Part 11

Seeing the signal failure of the second expedition, the States General, after mature deliberation, decided that no further attempt should be made at the public expense to discover a north-east passage. Nevertheless, they were still willing to encourage any private undertaking, by the promise of a considerable reward in the event of success. [164] And Plantius and Barents persisting in their opinion that a passage might be effected by the north of Novaya Zemlya, the authorities and merchants of Amsterdam were induced to take on themselves the fitting out of another expedition to proceed in that direction. It consisted of only two vessels—the names and tonnage of which are not mentioned—of which the one was commanded by Jacob van Heemskerck, who was also supercargo, and the other by Jan Corneliszoon Rijp, in the like double capacity. Barents accompanied Heemskerck, with the rank of chief pilot (opperste stuerman). Surprise has been expressed that though Barents thus occupied a subordinate station, yet in the narrative of the voyage he is made to perform the principal part. This is, however, a mistake, arising from the fact that in the abridgements and summaries of this narrative, which alone appear to have been consulted by modern writers, most of the personal matters are omitted. For it will be seen that in De Veer’s original work, the skipper (or “maister”, as he is called in Phillip’s translation) is repeatedly mentioned, and Barents’ subordinate position is clearly and unequivocally shown. [165]

A better founded cause of surprise might be, that Barents himself had not the command of the expedition. Yet for this a sufficient reason suggests itself. He was evidently resolved to perform (as it were) impossibilities, rather than fail in a project on which he had set his heart; and the merchants, however willing to risk their property on the adventure, may naturally have been disinclined to entrust it absolutely to one, who would not have hesitated to sacrifice it, or even his own life, in the attempt to accomplish his long-cherished undertaking.

In being made subordinate to a nobleman like Jacob van Heemskerck, who, though no seaman by profession, had already sailed with him, and had thus had an opportunity of learning and appreciating his many estimable qualities, Barents, a man of humble birth, could however in no wise have felt himself humiliated or aggrieved. It was a case similar to that of Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor, and was moreover quite in accordance with the practice of those times, which afford repeated instances of the command of a naval expedition being entrusted to a soldier, who had probably never before been on salt water.

But while Heemskerck thus held the superior rank of captain, Barents’s relation to him was evidently that of an equal, rather than that of an inferior. This is particularly evidenced in the conversation which took place between them shortly before Barents’s death, when the latter called his nominal commander “mate”. [166] And that the crew looked on Barents as virtually the leader of the expedition is shown, not only by their appeals to him on all important occasions, but by the curious fact that in the signatures to the “letter” which they wrote on the eve of their departure from their winter quarters, [167] the name “WILLEM BARENTSZ.” is printed in capital letters, while that of Heemskerck, though placed in rank above Barents’s name, is only in ordinary type, like those of the rest of the crew.

We have now to take a rapid glance at some of the most important results of this third voyage, into the particulars of which, as they are recorded in De Veer’s journal, it is unnecessary to enter.

The experience of the two former voyages appears to have impressed Rijp, even more than Barents himself, with the expediency of giving the land to the east a wide sea room; for, notwithstanding that they at first steered their course much more to the northward than before, yet it was not long before disputes arose between them, Barents contending that they were too far to the west, while Rijp’s pilot asserted that he had no desire to sail towards Vaigats. [168] Barents gave way; and the result was, that on the 9th of June they came to a small steep island, in latitude 74° 30′, to which they gave the name of Bear Island, from the circumstance of their killing there a large white bear. [169]

Seven years later this island was visited by Stephen Bennet, who called it Cherie Island, after his patron, Master (subsequently Sir) Francis Cherie, a distinguished member of the Russian Company. This latter name has usually been inscribed in our English maps, though unjustly, inasmuch as the merit of the first discovery of the island unquestionably belongs to the Dutch. Captain Beechey says, indeed, that “a passage in Purchas seems to imply that it had been known before Barents made this voyage;” [170] but the only passage bearing on the subject which we have been able to find, is the statement of Captain Thomas Edge, in “A briefe Discouerie of the Northern Discoueries of Seas,” etc., that the Dutch came “to an iland in the latitude of 74 degrees, which wee call Cherie Iland, and they call Beare Iland,” [171] as if the former name had been given before the latter. It is to be hoped that in future English maps, the original and correct name will always be inserted.

