LAND CONJECTURED 69 



Meanwhile it is singular that the winds had never been so 

 steadily contrary before as they were after August 12. From the 

 13th to the 17th the time was spent in constant tacking between 

 north and south without gaining much thereby. 



On the 1 8th another singular event took place. About four 

 o'clock in the morning I heard those on deck speak about land. 

 I rose at once and went above. However, it may already have 

 been agreed that no one should say anything about having seen 

 land, especially in such a singular place, namely in the south. 

 Although this land, which before sunrise had been seen plainly, 

 was hidden later on by a fog, nevertheless it could still be dis- 

 tinctly recognized. ^^^ That it was not far from us could also be 

 inferred from the quantities of kelp floating from that direction. 

 The fact that the westerly wind died down suddenly served as an 

 additional proof that we were sailing between America and 

 some island to the south of us. Our officers were long since 

 weary of meeting land; but it was nevertheless indefensible to 

 leave it without an investigation to assure themselves of its 

 existence and to plot it on the chart. When I inquired of them 



146 There is of course no land in this region (about 523^^° N. and 

 158° W.; see Vol. i, PI. I). Whatever Steller may have heard said on 

 deck, it is not known whether the officers thought there was land there. 

 At all events they did not record it in the log book (see Vol. i, p. 128), 

 although, to be sure, according to Steller's view of their duplicity, this 

 would not necessarily prove their disbelief in the presence of land. That, 

 on being asked what land they thought it was, they said Juan de Gama 

 Land, as Steller states immediately below, may simply have been to send 

 him about his business, impatient as they were of his constant insistence 

 on his point of view. In spite of what Steller goes on to say about their 

 alleged misconception of Juan de Gama Land, from all the records it 

 would appear that they did not consider this land (about which see Vol. 

 I, pp. 2-3 and Fig. i, and, in this volume, footnotes 27, 28, and 148, last 

 paragraph) at the most to extend farther east than longitude 180°, where 

 they had disproved its existence on June 25 (see Vol. I, Pl.I and p. 71). 

 Whatever the merits of the case, it seems probable that Steller was 

 partially led into this error of judgment, as he had been in his belief 

 that a continuance of the ESE course after June 12 would have led to 

 the discovery of land (see, above, footnote 42), by his contempt for the 

 opinion of the officers. (J) 



