mesme que durant la grande nuict d’Hyver le sommeil leur a derobé beaucoup de temps, & qu’ils n’ont pû asseurement dresser leur Journal comme auroient fait ceux qui auroient pû soirs & matins distinguer en jour & en nuict le temps de 24 heures, et compter ainsi nettement & exactement toutes les journées; chose impossible à faire aux Pilotes de la Navigation vers le Nord, & auxquels il faut pardonner en cette occasion; avec cela je finis. Le 15 Septembre, 1627. [222] From this letter of Robert le Canu it will be perceived, that the fact of the sun’s disappearance on the 4th of November 1596 was equally denied by him with that of its reappearance on the 24th of January following. The former, though differing in degree, was, as far as regards the fact itself, deemed not less abnormal and “opposed to nature and to reason” than the latter. It is therefore of importance to demonstrate that the particulars recorded by Gerrit de Veer concerning the sun’s latest appearance and final disappearance, are in all respects absolutely and literally true. On the 2nd of November, he states that the sun “did not show its whole disk, but passed in the horizon along the earth.” On that day, in latitude 75° 45′ (which was their true position, and not 76° as they supposed), the sun’s declination was—14° 53′,3; and the complement of the elevation of the Pole being 14° 15′, the sun’s centre was actually 38′3 below the horizon. But, with an assumed temperature of—8 Fahr., the refraction would have been as much as 39′,3; and, as “the land where they were was as high as the round-top of their ship”, an assumed height of thirty feet would give 5′,4 for the dip of the horizon. Hence, according to theory, 6′,4 more than the half of the sun’s disk should have been visible; that is to say, 22′ or 23′, or about seven-tenths of the entire disk. Consequently De Veer’s statement in this respect is literally true. On the following day the sun’s centre was actually 56′,9, and its upper edge about 40′,9, below the horizon. But the refraction 39′,3 and the dip 5′,4, would have raised it 44′,7 to the sight; so that 3′,8 or nearly twelve-hundredths of the sun’s disk ought still to have been visible. De Veer speaks therefore the pure truth when he says that, on the 3rd of November, “they could see nothing but the upper edge of the sun above the horizon.” [223] On the day afterwards the sun’s declination was 15° 30′,5, and consequently its centre was 1° 15′,5, and its upper edge 59′,5, below the horizon. And taking the sum of the refraction and the dip at 44′,7, the sun’s upper edge would have been actually 14′,8 below the visible horizon. Strictly in accordance with this, we have De Veer’s statement on the 4th of November, “but that we saw the sunne no more, for it was no longer aboue the horizon”.