From Bear Island our adventurers continued their course northwards, and on the 19th of June, when in latitude 79° 49′ N., they again saw land, [172] which was supposed by them to be a part of Greenland, but which subsequent investigation has shown to be the cluster of islands known by the name of Spitzbergen. Round this land they coasted till the 29th, when they again sailed southwards towards Bear Island. [173]

The first discovery of this country by our Dutch navigators is now universally admitted, though formerly the idea was entertained that they had been anticipated by Sir Hugh Willoughby. But that Spitzbergen was actually circumnavigated by them is a fact which, as far as we are aware, has never been adverted to by any writer on Arctic discovery. The details of this portion of Barents’ and Rijp’s voyage are neither full nor precise enough to enable us to follow them minutely in their course; added to which, the maps of Spitzbergen, especially of its eastern side, are still not sufficiently trustworthy to render us much assistance in laying down their track. There can, however, be no doubt that they sailed up its eastern shores, passed along its northern extremity, and returned by the western coast. That part of Spitzbergen which they first saw in 79° 49′ N. lat., seems to be the south-east coast of the Noord Ooster Land of the Dutch maps, along which they sailed in a westerly direction, and entered Weygatz or Hinlopen Strait. This assumption agrees with the above latitude and with those of the subsequent positions in 79° 30′ [174] and 79° 42′, [175] as also with the time it took—several days—to get out of that strait. The two havens described under the date of June 24th, [176] may be the Hecla Bay and Lomme Bay of Parry. The considerable bay or inlet (gheweldigen inham) under 79°, to which they came on the following day, and “whereinto they sailed forty miles at the least, holding their course southward”, [177] can only be Weide Bay. Finding that its southern extremity “reached to the firme land”, they were forced to work their way back against the wind, till they “gate beyonde the point that lay on the west side, where there was so great a number of birds that they flew against their sailes”. [178] This point, in consequence, received the name of Bird Cape. From thence their course is plainly to be traced along the western coast of Spitzbergen, and so back to Bear Island.

On the 1st of June, when near that island, disputes again arose between Rijp and Barents as to the course which they should take. The result was that they separated, Rijp returning northwards, while Barents proceeded southwards because of the ice. [179]

Of Rijp’s subsequent proceedings nothing is known except that he is stated to have sailed back to Bird Cape, on the west side of Spitzbergen, whence he returned with the intention of going after Barents. [180] How far he carried his intention into effect is not said; but nothing worthy of remark can have occurred to him, or otherwise it could not have failed to be recorded. We may therefore conclude that he soon gave up his search after Barents and returned to Holland, and that, in the following year, he went from thence on a trading voyage to the coasts of Norway or Russia, and was on the point of sailing from Kola on his way home, when Heemskerck and the survivors of his crew arrived there, as is related by De Veer. [181]

Meanwhile Barents, having cleared the ice, held on his course to the east till he reached the western shore of Novaya Zemlya, in about latitude 73° 20′, [182] whence he coasted along the land till he had passed considerably beyond the furthest point reached by him on his first voyage, and had rounded the north-eastern extremity of that country. Here, being at length quite shut in by the ice, and unable to make his way either forwards towards the north-east, or round by the eastern side of the land, or even back again by the way he had come, he and his adventurous companions, on the evening of the 26th of August, “got to the west side of the Ice Haven, where they were forced, in great cold, poverty, misery, and grief, to stay all that winter.” [183]

Before adverting to the subject of the memorable wintering of the Dutch at this spot, it is necessary to make a few remarks with respect to the identification of the several points along the coast, which were reached and noted by them during the course of their first and third voyages. This is the more needful, because widely different opinions are entertained by two of the highest living authorities on the subject, Admiral Lütke and Professor von Baer.

