HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

Dear Friends

Let's start:

RESEARCH RESULTS - PART 1 THE FIRST EXPEDITION TO THE NORTH 1594

The following extract is from the 1598 journal of Gerrit de Veer

Eerstelijck zijn inden jaere 94. vier schepen toeghemaeckt, twee tot Amstelredam (2) een in Zeelandt (3) ende een tot Enckhuysen (4), om op te doen de gheleghentheyt ende streckinghe na de landen ende Conincrijcken van Cathay ende China. Willem Barentsz. een cloeck vermaert ende versocht stuerman, beleyder is gheweest vande schepen van Amstelredam.

(2) De namen dier schepen zijn niet bekend.
3) De „Zwaan" onder Cornelis Cornelisz. Nay.
4) De „Mercurius" onder Brandt IJsbrandtsz Tetgales, alwaar Jan Huyghen van Linschoten geembarkeerd was.


Translated to English

In the year 1594, four ships were equipped/prepared (toeghemaeckt) - two from Amsterdam (Amstelredam) (2), one from Zeeland (Zeelandt) (3) and one from Enkhuyzen (Enckhuysen) (4) to embark on an expedition to find the kingdoms of Cathay and China via a Northern Passage. As navigator and leader of the Amsterdam ships was Willem Barentsz a very experienced and competent helmsman.

(2) The names of these two ships (the ships from Amsterdam) are not known.
(3) The Swan under the captaincy of Cornelis Corneliszoon Nay.
(4) The Mercurius/Mercury under the captaincy of Brandt Ijsbrandysz Tetgales on which Jan Huygen van Linschoten was also embarked.

This does not surprise me in the least. It is important to note that De Veer did NOT GO on the first expedition. It is believed that he gleaned his information which he used in his report of the journey from the journals of Van Linschoten and Barentsz himself.

Van Linschoten's journal though, does not offer any more information of the ships that embarked on the first trip. He writes:

De Schepen in Texel ghecomen zijnde, te weten, de drie in de Voorreden verhaelt, als namelicken, t'Boot ghenaemt de Swane van der Veere in Zeelant, de Mercurius van Enchuysen, ende t’Boot van Amsterdam. Op ’t schip van Amsterdam was Schipper en Stuerman Willem Barentsz van der Schelling, Borgher t'Amsterdam, een seer ervaren ende bedreven Man in de const van de Zeevaert, hebbende by hem een Schellinger Visschers jacht *), om hem in sijn voorghenomen Reyse (van ons afscheydende) gheselschap te houden.

Translated to English

The three ships that arrived in Texel were the same ones mentioned in the prologue namely a boat, the Swane from Ter Veere in Zeeland, the Mercurius of Enkhuyzen and a boat from Amsterdam. On the ship of Amsterdam, the captain and helmsman was Willem Barentsz a very experienced and knowledgeable seafarer. With him he took a fishing smack from Terschelling to accompany him when the expedition embarked on their separate courses.


This I do find somewhat surprising as Van Linschoten's journals (he also went on the 1595 expedition) are generally more comprehensive than those of De Veer. The fact that he did not mention the Amsterdam ships' names might be indicative of the rift that existed between Zeeland/Enkhuizen and Amsterdam. This was not only the political rift that existed between the states of the Netherlands at that time, but also a difference of opinion as to which route to follow. That is why Barentsz followed a different route to Nay. Van Linschoten often refers to Barentsz as "the Amsterdammer" not even mentioning him by name. However, be that as it may, the important thing is that we still do not know the names of the Amsterdam ships.

BUT THEN ...


I made the following discovery courtesy of the Hakluyt's Society's English translation in which Dr. Beke (who edited the edition) confirms the entries about Zeelandt's "The Swan" and Enkhuyzen's "Mercurius" and then writes nonchalantly:

View attachment 353347

A third vessel was accordingly fitted out by the merchants of Amsterdam. It was of the same size and character as the other two, and like Tetgales's vessel was named the Mercury (Mercurius); its command being entrusted to William Barents (sic) who took with him also a fishing-boat belonging to Ter Schelling.

For sure this had me very excited but without corroboration, it meant nothing. Corroboration came in the form of a footnote supplied by Beke in which he mentioned the works of JH Forster and Admiral Litke.

The following extract is taken from Viermalige Reise durch das nördliche Eismeer: auf der Brigg Nowaja Semlja in den Jahren 1821 - 1824 Ausgeführt von Kapitain-Lieutenant Friedrich Litke (Edition Erdmann) (German Edition)

View attachment 353348


Litke thus confirms Zeelandt's "The Swan" and Enkhuyzen's "Mercurius", but he calls Barentsz's ship "der Gesandte".

This was not what I had hoped for, so on to Forster.
History of the Voyages and Discoveries made in the North. Translated from the German of Johann Reinhold Forster and elucidated by a New and Original Map of the Countries situated about the North Pole. Printed for Luke White, Dame Street, and Pat Byrne, Grafton Street, Dublin, 1786.

