Ceeetagherie hae | hs ΔΩ Saye ’ tale: ΚΥῚ At AL ‘an Ae . ‘= ὌΝ eI Sr ari nn: ete ete πρώ ν ἡὐλύνῃ "τῶγγβ νυν συγ Dl νην ον τ ee ον Meh) tig PY SVU ΡΥ Peete’ 3 ἃ >t ede sl ‘Te ev- ν : wy ὃν Me Ὺ γὴν es ae = SNe}: is. pie Gases A. ξῶφν, ἰὐο γῆν νος γον» "Ἂς Datbaeesy ene tee ® Pree etree lhe ἢ i thy VF Wine δεῳηδεινν ans A De Se em naintin | Stet ie ἦν ον * ne Te Ween 2 iN edie cae Sialle be greene προ Στ δι μοι aes gis ~ z Lee. “ - Fann : ¢ Σ τ᾿. * a ’ a ἢ a ad ν ~ ‘ i: a - i = . κι : ᾿ 5 ὁ ς ᾿Ξ ἴ ρος, 5! . - Ξ 4 - 5 4 + 5 νὴ . . at » © pet es ᾿ Ξ »᾿ , - 5 Ν ᾽ ε υ 4 ων r + a ᾿ Ρ' J - . rs ; re Ὁ . = - - r anh “ - - ~ ᾿ Υ̓ - ᾿ okt ran . ay . - π᾿ Ν ως Ν - 7 -᾿ et ’ d ἀν δ Ὁ W (δὰ ᾿ AyG 29 1961 4%, R SAtogicay sew BSZ652 965 ἐδ ‘ mays ry ἣ [ΠῚ Li a ὶ ἮΝ δ" a4 THE “VOYAGE AND SHIPWRECK ST. PAUL WITH DISSERTATIONS ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF sr. LUKE, AND THE SHIPS AND NAVIGATION OF THE ANCIENTS By JAMES “SMITH, Eso. OF JORDANHILL, F.R.S. ETC. ~ ) FOURTH EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED BY AS WALTER E SMITH: dith a Preface BY THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE AND A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1880 All vighis veserved —— --- »ἈΡΑΆ See a ΠΝ πεύ, JUN 1881 ν THROLOGIECKL ᾿: a Orr xy WY: Σ WR, renee Pain ΟΠ Δ {0 70} —— or THE question may well occur to many readers of this volume, Why should a solid standard work, such as ‘ Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,’ need a new preface to its fourth edition ? | And the further question may be asked, Why should such preface, if needed, be fur- nished by the present writer ? To answer these questions it is necessary to insert a few words of personal explanation. It so happened that in the course of last year I was desirous of purchasing a copy of this book. To my surprise I discovered not only that it was out of print, but that it was impossible (so at least my bookseller reported to me) to obtain a second-hand copy in London. This discovery induced me to communicate with the publishers. I complained that the - wi PREFACE. work was permitted to be out of print; and I did this, not so much in consequence of my own trifling disappointment in being unable to pro- cure a copy for a friend, as because I thought it a misfortune that so remarkable a book should slip out of sight, and gradually become com- paratively unknown. My own admiration of the book is so great, that the prospect of its possible disappearance from the living litera- ture of English-speaking people distressed me- exceedingly. The publishers treated my complaint with great courtesy, and, after due consideration, , consented to produce a new edition, subject to a promise on my part that I would write an introduction or preface. _ This, then, 15 the explanation of the exist- ence of the present preface, and of the fact that the composition of it has been committed to and. undertaken by myself. It was with much unwillingness that I assented to the proposal ; it seemed to imply that words of mine were needed to commend a book which needs no commendation from me or from anyone else ; but I did assent, because I knew that the pub- lishers were much better judges than I could PREFACE. ae, be of what was expedient, and because I was willing to do anything and everything to renew the book’s lease of life. A work which has gone through three large editions may perhaps be regarded as one which has found many readers. But if the number of readers is to be taken as any measure of the sterling value of a book, I should be disposed to say that Mr. Smith’s great work has not been read so extensively as might have been expected, and as it ought to have been. “Two reasons may perhaps be assigned for any neg- lect which it may have experienced. In the first place, it is a book which re- quires careful study; it is-a book to work at and not merely to read; it commends itself, not to the large body of book-readers, but only to those who may be termed students, and amongst these chiefly to the students of the New Testament. In the second place, the in- vestigations and demonstrations made by. Mr. Smith have been popularised and presented in more simple and condensed forms. No writer _ upon the ‘ Acts of the Apostles, since the first publication of Mr. Smith’s book, could possibly fail to make use of it, to give its results, and to vill : PREFACE, * acknowledge his obligations ;’ and a large por- tion of the readers of this second-hand inform- ation are presumably satisfied with what they have got, and do not care to go to the origi- nal fountain. But this is not as it should be. I remember once mentioning to the late Dr. Whewell the curious fact that I had sought a copy of Mr. Smith’s book in the Cambridge University Library, and had not found one ; to which he replied, ‘ Serves you right ; everyone ought to buy that book.’ If I remember rightly, Dr. Whewell went on to say that, in his opinion, no finer piece of demonstrative writing had appeared since the time of Paley. I quite agree with Dr. Whewell’s estimate of the work : it is _a book to be bought, and to be studied ; a book that a man may be pleased to see upon his 1 This remark applies not only to English, but to German, French, and American writers. For example, Lechter, who comments on the Acts of the Apostles in Lange’s Azbelwerk, writes, ‘The nautical and topographical incidents of this voyage have been illustrated, in a manner worthy of all praise, by a learned Englishman, James Smith, of Jordanhill, &c.’ Ernest Renan says, ‘Pour la partie technique de la navigation, voir James Smith, Zhe Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,’ and gives . references. And Hackett, in his excellent American Commentary, writes, ‘I have availed myself freely of the illustrations of this valuable treatise in the commentary on this chapter and the next. No work has appeared for a long time that has thrown so much light upon any equal portion of the Scriptures.’ PREFACE. ix library shelves, and which he may read over and over again with intellectual delight. In truth Mr. Smith possessed a rare combi- nation of qualities fitting him to produce such a work as the ‘ Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.’ Imprimis, he was a yachtsman, and so was thoroughly acquainted with nautical matters, and in particular he knew well the whole scene of St. Paul’s adventures. Then, again, he was not a mere yachtsman, but had a good amount of reading, both classical and in the department of general literature, which he was able to bring to bear with great force. Still further his head had all the clearness of perception which is necessary to the conduct of exact investigations. He had evidently a keen intellectual eye. But above all he applied himself to his task with the high purpose of elucidating a book which was precious to his soul. He perceived that an important chapter of biblical evidence was to be found in the history of St. Paul’s voyage. He delighted in the work of verifying St. Luke’s narrative, and causing to be seen the historian’s accuracy and honesty in recording details capable of being put to the proof, because he discerned the reflected advan- x PREFACE. tage which would accrue to the Christian argu- ment in favour of the veracity of St. Luke's gospel, where no such proof was forthcoming. The following passage from the preface to the ‘Dissertation on the Gospels, which grew out of the present work, may be worth quoting in this place. ‘Having in my former work,’ he writes, ‘shown by proofs independent of all others that the writings of St. Luke were those of a contemporary author, personally engaged in some of the most eventful scenes which he has recorded, I can, as Dr. Chalmers somewhere says, “‘take him from the bar and place him in the witness box.” Now, nothing but the perfect truthfulness of his narrative could account for its agreement with facts which could only have been known to him from personal observation. The knowledge of these facts is only due to recent discoveries and the accurate researches of modern science. Had St. Luke's writings been discovered for the first time amongst the papyri of Herculaneum, these proofs of their authenticity must have been held conclusive by every one accustomed to investigate the truth or falsehood of sea-voyages of doubtful authen- ticity. But if it can be shown that the Acts of : PREFACE. xi the Apostles are genuine and authentic, so must also be the Gospel, for not only is it mentioned in that work, but it is obviously by the same hand.’ The feeling of the evidential import- ance of his investigations, indicated in this pas- save, fired, as I cannot doubt, Mr. Smith’s zeal and earnestness, while happily there is no indi- cation, so far as I am aware, that it ever warped his judgment. I have before me, through the kindness of Mr. Smith’s family, a volume of notices, from the pages of the public press, and also in the form of private letters, of the work in its earlier editions. It would be easy to quote from both sources abundance of expressions of opinion, confirmatory of that which I have endeavoured in these few prefatory pages to say concerning the value of Mr. Smith’s work; but I will con- tent myself with a single extract from a letter of the late Dean Alford, which, as coming from one who had devoted a large portion of his life _ to biblical study, seems to have a special value. ‘I may venture to congratulate -you,’ writes Dean Alford, ‘on the fact that your name will now, in all ages and countries, be handed down as having done substantial service in settling ΧΙ : PREFACH. once for all a point in dispute deeply interesting for its own sake, and for the authenticity and credibility of the sacred narrative. When we commentators are deservedly forgotten, you will be known in enviable connection with the great Apostle’s course of perils.’ Ishould have thought that it would have been conceded that, to use Dean Alford’s words, the point of dispute between Malta and Meleda had been ‘settled once for all’ by Mr. Smith’s book. The republication of Dr. Falconer’s volume within the last few years, however, indi- cates that belief in Meleda is not yet entirely extinct. It is not my purpose, nor am I com- petent, to enter upon the controversy, but I will venture to say as much as this, namely, that the conviction in favour of Malta, arising in my own mind from Mr. Smith’s minute and com- plete investigation, more nearly approaches to absolute certainty than in the case of almost any other point in ancient history which has been matter of controversy. Under Mr. Smith’s guidance every sentence of the narrative falls into its proper place. There is positively no. _ residuum of unexplained difficulty ; some slight exceptions to this remark, which existed at the << ΡΝ. PREFACE, ΧΙ time of the first publication, have disappeared since.! In the present, as in the last edition, pub- lished during the author’s lifetime, the discussion of the voyage and shipwreck is prefaced by a ‘Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke.’ This dissertation takes the place of a _much less elaborate essay, entitled ‘ Notices of the Life and Writings of St. Luke,’ which was prefixed to the first edition. The investigation of the history of St. Paul’s voyage and ship- wreck gave rise not only to this dissertation, but also toa much more elaborate work, en- titled ‘ A dissertation on the origin and connec- tion of the Gospels,’ to which reference has already been made. Concerning these dis- sertations I think it desirable to make two re- marks. In the first place, they may be, and in one sense they ought to be, regarded as entirely distinct from the discussion of the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul. In them the author is no longer the yachtsman, but only the scholar and the critic. He has no special qualification be- 1 This last edition of Dr. Falconer’s work contains large additions by the Editor, Thomas Falconer, Esq. In fact, the added matter ex- ceeds the original in quantity. I presume that all which can be said. in opposition to Mr. Smith’s argument will be found in this volume. XiV PREFACE. yond many other investigators ; and if his con- clusions do not carry conviction, they are at least in this respect in the goodly company of the conclusions of many other acute students who have examined the same difficult subject. The security of the results of the discussion of the voyage and shipwreck must not therefore be — considered as in any way jeopardised by com- panionship with conclusions obtained in a field of investigation of a very different kind. But, in the second place, while desiring to point out the difference between the two fields of inquiry to which Mr. Smith devoted his mind, and to cuard against the danger of one being too much connected in the mind of the reader with the other, I am bound to express my own strong opinion of the value of Mr. Smith’s discussion of the Synoptic Gospels, their mutual relations, and the origin of their materials. I cannot say that he carries me with him on every point ; but I think that some of his conclusions are irre- fragable, that his criticisms exhibit uncommon discernment, and that he has contributed much towards the solution of a problem which is con- fessedly difficult, and I venture to believe in all its fulness not soluble. I confess that I have PREFACE. xv often been surprised to find that Mr. Smith’s labours have not influenced the argument con- cerning the Synoptic Gospels more extensively than they seem to have done. The question of the composition of the Gospels, however, is not immediately before us. The present volume, as elucidating a remark- able passage in St. Paul’s life, and indirectly giving evidence of the truthfulness and skill of Sr Luke-as'a historian, is Mr; Smith's real monument. It is one for which readers of the Holy Scriptures may be thankful, and of which his family may be proud. The word family reminds me to say that I am answerable only for these introductory remarks, and that the work of editing has been entrusted to the com- petent hands of one of the author’s grandchildren. I shall perhaps be pardoned if I conclude this preface with a little piece of personal narrative, curiously illustrative of St. Paul’s voyage. Leaving Alexandria by P. & O. steamer in the month of January 1879, I made a remark to the captain upon the smiling character of the weather. ‘The south wind blew softly,’ the sky was blue, the sea like glass. ‘Yes, replied the captain, ‘very pleasant as long as tt lasts. It xvi PREFACE. did not last very long; and when we sighted Crete Euraquilo was blowing rather stiffly. I talked to the captain about St. Paul’s voyage, the Island of Clauda, and other points. As we neared Crete the sea became somewhat rolling and rough. It was getting dark, and I went below. While reading I perceived that we were suddenly in smooth water. Going upon | deck I found the captain, who, pointing to the starboard side of the ship, said, ‘There is that island. We were in the position of St. Paul, when ‘running under a certain island which is called Clauda, they had much work to come by the boat. Had our machinery broken down, or the ship become disabled, we should have drifted towards Malta, as did the ship wie carried St. Paul. It remains only to add that the present edition is a corrected reprint of the last published by the author; such alterations and additions as have been made are specified in the note appended to this preface by the Editor. Harvey CARLISLE. RosE CASTLE, 1880. XVil NOTE, BY THE EDITOR. Ir is hoped that this Edition will be found more correct than those which preceded it, as much care has been expended in correcting small errors, whether of the press or of the pen, especially in the quotations. In the few cases where any swébstandial correction or addition seemed needful, short notes have been introduced enclosed in square brackets [ ]. Accents have throughout been added to the Greek. The Greek text of the narrative of the Acts printed at the foot of the page has been brought into harmony with the best results of modern criticism. This has been effected through the great kindness of Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort, who have allowed me the free use of their text of the Greek Testament, which has been so long expected, and which will, I believe, be published very shortly. I have carefully followed their readings, except in four passages (ch. xxvii. 37 and 4o, and ch. xxviii. 1 and 13), where I have retained the readings of Tregelles, which are in all these cases given as alternatives in the margin by Westcott and Hort. I have also in a few cases altered the accompanying English version, generally to make it tally with new Greek readings. It seemed unnecessary to adhere’ scrupulously to the Authorised Version (as the Author did in most cases), since every reader, if he wishes for that, has it at hand. The Author perhaps failed fully to appreciate the weight of authority which exists against his view, with respect to the application of the term Adria. As the point is one of vital importance to our reading of the whole history, and as it is upon the usage of this name that the latest defender of the Meleda hypothesis ! mainly rests his case, ' See Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage from Caesarea to Puteoli, and on the Apostle’s Shipwreck on the Island Melite. By William Falconer, M.D., F.R.S. Third edition, with additional notes by Thomas Falconer, Esq. (one of the Judges of County Courts). a XV1li NODE BY EDITOR. I have ventured to add an Appendix (No. VI.) in which I have attempted to discuss impartially the whole ques- tion. I have also replaced the note from Bochart which constitutes Appendix No. V. It appeared in the first and second editions, but was omitted in the third. I must express deep gratitude to the Bishop of Carlisle for his kindness in writing the Preface, and also to A. H. Smith, who has undertaken the laborious and most useful task of constructing an index. Υ. Βὶ 5. GON EEN TS. PREFACE ΝΟΤΕ ΒΥ EDITOR . ; : : : fs LisT OF ILLUSTRATIONS MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR INTRODUCTION DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF 51, LUKE. NARRATIVE OF THE VOYAGE. CHAPTER I, CHSAREA TO Myra , 3 ‘ 11. MyrRA TO FAIR HAVENS IN CRETE : : é III. CRETE TO MELITA—THE GALE . IV. THE SHIPWRECK . ‘ V. MELITA TO ITALY DISSERTATIONS. TI. ON THE WIND EUROCLYDON . _ II. On THE IsLAND MELITA ., i III. On THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. IV. ON THE GEOLOGICAL CHANGES IN ST. PauL’s Bay. 8. 2 6ι 74 97 129 148 159 162 181 245 xx CONTENTS. APPENDIX. PAGE . EXTRACT FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE YACHT ‘ST. UR- SULA,’ HUGH TENNENT, Esq. . ᾿ 4 : 251 IaRART SECOND OF DITTO” - : Ἶ . , . ») 710] . ON EURO-AQUILO (FROM BENTLEY) : - - eee . NOTE ON THE READING ‘ EURO-AQUILO’ (FROM GRAN- VILLE._PENN) .. : ; : :- : : » + 273 . NOTE ON MELITA (FROM BOCHART’s ‘CHANAAN’) 276 VI. NOTE ON ‘ ADRIA’ (BY THE EDITOR OF THIS EDITION) 280 PDE OE a oe OS kL gO ee eer Pir ~TLEUSTRATIONS. er PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR . : : a . Frontispiece VIEWS. I. Farr HAVENS, CRETE . ; : ΐ “707 ώσδ 2). δὲ From a view taken on the spot by Signor Antonio Schranz, of Valetta. 11. Pornr ΟΕ Koura. By Admiral Smyth . . Laface 2. 130 III. St. Pau.’s Bay, MALTA, FROM THE SOUTH 3d 132 From a view taken on the spot by the Author. IV. THE SITUATION OF THE SHIP ON THE FIFTEENTH MorNING. : : - 20 Lo face 7. IAI Ancient ship anchored oy the stern in St. Paul’s Bay ina gale from E.N.E. Background, Salmonetta Island on the left, under two sea-fowl, a place where two seas meet (τόπον διθάλασσον, Acts xxvii. 