Chapter XX: Book II (10)

The Abbe’s words are, “Si ceux qui promettent une si grande precision
dans ces sortes de methodes, avoient navigué quelque tems, ils
auroient vû souvent, que dans l’observation la plus simple de toutes,
qui est celle de la hauteur du soleil à midi, deux observations, munis
de bons quartiers de reflexion, bien rectifiés, different entr’eux,
lorsqu’ils observent chacun à part, de 5ʹ, 6ʹ, 7ʹ, & 8ʹ.”

_Ephémer_. 1755-1765. _Introduction_, p. 32.

It must be however mentioned, in justice to M. de la Caille, that he
attempted to introduce the lunar method of discovering the longitude,
and proposed a plan of calculations of the moon’s distance from the
sun and fixed stars; but, through the imperfection of his instruments,
his success was much less than that method was capable of affording.
The bringing it into general use was reserved for Dr. Maskelyne, our
astronomer royal. See the preface to the _Tables for correcting the
Effects of Refraction and Parallax_, published by the Board of
Longitude, under the direction of Dr. Shepherd, Plumian Professor of
Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge, in 1772.

Footnote 61:

In addition to Mr. Wales’s Remark, it may be observed, that the
proficiency of our naval officers in taking observations at sea, must
ultimately be attributed to the great attention paid to this important
object by the Board of Longitude at home; liberal rewards having been
given to mathematicians for perfecting the lunar tables, and
facilitating calculations; to artists for constructing more accurate
instruments for observing, and watches better adapted to keeping time
at sea. It appears, therefore, that the voyages of discovery, and the
operations of the Board of Longitude went hand in hand; and they must
be combined in order to form a just estimate of the extent of the plan
carried into execution since his Majesty’s accession, for improving
astronomy and navigation. But, besides the establishment of the Board
of Longitude on its present footing, which has had such important
consequences, it must also be ever acknowledged, that his present
Majesty has extended his royal patronage to every branch of the
liberal arts and useful science. The munificent present to the Royal
Society for defraying the expence of observing the _transit_ of
Venus;—the institution of the Academy of Painting and Sculpture;—the
magnificent apartments allotted to the Royal and Antiquary Societies,
and to the Royal Academy, at Somerset Place;—the support of the Garden
of Exotics at Kew, to improve which, Mr. Mason was sent to the
extremities of Africa;—the _substantial_ encouragement afforded to
learned men and learned works, in various departments; and
particularly that afforded to Mr. Herschell, which has enabled him to
devote himself entirely to the improvement of astronomy; these and
many other instances which might be enumerated, would have greatly
distinguished his Majesty’s reign, even if he had not been the patron
of those successful attempts to perfect geography and navigation by so
many voyages of discovery.

Footnote 62:

See Dr. Shepherd’s Preface, as above.

Footnote 63:

Dr. Solander, Dr. Foster and his son, and Dr. Sparman. Dr. Foster has
given us a specimen of the botanical discoveries of his voyage in the
_Characteres Generum Plantarum_, &c.; and much curious philosophical
matter is contained in his _Observations made on a Voyage round the
World_. Dr. Sparman also, on his return to Sweden, favoured us with a
publication, in which he expatiates on the advantages accruing to
natural history, to astronomy, geography, general physic, and
navigation, from our South-Sea voyages.

Footnote 64:

See Vol. IV. p. 266.

Footnote 65:

Preface to his History of English Poetry.

Footnote 66:

Tom. i. p. 331.

Footnote 67:

History of Japan, vol. i. p. 93.

Footnote 68:

That the Malayans have not only frequented Madagascar, but have also
been the progenitors of some of the present race of inhabitants there,
is confirmed to us by the testimony of Monsieur de Pages, who visited
that island so late as 1774. “Ils m’ont paru provenir des diverses
Races; leur couleur, leurs cheveux, et leur corps l’indiquent. Ceux
que je n’ai pas cru originaires des anciens naturels du pays, sont
petits et trapus; ils ont les cheveux presque unis, et sont _olivâtres
comme les Malayes, avec qui ils ont, en général, une espece de
resemblance_.”

_Voyages des M._ des Pages, T. ii. p. 90.

Footnote 69:

Archæolog. vol. vi. p. 155. See also his History of Sumatra, p. 166,
from which the following passage is transcribed. “Besides the Malaye,
there are a variety of languages spoken on Sumatra, which, however,
have not only a manifest affinity among themselves, but also to that
general language which is found to prevail in, and to be indigenous
to, all the islands of the eastern seas; from Madagascar to the
remotest of Captain Cook’s discoveries, comprehending a wider extent
than the Roman or any other tongue has yet boasted. In different
places, it has been more or less mixed and corrupted; but between the
most dissimilar branches, an eminent sameness of many radical words is
apparent; and in some very distant from each other, in point of
situation: As, for instance, the Philippines and Madagascar, the
deviation of the words is scarcely more than is observed in the
dialects of neighbouring provinces of the same kingdom.”

Footnote 70:

We are indebted to Sir Joseph Banks, for a general outline of this, in
Hawkesworth’s Collection, vol. iii. p. 777. The reader will find our
enlarged Table at the end of the third volume, Appendix, No. 2.

Footnote 71:

See Crantz’s History of Greenland, vol. i. p. 262.; where we are told
that the Moravian Brethren, who, with the consent and furtherance of
Sir Hugh Palliser, then Governor of Newfoundland, visited the
Esquimaux on the Labradore coast, found that their language, and that
of the Greenlanders, do not differ so much as that of the High and Low
Dutch.

Footnote 72:

See Appendix, No. 6. The Greenlanders, as Crantz tells us, call
themselves _Karalit_; a word not very unlike _Kanagyst_, the name
assumed by the inhabitants of Kodiack, one of the Schumagin islands,
as Stæhlin informs us.

