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.