives of the United Provinces—commonly, though not very correctly, called the Dutch—in particular. It is sufficient to remark, that after their first entrance into the White Sea, they soon became powerful rivals of the English in the trade with Russia, and that it was also not long before their attention was directed to the extension of their commerce to the eastward of that country, and to the endeavour to reach China and the Indian Seas by a passage to the north-east.

Among the earliest and most eminent Dutch merchants trading to the White Sea, was Balthazar Moucheron, of the town of Middelburg, in Zeelandt. He it was, who, in the year 1593, in conjunction with Jacob Valck, treasurer of the same town, and Dr. Francis Maelson, of Enkhuysen, syndic of West Friesland, conceived the project of fitting out two fly-boats (vlyboots), each of between fifty and sixty lasts, or about one hundred tons, burthen, armed and provisioned for eight months, being one from each of those towns, to attempt a voyage to China and India by the way of the Northern Ocean. In this enterprise they were assisted by the courts of admiralty of those two provinces, having first obtained the necessary permission from the higher authorities.95

The two vessels thus fitted up were the Swan (Swane),96 [civ]of Ter Veere, in Zeelandt, under the command of Cornelis Corneliszoon Nai (or Nay), a burgher of Enkhuysen, who had for some years been a pilot or master of a merchantman in the Russian trade, in Moucheron’s service, and was well acquainted with the northern coasts of Europe; having with him, as under-pilot or mate, Pieter Dirckszoon Strickbolle, also of Enkhuysen, and, like Nai, in the service of Moucheron. The other vessel was the Mercury (Mercurius), of Enkhuysen, under the command of Brant Ysbrantszoon, otherwise Brant Tetgales, a skilful and experienced seaman, with Claes Corneliszoon as his mate or under-pilot; both being likewise natives of Enkhuysen. As supercargo and interpreter on board the Swan went François de la Dale, a relative of Moucheron, who had resided several years in Russia, and as additional interpreter, “Meester” Christoffel Splindler, a Slavonian by birth, who had studied in the university of Leyden; while on board the Mercury the supercargo was John Hugh van Linschoten,97 who was likewise engaged to keep a journal of their proceedings.

This movement on the part of the merchants of Middelburg and Enkhuysen had the effect of inducing those of Amsterdam to desire to participate in the enterprise, or, it should rather be said, to undertake one on their own account, having the same general object in view, but adopting a somewhat different mode of carrying it out. Instead of attempting a way to China by passing between Novaya Zemlya and the Russian continent, the Amsterdammers, at the instance of the celebrated cosmographer and astronomer, Peter Plancius, decided on sending their vessel round to the north of Novaya Zemlya, as offering a far easier and preferable route. This difference of opinion between the promoters of the two parts of the first expedition must be borne in mind, as explaining several circumstances which, [cv]in the course of our subsequent narrative, will have to be adverted to. A third vessel was accordingly fitted out by the merchants of Amsterdam, aided by the court of admiralty there. It was of the same size and character as the other two, and like Tetgales’s vessel was named the Mercury (Mercurius);98 its command being entrusted to William Barents,99 who took with him also a fishing-boat belonging to Ter Schelling.100

Before proceeding further, a few words must be said respecting the individual whose name has become inseparably associated with the three memorable expeditions, of which the first is now under consideration.

Willem Barentszoon—that is to say, William, the son of Barent or Bernard—was a native of Ter Schelling, an island belonging to the province of Friesland, and lying to the north-east of Vlieland or ’tVlie. He was also a burgher of Amsterdam. Of his family and early life no particulars have been handed down to us. But that he was not of any considerable family is manifest from his having, like most of his countrymen in the lower, or even the middle ranks of life, no other surname than the patronymic, Barents-zoon. He possessed, however, a good, if not a learned education, as is proved by the translation made by him from the High Dutch into his native tongue of the “Treatise of Iver Boty, a Gronlander,” which together with a note written by him on the tides in the Sea of Kara, was found by Purchas [cvi]“amongst Master Hakluyt’s paper,” and preserved by him, and which, following that laborious collector’s example, we have “thought good to adde hither for Barents or Barentsons sake.”101 He appears also to have written the narrative of the first voyage, which was published by Gerrit de Veer, and of which a translation is given in the present volume. Nothing to that effect is stated by De Veer; but as the latter did not go on that voyage, he must necessarily have obtained the particulars of it from some one who did, and from Linschoten’s statement102 it may be inferred that this was Barents himself.