Footnote 73:

A contempt of revelation is generally the result of ignorance,
conceited of its possessing superior knowledge. Observe how the Author
of _Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains_, expresses himself
on this very point. “Cette distance que Mr. Antermony veut trouver si
peu importante, est à-peu-près _de huit cent lieues Gauloises au
travers d’un ocean perilleux_, et impossible à franchir avec des
canots aussi chetifs et aussi fragiles que le sont, au rapport
d’Ysbrand Ides, les chaloupes des Tunguses,” &c. &c. t. i. p. 156. Had
this writer known that the two continents are not above _thirteen_
leagues (instead of _eight hundred_) distant from each other, and
that, even in that narrow space of sea, there are intervening islands,
he would not have ventured to urge this argument in opposition to Mr.
Bell’s notion of the quarter from which North America received its
original inhabitants.

Footnote 74:

Soon after our departure from England, I was instructed by Captain
Cook to complete a map of the world as a general chart, from the best
materials he was in possession of for that purpose; and before his
death this business was in a great measure accomplished: That is, the
grand outline of the whole was arranged, leaving only those parts
vacant or unfinished, which he expected to fall in with and explore.
But on our return home, when the fruits of our voyage were ordered by
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to be published, the care of
the general chart being consigned to me, I was directed to prepare it
from the latest and best authorities; and also to introduce Captain
Cook’s three successive tracts, that all his discoveries, and the
different routs he had taken might appear together; by this means to
give a general idea of the whole. This task having been performed by
me, it is necessary, for the information of the reader, to state the
heads of the several authorities which I have followed in such parts
of the chart as differ from what was drawn up immediately under the
inspection of Captain Cook. And when the public are made acquainted,
that many materials, necessary to complete and elucidate the work,
were not at the time on board the Resolution, or in his possession,
the reason will appear very obvious, why these alterations and
additions were introduced contrary to the original drawing.

First, then, I have followed closely the very excellent and correct
charts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean, published by Messrs. de Verdun
de la Crenne, de Borda, et Pringre in 1775 and 1776; which comprise
the coast of Norway from the Sud Hoek, in the latitude of 62 degrees
north, to Trelleburg, Denmark, the coast of Holland, north coast of
Great Britain, Orkneys, Shetland, Ferro Isles, Iceland, coasts of
France, Spain, and Portugal, to Cape St. Maria on the coast of Africa;
including the Azores, Canaries, Cape de Verd, Antilles, and West
Indian islands from Barbadoes to the east end of Cuba; the north part
of Newfoundland and the Labradore coast, as far as the latitude of 57°
north.

Ireland, and part of the coast of Scotland, is laid down from Mr.
Mackenzie’s late surveys; and the south coast of England from a chart
published by Mr. Faden in 1780, taken from M. l’Abbé Dicquemare.

The north part of the coast of Labradore, from the latitude of 57°
north, to Button’s Islands in the entrance of Hudson’s Strait, is
taken from Monsieur Bellin’s chart, as is also the north coast of
Norway and Lapland, including the White Sea, Gulph of Bothnia, Baltic
Sea, and the east coast of Greenland.

The Gulf of Finland, from a large (MS.) chart, now engraving for the
use of some private merchants.

The West India islands, from the east end of Cuba to the west end,
including Jamaica and the Bahama islands, are from a chart published
in London by Sayer and Bennett in 1779.

The south side of Cuba, from Point Gorda to Cape de Cruz, is laid down
from Monsieur Bellin, in 1762.

The coasts of Newfoundland, and the Gulf of St. Laurence, from the
surveys made by Captain Cook, and Messrs. Gilbert and Lane.

Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Island of St. John, River St. Laurence,
Canada, and New England to the River Delaware, from J. F. W. des
Barres, Esq. in 1777 and 1778; and charts published in France by order
of the King, in 1780, intituled, Neptune Americo-Septrentrional, &c.
And from these charts also are taken the coast of Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, East
and West Florida, as well as the interior parts of the country to the
east side of Lake Ontario.

The other parts of this lake, as likewise Lakes Erie, Hurons,
Michigan, and Superior, were copied from Mr. Green’s maps of America:
The northern part of this last-mentioned lake is fixed from the
astronomical observations made by order of the Hudson’s Bay Company,
at Mishippicotton House.

The whole of Hudson’s Bay I took from a chart, compiled by Mr. Marly,
from all the most authentic maps he could procure of those parts, with
which I was favoured by Samuel Wegg, Esq. F. R. S. and Governor of
that Company, who also politely furnished me with Mr. Hearne’s
Journals, and the map of his route to the Coppermine River, which is
faithfully inserted on the chart, together with the survey of
Chesterfield Inlet made by Captain Christopher and Mr. Moses Norton,
in 1762; and the discoveries from York Fort to Cumberland, and Hudson
Houses (this last is the most western settlement belonging to the
company), extending to Lake Winipeg, from the drafts of Mr. Philip
Turnor, made in 1778 and 1779, corrected by astronomical observations.
And from this lake, the disposition of the other lakes to the
southward of it, and which communicate with it, is formed, and laid
down from a map constructed by Mr. Spurrel, in the company’s service.
The Albany and Moose rivers to Gloucester House, and to Lake Abitibbe
and Superior, are also drawn from a map of Mr. Turnor’s, adjusted by
observations for the longitudes.

The west coast of Greenland, as chiefly laid down from the
observations made by Lieut. R. Pickersgill in the Lion brig in 1776,
which determine the line of the coast only, as the immense quantities
of ice choke up every bay and inlet on this coast, which formerly
were, in the summer season, quite free and open.

From the mouth of the Mississippi River, including its source, and the
other rivers branching from it; all the coast of New Leon to Cape
Rozo, and the western coast of America, from Cape Corrienties to the
Great Bay of Tecoantepec, is taken from Monsieur D’Anville.

The Gulf of California I have laid down from a German publication in
1773, put into my hands by Sir Joseph Banks, Bart. P. R. S.; and the
western side of it is brought together from a Spanish MS. chart with
which A. Dalrymple, Esq. F. R. S. obliged me.