View attachment 353349


For the fourth time I had confirmation of The Swan and Mercurius, but to confuse everything Forster called Barentsz's ship
"The Boot / Messenger"

If you had been bored to death at this point and fell asleep earlier ...

View attachment 353350

Thus, I had three possibilities for the name of Barentsz's ship on the first expedition:

View attachment 353351


"Der Gesandte" translated into English gives the following options:

View attachment 353352

And the moment that I saw that one of "Der Gesandte"'s translations was "MESSENGER" the lights came on, big time! Now I had Mercury/Mercurius (Messenger of the Gods in Roman Mythology; Messenger and Messenger, but what about "Boot"?

The explanation came via the Hakluyt's Society Second Edition and another footnote.

View attachment 353354

And of course, the moment that I translated "Bote" into English, the answer was:

View attachment 353355

BINGO - Four out of four corroborations: The Hakluyt's Society's Two English translations, the work of Forster and the work of Litke.

I can state categorically and without any shadow of doubt that the name of Barentsz's ship during the First Expedition was "DE MERCURIUS".
Dear friend
Your research is extremely thorough and a pleasure to learn from, your research expertise is reflected in the quality of this beautiful model .
Glad you found an established reference for the ship's nameThumbsup:)
 
Fascinating work Heinrich, you narrow the possibilitys down one by one
Peter, the easy thing with the first expedition was the fact that there was always only one possibility. It was made difficult by the various authors all giving the same thing different names - obviously because of the different languages involved. Thus, it was more a case of just having to juggle the jigsaw-puzzle pieces into their correct order. Once that was done, the answer was clear and obvious.
 
I'm not necessarily on board with your conclusion Barentsz ship was called "Mercurius". It would also be plausible along the same lines if Barentsz ship was called "de Gezant"; der Gesandte (German) means, like Mercurius, de gezant in Dutch or the messenger.
 
Congratulations Heinrich, having reached the desired result after a very thorough research. Good that you are able to read the old Dutch language.
Thank you, Herman, but remember, this is only Barentsz's ship's name of the FIRST EXPEDITION - the all-elusive name of the ship on the third expedition is the one that counts.
 
I'm not necessarily on board with your conclusion Barentsz ship was called "Mercurius". It would also be plausible along the same lines if Barentsz ship was called "de Gezant"; der Gesandte (German) means, like Mercurius, de gezant in Dutch or the messenger.
Once I publish the results of the ships' names during the second expedition, you will see there is not a single source which mentions "Messenger", or "der Gesandte". The ones that do mention a specific name refer to "de MERCURIUS / MERCURY" and they also state categorically that it was THE SAME SHIP as the one used during the First Expedition.

The name "de Gezant" (in other words, the Dutch version), is not a name that was ever mentioned - in any translation or in any source.
 
Dear Friends

RESEARCH RESULTS - PART 2 THE FIRST EXPEDITION TO THE NORTH 1595

Once more, I will use De Veer's journal as the basic starting point.

De Veer.png
The ships were: the Griffioen and Zwaan from Zeeland, the Hoop and Mercurius from Enkhuyzen, the Winthont (Greyhound) and a Jacht from Amsterdam as well as a Jacht from Rotterdam.

De Veer provides much better information about the ships' names than on the First Expedition, but it is disappointing that he does not list the name of the second Amsterdam ship. We will see later that there is actually a good reason why the Jacht from Rotterdam is not named.

A summary of De Veer's information is thus as follows:

Zeeland: The "Griffioen" and "Zwaan"
Enkhuizen: The "Hoop" and "Mercurius".
Amsterdam: The "Winthont" and an unnamed "Jacht"
Rotterdam: An unnamed "Jacht"

Van Linschoten's Journal, however, provides tons more information.

1595.png

But even though his report is a lot more detailed, he does not supply the names of the Amsterdam Jacht or the Rotterdam Jacht either. His summative information with regards to the ships' names is thus identical to that of De Veer.

Once again it is left to the two English Translations of Dr. Charles T. Beke of the Hakluyt Society to fill in the missing details - crossing the "T"'s and dotting the "i"'s so to speak.

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, of 100 lasts, commanded by William Barents, pilot-major of the fleet, under whom was Cornelis Jacobszoon as skipper; a yacht of Amsterdam, of 50 lasts - the Mercury (Mercurius) 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.

Thank you, Dr. Beke, thank you, Hakluyt Society for not only providing us with the names, but also for validating my results of the First Expedition.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIVE RESULTS:


Therefore, we can safely conclude that the 7 ships of the Second Expedition in 1595 were:

1. De Hoop from Enkhuyzen - a war pinnace of 100 last. Captained by Brandt Ysbrandtszoon aka Brandt Tetgales with Jan-Huyghen van Linschoten as Chief Merchant (Commis).

2. De Windhond from Amsterdam - a war pinnace of 100 last. As captain and Chief-Pilot was Willem Barentsz who was assited by helmsman, Cornelis Jacobszoon. Jacob van Heemskerck acted as Chief Merchant (Commis).