But whatever may have been Barents’s general education, it is unquestionable that he was a man of considerable capacity and talent, and that as a seaman he was possessed of far more than ordinary acquirements. By Linschoten he is described as having great knowledge of the science of navigation, and as being a practical seaman of much experience and ability; his astronomical observations have stood the severest tests of modern science; while his feats of seamanship will bear comparison with those of the ablest and most daring of our modern navigators. Of his great determination, perseverance, and indomitable courage, some remarkable instances will be adduced; and that his personal character, and general conduct, were such as to secure to him the respect, confidence, and attachment of those who sailed with him, is clearly manifest from various expressions in Gerrit de Veer’s simple narrative, and from its tone throughout.

The name of this able navigator has been written in various ways. The Dutch usually have Barentsz., which has been adopted in the notes on Phillip’s text in the [cvii]present volume, it being the usual native contraction of the full name, Barentszoon. In the Amsterdam Latin and French versions of De Veer’s work, the name is translated “filius Bernardi,” and “fils de Bernard”. Purchas and other early English writers, have Barents or Barentson, and sometimes even Bernardson. The first of these forms—namely, Barents—is most conformable to the genius of our language (in which we have Williams and Williamson, Richards and Richardson, etc.), at the same time that it accords with that of the Dutch, in which language this form of name is not uncommon. Barentz and Barentzen, as it has not unfrequently been written, are incorrect.

On the 4th of June, 1594, the little fleet lying off Huysdunen, by the Texel, the commander of the Swan, Cornelis Nai, was named admiral or commodore, and an agreement made103 that they should keep company as far as Kildin, on the coast of Lapland. On the following morning, being Sunday, the admiral set sail, commanding the others to follow; but as the Amsterdammers said they were not quite ready, they remained behind, though, as appears from their journal,104 they too sailed in the course of the same day. On the 21st, the Mercury of Enkhuysen arrived at Kildin, on the 22nd, the Swan, and on the 23rd, Barents’ two vessels. On the 29th of the same month Barents left Kildin on his separate voyage to Novaya Zemlya, arranging with the others that, in case they should not meet beyond that country, but should have to return, they would wait for one another at Kildin till the end of September. On the 2nd of July the ships of Nai and Tetgales took their departure for Vaigats.

For want of taking a comprehensive view of this, and the subsequent voyages in which Barents was engaged, most writers on the subject have fallen into considerable [cviii]error. By some the two expeditions of Nai and Barents have been treated as totally distinct; while by others Barents has been regarded as the chief commander of the whole. Thus, Blaeu, in the first part of his Grand Atlas,105 published at Amsterdam in 1667, speaks of this expedition in the following terms:—“Dans cette grande entreprise, la ville d’Amsterdam, aujourd’huy la plus puissante des sept Provinces unies, se porta des premières, et fournit deux vaisseaux, qui furent accompagnez d’un troisiesme de Zelande et d’un quatrième d’Enchuse, tous quatre excellemment equippez, et qui eurent pour principal gouverneur et pilote tres-expert Guillaume fils de Bernard.” It would be a mere loss of time to refer to what other writers have said on the subject.

The voyage of William Barents in the Mercury of Amsterdam, forms the subject of the “First Part” of the present volume. Without entering here into any needless repetition of the particulars of this voyage, it shall be merely remarked that on the 4th of July, Barents first came in sight of Novaya Zemlya in 73° 25′ N. lat., near a low projecting point, called by him Langenes, whence he proceeded northwards along the coast, till, on the 10th of the same month, he passed Cape Nassau.106 Thus far he had met with no obstacle to his progress. But during the night of the 13th he fell in with immense quantities of ice, and here his difficulties began. After vainly endeavouring to make his way through the ice, he, on the 19th of the month, found himself again close to the land about Cape Nassau.107 Nothing daunted, he once more struggled forwards, and at length, on the last day of July, reached the Islands of Orange. Here, “after he had taken all that paine, and finding that he could hardly get through to accomplish and ende his intended voyage, his men also beginning to bee weary and would saile no further, they all [cix]together agreed to returne back againe.”108 On the following day, therefore, they commenced their homeward voyage, and on the 3rd of August they reached Cape Nassau.