The former, as is well known, was engaged in surveying the Northern Ocean between the years 1821 and 1825, during which period he visited many parts of the western coast of Novaya Zemlya between its southern extremity and Cape Nassau to the north, and identified most of the points visited by the Dutch, which he laid down in the map accompanying the published account of his four voyages, to the German translation of which allusion has already been made. Professor von Baer, on the other hand, who also made a scientific visit to Novaya Zemlya in the year 1837, read in the preceeding year, before the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, a “Report of the latest Discoveries on the Coast of Novaya Zemlya”, an illustration of a map of that country constructed by a pilot in the Russian navy, named Zivolka; of which report a German translation is published in Berghaus’s “Annalen der Erd-Vôlker- und Staatenkunde.” [184]

In this report the learned Professor comes to widely different conclusions from those of Lütke with respect to the identification of the several stations visited by the Dutch; the great point of difference between them being, that Baer bases his arguments almost exclusively on the distances along the western coast of Novaya Zemlya recorded by De Veer, especially in the Table given near the end of his third voyage. [185]

This Table, however, we cannot but regard as little better than a mere list of the various stations reached by the Dutch on their return voyage; the distances, and even the bearings, therein recorded, being quite untrustworthy, as may indeed be perceived on the most cursory inspection. Every allowance has, of course, to be made for any inaccuracies that may exist in that Table, in consideration of the circumstances under which the return voyage was made; but, even were we to assume the distances sailed by them in their two small open boats to have been correctly noted down, still there is a sufficient reason for contending that those distances, in themselves, are no sure guide, but, on the contrary, only lead to very erroneous conclusions. For, on a comparison of them with the differences of latitude recorded by De Veer,—which, as being the results of astronomical observations made by so experienced a navigator as Barents was, are subject only to the imperfections of the instruments employed by him,—it will be seen that the former, especially between Langenes and Cape Nassau, are throughout much too small. No reason is given by De Veer for this discrepancy; and, indeed, it would be difficult to account for it, were it not for the fact established by the observations of Admiral Lütke, that a very powerful current from south to north sets along the western coast of Novaya Zemlya as far as Cape Nassau. The velocity of this current was ascertained by that intelligent seaman to be as much as sixty miles per diem, [186] and owing to it he frequently found himself in a latitude from forty-five to fifty-five miles further north than was shown by his dead reckoning. [187] A remarkable confirmation of this fact is afforded by Henry Hudson’s journal of his visit to Novaya Zemlya, printed in the Appendix to the present work, [188] in which, under the date of 28th June 1608, it is stated that, between eight o’clock on the previous evening and four o’clock in the morning, they were drawn back to the northwards, by a stream or tide, as far as they were the last evening at four o’clock. Applying this, then, to the case of our Dutch navigators, we obtain a satisfactory explanation of the apparent discrepancies in their several data.

Having premised thus much, and remarking further that the southern portion of the coast of Novaya Zemlya, and also the northern coast of Russia, require no discussion here, we shall proceed to the investigation of the position of the principal points between Langenes and Cape Nassau, with respect to which a difference of opinion exists. The former point (as has already been stated) is that which was first approached by Barents on his first voyage. On the 4th of July 1794, he found himself, by observation, in latitude 73° 25′, being then about five or six miles west of Langenes,—a low projecting point reaching far out into the sea. [189] This agrees best with the Dry Cape (Trockenes Cap) of the Russian map, which lies in latitude 73° 45′; and Lütke accordingly identifies Langenes with it. Baer, however, contends for Britwin Cape, [190] which, after Dry Cape, is the nearest projecting point of importance. But that cape lies a whole degree further to the south, and would consequently differ as much as 40′ from Barents’s observed latitude; and such a difference is more than we are justified in admitting, inasmuch as 15′ or 20′ must be taken as the maximum of error.

