“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 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. [225] 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, 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.