From a perusal of the mere dry details of their various courses in this part of their voyage, which are nearly all that is recorded in their journal, no idea could be formed of the difficulties they had to contend with, or the amount of labour actually performed. It is only when their track is laid down on the map,—as it has been, most carefully and with all possible accuracy, by Mr. Augustus Petermann,—that their enormous exertions become apparent. The result is really astonishing. Their voyage from Cape Nassau to the Orange islands and back occupied them from the 10th of July till the 3rd of August, being twenty-five days. During this period, Barents put his ship about eighty-one times, and sailed 1,546 geographical miles, according to the distances noted in the journal; to which, however, must be added the courses sailed along the coast, and also those which in some instances have been omitted to be specified, so that it may be reasonably assumed that the entire distance gone over was not much (if anything) short of 1,700 miles. This is equal to the distance from the Thames to the northern extremity of Spitzbergen, or from Cape Nassau to Cape Yakan, not far from Bering’s Strait. And all this was performed in a vessel of one hundred tons’ burthen, accompanied by a fishing smack!

One remarkable fact must not be omitted to be mentioned. On laying down Barents’s track from the bearings and distances given in his journal, from the 10th to the 19th of July, being the interval between his passing Cape Nassau, and being driven back again to that point,—during which period he tacked about in numerous directions, and sailed more than six hundred miles,—Mr. Petermann found it to agree so accurately, that its termination [cx]fell precisely upon Cape Nassau, without any difference whatever. This extreme precision can hardly be regarded as anything but a singular coincidence. Nevertheless, when viewed in connexion with Barents’s other tracks, and with his observations generally, as tested by the recent explorations of Lütke and other modern navigators, it must still remain a striking proof of the wonderful ability and accuracy of that extraordinary man.

After passing Cape Nassau, Barents continued his course southwards without any remarkable incident, till on the 15th of August he reached the islands of “Matfloe and Dolgoy,”—Matvyeéa Ostrov and Dolgoi Ostrov of the Russians, meaning Matthew’s Island and Long Island,—where he fell in with Nai and Tetgales, who had just arrived there, on their return from the Sea of Kara through Yugorsky Shar (Pet’s Strait), to which, with pardonable national vanity, they had given the name of the Strait of Nassau. Their report was that they had sailed fifty or sixty Dutch miles (200 or 240 geographical miles) to the eastward of that strait, and in their opinion had reached about the longitude of the river Ob, and were not far from Cape Tabin (Taimur), the furthest point of Tartary, whence the coast trended to the south-east, and afterwards to the south, towards the kingdom of Cathay.109

After much rejoicing on both sides at their happy meeting, the whole fleet now sailed homewards in company, and on the 14th of September came to the Doggers Sand, whence Nai, in the Swan, proceeded to Middelburg, whilst the other vessels passed by the Texel to their several ports.

The reports made by Barents and Linschoten of the results of their respective voyages were very different in character. The former, though anything but an illiterate man, could make no pretensions to scholarship. The latter [cxi]was an accomplished scholar, as is plainly shown by his narrative of this first and of the second voyage (which will be more particularly noticed in the sequel), and by his other published works; and though the vessels which he accompanied had not in reality accomplished so much as those of Barents, yet he appears to have had no difficulty in convincing their employers and the higher authorities that they had been not far from the realisation of the object of their voyage.

That, in the estimation of the Amsterdammers, Linschoten represented matters in too favourable a light, is manifest from Gerrit de Veer’s innuendo at the commencement of his description of the second voyage, that he “de saeck vry wat breedt voort stelde,”110 which caused Linschoten to reply that, whether he had done so or not, he left to the judgment of the discreet reader.111

Our present knowledge of those seas enables us to judge the question fairly and impartially between the two, and to decide that, when at the Islands of Orange, Barents had sailed from Kildin, their point of separation, further in a direct line, and made a more easterly longitude, than Nai and Tetgales had when at their furthest point on the eastern side of the Sea of Kara; and that, when there, he was quite as near as they were to the mouth of the Ob, and as near again to Cape Taimur; with the certainty, further, that from the former position a passage eastwards would at most times, if not always, be attended with fewer difficulties than from the latter. And it cannot be denied that Linschoten, in stating as he does on the title-page of his work, and at the commencement of his Introduction, without any [cxii]qualification, that he “sailed through the Strait of Nassau to beyond the river Oby,” has certainly afforded a justification for De Veer’s imputation that he represented matters “vry wat breedt.”112