41), to which the ship must be driven. This illustration represents the situation of the ship at the moment described in verse 40, when the crew are cutting away the anchors (τὰς ἀγκύρας περιελόντεΞ5), loosing the bands of the rudders (ἀνέντες τὰς ζευκτηρίας τῶν πηδαλίων), and hoisting the artemon (ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμονα). I am indebted to the talented marine painter, Mr. Smartley, of St. Heliers, for having combined artistical effect with the most rigid adherence to the authorities I furnished him with ; and as it is my object in every case to put my reader in possession of the evidence upon which my conclusions are founded, I shall here enumerate them. In thefirst place, I showed him on the chart the situation in which the ship must have been anchored, and the direc- tion ef the wind, He has represented the sea as it must Xxil LIST :OF ILLUSTRATIONS, have been running at the time, certainly without exaggera- tion ; the dark clouds indicate the coming rain ; whilst a gleam of the morning sun illuminates the sail (artemon) which the crew are hoisting, the gilded cheniscus (χρύσεος xnvickos), and the ‘Carchesium late splendens.’ The background is from a view taken upon the spot: by enlarging the background in this edition, the place where two seas meet is more fully given. The shipis taken from the following authorities :— 1st. The ship of Theseus from Herculaneum ; see figure at p. 135. 2nd. The ship on thetomb at Pompeii, figured at p. 206. 3rd. The African wheat ship, from a coin of Commodus, figured at p. 201. 4th. The shrouds which support the mast, with the blocks for setting them up, are taken from a coin figured in Montfaucon, iv. pl. 143. 5th. The undergirding was represented from the direc- tions of the father of the artist, the only naval officer I have met with who had actually seen a ship undergirded. For the reasons for anchoring the ship by the stern, which this view is meant to illustrate, see pp. 136 and 208. I have to express my thanks to Mr. Adlard, the en- graver, for the pains he took to render the whole scene accurately. CHARTS. I. GENERAL CHART . : : Ξ : . Loface 7. Gt Constructed on Mercator’s projection, in order to give the true bearings. To the west of longitude 24°, it is taken from the English Admiralty chart by Admiral Smyth. To the east of that longitude it is taken from the French Ad- miralty chart, as being the latest. II. LutTro (PorRT PHENICE), (Admiralty chart.) . 70 face 2. 90 III. PART OF THE SOUTH COAST OF CRETE d an 97 From the French Admiralty chart of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, from recent surveys. The dotted line to the east of Fair Havens marks the traverses which a ship, approaching it from the east, with a north-west wind, would have to make. From that to the point where the compass lines intersect each other, the dutted line re- presents the course of a ship leaving lair Havens for the LIST OF DELO STRATITONS. xxiii port of Phenice, with a south wind. This point must be near the place where St. Paul’s ship encountered the ty- phoon. From thence she was driven to Clauda, and beyond it, to ebout longitude 24° E.; from thence the course must have been in the direction of Malta. See p. 125. IV. Sr. Pauw’s Bay, MALTA : : ips O face Zin 120 By Admiral Smyth, R. Ν,, BRS: } V. Farr HAVENS : 5 : ; : : 55 262 Wil cASEA: . : 2 : 4 2 : ; ἣν 268 The two last were taken by actual survey in Mr. Ten- nent’s yacht, by himself and the master. WOODCUTS. PAGE THE SHIP OF THESEUS. : : : 135 From the ‘ Pitture antiche pa ree εἰ ake taw ν- Pp. QI. FIGURE OF A SHIP ‘ : : : . 191 Taken from an ancient bath in the erste Collection, μ ΝΜ: 781. ‘Arch. αν... 21. AN AFRICAN WHEAT SHIP UNDER SAIL : * Oe From a coin of the Emperor Commodus, in the Museum at Avignon, from a drawing by the Author. COIN OF THE EMPEROR COMMODUs (large brass) . 202 Representing an African wheat ship under sail, from the Cabinet du Roi. SHIP ON THE TOMB OF NAVOLEIA TYCHE, AT POMPEII 206 From sketches and measurements made on the spot by the Author. THE SHIP OF THESEUS . 207 ANCIENT ANCHOR - : : : : - ZO Engraved from a sulphur impression of a coin of Adrian in the British Museum. A BIREME : ὃ : ὲ : 228 From a coin of Adrian in the British Museum. A TRIREME UNDER SAIL 229 F το a coin of Adrian in the Cabinet du Rol. XXIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. The diagrams at pp. 230 and 223 represent the supposed position of the Oars in Triremes and Quinqueremes. The sketch of Port Phenice, now Lutro, on p..90, is taken from one of the French Admiralty charts, of the date of 1738, in the Knights’ Library at Malta. That of Lutro, p. 261, was drawn by the Rev. George Brown, XXV MEMOIR OF JAMES SMITH. [The following memoir is mainly compiled from the obituary notice of Mr. Smith contained in the ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ and also from an article in the new edition of Chambers’s ‘ Bio- graphical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen,’ Blackie and Son, London and Glasgow, 1870. Both these accounts were written by his son, Archibald Smith. ] James Smiru, of Jordanhill, Renfrewshire, was born in Glasgow, on August 15, 1782. He was the eldest son of Archibald Smith, an eminent West India merchant in that city, and of Isobel Euing, who died in 1855 in her rorst year. He was educated at the Grammar School and Uni- versity of Glasgow. In 1809 he married Mary Wilson, who died in 1847. She was a granddaughter of Dr. Alexander Wilson, the first Professor of Astronomy in the University of Glasgow, a man of the most versatile genius, who is remembered as the ori- ginator of the now received theory as to the origin of sun- spots. Mr. Smith never took any active part in business, but was for many years a sleeping partner in the West India house of Leitch and Smith in Glasgow. He served for some years in the Renfrewshire Militia, then a permanently embodied force. In the prevailing dread of a French inva- sion, he was for nearly a year quartered with his regiment in the south of England. He threw himself into the profession of a soldier with the same ardour that distinguished him in every pursuit that pleased him, and he retained through life a strong interest in military matters. In 1812 Mr. Smith retired from the militia, and took up his abode in the remaining wing of the old castle of XXVi MEMOIR OF FAMES SMITH. Rosneath. The greater part of the stately residence of the Duke of Argyll had been burned down ten years before, and the present castle was being built. In this charming residence, in one of the most beautiful spots on the west of Scotland, he spent some of the happiest years of his life, indulging in that passion for yachting which, with him, was lifelong, and for the exercise of which Rosneath afforded unequalled facilities. His first cruise in a yacht of his own was in the year 1806 ; his last in the year 1866. He was one of the earliest eed of the Royal Yacht Club, now the Royal Yacht Squadron, and was one of the earliest commodores of the Royal Northern Yacht Club. In 1821 his father died, and he shortly afterwards re- moved to Jordanhill, where he principally resided during the rest of his life, and where he died. ἐ Most of Mr. Smith’s scientific and literary researches were connected with hislove of yachting. His earliest paper in any scientific publication was a notice in the ‘ Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’ (March 17, 1833) of an undescribed vitrified fort in the Burnt Isles in the Kyles of Bute, discovered by him on accidentally landing from his yacht. | He was an ardent cultivator of geographical science, and an enthusiastic book‘collector, especially in the depart- ment of early voyages of discovery. He was keenly interested in the Arctic voyages which excited’so much attention at that time, and was intimate with several of the distinguished officers engaged in them, especially with the late Captain Douglas Clavering, R.N., and with Sir Edward Sabine, R.A., late President of the Royal Society. It may be interesting to mention that it was by a Dutch map, cut from a volume in Mr. Smith’s library, that Captain Clavering steered to the coast of Greenland and found Gael Hamke’s inlet in the exact situation there laid down. In memory of this he gave the two capes at its entrance the names of Cape James and Cape, Mary, and to the island at its head the MEMOIR OF FAMES SMITH. XXViI name of Jordanhill. Moreover it is on a MS. copy of Captain Clavering’s original chart, which Mr. Smith made for his own use, that the geography of East Greenland from lat. 72° to 76° depends, the original having been unfortu- nately lost. | Later in life he devoted himself principally to the science of geology, and especially to that part of it for which the pos- session of a yacht offered peculiar facilities—the comparison of the shells in the most recent geological deposits with those existing in the present seas. This comparison, originally suggested to him by Sir Charles Lyell, was begun about the year 1834, and was continued with unflagging zeal for many years. The results of his researches were remarkable, and form an era in the history of post-tertiary geology. The deposits which he examined are those of finely laminated clay, with marine remains, which occur in many places on the west of Scotland at various elevations, up to several hun- dred feet. By far the greater part of the shells in these de- posits still inhabit the British seas, but many are no longer to be found. The missing shells are generally of an Arctic type, and most of them have been found in the Arctic Seas. From this fact he drew the conclusion, announced by him to the Geological Society in 1839, of the existence before the present geological epoch of a period of greater cold, now known as the glacial period. ‘This opinion, which was then contrary to the general opinion of geologists, is now unl- versally accepted. The delicate health of some members of his family caused Mr. Smith to reside successively at Gibraltar, Lisbon, and Malta. At each of these places he carried out geologi- cal researches, the results of which have been preserved in valuable papers. His residence at Malta during the winter of 1844-1845 - was the occasion of the remarkable series of investigations by which he is best known in literature and theology. The ‘Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul’ was published xxviii MEMOIR OF ¥AMES SMITH. in 1848, and was received from the first with the warmest appreciation. The minute study of the writings of St. Luke to which Mr.. Smith was led in the course of these investigations, suggested to him an original theory of the connection of the three Synop- tic Gospels, which was unfolded in the introductory ‘ Disser- tation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke.’ This theory was illustrated with much care and ingenuity by a comparison of _ the whole of the passages common to two or all of the three evangelists in a separate ‘Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels,’ published by Blackwood in 1853. But the theory will be found most clearly stated and most fully developed, although not drawn out in the greatest detail, in the ‘ Dissertation on St. Luke,’ as rewritten for the third edition of the ‘ Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,’ in _ consequence of the discovery of the Curetonian Syriac, and of the Codex Sinaiticus, and here reprinted with slight cor- rections. The question of the connection of the Gospels was constantly in his thoughts during the last years of his life, and he was engaged in the collection of materials for a more extended dissertation when he was interrupted by his last illness. He was in politics a Liberal-Conservative, and a suppor- ter of Sir Robert Peel. He unsuccessfully contested the burgh of Greenock at the general election in 1837, but made no further attempt to enter Parliament. He was warmly attached to the Church of Scotland, and took a lively interest in the questions discussed in her courts. He sat in the General Assembly in 1866 as a ruling elder for Renfrew, having been first returned for that burgh in 1806. He was a fellow of many scientific societies : of the Royal Society, the Geological Society, the Royal Geographical Society, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In Glasgow he was Pre- sident of the Geological Society and of the Archeological Society, and also of the Andersonian University (now Ander- son’s College). He was unwearied in his exertions for the MEMOIR OF AMES SMITH. xxix benefit of this institution, and founded and greatly contri- buted to the improvement of its valuable museum. Throughout life he was remarkable for his lively interest in almost every form of intellectual activity. He read with facility most of the Romance and Teutonic languages. He was a practical as well as a theoretical architect, and was a zealous student of family and historical antiquities. His knowledge of archzeology was considerable, especially in regard to nautical matters, on which subject his ‘ Disserta- tion on the Ships of the Ancients’ is an accepted authority. He had a keen appreciation of the beauties of painting and sculpture, and was well read in all branches of English litera- ture. In fiction his favourite authors were Sir Walter Scott and Miss Austen, whose works he read again and again, and constantly quoted. Reading was his unfailing resource and inexhaustible pleasure. He would often begin in the early morning, in winter long before it was light, and read with little intermission until bed-time, unless, indeed, he found a worthy antagonist at chess or other games to be- guile him from his books. In such case the games were pursued with the same unflagging ardour. | Mr. Smith was a close observer in matters that interested him, and an acute and candid critic. He was a charming companion, full of playful humour, with a breadth of sym- pathy which caused him to number among his friends able men of all ranks, tastes, and opinions. He was distinguished by his warm affections, his bright, cheerful disposition, his unfailing fairness and toleration for opinions differing most widely from his own, and his readiness to be helpful to all. Even to the end he retained an almost youthful freshness and vivacity of feeling and expression. He enjoyed vigorous health up to the spring of 1866, when a slight stroke of paralysis enfeebled his body without affecting his mind. A further attack towards the close of the year ended in his death at Jordanhill on January 17, 1867. His end was peace. Surrounded by his family, in XXX MEMOIR OF AMES SMITH. full possession of his faculties, in humble yet firm trust on ‘Jesus Christ alone,’ he fell asleep. Mr. Smith had nine children ; of these two daughters alone are living. His only son who survived infancy was the late Archibald Smith, F.R.S., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and barrister-at-law. PRINCE TON KEC, JUN 1881 THEOLOGICKL “ ΝΟΤΊΩΝ, TRADITION, from time immemorial, has pointed out a bay in the island of Malta as the scene of St. Paul’s shipwreck. It has never been known by any other name than ‘Cala di S. Paolo,’ or St. Paul’s Bay. There is no more effectual mode of perpetuating the memory of events than that of naming places after them; but, although we can scarcely have a stronger case of traditional evidence than the present, in the _ following inquiry I attach no weight to it what- ever. I do not even assume the authenticity of the narrative of the voyage and shipwreck con- tained in the Acts of the Apostles, but scrutinise St. Luke’s account of the voyage precisely as I would those of Baffin or Middleton,! or of any 1 At the commencement of this century the accounts of those two navigators were held to be apocryphal, and their discoveries expunged from our maps ; but in both cases their veracity has been established by the same process to which I am subjecting the account of St. Luke: the localities have been examined by subsequent visitors, and found to agree with the narratives, χχχὶϊ INTRODUCTION. -ancient voyage of doubtful authority, or in- volving points on which controversies have been raised. A searching comparison of the narra- tive, with the localities wheré the events 8580 circumstantially related are said to have taken place, with the aids which recent advances in our knowledge of the geography and the navi- gation of the eastern part of the Mediterranean supply, accounts for every transaction, clears up every difficulty, and exhibits an agreement so perfect in all its parts as to admit of but one explanation, namely that it is a narrative of real events, written by one personally engaged in them, and that the tradition respecting the locality is true. Although many volumes have been written upon a question connected with this voyage, whether St. Paul was wrecked at Malta or Meleda in the Adriatic, I am not aware that any such comparison as the one I am about to attempt has yet been made;? none, indeed, could have been made with success in the hitherto imperfect state of our knowledge of 1 Boysen, De difficilt Pauli [tinere, with a promising title, throws no light on the subject. Major Rennell’s paper, Ox the Voyage and Place of Shipwreck of St. Paul (Archexologia, vol. xxi.), belongs to the series of works on the controversy above alluded to. He had no personal knowledge of the supposed locality, and therefore had to contend with imaginary difficulties. It is written with that caution -and candour which distinguish him. The conclusion he has arrived at is, as might be expected, that Malta was the scene of the shipwreck. : INTRODUCTION. , XXXlil the geography of the Levant, and of the ships and seamanship of the ancients. For all pur- poses of minute comparison, our acquaintance with either of these subjects was worse than useless, and only calculated to mislead. Nothing, for instance, could be more erroneous than the charts of the south coast of Crete, where so many events of importance to the right under- standing of the occurrences of the voyage took place, or of Malta, where it terminated in ship- wreck.} Had the geographers of former days been contented without filling up conjecturally the spaces in their maps, about which they were ignorant, or only given us ‘elephants instead of towns, we should have had but little reason to complain ; but they more frequently did the very reverse, and gave us towns instead of elephants. In one of the French Admiralty charts of 1738, the southern promontory of Crete, now called Cape Matala, and the great bight (the Gulf of Messara) to the west of it, are altogether omitted, and the line of the coast represented as nearly straight. On the other 1 Dr. Bloomfield, in his ‘ Recensio Syndptica,’ refers to the map of Malta of Cluverius, for the spit of land which forms the place where two seas meet (τόπον διθάλασσον). The spit, or ‘ness,’ is evidently the present site of Valetta ; but the map has scarcely any resemblance to Malta. b XXXIV INTRODUCTION. hand, Sanson, in his great map of Crete,! ‘E Conatibus Geographicis,’ as it is entitled, exhibits projections and indentations where none really exist; and in particular he has represented an extensive promontory in the centre of the Gulf of Messara, upon which he has placed the town of Assos, evidently for the purpose of accommodating his geography to the narrative of St. Luke; so that, whether we translate the word ἄσσον (Acts xxvii. 