The coast of Brazil, from Sera to Cape Frio, is copied from a small
chart of that part by Mr. Dalrymple.

For the southern part of Africa, from the Cape of Good Hope to Point
Natal, I have taken the authority of the chart of Major J. Rennels, F.
R. S. shewing the extent of the bank of Lagullus.

For the existence of the small islands, shoals, and banks to the
eastward of Madagascar, together with the Archipelago of the Maldive
and Laccidive islands; for the coasts of Mallacca, part of Cambodia,
and the island Sumatra, I have used the latest authority of Monsieur
D’Après de Mannevillette’s publications in the Neptune Oriental.

The coasts of Guzerat, Malabar, Coromandel, and the opposite shore,
containing the Great Bay of Bengal, and the Island of Ceylon, and
exhibiting the Heads of the Ganges, and Barampooter or Sanpoo rivers,
are inserted from the work of the ingenious author of the map of
Hindoostan, published in 1782.

The China sea is laid down from the chart published by Mr. Dalrymple;
but the longitude of Pula Sapara, Pulo Condore, Pulo Timoan, Straits
of Banca and Sunda, and the parts we saw are, as settled by us,
together with the east coast of Niphon, the principal of the Japanese
islands.

The Jeso and Kurile islands, the east coast of Asia and Kamtschatka,
as well as the sea of Okotsk, and the islands lying between
Kamtschatka and America that were not seen in the voyage, are taken
from a Russian MS. chart, got by us at the island of Oonalashka.

The northern countries from Cape Kanin, near the White Sea, as far
east of the River Lena, I have given from the Great Russian map,
published at Petersburgh in 1776, including the Euxine, Caspian, and
Aral Seas, as also the principal lakes to the eastward; the intent of
which is to show the source of the large rivers that empty themselves
into the different oceans and seas.

Every other part of the chart not mentioned in this account, is as
originally placed by Captain Cook.

The whole has been corrected from the latest astronomical
observations, selected from the tables compiled by Mr. William Wales,
F. R. S. and mathematical master of Christ’s Hospital, for the
Nautical Almanacs: from those in the Mariner’s Guide by the Rev. Dr.
Maskelyne, F. R. S. and Astronomer Royal, published in 1763; from the
Connoissance des Tems for 1780 and 1781; From Professor Mayer’s
Geographical Table; from the Voyages of Messrs. d’Eveux de Fleurieu,
Verdun, de Borda, and Chabet, &c.; from the Table lately published by
Mr. Dalrymple for the use of the East India ships; from the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society; and from the
Observations of our late Navigators.

HEN. ROBERTS.

SHOREHAM, SUSSEX, May 18. 1784.

Footnote 75:

The very copious Vocabulary of the language of Otaheite, and the
comparative specimen of the languages of the several other islands
visited during the former voyage, and published in Captain Cook’s
account of it, were furnished by Mr. Anderson.

Footnote 76:

The late Sir Joseph.

Footnote 77:

See the instructions in the Introduction.

Footnote 78:

Captain Le Crass, Admiral Amherst having struck his flag some days
before.

Footnote 79:

It appears from Captain Cook’s log-book, that he began his judicious
operations for preserving the health of his crew, very early in the
voyage. On the 17th, the ship was smoked between decks with
gun-powder. The spare sails also were then well aired.

Footnote 80:

Though no such instance was known to those from whom Captain Cook had
this information, we learn from Glas, that _some years before_ he was
at Teneriffe, _almost all the shipping in the road were driven on
shore_. See _Glas’s Hist. of the Canary Islands_, p. 235. We may well
suppose the precautions now used, have prevented any more such
accidents happening. This will sufficiently justify Captain Cook’s
account.

Footnote 81:

Formerly, there was made at Teneriffe a great quantity of Canary sack,
which the French call _Vin de Malvesie_; and we, corruptly after them,
name Malmsey (from Malvesia, a town in the Morea, famous for such
luscious wine). In the last century, and still later, much of this was
imported into England; but little wine is now made there, but of the
sort described by Captain Cook. Not more than fifty pipes of the rich
Canary was annually made in Glas’s time; and he says, they now gather
the grapes when green, and make a dry hard wine of them, fit for hot
climates, p. 262.

Footnote 82:

See an account of a journey to the top of the Pic of Teneriffe, in
_Sprat’s History of the Royal Society_, p. 200, &c. _Glas_ also went
to the top of it. _History of the Canary Islands_, p. 252 to 259. In
the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xlvii. p. 353-356, we have
_Observations made, in going up the Pic of Teneriffe, by Dr. T.
Heberden_. The Doctor makes its height, about the level of the sea, to
be 2566 fathoms, or 15,396 English feet; and says, that this was
confirmed by two subsequent observations by himself, and another made
by Mr. Crosse, the consul. And yet, I find, that the Chevalier de
Borda, who measured the height of this mountain in August 1776, makes
it to be only 1931 French toises, or 12,340 English feet. See Dr.
Forster’s _Observations during a Voyage round the World_, p. 32.

Footnote 83:

_Glas_, p. 231., speaking of this plant, says, that _he cannot imagine
why the natives of the Canaries do not extract the juice, and use it
instead of pitch, for the bottoms of their boats_. We now learn from
Mr. Anderson their reason for not using it.

Footnote 84:

Its extended name is St. Christobal de la Laguna; and it used to be
reckoned the capital of the island, the gentry and lawyers living
there; though the Governor-General of the Canary Islands resides at
Santa Cruz, as being the centre of their trade, both with Europe and
America. See _Glas’s Hist._ p. 248.

Footnote 85:

The writer of the _Relation of Teneriffe, in Sprat’s History_, p. 207,
takes notice of this lemon as produced here, and calls it _Pregnada_.
Probably, _emprennada_, the Spanish word for _impregnated_, is the
name it goes by.

Footnote 86:

This agrees with Dr. T. Heberden’s account, who says that the
sugar-loaf part of the mountain, or _la pericosa_ (as it is called),
_which is an eighth part of a league_ (or 1980 feet) _to the top, is
covered with snow the greatest part of the year_. See _Philosophical
Transactions_, as quoted above.