The next point to be noted is Loms Bay, which is stated by De Veer to lie under 74⅓°; [191] the observation not being further particularized, as in most other cases. This would make its difference of longitude from Langenes to be 55′; whereas, in De Veer’s map, the difference is only 20′. Lütke [192] identifies Loms Bay with Cross Bay, though without sufficiently stating his reasons for so doing. Baer [193] follows Lütke’s example, saying, however, still less on the subject. The latitude of Cross Bay is 74° 10′ (Lütke says 74° 20′, but this must be an error, as his map shows 10′, as does that also of Ziwolka), making a difference of 25′ from Dry Cape. This would agree with De Veer’s map, and might, in this case, constitute a reason for considering the latitude of Loms Bay, as stated by him in his text in so very general a way, less trustworthy than that in his map. De Veer also gives [194] a separate plan of Loms Bay, which neither Lütke nor Baer alludes to, evidently from their not being acquainted with it. On a comparison of this special plan, as also of De Veer’s general chart, with the Russian maps, it seems much more probable that Loms Bay is not Cross Bay, but the bay immediately to the south of it. For Cross Bay is, in fact, not a bay, but an extensive inlet, of which the end has not yet been explored, and which is indeed regarded by the best Russian authorities as forming a strait or passage completely across Novaya Zemlya, and communicating with Rosmuislov’s Unknown Bay. [195] The Dutch, however, anchored in Loms Bay, went ashore, erected a beacon there, and made a plan of the surrounding country; so that they must assuredly have ascertained whether Loms Bay was a bay or strait. Moreover, they distinctly describe a “great wide creek or inlet” [196] as lying to the north-east of Loms Bay, which is also shown in their plan, and which cannot be any other than Cross Bay itself; and from this alone it would seem to follow that the bay to the south of that inlet must be Loms Bay. Had Lütke made a careful survey of the bay, which he was prevented from doing, and had he also been acquainted with the Dutch plan, he would no doubt have been able to set this point at rest. Meanwhile we deem ourselves justified, from what has been adduced, in regarding the Flache Bay of Lütke, or the Seichte Bay of Ziwolka (both terms meaning “Shallow Bay”), as the Loms Bay of the Dutch; and hence Cross Bay will be their “great wide creek or inlet,” while Lütke’s Cape Prokofyev and Wrangel’s Island [197] will be respectively their “Capo de Plantius” and their “small Island seawards from the point.”

The Admiraliteyts Eyland of the Dutch [198] is unquestionably the Admiralty Island or Peninsula of the Russians, there not being any other point to the northward which answers to the description. Its latitude is not given; but the Dutch and Russian maps agree satisfactorily.

Capo Negro, or De Swart Hoeck (Black Point), is stated to be in latitude 75° 20′, [199] and answers to the first prominent cape in Lütke’s maps, after passing Admiralty Island, which lies in 75° 28′.

Willems Eyland [200] is the Wilhelms Insel of Lütke, and the Bücklige Insel of Ziwolka. For this point the elements of Barents’s observation for latitude are given, and they can consequently be checked. It is most satisfactory to find that it differs only 9′ from the latitude given in the Russian maps, the former being 75° 56′, and the latter 75° 47′. This also confirms the probable correctness of the identifications of Admiralty Island and Black Point.

