observed position on May 5th, 71° 46' North, and the course, "east,
and by south and east," and continues: "After much trouble, with
fogges sometimes, and more dangerous ice. The nineteenth, being
Tuesday, was close stormie weather, with much wind and snow, and
very cold. The wind variable between the north north-west and
north-east. We made our way west and by north till noone."

[Illustration: DUTCH SHIPS OF HUDSON'S TIME.
FROM DE VEER. DRIE SEYLAGIEN, AMSTERDAM, 1605]

His abrupt transition from the fifth to the nineteenth of May
covers the time in which the mutiny occurred. Practically, his log
begins almost on the day that the ship's course was changed. In the
smooth concluding paragraph of this same log, to be cited later, he
passes over unmentioned the mutiny that occurred on the homeward
voyage. Judging him by the facts recorded in the accounts of the
voyage into Hudson's Bay, it is a fair assumption that in both of
these earlier mutinies Juet had a hand.

I wish that we could find the bond that held Hudson and Juet
together. That Juet could write, and that he understood the science
of navigation--although those were rare accomplishments among
seamen in his time--fail sufficiently to account for Hudson's
persistent employment of him. For my own part, I revert to my
theory of fatalism. It is my fancy that this "ancient man"--as he
is styled by one of his companions--was Hudson's evil genius; and I
class him with the most finely conceived character in Marryat's
most finely conceived romance: the pilot Schriften, in "The Phantom
Ship." Just as Schriften clung to the younger Van der Decken to
thwart him, so Juet seems to have clung to Hudson to thwart him;