Footnote 87:

This port was then filled up by the rivers of burning lava that flowed
into it from a volcano; insomuch that houses are now built where ships
formerly lay at anchor. See _Glas’s Hist._ p. 244.

Footnote 88:

_Glas_, p. 342., says, that they annually export no less than fifteen
thousand pipes of wine and brandy. In another place, p. 252, he tells
us, that the number of the inhabitants of Teneriffe, when the last
account was taken, was no less than 96,000. We may reasonably suppose
that there has been a considerable increase of population since Glas
visited the island, which is above thirty years ago. The quantity of
wine annually consumed, as the common beverage of at least one hundred
thousand persons, must amount to several thousand pipes. There must be
a vast expenditure of it, by conversion into brandy; to produce one
pipe of which, five or six pipes of wine must be distilled. An
attention to these particulars will enable every one to judge, that
the account given to Mr. Anderson, of an annual produce of 40,000
pipes of wine, has a foundation in truth.

Footnote 89:

It was otherwise in Glas’s time, when a few families of the _Guanches_
(as they are called) remained still in Teneriffe, not blended with the
Spaniards. _Glas_, p. 240.

Footnote 90:

As a proof of Captain Cook’s attention, both to the discipline and to
the health of his ship’s company, it may be worth while to observe
here, that it appears from his log-book, _he exercised them at great
guns and small arms, and cleared and smoked the ship below decks_,
twice in the interval between the 4th and the 10th of August.

Footnote 91:

On board his Majesty’s ship Elizabeth, from 1758 to 1764; by William
Nichelson, master of the said ship. London, 1773.

Footnote 92:

Dampier’s Voyages, vol. iii. p. 10.

Footnote 93:

On the 18th, I sunk a bucket with a thermometer seventy fathoms below
the surface of the sea, where it remained two minutes; and it took
three minutes more to haul it up. The mercury in the thermometer was
at 66, which before, in the air, stood at 78, and in the surface of
the sea at 79. The water which came up in the bucket contained, by Mr.
Cavendish’s table, 1/25, 7 part salt; and that at the surface of the
sea 1/29, 4. As this last was taken up after a smart shower of rain,
it might be lighter on that account. _Captain Cook’s log-book._

Footnote 94:

The particulars are mentioned in his log-book. On the 14th of August,
a fire was made in the well, to air the ship below. On the 15th, the
spare-sails were aired upon deck, and a fire made to air the
sail-room. On the 17th, cleaned and smoked betwixt decks, and the
bread-room aired with fires. On the 21st, cleaned and smoked betwixt
decks; and on the 22d, the men’s bedding was spread on deck to air.

Footnote 95:

The afternoon, as appears from Mr. Anderson’s Journal, was spent in
performing the old and ridiculous ceremony of ducking those who had
not crossed the equator before. Though Captain Cook did not suppress
the custom, he thought it too trifling to deserve the least mention of
it in his Journal, or even in his log-book. Pernetty, the writer of
Bougainville’s Voyage to the Falkland Islands, in 1763 and 1764,
thought differently; for his account of the celebration of this
childish festival on board his ship, is extended through seventeen
pages, and makes the subject of an entire chapter, under the title of
_Baptême de la Ligne_.

It may be worth while to transcribe his introduction to the
description of it. “C’est un usage qui ne remonte pas plus haut que ce
voyage célébre de Gama, qui a fourni au Camoens le sujet de la
Lusiade. L’Idée qu’on ne sçauroit être un bon marin, sans avoir
traversé l’Equateur, l’ennui inséparable d’une longue navigation, un
certain esprit republicain qui regne dans toutes les petites societés,
peut-être toutes ces causes reunies, on pu donner naissance à ces
especes de saturnales. Quoiqu’il en soit, elles furent adoptées, en un
instant, dans toutes les nations, et les hommes les plus eclairés
furent obligés de se soumettre à une coutume dont ils reconnoissoient
l’absurdité. Car, partout, des que le peuple parle, il faut que le
sage se mette à l’unison.” _Histoire d’un Voyage aux Isles Malouines_,
p. 107, 108.

Footnote 96:

See vol. IV. p. 252.

Footnote 97:

P. 11.

Footnote 98:

See Hawkesworth’s Collection of Voyages, vol. ii. p. 15.

Footnote 99:

“The most remarkable thing in the Cape sheep, is the length and
thickness of their tails, which weigh from fifteen to twenty pounds.
The fat is not so tallowish as that of European mutton, and the poorer
sort use it for butter.” _Kolben’s Cape of Good Hope_ [English
translation], vol. ii. p. 65. De la Caille, who finds every thing
wrong in Kolben, says, the weight of the tails of the Cape sheep is
not above five or six pounds. _Voyage de la Caille_, p. 343. If the
information given to Captain Cook may be depended upon, it will prove
that, in this instance at least, Kolben is unjustly accused of
exaggeration.

Footnote 100:

In the Philosophical Transactions, vol. lxvi. p. 268 to 319, is an
_Account of Three Journies from the Cape Town into the Southern parts
of Africa_, in 1772, 1773, and 1774; by Mr. Francis Masson, who had
been sent from England for the discovery of new plants, towards the
improvement of the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew. Much curious
information is contained in Mr. Masson’s account of these journies. M.
de Pagés, who was at the Cape in 1773, gives some remarks on the state
of that settlement, and also the particulars of his journey from False
Bay to the Cape Town. _Voyage vers le Pole du Sud_, p. 17 to 32.