Stimulated by Linschoten’s report, the adventurers who had fitted out the former expedition, with others who now joined them, determined on dispatching in the following year a large and well-appointed fleet, not merely in the hope of accomplishing the passage to China which had been so well commenced, but also with a view to the establishment of an advantageous trade with that kingdom, and the other countries that might be discovered and visited in the course of the voyage, in respect of which trade they obtained from the Government of the United Provinces certain exclusive privileges and advantages.

This fleet consisted of seven vessels, namely, two from Zeelandt, two from Enkhuysen, two from Amsterdam (which city, in consequence of the want of success of Barents’s first voyage by Novaya Zemlya, was now willing to take part in the undertaking of the other ports), and one from Rotterdam. The following are the names of the vessels and of their commanders. The Griffin (Griffoen), of Zeelandt, of the burthen of 100 lasts (200 tons), commanded by Cornelis Cornelisz. Nai, who was appointed admiral or superintendent of the fleet; the Swan (Swane), also of Zeelandt, of the burthen of 50 lasts (100 tons), which had been on the former voyage, and was now commanded by Lambert Gerritsz. Oom, of Enkhuysen; the Hope (Hoope), of Enkhuysen, a new war-pinnace (oorlogspinas) of 100 lasts, commanded by Brant Ysbrantsz. Tetgales, vice-admiral; the Mercury (Mercurius), of Enkhuysen, of 50 lasts, which had been on the former voyage, and was now commanded by Thomas Willemszoon; the Greyhound (Winthont), of Amsterdam, likewise a new war-pinnace, [cxiii]of 100 lasts, commanded by William Barents, pilot-major of the fleet, under whom was Cornelis Jacobszoon as skipper;113 a yacht114 of Amsterdam, of 50 lasts (probably the Mercury of the former voyage), commanded by Harman Janszoon; and lastly, a yacht of Rotterdam, of about 20 lasts, or 40 tons burthen, commanded by Hendrick Hartman. The last-named vessel was commissioned, when the fleet should have reached Cape Tabin, or so far that it might thence continue its course southwards without hindrance from the ice, to return and bring news of their success to Holland. The vessels were all well equipped, with a double complement of men, and ammunition and victuals for a year and a half. The interpreter of the fleet was Meester Christoffel Splindler, as on the former voyage. As supercargoes on behalf of the merchants of Holland and West Friesland, were Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, Jacob van Heemskerck, and Jan Cornelisz. Rijp; and for those of Zeelandt, François de la Dale and N. Buys, with some other relatives of Balthazar Moucheron. Linschoten and De la Dale were further appointed chief commissioners of the fleet on behalf of his excellency prince Maurice and the States General, from whom they received the following commission:—

[cxv]

The several vessels composing the fleet having assembled at the Texel, they all sailed out of Mars Diep on the morning of Sunday, the 2d of July, 1595. It was not till the 10th of August that they passed the North Cape, and on the 17th they fell in with ice, being then about fifty miles distant from the coast of Novaya Zemlya. On the following day they reached the island of “Matfloe”,116 and on the 19th came to the mouth of the strait to the south of Vaigats Island (Yugorsky Shar), where they found the ice to lie in such quantities, “that the entire channel was closed up as far as the eye could see, so that it had the appearance of a continent, which was most frightful to behold”.117 Under these circumstances they scarcely knew how to act, but at length resolved to go into the roadstead called Train-oil Bay (Traenbay118), where, as it was under the shelter of Idol Cape (Afgoden Hoeck), and thus out of the current which set from the strait, there was a little open water.119 The preceding winter appears to have been more than ordinarily severe, and the ice-masses set in motion by the summer’s sun were consequently far greater in quantity than usual. This, coupled with the late period of the year at which, from some unexplained cause, they had commenced their voyage, soon convinced them that they had but little prospect of being able to get forward. On the 20th August, while thus lying in Train-oil Bay, a council was held on board the admiral’s ship, when it was decided that a yacht should be sent to examine the condition of the strait and the probability of their getting through, and also that a party of thirty or forty armed men should proceed across the Island of Vaigats for the same purpose. The yacht could go no further than Cross Point, where the entire sea was found to be covered with ice without the least break or [cxvi]opening; but the crew thence proceeded by land as far as Cape Dispute, though without better success. The party of men—whom De Veer describes120 as fifty-four in number, himself included—returned with a somewhat more favourable report; for they thought they had discovered a practicable passage, because they saw so little ice there.121 In this their experience agreed with that of Pet and Jackman, who found a passage close along the shore, between the ice and the land, at times when the deep sea was entirely filled with ice-masses.122