13) into ‘Assos, as it is rendered in the Vulgate, or ‘close by,’ as in the English translation, we are sure that the account and map will agree with each other. , Recent surveys have, however, corrected these errors, and fiirnished us with a correct outline of the coasts of Crete.?. The soundings are not yet filled in; but this is immaterial in the earlier proceedings of St. Paul and his com- panions. At Malta, where we require to know 1 Appended to Meursii Cvefa, Opera 111. 143. In Dapper’s map (Description de 1 Archipel, p. 385) there is neither cape nor bight. Fair Havens and the city of Lasea are placed at the east end of Crete ; and Claudos (the island of Clauda), according to the longitude of Ptolemy, at the opposite extremity. 2 The British survey now carrying on has not yet extended to the south coast of Candia. I am, however, assured by officers engaged in it that the coast lines of the late French Admiralty chart are extremely accurate. I have accordingly made use of it in the chart of the south coast of Crete; I have also used it in that part of the general chart of the voyage which lies to the east of long. 24°, the meridian where Admiral Smyth’s chart of the ‘ western division of the Mediterranean Sea’ terminates. ' INTRODUCTION. XXXV not only the outline and peculiar features of the coast, but the soundings and nature of the bottom, we have Admiral Smyth’s chart of the island, and above all his plan of St. Paul’s Bay, to a scale of nine inches: to the mile,’ which leave nothing to be desired with regard to the hydrography of this part of the voyage. Next in importance to a correct knowledge of the geography is that of the peculiarities of ancient navigation; but there is no department of classical antiquity about which we are so much in the dark. I have not met with any modern author on the subject who has. not left it more obscure than he found it, chiefly from a want of practical knowledge of the science.’ 1 I question if modern: sctence has ever done more to confirm an ancient author than Admiral Smyth’s survey of St. Paul’s Bay has done in the present case. The soundings alone would have furnished a conclusive test of the truth of the narrative. To the common reader, the mention of twenty fathoms and fifteen fathoms indicates nothing more than the decreasing depth which every ship experiences in approaching the land: but when we come to consider the number of conditions which must be fulfilled in both instances where the depth is mentioned, in order to make the chart and narrative agree, we must admit that a perfect agreement cannot be accidental. I refer the reader for the details of the coincidences to the Narrative of the Voyage. 2. M. Jal, author of a late work entitled Archéologie Navale, and Captain Beechey, R.N., are to be excepted from this last remark ; but M. Jal is rather a medizeval than a classical antiquary ; and Captain _ Beechey’s remarks on ancient ships, appended to his travels in Africa, are avowedly taken from Potter: His observations on the rate of sailing of ancient ships are, however, valuable, and I have availed myself of them. b2 χχχνὶ INTRODUCTION. Translators and commentators have necessarily had recourse to the writings of authors who have treated de re navali antigua as authori- ties; and the consequence is that there is scarcely a single nautical term in the narrative which is correctly rendered, and even when one is, the reader has no certainty that the meaning is the right one, for he will rarely find two com- mentators agreed in opinion respecting it. | We are not, however, to suppose that men of learning and research offer conjectures at random ; all of them have some grounds to go ~ upon, and it is only by testing their conclusions by a careful examination of the data upon which . they rest them, and by rejecting such as we can prove to be erroneous, that we can hope to arrive at the true explanation of the terms. This I have attempted; but I found it a work of much greater labour than I anticipated. Even the verification of quotations is anything © but an easy task; we often meet with errors in the references, and every ancient author has not a verbal index to guide us in searching for passages. } But it is not enough to discover the pas- sages, or even to assure ourselves, from the context, that we understand the meaning of the | author ; we must, by comparing him with other authorities, satisfy ourselves that he understood INTRODUCTION. XXXVii what he was writing about, and is correct in his terminology. Those who trust implicitly to ancient authors will not infrequently be led into error, particularly where the object is to arrive at the meaning of technical expressions. The ancient scholiasts and lexicographers, and writers de omnibus vebus, like Julius Pollux and Isidore of Seville, cannot always be right in their ex- planations ; and I should consider inferences drawn from their works of little value, unless supported by independent collateral evidence. But if caution be requisite with regard to the writings of the ancients, it is still more so with regard to the engravings of representations of ancient ships on coins, marbles, and pictures. To the nautical antiquary the engraved figures, ἡ particularly of coins, are of little value, except to guide him to the originals. It has been my object, in every instance where it was in my power, to get at the best evidence. I cannot accuse myself of want of - industry in the research, and I have been placed in circumstances in some respects peculiarly favourable for prosecuting it. A winter's residence in Malta afforded me ample opportunities for a personal examination of the localities. In the ships of war stationed there, I could consult with skilful and scientific seamen, familiar with the navigation of the - -- λ΄ XXXVIll INTRODUCTION. Levant, an advantage I did not fail to avail myself of; and as it is my object to put my readers in possession of my authorities, I have never scrupled to name them. Inthe Knights’ Library I had access to an extensive collection of works, printed and manuscript, on the contro- versy as to the scene of the shipwreck, on the hydrography of the Mediterranean, and on local and classical antiquities. The following summer I spent on the Continent, and devoted my time almost exclusively to the investigation, with the advantages which the museums and libraries of Naples, Florence, Lausanne, and Paris afforded. Since my return, I have continued it with the advantages our own country possesses, particu- larly in the libraries and medal rooms of the British Museum and records of the Admiralty,* and with a private library which I may term’ rich in early sea voyages, formed in a great measure for the purpose of illustrating geogra- phical and nautical antiquities, and with the means of testing experimentally the soundness of my conjectures as to the internal arrange- ments of ancient ships. It is not enough, however, to be placed in a position favourable for observation in order to arrive at just conclusions ; we must also know 1 It will be seen that the record of the proceedings of a court- martial on the officers οἴ δα frigate wrecked in St. Paul’s Bay furnished very important information, bearing directly on the subject. INTRODUCTION. ΧΧΧΙΧ ‘what to observe’ and ‘how to observe Die the power of doing so with advantage depends in a great measure upon practice; and I think it is due to the reader to state that none of the channels into which my inquiries on the subject have branched are altogether new to me. I have, in the first place, endeavoured to identify the locality of a shipwreck which took place eighteen centuries ago. An attempt to do this would be of little value, unless the geological changes to which sea-coasts are liable, which may or must have occurred in the interval, are ‘taken into account. Now it so happens that this is a department of geology which I have been engaged for many years in investigating. In like manner, it would be hardly possible to reconstruct the history οἵ ἃ sea voyage out of such scattered and fragmentary notices as we find in the narrative of St. Luke, without some practical knowledge of navigation and seaman- ship. My knowledge of these subjects is only that of an amateur, yet a yacht sailor of more than thirty years’ standing can scarcely fail to have acquired some skill in those principles of nautical science which are common to all times, though he may not always express them in the appropriate language of the quarter-deck. I find, at all events, that the knowledge I have thus acquired enabled me to consult my nautical χὶ INTRODUCTION. friends with advantage. But nautical skill, whether original or borrowed, will not tell us how Greek and Roman vessels, so different from the modern in rigging and construction, should be managed under given circumstances. Here, also, former pursuits come to my aid. Nautical antiquities have long been a favourite study, and not a little practical experience in planning, building, and altering vessels, has given me definite notions both of external form and internal capabilities ; whilst the opportunity of testing my conclusions by experiment, and the success of those I have made, give me confidence in their accuracy. I have felt some hesitation in dwelling upon the advantages I possess for conducting such inquiries with success, which are in a certain degree personal, and I turn with satisfaction to those which I have derived from recent antiqua- rian discoveries, from the pictures and marbles exhumed at Herculaneum and. Pompeii, and especially from the discovery of the inventories of the Athenian fleet, which were excavated at — the Pirzus in 1834. These last are inscribed upon marble tables : they have been published by Professor