Footnote 101:

In the Philosophical Transactions, vol. lxviii. part I. p. 102, we
have a Letter from Mr. Anderson to Sir John Pringle, describing this
remarkable stone. The account sent home from the Cape, and read before
the Royal Society, is much the same with that now published, but
rather fuller. In particular, he tells Sir John, that he went to see
it _at Mr. Mason’s desire_, who, probably, had not had an opportunity
of sufficiently examining it himself. In the account of his journies,
above referred to, p. 270, he only says, “_there are two large solid
rocks on the Perel Berg, each of which (he believes) is more than a
mile in circumference at the base, and upwards of two hundred feet
high. Their surfaces are nearly smooth, without chink or fissures; and
they are found to be a species of granite, different from that which
composes the neighbouring mountains._”

Mr. Anderson having, with his letter to Sir John Pringle, also sent
home a specimen of the rock, it was examined by Sir William Hamilton,
whose opinion is, that “_this singular, immense fragment of granite,
most probably has been raised by a volcanic explosion, or some such
cause_.” See his Letter to Sir John Pringle, annexed to Mr.
Anderson’s, in the Philosophical Transactions.

Footnote 102:

It is strange that neither Kolben nor de la Caille should have thought
the _Tower of Babylon_ worthy of a particular description. The former
[vol. ii. p. 52, 53, English Translation,] only mentions it as a _high
mountain_. The latter contents himself with telling us, that it is a
very low hillock, _un très-bas monticule_. _Voyage de la Caille_, p.
341. We are much obliged to Mr. Anderson for his very accurate account
of this remarkable rock, which agrees with Mr. Sonnerat’s, who was at
the Cape of Good Hope so late as 1781. His words are, “La Montagne de
la _Perle_, merite d’être observée. C’est un des plus hautes des
environs du Cap. Elle n’est composée que d’un seul bloc de granit
crévassé dans plusieurs endroits.” _Voyage aux Indes_, tom. ii. p. 91.

Mr. Sonnerat tells us, that Mr. Gordon, commander of the troops at the
Cape, had lately made three journies up the country, from which, when
he publishes his Journal, we may expect much curious information.

Footnote 103:

Vol. III. p. 35.

Footnote 104:

Nichelson.

Footnote 105:

Mr. Dun.

Footnote 106:

See Vol. IV. p. 243. These islands are there said to be in the
latitude of 48° S., that is, two degrees farther south, than what here
appears to be their real position.

Footnote 107:

See Vol. IV. as above. Dr. Forster, in his _observations made during
that voyage_, p. 30., gives us this description of the chart then
communicated by Monsieur Crozet; that it was _published under the
patronage of the Duke de Croye, by Robert de Vaugondy_. Captain Cook
tells us lower in this chapter that it was published in 1773.

Footnote 108:

Captain Cook’s proceedings, as related in the remaining part of this
chapter, and in the next, being upon a coast newly discovered by the
French, it could not but be an object of his attention to trace the
footsteps of the original explorers. But no superiority of
professional skill, nor diligence in exerting it, could possibly
qualify him to do this successfully, without possessing, at the same
time, full and authentic intelligence of all that had been performed
here by his predecessors in the discovery. But that he was not so
fortunate as to be thus sufficiently instructed, will appear from the
following facts, which the reader is requested to attend to, before he
proceeds to the perusal of this part of the journal.

How very little was known, with any precision, about the operations of
Kerguelen, when Captain Cook sailed in 1776, may be inferred from the
following paragraph of his instructions: “You are to proceed in search
of some islands _said to have been lately seen_ by the French in the
latitude of 48° S., and in the meridian of Mauritius.”[109] This was,
barely, the amount of the very indefinite and imperfect information,
which Captain Cook himself had received from Baron Plettenberg at the
Cape of Good Hope, in November 1772[110]; in the beginning of which
year Kerguelen’s _first_ voyage had taken place.

The Captain, on his return homeward, in March 1775, heard, a second
time, something about this French discovery at the Cape, where he met
with Monsieur Crozet, who _very obligingly communicated to him_ a
chart of the southern hemisphere, _wherein were delineated not only
his own discoveries, but also that of Captain Kerguelen_.[111] But
what little information that chart could convey, was still necessarily
confined to the operations of the first voyage; the chart here
referred to, having been published in France in 1773; that is, before
any intelligence could possibly be conveyed from the southern
hemisphere of the result of Kerguelen’s second visit to this new land;
which we now know happened towards the close of the same year.

Of these latter operations, the only account (if that can be called an
account which conveys no particular information) received by Captain
Cook from Monsieur Crozet was, _that a later voyage had been
undertaken by the French, under the command of Captain Kerguelen,
which had ended much to the disgrace of that commander_.[112]

What Crozet had _not_ communicated to our author, and what we are
sure, from a variety of circumstances, he had _never_ heard of from
any other quarter, he missed an opportunity of learning at Teneriffe.
He expresses his being sorry, as we have just read, _that he did not
know sooner that there was on board the frigate an officer who had
been with Kerguelen, as he might have obtained from him more
interesting information about this land than its situation_. And,
indeed, if he had conversed with that officer he might have obtained
information _more interesting_ than he was aware of; he might have
learnt that Kerguelen had actually visited this southern land a second
time, and that the little isle of which he then received the name and
position from the Chevalier de Borda, was a discovery of this later
voyage. But the account conveyed to him being, as the reader will
observe, unaccompanied with any date, or other distinguishing
circumstance, he left Teneriffe, and arrived on the coasts of
Kerguelen’s Land, under a full persuasion that it had been visited
only _once_ before. And, even with regard to the operations of that
first voyage, he had nothing to guide him, but the very scanty
materials afforded to him by Baron Plettenberg and Monsieur Crozet.

The truth is, the French seem, for some reason or other, not surely
founded on the importance of Kerguelen’s discovery, to have been very
shy of publishing a full and distinct account of it. No such account
had been published while Captain Cook lived. Nay, even after the
return of his ships in 1780, the gentleman who obligingly lent his
assistance to give a view of the prior observations of the French, and
to connect them on the same chart with those of our author, though his
assiduity in procuring geographical information can be equalled only
by his readiness in communicating it, had not, it should seem, been
able to procure any materials for that purpose, but such as mark the
operations of the first French voyage; and even for these, he was
indebted to a MS. drawing.