On the 24th of August a yacht was again sent out to inspect the strait, and got as far as Cross Point, bringing back the consolatory intelligence that the ice was beginning to move, and that all was clear, with open water, as far as Cape Dispute. On the following day therefore the fleet weighed anchor, and sailed as far as beyond the latter cape, without meeting with any ice; but soon afterwards they fell in with such quantities that they were forced to return. That night they anchored between Cape Dispute and Cross Point, and on the following day betook themselves to their former station under Idol Cape, “there to stay for a more convenient time.”123 Here they were so entirely surrounded by the ice, that they could walk dry-foot from one ship to the other.124

The admiral and other officers had now evidently given up all hopes of effecting a passage, to which result the murmurings of the crews may perhaps have contributed. Barents, however, with that determination and perseverance for which he appears to have been distinguished, was not so satisfied as they were that nothing more could be done; and as on the 30th of August the ice began again to move, he, on the following day, had a good many words with the admiral on the subject,125 after which he in person crossed [cxvii]over the strait to the main land of the Samoyedes, where he made inquiries of the natives. On his return the following day, he again “spake to the admirall to will him to set sayle, that they might goe forward; but they had not so many wordes together as was betweene them the day before.”126 The conversation which ensued is quaintly told by De Veer, and with an air of perfect truthfulness. On the following morning (September 2nd), a little before sun-rise, Barents began to warp his vessel out, when Nai and Tetgales, on seeing him do so, “began also to hoyse their anchors and to set sayle.”127 The result of this movement was, that, with immense labour and difficulty and no little danger, they succeeded in making their way through the ice as far as States Island, which they reached in the evening of the 3rd September; sailing on the following morning a little further along the channel between that island and the mainland, so as to be sheltered from the drifting of the ice.128

This was virtually the termination of their voyage. On the following day (September 4th) a council was held on board the admiral’s ship, when it was decided that, “in order not to fail in their duty,”129—which means that it was little more than a matter of form,—they should on the following day make one more endeavour to get through the ice; and if they did not succeed, that then they should not attempt it any further, seeing that the time was passing rapidly, and the winter, with its dreadful cold and long nights, was on the point of setting in. “For,” adds Linschoten,130 “it is now sufficiently clear and manifest that it does not please the Lord God to permit us this time to proceed further on our voyage of discovery, so that it is not [cxviii]fitting that we should wilfully tempt Him any longer and run with our heads against the wall.”

It cannot be denied that Nai and his companions were beset with great difficulties, and that any further attempts might have been extremely hazardous. The crews too of the vessels were now louder in their murmurs, and complained that their commanders desired their deaths, inasmuch as being surrounded by the ice, they ran the chance of remaining locked up during the whole winter;131 added to which, the loss of two men, who were killed by a bear on the 6th of September,132 was not at all unlikely to augment the panic, and to cause insubordination among the survivors.

Finding the sea to continue quite full of ice, a council was again held on the 8th September on board the admiral’s ship, in order to determine finally whether they should proceed or return, whereon a great debate took place.133 Most of them were of opinion that they should at once return. To this however, the Amsterdammers were opposed, their opinion being that some of them should volunteer to remain there with two of the vessels during the winter, and take their chance of the wintering, besides seeing whether they could not manage to get through, or else trying whether they might not be able to make their way to the west of Vaigats, and so round by the north of Novaya Zemlya. But it was replied, that the time for doing so was past, and that moreover it did not accord with their instructions. Nevertheless, if they wished it, they could do it of their own authority, and then see how they might afterwards answer for their conduct.134

On the following day the indefatigable Barents “went on shoare on the south side of the States Iland, and layd a [cxix]stone on the brinke of the water, to proue whether there were a tide, and went round about the iland to shoote at a hare; and returning”—as he says in the only writing undoubtedly of his original composition which has been preserved to us—“I found the stone as I left it, and the water neither higher nor lower; which prooueth, as afore, that there is no flood nor ebbe.”135

He could scarcely have returned on board before the fleet set sail from States Island, on their return to the strait; but the ice came in so thick and with such force, that they could not get through, and therefore had to put back in the evening.136 Next day, however, they succeeded in again reaching Cape Dispute, where they anchored.