De Hoeck van Nassau, placed by Barents in 76° 30′, [201] can be no other than Lütke’s Cape Nassau, in 76° 34′. Not only does the latitude agree within 4′, but likewise its general bearing. There is also another point of correspondence. It was not till the Hollanders reached Cape Nassau that their real difficulties began, especially on the first voyage. This was the most northerly point ever attained by Lütke, and twice did he come within sight of this cape, but without being able to reach it. Adverse winds and currents seem always to prevail here, even in the height of summer. Baer differs, however, [202] from Lütke’s opinion, and regards his Cape Nassau as the north-easternmost point of Novaya Zemlya, and identical with either the Ice Cape or Cape Desire of the Dutch, while he places their Cape Nassau much further down towards the south-west, though without being able to fix its precise position. But, for the reasons which have already been adduced, we feel bound to dissent entirely from the learned Professor’s conclusions; and we cannot but think that, had he been acquainted with De Veer’s original narrative, he too would have seen that Lütke’s general identifications cannot well be disturbed.

As regards the north-eastern portion of Novaya Zemlya beyond Cape Nassau, Lütke justly argues [203] that the general accuracy of Barents’s coast-line, as far as he has been able to check it,—namely, as far as Cape Nassau,—warrants the assumption that those parts which lie beyond that cape are in a similar degree correct; and, accordingly, he adopts from the Dutch map the entire extent of country to the eastward of Cape Nassau, as laid down in De Veer’s chart. This sound conclusion is, however, impugned by Baer, [204] who does not hesitate to erase the whole from his predecessor’s map, and to round off the north-eastern extremity of Novaya Zemlya at a short distance beyond Cape Nassau.

Nevertheless, after mature consideration of the entire subject, we are bound to declare that not only do we concur in Lütke’s opinion generally, but we must add that no part of the coast of Novaya Zemlya was so thoroughly explored by Barents as just that portion which Baer has thus thought fit to dispute. Barents traced that coast no less than four times, and his observation of the longitude of his winter station, which has now for the first time been accurately calculated by Mr. Edward Vogel (assistant at Mr. Bishop’s observatory), [205] shows a difference of only about twenty-five miles in the distance between that spot and Cape Nassau, as laid down in Gerrit de Veer’s chart:—a result which, as being derived from totally independent data, is conclusive as to the general accuracy of that chart.

Consequently, without waiting for any corroboration to be obtained from future surveys, we deem it perfectly safe to reinsert in our maps the north-eastern portion of Novaya Zemlya, which has been omitted on the authority of Zivolka and Baer. This is a matter not without importance, inasmuch as an extent of at least ten thousand square geographical miles will thereby be restored to the Russian dominions. And we likewise consider it due to the memory of the first and only explorer of this region, that it should bear the specific designation of “Barents’s Land,” which name is accordingly given to it in the accompanying map. To that portion of Novaya Zemlya which lies between Barents’s Land and Matthew’s Land, we have further thought that no more fitting appellation can be given than “Lütke’s Land,” in honour of that able navigator, who has done more for the geography of Novaya Zemlya than any one since the time of Barents.

For a considerable portion of the preceding remarks on the geography of Novaya Zemlya we are indebted to Mr. Augustus Petermann, who has otherwise rendered us much assistance during the progress of our labours, and by whose care the track of Barents on his several voyages has been laid down in the accompanying charts, [206] from the data furnished by Gerrit de Veer’s journals. The route from Kildin to Langenes on the first voyage, was found by him to agree precisely with the true distance between the former place and Dry Cape; but the route from Bear Island to the coast of Novaya Zemlya, on the third voyage, from its not being so minutely described, could only be laid down approximately. Those along the more northerly portion of Novaya Zemlya are sufficiently correct, and some of them are exceedingly precise, as has been shown in the preceding pages.

On these voyages a number of soundings were taken in an otherwise unknown sea, the value of which will be appreciated by nautical men. Those to the north of Novaya Zemlya are most important. In about latitude 77° 45′, the highest point reached by Barents, they give a depth of one hundred and fifty fathoms, without bottom; [207] showing the unlikelihood of the existence of any other land in that vicinity. We feel persuaded that navigators of all nations will concur with us in the propriety of distinguishing the mare innominatum between Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya by the appellation of “the Spitzbergen, or Barents’s Sea,” as it is called in Mr. Petermann’s chart.