3. De Zwaan from Zeelandt - a Vlieboot of 40 last (Same ship of the previous year) Captain: Lambert Gerritszoon-Oom

4. De Griffioen from Zeelandt - a war pinnace of 86 last Captain: Cornelis Corneliszoon-Nay (Admiral of the Fleet), Francoys de la Dale: Commis and Interpreter and Christoffel Splindler: Interpreter

5. Unnamed Jacht from Rotterdam - 20 last. (The ship was only to have been commissioned on a later date which was when it would officially receive its name.) Captain: Hendrick Hartman

6. De Mercurius from Amsterdam - a Vlieboot/Jacht of 50 last (Same ship as the previous year) Captain: Harman Janszoon / Chief Pilot: Willem Gijsen

7. De Mercurius from Enkhuyzen - a Vlieboot/Jacht of 50 last (Same ship as the previous year) Captain: Thomas Willemszoon

There is one very important point that I want to raise at this stage in anticipation of Part 3 and my final conclusion.

When it came to the First Expedition the leading role players of Zeeland, Enkhuizen and Amsterdam (Cornelis Corneliszoon Nay, Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, Francoys de la Dale, Christoffel Splindler, Willem Barentsz, Jacob van Heemskerck and Brandt Ijsbrandt Tetgales sailed on the ships they had at their disposal i.e. each Admiralty only had one ship and thus the men had no choice as to which ship they wanted to sail on.

On the Second Expedition though, each Admiralty fielded two ships (sans Rotterdam which only had the one Jacht) of which one was considerably larger than the other.

Zeeland: the Griffioen (86 last) was larger than the Zwaan (40 last)
Enkhuizen: De Hoop (100 last) was larger than De Mercurius (50 last)
Amsterdam: De Windhond (100 last) was larger than De Mercurius (50 last)

When given the choice, ALL these men chose to sail on the LARGER of the two ships - bar none! And that includes Barentsz and Van Heemskerck - our two chief protagonists of the Third Expedition.

Thank you for your interest so far.
 
I'll hold off on commenting until the 3rd part is posted by Heinrich. In Harlingen, with their experiences with the ice-skating “Elfsteden Tochten”, they did not go over ’the ice of one night’.
Regards, Peter
I agree with that sentiment, Peter. It is much better to see the picture as a whole, rather than in sections. The only reason for me posting this in three parts, is that it takes me a very long time to put my findings into words in such a way that they are logical and eliminate ambiguities as far as possible. So, on the hand, I need the break and I hope I am preventing information overload in a single posting.
 
The only reason for me posting this in three parts, is that it takes me a very long time to put my findings into words in such a way that they are logical and eliminate ambiguities as far as possible. So, on the hand, I need the break and I hope I am preventing information overload in a single posting.
No problems at all, Heinrich. It’s very wise to post this amount in lovely informatie in parts. You know …….. to many trees ……. no forest …… ;)
 
Once I publish the results of the ships' names during the second expedition, you will see there is not a single source which mentions "Messenger", or "der Gesandte". The ones that do mention a specific name refer to "de MERCURIUS / MERCURY" and they also state categorically that it was THE SAME SHIP as the one used during the First Expedition.

The name "de Gezant" (in other words, the Dutch version), is not a name that was ever mentioned - in any translation or in any source.
Just trying to get it; the German and English references to the first (?) expedition do mention also "der Gesandte", "der Bote" and "the Messenger". "Mercurius" also means messenger, so this, i.c.w. your references to the second expedition, do indeed point towards "Mercurius" being the correct name for Barentsz ship on the first expedition. You just got my head spinning...
 
No problems at all, Heinrich. It’s very wise to post this amount in lovely informatie in parts. You know …….. to many trees ……. no forest …… ;)
Exactly Peter. There are so many fascinating nuances that I have not even included as it would just be too much. In an earlier PM to me today @Kolderstok Hans observed that the little ship "carried History as Cargo!" ROTF Oh boy, is he right - a better saying I have not heard!
 
What still bugs a little me is the fact that the different sources just don't straightforward mention the given name of the ship. It's like calling the Bluenose "die Blaue Nase", or "de Blauwe Gok". ;)
Johan what you expect is simply not realistic. If it was that easy there would be no need of researchers, multiple doctorates and equally as many theses. You are dealing with Russian, German, Dutch and English transcribed and translated in one form or another as long as 400 years ago. How do you expect - for instance - that Litke's original work (in Russian) which was translated into German by Erdman and was then translated into English would give you the verbatim name in Dutch? Especially when you take into account that the Dutch, German, English and Russian of 300 or 400 years ago, is not the same as it is today. Of course, you have to infer, cross-reference and cross check. And even then, you have to deal with mistakes such as "Boot" instead of "Bote". When you take into account that all four these studies were carried out independently from each other and in case of Forster and Litke are not merely direct translations of De Veer's work, but also the result of their own studies, it is remarkable that they have all arrived at the basic meaning of "Messenger".

They were clearly talking about the same ship, and they were all in agreement that this was Barentsz's ship during the first Expedition. better than that you are not going to get it.
 
Back
Top