On the 11th, it was decided that they should once more sail towards the ice, for the purpose of removing all doubts as to the impossibility of proceeding; but they had not sailed three hours before they reached the firm ice, which stretched round in all directions, completely preventing all further passage.137 They therefore returned and anchored at Cross Point, where they remained till the morning of the 14th, when Barents weighed his anchor and set his top mast, thinking once again to try what he could do to further his voyage; but the admiral, being of another mind, lay still till the 15th of September.138

On that day, as Linschoten relates in no very courteous language, “seeing how the weather had set in, the Amsterdammers thought better of the matter, and let their obstinacy somewhat abate (lieten hun obstinaetheyt wat sincken), agreeing to conform with all the rest.”139 The following protest, which had been drawn up by Linschoten, was accordingly signed by Barents together with the other officers,140 and the [cxx]same day the whole fleet sailed out from the west end of the strait homeward bound.

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:—

The colophon has—

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:—

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:—

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.

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.

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 [clvi]being such as eventually to establish the entire veracity of our Dutch historian.203

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:—

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.

Stuck, in his Verzeichnis von aeltern und neuern Land und Reise-beschreibungen, mentions an edition of De Veer’s work204 [clx]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:—

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:—

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:—

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:—

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 [clxii]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:—

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.

ABRIDGEMENTS.

German. The first and most important German edition of De Veer’s narrative was an abridgement, published at Nuremberg by Levinus Hulsius, the dedication of which [clxiii]bears date the 10th of August, 1598, being little more than three months after that of the original Dutch work. Its title runs thus:—

Translator’s dedication two pages. Preface twelve pages. An address to the reader, headed and subscribed “Gerardus de Veer,” four pages. Text one hundred and forty-six numbered pages. Thirty-five plates and maps. The colophon reads:—

It was re-issued in the year 1602, as the “Dritter Theil” of Hulsius’s celebrated collection of voyages. This is, however, merely a duplicate of the edition of 1598, excepting the first sheet, which has been reprinted, apparently with the view of affording Hulsius an opportunity of alluding, on the fourth page of his Preface, to the publication of the beautiful book (“schones Buch”) of Linschoten the year before. The dedication is dated Nuremberg, 6th February.

A “secunda editio,” considerably abridged, appeared from the same press in the same year (1602), with the dedication dated Frankfort, 1st August: the text of this extends only to one hundred and twenty-one pages, and the address to [clxiv]the reader and colophon are omitted. In his dedication, Hulsius informs us, as a reason for this rapidity of republication, that upwards of 1,500 copies of the former edition had already been disposed of, and that the demand for the work was still very great.

A third and fourth edition, yet further abridged, and similarly forming the “Dritter Theil” of Hulsius’s collection, appeared respectively in the years 1612 and 1660.

Copies of all these editions are in the Grenville Library in the British Museum.

This work of Hulsius enjoys a degree of credit among bibliographers, to which intrinsically it would hardly seem to be entitled. On the title-page, and also in the publisher’s dedication, it professes to be a translation from the Dutch of Gerrit de Veer. But it is neither this, nor is it a true and genuine abridgement. On the contrary, copious omissions are made throughout, while at the same time passages are frequently introduced, which are not to be found in the original. It would be an almost endless task, and one quite out of place here, to attempt a collation of the two works. Still it is expedient that a specimen should be adduced of the liberties which Hulsius has taken with his author; and for this purpose the commencement of his narrative of the second expedition (pages 16–18) shall be given verbatim.

A comparison of the foregoing with Phillip’s translation in pages 42–44 of the present volume, will at once show how widely Hulsius’s version differs from the original text of Gerrit de Veer.