But this veil of unnecessary secrecy is at length drawn aside.
Kerguelen himself has, very lately, published the journal of his
proceedings in two successive voyages in the years 1772 and 1773; and
has annexed to his Narrative a chart of the coasts of this land, as
far as he had explored them in both voyages. Monsieur de Pagés also,
much about the same time, favoured us with another account of the
second voyage, in some respects fuller than Kerguelen’s own, on board
whose ship he was then an officer.

From these sources of authentic information we are enabled to draw
every necessary material to correct what is erroneous, and to
illustrate what, otherwise, would have remained obscure, in this part
of Captain Cook’s Journal. We shall take occasion to do this in
separate notes on the passages as they occur, and conclude this
tedious, but, it is hoped, not unnecessary detail of facts, with one
general remark, fully expressive of the disadvantages our author
laboured under. He never saw that part of the coast upon which the
French had been in 1772; and he never knew that they had been upon
another part of it in 1773, which was the very scene of his own
operations. Consequently, what he knew of the _former_ voyage, as
_delineated_ upon Crozet’s chart, only served to perplex and mislead
his judgment; and his total ignorance of the _latter_, put it out of
his power to compare his own observations with those then made by
Kerguelen; though we, who are better instructed, can do this, by
tracing the plainest marks of coincidence and agreement.

Footnote 109:

See the Instructions in the Introduction.

Footnote 110:

See Vol. III. p. 36.

Footnote 111:

Vol. IV. p. 243.

Footnote 112:

Vol. IV. p. 244.

Footnote 113:

Captain Cook was not the original discoverer of these small islands
which he now fell in with. It is certain that they had been seen and
named by Kerguelen, on his second voyage, in December, 1773. Their
position, relatively to each other, and to the adjoining coasts of the
greater land, as represented on the annexed chart, bears a striking
resemblance to Kerguelen’s delineation of them; whose chart, however,
the public may be assured, was unknown in England till after our’s had
been engraved.

Footnote 114:

This is the isle to which Kerguelen gave the name of _Croy_ or
_Crouy_. Besides delineating it upon his chart, he has added a
particular view of it, exactly corresponding with Captain Cook’s
account of its being of _considerable height_.

Footnote 115:

Kerguelen called this _Isle Rolland_, after the name of his own ship.
There is also a particular view of it on the French chart.

Footnote 116:

The observations of the French and English navigators agree exactly,
as to the position of these smaller isles.

Footnote 117:

The situation of Kerguelen’s _Isle de Clugny_, as marked on his chart,
shows it to be the _third high island_ seen by Captain Cook.

Footnote 118:

This isle, or _rock_, was the single point about which Captain Cook
had received the least information at Teneriffe; and we may observe
how sagacious he was in tracing it. What he could only speak of as
_probable_, a comparison of his chart with that lately published by
Kerguelen, proves to be certain; and if he had even read and copied
what his predecessors in the discovery says of it, he could scarcely
have varied his account of its shape. Kerguelen’s words are, “_Isle de
Réunion_, qui n’est qu’une _roche_, nous servoit _de rendezvous_, ou
de point de ralliement; et resemble à un _coin de mire_.”

Footnote 119:

The French and English agree very nearly (as might be expected) in
their accounts of the latitude of this island; but the observations by
which they fix its longitude, vary considerably.

The pilot at Teneriffe made it only 64° 57ʹ E. from Paris, which is
about 67° 16ʹ E. from London; or 1° 24ʹ more, westerly than Captain
Cook’s observations fix it.

Monsieur de Pagés says it is 66° 47ʹ E. from Paris, that is 69° 6ʹ E.
from London, or twenty-six miles more easterly than it is placed by
Captain Cook.

Kerguelen himself only says that it is _about_ 68° of E. longitude,
_par 68° de longitude_.

Footnote 120:

Hitherto, we have only had occasion to supply defects, owing to
Captain Cook’s _entire_ ignorance of Kerguelen’s second voyage in
1773; we must now correct errors, owing to his very limited knowledge
of the operations of the first voyage in 1772. The chart of the
southern hemisphere, his only guide, having given him, as he tells us,
the name of Cape St. Louis (or Cape Louis) as the most northerly
promontory then seen by the French; and his own observations now
satisfying him that no part of the main land stretched further N. than
the _left extreme_ now before him; from this supposed similarity of
situation, he _judged_ that his own _perpendicular rock_ must be the
Cape Lewis of the first discoverers. By looking upon our chart, we
shall find Cape Louis lying upon a very different part of the coast;
and by comparing this chart with that lately published by Kerguelen,
it will appear, in the clearest manner, that the northern point now
described by Captain Cook, is the very same to which the French have
given the name of Cape François.

Footnote 121:

This _right extreme_ of the coast, as it now showed itself to Captain
Cook, seems to be what is represented on Kerguelen’s chart under the
name of Cape Aubert. It may be proper to observe here, that all that
extent of coast lying between Cape Louis and Cape François, of which
the French saw very little during their first visit in 1772, and may
be called the N. W. side of this land, they had it in their power to
trace the position of in 1773, and have assigned names to some of its
bays, rivers, and promontories, upon their chart.

Footnote 122:

Kerguelen’s Isle de Clugny.

Footnote 123:

Cape François, as already observed.

Footnote 124:

The observations of the French, round Cape François, remarkably
coincide with Captain Cook’s in this paragraph; and the rocks and
islands here mentioned by him, also appear upon their chart.

Footnote 125:

The (_d_), no doubt, is a contraction of the word _Domino_. The French
Secretary of the Marine was then Monsieur de Boynes.