From the use made of De Veer’s name in the “Address to the Reader,” it might at first sight be imagined that Hulsius was in communication with the author, and had his authority for the interpolated passages; though, seeing that Latin and French versions, corresponding strictly with the original Dutch text, were being simultaneously published at Amsterdam, it would certainly be difficult to conceive that De Veer should have lent himself to a work so different in character as this German version. However, on a closer examination, it is apparent that this “Address,” notwithstanding that it is made to bear De Veer’s signature, with the date “Penult. Aprilis Anno 1598,”—which is that of the author’s original Dedication to the States General and other authorities of the United Provinces, of which a translation has been given in pages cxix–cxxii,—is merely made up from that dedication and from the introductory portion of the author’s narrative of the first voyage. And, indeed, Hulsius himself does not pretend to do more than give a translation into German from the original Dutch work; his words being, “Hab ich auch dise drey letzte Schiffarten gegen Mitnacht, so bald sie mir in Niderlandischer sprach zukommĕ, ins hochteutsch versetzt;” so that his use of the author’s name in the way adverted to is manifestly unjustifiable, and in fact nothing better than a fraud on the public.

The foregoing specimen of the differences between the [clxvii]two works has purposely been taken from the commencement of the narrative of the second expedition, because we have the independent authority of Linschoten to fall back upon; in whose work nothing is found to warrant the interpolations on the 5th and 12th of July, and whose official description of the vessels composing that expedition—which forms the basis of the statement made in previous pages of the present Introduction,—differs materially from that given by Hulsius.

It is scarcely to be doubted that the latter had an authority of some sort for these important variations; though had that authority been at all of an authentic nature, there is no conceivable reason why he should not have referred to it. On a consideration of the whole case, we are inclined to believe that he was desirous of imparting to his production the character of an original work; and hence these variations in the text, and also the fact that most of his illustrations are not copies, but free imitations of the plates in the original Amsterdam editions.

Before quitting this subject, which is perhaps not undeserving of a closer investigation, we may adduce a curious instance of erroneous translation on the part of Hulsius. In the introduction to the narrative of the second voyage (page 40 of the present work), De Veer speaks of Linschoten as having been on the first voyage the commissary or supercargo of the two ships of Zeeland and Enkhuysen—“daer Jan Huyghen van Linschoten comis op was.” This is rendered by Hulsius (p. 14): “darauff der Hocherfahrne in Schiffsachē Johan̄ Huyghen von Linschott, Comes oder Oberster gewesen war,” as if Linschoten had actually been the commander of those two vessels!

Another German abridgement of De Veer’s narrative was made by the brothers De Bry, in 1599, and is given as the third article in the third part of their India Orientalis (or that portion of their collection commonly known as the [clxviii]Petits Voyages), on the collective title of which it is described as follows:—

It is from this German edition that the plates which accompany the present volume have been taken. They are copies from those of the original Amsterdam editions, reversed and more artistically finished. De Bry, doubtless having Hulsius’s work in his mind, says of them that they are: “Alles zierlich und nach dem aechten original fürgetragen.”

This abridgement was reprinted in the German editions of De Bry in 1628 and 1629.

Latin. The same abridgement was also given in Latin by De Bry, in the edition of the India Orientalis of 1601, on the collective title of the third part of which it is thus described:—

The sub-title, at page 129, is as follows:—

This abridgement was reprinted in 1629, also as the third article in the third part of De Bry’s India Orientalis.

English. In the third volume of Purchas’s collection, pp. 473–518, is given a faithful abridgement of Phillip’s translation. [clxix]

ABSTRACTS OR SUMMARIES.

Latin. An abstract of De Veer’s work was given in Linschoten’s—

The narrative of the Three Navigations to the North, which occupies nine pages, commences at page 17, with the following head-title:—

This abstract appears to have been made by Linschoten himself, as Camus states (p. 191) that this Latin edition of his works was translated by himself from the Dutch of 1596.

Although the description of Guinea, to which this abstract forms an appendix, has a separate title-page and pagination, it is shown by the register to form part of—

From the circumstance of this abstract appearing at the end of Linschoten’s work, it has been by some confounded with his narrative of his own two Arctic voyages.

Dutch. In 1646, another abstract of the original narrative appeared in the first volume of the Dutch collection, entitled:—

This important work, which is profusely illustrated, has no editor’s name or place of imprint. It was, however, edited by Isaak Commelin, a learned Amsterdammer, and printed at Amsterdam, as we learn from Chalmot’s Biographisch Woordenboek de Nederlanden, in art. Commelin (Isaak). Chalmot had a good authority for this statement, namely, Isaak Commelin’s son, Kasper, who, at page 866 of his Beschryvinge van Amsterdam, declares his father to have been the editor, further mentioning that this and other works were all printed at Amsterdam by Jansson.

It was reprinted in 1648, under the following title:—

And it re-appeared in 1650 with the same title. This work, though professing on the title-page to be an account of the first voyage only, contains an account of the second and third voyages also.

Another Dutch abstract was printed by G. J. Saeghman at Amsterdam, in 1663, with the following title:—

[clxxi]

We have not had an opportunity of seeing this work, and therefore cannot say whether or not it is a reprint of the last-mentioned abstract. The fourth voyage of 1609 can only be that of Henry Hudson, who undertook it at the instance of the Dutch East India Company. The journal of this voyage, written by Robert Juet of Limehouse, “master’s mate”, is given by Purchas in his “Pilgrimes”, vol. iii, pp. 581–595.

An abstract of De Veer’s work is likewise contained in the first volume of the several editions of Blaeu’s “Great Atlas”, which have been already described in page cxxv: in the Latin at page 24; in the French at page 27; and in the Spanish at page 42. The Dutch edition we have not seen.

German. A translation from Saeghman’s abstract appeared in 1675, in a collection by Rudolf Capel, entitled, “Vorstellungen des Norden”. Hamburg, 1675, 4to.; in the fifth chapter of which it is entered as follows:—

Another edition appeared in 1678.

Another abstract in German was given in 1768, in Adelung’s Geschichte der Schiffahrten, published at Halle, 1768. In speaking of the great rarity of the original, Adelung acknowledges himself obliged to make use of the summary in the French collection, next described, which he collated with that of Capel.

French. The French collection to which we have just alluded, was edited by Constantin de Renneville, under the title:—

[clxxii]

This is an unacknowledged translation, with a slight alteration in the language at the commencement of the work, from the Dutch collection already described, “Begin ende Voortgangh,” etc.

English. In the year 1703, was published an English translation of the above abstract, which was probably made from the French version by Renneville.

A very brief summary of the three voyages is also given in the first volume of Harris’s Navigantium et Itinerantium Bibliotheca, pp. 550–564. Lond. 1705. Fol.

The winter’s residence of the Dutch in Novaya Zemlya has been repeatedly treated of in various forms. The most recent work on the subject is probably a poem with the title—

Of the English translation by Phillip, which forms the text of the present volume, we are unable to speak in very favourable terms. Independently of a number of errors resulting evidently from the want of a thorough acquaintance with the Dutch language, the work is disfigured by numerous typographical errors, arising seemingly from the circumstance that the translator placed his manuscript in the printer’s hands, and never saw the work as it passed through the press. In the notes at the foot of the text, in the present edition, these errors are corrected, and attention is drawn to those cases in which subsequent writers, who merely consulted Phillip’s translation of Purchas’s abridgement of it, have thereby been misled.205 [clxxiii]

Besides De Veer’s narrative, Phillip translated from the Dutch the three works mentioned below.206 As one then who performed so much for the cause which it is the object of the Hakluyt Society to promote, he has a claim to our [clxxiv]forbearance for all the imperfections of his translation, which in spite of them, gives still no unapt representation of the simplicity and quaintness of its Dutch original.

The editor has already acknowledged the aid afforded to him by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Petermann. He has now also to express his obligation to Mr. R. H. Major and Mr. W. B. Rye, of the British Museum, for much valuable assistance in the bibliographical portions of this Introduction. And he has further to record, that to his worthy friend and preceptor in the Dutch language, Mr. John Bos,—who was employed by him to make a new translation of De Veer’s text into English, in order that he might be spared the inconvenience of collating the whole work in the Reading Room of the British Museum,—he is indebted for much help in the preparation of the index at the end of this volume, and also for many curious particulars of information which none but an old Amsterdammer could well have supplied.

February 15th, 1853. [clxxv]