Footnote 126:

On perusing this paragraph of the Journal, it will be natural to ask,
How could Monsieur de Boisguehenneu, in the beginning of 1772, leave
an inscription, which, upon the very face of it, commemorates a
transaction of the following year? Captain Cook’s manner of expressing
himself here, strongly marks, that he made this supposition only for
want of information to enable him to make any other. He had no idea
that the French had visited this land a second time; and, reduced to
the necessity of trying to accommodate what he saw himself, to what
little he had heard of their proceedings, he confounds a transaction
which we, who have been better instructed, know, for a certainty,
belongs to the second voyage, with a similar one, which his chart of
the Southern Hemisphere has recorded, and which happened in a
different year, and at a different place.

The bay, indeed, in which Monsieur de Boisguehenneu landed, is upon
the west side of this land, considerably to the south of Cape Louis,
and not far from another more southerly promontory, called Cape
Bourbon; a part of the coast which our ships were not upon. Its
situation is marked upon our chart; and a particular view of the bay
_du Lion Marin_ (for so Boisguehenneu called it), with the soundings,
is preserved by Kerguelen.

But if the bottle and inscription, found by Captain Cook’s people,
were not left here by Boisguehenneu, by whom and when were they left?
This we learn most satisfactorily, from the accounts of Kerguelen’s
second voyage, as published by himself and Monsieur de Pagés, which
present us with the following particulars: That they arrived on the
west side of this land on the 14th of December, 1773; that, steering
to the north-east, they discovered, on the 16th, the _Isle de
Réunion_, and the other small islands as mentioned above; that, on the
17th, they had before them the principal land (which they were sure
was connected with that seen by them on the 14th), and a high point of
that land, named by them Cape François; that beyond this Cape the
coast took a south-easterly direction, and behind it they found a bay,
called by them _Baie de l’Oiseau_, from the name of their frigate;
that they then endeavoured to enter it, but were prevented by contrary
winds and blowing weather, which drove them off the coast eastward;
but that, at last, on the 6th of January, Monsieur de Rosnevet,
Captain of the Oiseau, was able to send his boat on shore into this
bay, under the command of Monsieur de Rochegude, one of his officers,
_who took possession of that bay, and of all the country, in the name
of the King of France, with all the requisite formalities_.

Here, then, we trace, by the most unexceptionable evidence, the
history of the bottle and inscription; the leaving of which was, no
doubt, one of the requisite formalities observed by Monsieur de
Rochegude on this occasion. And though he did not land till the 6th of
January, 1774, yet, as Kerguelen’s ships arrived upon the coast on the
14th of December, 1773, and had discovered and looked into this very
bay on the 17th of that month, it was with the strictest propriety and
truth that 1773, and not 1774, was mentioned as the date of the
discovery.

We need only look at Kerguelen’s and Cook’s charts, to judge that the
_Baie de l’Oiseau_, and the harbour where the French inscription was
found, is one and the same place. But besides this agreement as to the
general position, the same conclusion results more decisively still,
from another circumstance worth mentioning: the French, as well as the
English visitors of this bay and harbour, have given us a particular
plan of it; and whoever compares ours, published in this volume, with
that to be met with in Kerguelen’s and de Pagés’s voyages, must be
struck with a resemblance that could only be produced by copying one
common original with fidelity. Nay, even the soundings are the same
upon the same spots in both plans, being forty-five fathoms between
the two Capes, before the entrance of the bay; sixteen fathoms farther
in, where the shores begin to contract; and eight fathoms up, near the
bottom of the harbour.

To these particulars, which throw abundant light on this part of our
author’s Journal, I shall only add, that the distance of our harbour
from that where Boisguehenneu landed, in 1772, is forty leagues. For
this we have the authority of Kerguelen, in the following passage:
“Monsieur de Boisguehenneu descendit le 13 de Février, 1772, dans un
baie, qu il nommé Baie du Lion Marin, et prit possession de cette
terre au nom de Roi; il n’y vit aucune trace d’habitants. Monsieur de
Rochegude, en 1774, a descendu dans un autre baie, que nous avons
nommé Baie de l’Oiseau, et cette seconde rade est à quarantes lieues
de la première. Il en a également pris possession, et il n’y trouva
également aucune trace d’habitants.” _Kerguelen_, p. 92.

Footnote 127:

Cap François, for reasons already assigned.

Footnote 128:

If there could be the least doubt remaining of the identity of the
Baie de l’Oiseau, and Christmas Harbour, the circumstance of the
perforated rock, which divides it from another bay to the south, would
amount to a strict demonstration. For Monsieur de Pagés had observed
this discriminating mark before Captain Cook. His words are as follow:
“L’on vit que la côte de l’est, voisine du Cap François, avoit deux
baies; elles étoient separées par une pointe très-reconnoissable par
sa forme, _qui representoit une porte cochère, au travers de laquelle
l’on voyoit le jour_.” _Voyages du M. de Pagés_, vol. ii. p. 67. Every
one knows how exactly the form of a _porte cochère_, or arched
gateway, corresponds with that of the arch of a bridge. It is very
satisfactory to find the two navigators, neither of whom knew any
thing of the other’s description, adopting the same idea; which both
proves that they had the same uncommon object before their eyes, and
that they made an accurate report.

Footnote 129:

In the last note, we saw how remarkably Monsieur de Pagés and Captain
Cook agree about the appearance of the south point of the harbour; I
shall here subjoin another quotation from the former, containing his
account of the harbour itself, in which the reader may trace the same
distinguishing features observed by Captain Cook in the foregoing
paragraph.

“Le 6, l’on mit à terre dans la première baie à l’est du Cap François,
et l’on prit possession de ces contrées. Ce mouillage consiste en une
petite rade, qui a environs quatres encablures, ou quatre cents toises
de profondeur, sur un tiers en sus de largeur. En dedans de cette rade
est un petit port, dont l’entrée, de quatres encablures de largeur,
presente au sud-est. La sonde de la petite rade est depuis
quarante-cinq jusqu’à trente brasses; et celle du port depuis seize
jusqu’à huit. Le fond des deux est de sable noir et vaseux. La côte
des deux bords est haute, et par une pente très-rude; elle est
couverte de verdure, et il y a une quantité prodigieuse d’outardes. Le
fond du port est occupé par un monticule qui laisse entre lui, et la
mer une plage de sable. Une petite rivière, de très-bonne eau, coule à
la mer dans cet endroit; et elle est fournie par un lac qui est un peu
au loin, au-dessus du monticule. Il y avoit sur la plage beaucoup de
pinguoins et de lions marins. Ces deux espèces d’animaux ne fuyoient
pas, et l’on augura que le pays n’étoit point habité; la terre
rapportoit de l’herbe large, noire, et bien nourrie, qui n’avoit
cependant que cinque pouces ou plus de hauteur. L’on ne vit aucun
arbre, ni signe d’habitation.” _Voyage du Monsieur du Pagés_, tom. ii.
p. 69, 70.

Footnote 130:

Cap François.

Footnote 131:

Cap François.

Footnote 132:

Though Kerguelen’s ships, in 1773, did not venture to explore this
part of the coast, Monsieur de Pagés’ account of it answers well to
Captain Cook’s. “Du 17 au 23, l’on ne prit d’autre connoissance que
celle de la figure de la côte, qui, courant d’abord au S. E., et
revenant ensuite au N. E., formoit un grand golfe. Il étoit occupé par
des brisans et des rochers; il avoit aussi une isle basse, et assez
étendue, et l’on usa d’une bien soigneuse precaution, pour ne pas
s’affaler dans ce golfe.” _Voyage du M. de Pagés_, tom. ii. p. 67.

Footnote 133:

Cap François.

Footnote 134:

Cap François.

Footnote 135:

This part of the coast seems to be what the French saw on the 5th of
January, 1774. Monsieur de Pagés speaks of it thus: “Nous reconnumes
une nouvelle côte etendue de toute vue dans l’est, et dans le ouest.
Les terres de cette côte étoient moins elevées que celles que nous
avions vues jusques ici; elles étoient aussi d’un aspect moins rude.”
_De Pagés_, tom. ii. p. 68.

Footnote 136:

See Hawkesworth’s Collection of Voyages, Vol. ii. p. 42.

Footnote 137:

If the French observations, as marked upon Captain Cook’s chart, and
still more authentically upon that published by their own discoverers,
may be depended upon, this land doth not reach so far to the west as
the meridian of 68°; Cape Louis, which is represented as its most
westerly point, being laid down by them to the east of that meridian.

Footnote 138:

The idea of Cape Louis being this projecting point of a southern
continent, must have soon vanished, as Cape François, within a year
after, was found, by the same discoverer, to lie above one third of a
degree farther north upon the same land. But if Kerguelen entertained
any such imagination at first, we are sure that, at present, he thinks
very differently. This appears from the following explicit declaration
of his sentiments, which deserves to be transcribed from his late
publication, as it does equal honour to his candour, and to Captain
Cook’s abilities. “La terre que j’ai découverte est certainement _une
isle_; puisque le célèbre Capitaine Cook a passé au sud, lors de son
premier voyage, sans rien rencontrer. Je juge même, que cette isle
_n’est pas bien grande_. Il y a aussi apparence, d’après le Voyage de
Monsieur Cook, que toute cette étendue de mers meridionales, est semée
d’isles ou de rochers; mais qu’il n’y a _ni continent ni grande
terre_.” Kerguelen, p. 92.

Footnote 139:

Kerguelen, as we see in the last note, concurs with Captain Cook as to
this. However, he tells us, that he has reason to believe that it is
about two hundred leagues in circuit; and that he was acquainted with
about fourscore leagues of its coast. “J’en connois environs
quatre-vingt lieues des côtes; et j’ai lieu de croire, qu’elle a
environ deux cents lieues de circuit.” _Kerguelen_, ibid.

Footnote 140:

Some of Monsieur de Kerguelen’s own countrymen seem more desirous than
we are, to rob him of this honour. It is very remarkable that Monsieur
de Pagés never once mentions the name of his commander. And, though he
takes occasion to enumerate the several French explorers of the
southern hemisphere, from Gonneville down to Crozet, he affects to
preserve an entire silence about Kerguelen, whose first voyage, in
which the discovery of this considerable tract of land was made, is
kept as much out of sight, as if it never had taken place. Nay, not
satisfied with refusing to acknowledge the right of another, he almost
assumes it to himself. For, upon a Map of the World annexed to his
book, at the spot where the new land is delineated, we read this
inscription: _Isles nouvelles Australes vuées par Monsieur de Pagés,
en 1774_. He could scarcely have expressed himself in stronger terms,
if he had meant to convey an idea that he was the conductor of the
discovery. And yet we know, that he was only a lieutenant [enseigne de
vaisseau] on board one of the three ships commanded by Kerguelen; and
that the discovery had been already made in a former voyage,
undertaken while he was actually engaged in his singular journey round
the world.

After all, it cannot but be remarked that Kerguelen was peculiarly
unfortunate, in having done so little to complete what he had begun.
He discovered a new land indeed; but, in two expeditions to it, he
could not once bring his ships to an anchor upon any part of its
coasts. Captain Cook, as we have seen in this, and in the foregoing
chapter, had either fewer difficulties to struggle with, or was more
successful in surmounting them.

Footnote 141:

Pennant’s Patagonian penguin. See his _Genera of Birds_. Tab. 14. p.
66.

Footnote 142:

_Voyage autour du Monde_, p. 69.

Footnote 143:

_Voyage à la Nouvelle Guinée_ p. 181, 182. Tab. 113. 115.

Footnote 144:

The sheath-bill. See _Pennant’s Genera of Birds_, p. 43.

Footnote 145:

The most striking difference seems to be with regard to the texture of
the hair. The natives whom Captain Cook met with at Endeavour River in
1769, are said, by him, to have _naturally long and black hair, though
it be universally cropped short. In general it is straight, but
sometimes it has a slight curl. We saw none that was not matted and
filthy. Their beards were of the same colour with the hair, and bushy
and thick._ See Vol. II. p. 211. of this Edition of Cook’s Voyages.