Béckh, of Berlin, well known for his researches on Attic antiquities, and his great collection of Greek inscriptions. Nothing can be more satisfactory than the manner in which he has edited these important fragments, | INTRODUCTION. xli He has, in the first place, printed the tables in inscription characters. He has next printed them in the common Greek type, with the lacune filled up conjecturally within brackets, as far as that could be done with tolerable cer- tainty, and he has accompanied them with notes and preliminary dissertations.t It will be seen that I frequently dissent from his nautical in- ferences, but this difference of opinion by no means lessens my sense of the care and fidelity with which he has executed his editorial labours. These tables contain, in the most authentic form, much information on nautical matters, calculated to throw light on difficult and unexplained pas- sages, both in the sacred and profane writers of antiquity. _ Weare also indebted to M. Jal for having brought forward, in his ‘ Archéologie Navale,’ some important documents respecting the ship- ping of the Middle Ages. They furnish a valuable link connecting the modern and ancient nautical language, which I have not failed to avail myself of. If, therefore, I have succeeded in clearing up unexplained passages in the sacred histo- rians, or other ancient writers, my success must 1 The title of the work is ‘Urkunden iiber das Seewesen des Attischen Staates, hergestellt und erlautert von August Bockh,’ 8vo, Ber. 1840: i.e. Archives of the Navy of the Attic State. I have quoted them as ‘ Attic Tables.’ xlii INTRODUCTION. be ascribed, in a great measure, to discoveries unknown to the authors who preceded me in the same lines of inquiry. My original intention was to have confined myself to the illustration of St. Paul’s voyage, and that the work should have been, in the strictest sense of the word, a monograph ; that my antiquarian researches should have been confined to the wheat’ships of Alexandria, and my critical’ researches to the nautical style of St. Luke. I could not, however, in searching for evidence regarding the merchant ships of the ancients, avoid noticing that which regarded the war galleys also; and I could not resist the temptation of attempting a solution of what Dr. Arnold has called ‘an _ indiscoverable problem, the internal arrangement of the rowers. I have also extended my inquiries respecting the writings of St. Luke much beyond my original intention. In comparing his nautical style with that of other authors, ancient and modern, I was led to a minute examination of his account of the miracle of stilling the tempest on the lake of Gennesareth, as compared with those given of the same event in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. With this view I copied them out in the 1 Roman Fiist. iii. 572. INTRODUCTION. xlili original in parallel columns, placing St. Luke’s account, which it was my object to elucidate, in the centre. After repeated transcriptions, I succeeded in adjusting them so as to exhibit at a glance its relation to each of the other two. The results of this comparison were to me un- expected, but in the highest degree interesting and satisfactory. I found 1 had unintentionally been led to place in juxtaposition the passages which were, perhaps, the best calculated of all to show us what were the authorities which St. Luke has made use of in this part of his Gospel. In the parallel” passages of St. Matthew and St. Mark, we have all the data, and nothing but the data, which he has em- ployed. There is here no disturbing cause to perplex us, such as the employment of authori- ties which have perished, or of information procured by personal inquiry. We are thus introduced, as it were, into his study. We see the two works from which he composed his narrative open before us. One of these, which is in Greek, is the Gospel according to St. Matthew ; the other is in the language of the country (Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic, called by the fathers Hebrew). The original employed by St. Luke, it is true, is no longer extant, but we have what I believe to be a close and literal translation of it in the Gospel of St. Mark. xliv INTRODUCTION. By thus placing the writings of the first three Evangelists in a new point of view, and employing a new instrument of examination, if I may be allowed the expression, I cannot help thinking that I have succeeded in throwing new light on the origin of their Gospels. I saya new instrument of examination; for it was the contrast between the dandsmaniike style in which St. Matthew describes the storm and its effects, and the accurate but provincial style of the fisherman of the lake apparent in St. Mark’s account, and the equally accurate but less pro- vincial and more historical style in which St. Luke, in a narrative evidently constructed from the other two, relates the same occurrence, which first arrested my attention. This led me to examine into the nature of the connection of the accounts given of this miracle by St. Luke and St. Mark. The conclusion at which I arrived was that St. Mark is the translator of a contemporary account by an eye-witness, and that St. Luke has based his account of the miracle, not upon St. Mark's translation, but upon this original narrative, supplying some particulars from St. Matthew's Gospel in Greek. _ An important question here presented itself: if St. Mark be a translator, whom did he trans- late? The answer which I have endeavoured to establish, both by internal and external evi- dence, I give in the words of Papias and other INTRODUCTION. xIv ancient fathers:—‘ Mark is the translator of Peter’ (Μάρκος ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου), not, as some of those writers have, as I think, erroneously supposed that he was the translator of what St. Peter remembered and dictated at a distance of years, but that a considerable part of St. Mark’s Gospel is a translation of an account of the trans- actions in which St. Peter was personally en- gaged, written by St. Peter himself upon the spot, immediately after the events took place which he has recorded. Since writing the above I have seen some remarks on this subject by the translator’ of Schleiermacher’s ‘ Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke,’ in which he points out the import- ance of examining it from every “point of view, and anticipates the probability that the right clue may thus be discovered. He says :— | That a problem so complicated may not yet have been viewed from every possible side, and, therefore, that the right clue may still be discovered, is not in itself im- probable.? Now, independently of all the proofs which 1 have brought forward in support of my view of the authorship of the original documents, and the use which has been made of them by St. Luke, I cannot help thinking that I have got possession of the right clue, when I feel 1 Dr. Thirlwall, now Bishop of St. David’s. 2 Introduction, p. xxii. xlvi INTRODUCTION. the ground so firm under me, when I feel that in every step I have taken, difficulties have dis- appeared, when 1 feel assured that I am not wandering amongst the mists of myths, legends, or early traditions, but amidst the clear light of the best of all historical evidence, that of the contemporary accounts of the persons actually engaged in the transactions which they have recorded. Although it does not come within the plan of this work to discuss the bearing of the con- clusions I have arrived at, on the question of the genuineness or authenticity of the writings of St. Luke, there is one remark which, as it depends on the peculiarities of the nautical style of the Acts of the Apostles, I wish here to make. That style, as I shall have occasion ~ more than once to observe, though accurate, is: unprofessional. No sailor would have written in a style so little like that of a sailor; no man not a sailor could have written a narrative of a sea voyage so consistent in all its parts, unless from actual observation. This peculiarity of style is to me, in itself, a demonstration that the narrative of the voyage is an account of real events written by an eye-witness. A similar remark may be made on the geographical details. They must have been taken from”, actual observation, for the geographical know- INTRODUCTION. xlvii ledge of the age was not such as to enable a writer to be so minutely accurate in any other way. * There is one objection to the locality as- signed by the Maltese tradition as the scene of the shipwreck, which meets us at the very threshold of our inquiry, and which it is neces- sary to obviate in a work which aims at exhaust- ing the subject. It is maintained by Giorgi, Bryant, Falconer, and others, that it did not take place at Malta at all, but at Meleda, in the Gulf of Venice, an island which was anciently known by the same name as Malta, namely, Melita. But for the above-mentioned reason, I should have been much inclined to have noticed this objection very briefly, thinking, with Joseph Scaliger, ‘that it would not deserve to be con- futed, if it had not had supporters.’ But when I find it adopted by modern commentators? and biographers,® and read such passages as the subjoined,t I feel called upon to subject the 1 ¢Heec ridicula opinio, si non sectatores nacta esset, indigna erat que vel confutaretur.’ (De Emendatione Temporum, p. 536.) 2 Dr. Valpy, in his edition of the New Testament. 8 Chalmers’s Biog. Dict. art. ‘ Bryant.’ 4 ¢On sait bien aujourd’hui, a ne plus en douter, que c’est 116 de Meleda dans la Mer Adriatique, sur la céte de la Dalmatie, et qui faisait autrefois partie de la république de Raguse, ou St. Paul fit naufrage.’ (Corresp. de Bar. Zach, ix. 78.) ‘ The most celebrated treatise with which we are acquainted is that of Mr. Bryant, who has defended his opinion at great length with all xlvill INTRODUCTION. arguments by which it is supported to a minute and sifting examination. This I have attempted to do, following the reasoning of Bryant and Falconer, as best known in this country. I have not, however, left any of the arguments of foreign writers on the subject, who have adopted the same side of the question, unnoticed or un- answered. JORDANHILL: March 12, 1848. his usual learning, and more than his usual judgment, and in the general opinion, I believe, has been supposed to have established his position.’ (Townsend’s Mew Testament arranged in Chronological Order, ii. 445.) _ ©The course of this voyage, related Acts xxvii., in which the Apostle was shipwrecked on the island of Melita, Acts xxviii. 1, has been mistaken by the first geographers and commentators, and their maps of it erroneously constructed, in consequence of the vulgar error that the island in question was the African Melita or Malta, instead of the Adriatic Melita or Meleda. This correction of the re- ceived geography we owe to the sagacious Bryant ; and it has recently been established with much learning and ability by a layman, ina dissertation on this voyage, Oxford, 1817, the ingenious Dr. Falconer, the physician of Bath, who has furnished a correcter map of the voyage.’ (Hales, Chronology, iv. 406.) ‘The supposition (that Malta was the scene of the shipwreck) is quite absurd. Not to argue the matter at length, consider those few conclusive facts. The narrative speaks of the barbarous people and barbarians of the island ; now our Malta was at the time fully peopled and highly civilised, as we may surely infer from ancient and other writings. A viper comes out of the sticks upon the fire being lighted ; the men are not surprised at the appearance of the snake, but imagine first a murderer, and then a God from the harmless attack. Now in our Malta there are, I may say, no snakes at all.’ (Coleridge’s Zable Talk, p. 185.) ; ‘This (Malta) is not the Melita where St. Paul was shipwrecked.’ (Lord Lindsay’s Letters from Egypt and the Holy Land,i. 19.) “1 am bound to express my entire certainty that Melita is Meleda.’ (Neale’s Notices of Dalmatia, etc.) fri VOYAGE AND SHIPWRECK OF on ΜΑΤΙᾺ. DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF Sl. LUKE. PERHAPS no point in ancient literature is more tho- roughly established than that Luke the physician was author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles ; the external evidence reaching through the early Christian authors back to the fragment dis- covered by Muratori, which contains a date showing that it was written less than a century after the Acts, and therefore within the limits, with respect to time, of direct evidence ; not that the author could remem- ber the first publication of the Acts, but he must have known many who did. The proofs drawn from St. Luke’s own ines. and those of St. Paul, are not less conclusive. In the Epistles he is mentioned as a fellow-labourer (Philem. 24), as one who was with him at Rome (2 . Tim. iv. 11), and as a physician (Coloss. iv. 14). Here, then, are three conditions, which if shown to be fulfilled in St. Luke, and in him alone of all the companions B 2 ‘DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE of St. Paul, necessarily involve the conclusion that he is the author of the works in question. I shall there- fore endeavour to show that they are all fulfilled in the writer of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Ist. He was a fellow-labourer. This is proved by the text (Acts xvi. 10), wherein he’ states himself as — one of those called ‘to preach the Gospel in Mace- donia.’ | 2nd. He was with Paul on his first visit to Rome, proved by Acts xxviii. 16,‘ And when we were come to Rome,’ το. ᾿ 3rd. He was a physician. From the simplicity of St. Luke’s style, and entire absence of anything like professional pedantry, his professionalisms are never obtrusive ; when, however, we subject his accounts of the cures of diseases to a searching examination, we find that he is always care- ful to state their precise nature and extent, and that he does so in the technical language of the Greek physicians. I content myself with one from the Gos- pel, and one from the Acts. In the account of the cure of Peter’s wife’s mother, she is said to be /adour- ing under a great fever (iv. 38, ἣν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ). Now we are expressly told by Galen, in his treatise on the difference of fevers, that physicians were accustomed to distinguish fevers as the great and small fevers! In an excellent paper on the medical style of St. Luke, signed J. K. Walker (‘ Gent. Mag.’ June 1841, p. 585), the author remarks :— 1 Kal σύνηθες ἤδη Tots ἰατροῖς ὀνομάζειν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ γένει τῆς διαφορᾶς τὸν μέγαν τε καὶ μικρὸν πυρετόν. (De Feb. Diff. lib. i. ο. 1.) AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 3 ‘Nor does he (St. Luke) fail, as often as he has occa- ‘sion to mention diseases or their cure, to select such appro- priate language as none but a professional man could have used .... In speaking of Simon’s wife’s mother, who was taken with a grea/ fever (Luke iv. 38), he uses the term cuve- χομένη in the same sense as the Greek writers do.’ Compare the above-quoted text with that describ- ing the disease of the father of Publius, at Melita (Acts xxviii. 8), where we are told that he was ‘ dabour- ing under fevers and dysentery, πυρετοῖς καὶ ducev- Tepiw συνεχόμενον. Here also we have the testimony of Hippocrates, who uses πυρετοί, fevers, in the plural. In both these cases we have the best evidence as to the technical character of St. Luke’s medical terminology, but we know also from St. Jerome, that ecclesiastical authors who wrote before him had borne the strongest testimony to the medical skill of St. Luke. ‘Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesiz tracta- tores medicine artis fuisse scientissimum.’ (Com. in Isaiam, xiii. 6.) . I may add that modern medical authors familiar with the works of the Greek physicians have observed, that when he mentions diseases he uses the appropri- ate language correctly. He also exhibits professional feeling in his account of the cure of the woman with the issue of blood (viii. 43), taken, as I have else- where shown, from the original of St. Peter, evidently from personal knowledge.. In St. Mark’s Gospel we are told that the woman had suffered many things of many physicians, and had wasted! (δαπανήσασα) all 1 It is not clear that προσαναλώσασα, the word used by St. Luke, is milder than that which Mr. Smith renders ‘wasted’ in St. Mark’s B 2 4 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE she had, and was nothing bettered by them, but rather grew worse (Mark v. 26). Strong language, but no doubt true, and what might have been expected from the doctors in a fishing village. In St. Luke’s account, whilst he removes the implied reflection on the profes- sion, there is no suppressio veri ;—he adheres rigidly to the facts of the case. He tells us that the woman ‘had expended her whole living upon physicians, neither could be healed by any’ (viii. 43). We may conclude therefore with confidence, that the fact of his having been a physician is established, and that the condi- tions which identify Luke, the friend of St. Paul, with the author of the Gospel and Acts are fulfilled. I come now to consider the evidence as to his country. The first indication occurs in his enume- ration of the seven deacons (Acts vi. 5); in relating their names he stops to tell us that Nicolas was a proselyte of Antioch, but does not mention the country — of any of the others. Now if St. Luke was himself — an Antiochean, nothing could be more natural than © such a notice, just as I find in my own library eight accounts of the Russian campaign of 1812, three by French, three by English, and two by Scotch authors. The two last, Scott and Alison, tell us that the Rus- sian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch extrac- — tion; none of the others take any notice of it. In both cases, the authors I have no doubt were prompted ~ by national feelings, of which they were probably un- conscious, and 1 attribute the notice of the country of account. ‘The difference is probably only an example of the familiar phenomenon of the same Aramaic word translated differently by St. Mark and St, -Luke. [See Dzssertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, p. xxili.] AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 5 Nicolas to the same cause. Another case of the same kind is where he tells us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Whatever may have been the place of his birth, we have direct evidence that he was resident at Antioch when St. Paul 2 γε visited that city. . The internal evidence for this is drawn, first from the autopticity of his style, or in other words, from his relating events with the circum- stantiality of an eye-witness. His account of this part of the early history of Christianity is so minute and circumstantial as to have satisfied me that he was present at the events related in this part of the his- tory, even before I was aware that there was conclu- sive external evidence to prove that he was, as I stated in the first edition of this work. The earliest notice of Antioch connected with the history of Christianity occurs in Acts xi. 19, where we are informed that ‘they who were scattered abroad upon the persecutions that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Antioch.’ St. Luke’s account is here so minute and circumstantial as to indicate the pen of an eye-witness: he mentions the places from whence the disciples came, and distinguishes those who addressed the Jews from those who addressed the Grecians. Healso mentions the names of certain Antiocheans—men of consequence, no doubt, in their own city, but never heard of elsewhere. The manner, too, in which he relates the events which took place at Antioch at this time, indicates no less clearly that his is the narrative of aneye-witness. Thus, in speak- ing of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, he tells us that when they were come to Antioch, they spake unto the Grecians (xi. 20); that Barnabas departed (from 6 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE Antioch), and brought him (Paul) to Antioch, prophets came from Jerusalem, relief is sent zo Jerusalem. And at the end of the following chapter, after narra- ting. the persecutions of Herod and his death, he tells us, without prefatory explanation, that St. Paul and Barnabas returned from Jerusalem (xii. 25). This is the language of a person who was at Antioch at the time ; any other would have said they returned to Antioch. The proof that St. Luke was present at Antioch — is confirmed by a passage from the Acts, xi. 28, con- tained in one of the so-called interpolations in the Codex D. The passage is as follows :—‘ And in those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Anti- och, and there was great joy; and when we were assembled‘ there stood up one of them, named Agabus,’ &c. This passage, although it does not form part of the received text, is better supported by evidence than some that do, for it is expressly quoted by St. Augustine a century at least earlier than the date of the manuscript in question. The testimony of Augus- tine? is so clear and precise as to leave no doubt that the passage was contained in other and older MSS. than Codex D. Lardner opposes the opinion of Irenzeus to the | direct evidence of Augustine, a later Father, but 1 Ἣν δὲ πολλὴ ἀγαλλίασις συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν. 2 ‘Item in Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est, ea quae ad victum sunt necessaria procurata esse in futuram famem, szc enzm legimus : ““ In illis autem diebus descenderunt ab Ierosolymis prophetz Antiochiam, eratgue magna exultatio. Congregatis autem nobis, unus ex illis, no- τ mine Agabus,” &c.’ (De Serm. Domini, lib. ii. c. 57.) [The passage is rejected by the best modern critics, as also are others which are pecu- liar to Codex D, such as that quoted on p. 53.] , AND WRITINGS. OF ST. LUKE. 7 there is no question between them. The question, if _ there be one, is between Irenzeus and Luke himself. Augustine could not be mistaken in the direct asser- tion that such was the text of the Acts; and if he told the truth, then we have the authority of Luke him- self that he was present when Agabus visited Antioch. The testimony of Irenzeus, however, has no refer- ence to the time when St. Luke first joined St. Paul, but to the fact that he was his companion on his jour- neys and fellow-labourer; it is in the following terms :—‘ Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo et coopera- rius ejus in -evangelio; ipse fuit manifestum non glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate. Separatis enim inquit a Paulo et Barnaba et Joanne, qui voca- batur Marcus, et cum navigassent Cyprum, nos veni- mus ad Troadem’ (c. Haer. iii. 14, 1). Irenzeus quotes from memory, and, as might be expected, falls into mistakes, but in this case they do not affect any infer- ences drawn from his incidental expressions. St. Luke certainly was not with St. Paul on his journey after he parted with Barnabas and Mark ; neither was — he with him when he first visited Troas (Acts xvi. 8), for he was already there, and his notice of his arrival at Troas with St. Paul refers to his second visit to that city many years afterwards (Acts xx. 6). Tille- mont’s objection, adduced by Lardner to the authority of Codex D, that it is ‘ plein d’additions et altérations contraires au veritable texte de S. Luc’ (Mém. Eccl. t. ii. 2S. Luc. note), is mere assumption, as, I believe, is the character very generally given of this manu- script, that it abounds in interpolations ; a’ character which, at least in the two pregnant instances brought under consideration in the present inquiry, neither of 8 DISSERTATION ON THE. LIFE which form part of the received text,—I mean the one in question, and another shortly to be considered—is without foundation. I am therefore satisfied, from the concurring evi- dence just stated, that St. Luke was a resident inha- bitant of Antioch when St. Paul first visited it, and from that time was a fellow-labourer with him in the spread of the Gospel, and joined with him in many of his missionary journeys. The circumstantiality of the accounts of St. Paul’s first missionary journey to Cyprus and Asia Minor in company with Barnabas (Acts xiii. 4 to xiv. 23), affords strong presumption that he accompanied him ; the places they passed through, and the particular species of blindness which affected Elymas the sor- cerer, mentioned in medical language, and his groping for assistance, mark at once the physician and the eye-witness. I conclude therefore from the evidence I have stated, that St. Luke was a resident at Antioch when St. Paul first visited it, and from that time was a fellow- labourer with him in the spread of the Gospel. After the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (xiv. 26), he appears to have remained there till Paul and Silas finally left it (xv. 40). There is nothing in the account of the journey which Paul and Barnabas made to Jerusalem to indicate that he accompanied them; but from his mentioning that they passed through Phenice and Samaria, where we do not hear of anything being done, except that ‘they were brought on their way by the church’ (xv. 3), it is probable he accompanied them so far ; at all events, such details show that he ἢ was still at Antioch. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 9 After St. Paul left that city, we hear nothing of St. Luke till they again met at Troas (xvi. 8), and here it falls from him that he was engaged with St. Paul in preaching the Gospel, for he infers from his vision ‘that the Lord had called ws to preach,’ &c. From Troas he accompanies the Apostle and his party to Philippi; the circumstantiality with which he relates this short voyage and the events at Philippi would have assured us of his presence, even if it had not been confirmed by the use of the first person plural. These proofs of his presence cease with the departure of Paul and his companions from Philippi, and although, as usual, he is silent as to his own pro- ceedings, there is good reason to suppose that he laboured in that city and the adjoining regions till St. Paul’s return to Macedonia (Acts xx. 2); his entire silence as to the events of the circuit made by the Apostle on this occasion would of itself assure us that he did not join init. It is during this period that a circumstance took place which is mentioned by St. Jerome, namely, that he was ‘the brother whose praise was in the Gospel throughout all the churches, who was sent by St. Paul along with Titus to receive the contributions of the church there’ (2 Cor. viii. 18). As the circumstance above alluded to is an impor- tant event, and throws much light upon a portion of his life about which he is entirely silent, it becomes desirable to ascertain how far the statement of Jerome is confirmed by other and independent authorities. Origen, in noticing St. Paul’s praise of Luke’s Gospel, evidently understands that he was ‘ the brother,’ &c., and it is expressly so stated in the (longer) epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians. 10 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE But these are not the only authorities which have come down to us which prove that St. Luke was one of the companions of Titus in the mission in question. In the subscription to the Second Epistle to the Corin- thians, it is expressly stated that he was; this is not indeed canonical authority, but it is one of great anti- quity, and quite independent of that of Jerome. He has not introduced it into the Vulgate, and he cannot have taken his statement from it, for it says nothing about Luke being ‘the brother whose praise is in the churches ;’ whilst, on the other hand, Jerome says nothing about Luke being the companion of Titus. It is true that several of the subscriptions to the Epistles have been shown by Paley to be erro- neous; but this is not one of them. Those which are shown to be erroneous are evidently the conclu- sions which transcribers have drawn from the matter of the Epistles ; but as the name of Luke is not men- tioned in the body of the epistle, its insertion in the subscription must either be the record of a fact, or an arbitrary interpolation,—a supposition in which there is not a shadow of probability. The manner in which St. Paul’s second visit to Macedonia is related in the Acts is precisely what might have been expected from St. Luke, on the sup- position that he was sent to Corinth upon St. Paul’s arrival in Macedonia. He was too intimately con- nected with the Apostle, and too anxious to record his proceedings, to have noticed them in so cursory a manner, had he not been absent at this time. Now, we know that St. Luke was at Philippi at the time of this visit, for he left it with St. Paul on his departure from Macedonia. We must infer, from his usual style AND WRITINGS. OF ST. LUKE, ΤΙ of writing when with St. Paul, that he neither was with him during his stay at Philippi, nor accompanied him in his progress through Macedonia, the whole of which is related in these words :—‘ He departed (from Ephesus) for to go into Macedonia; and when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece’ (Acts xx. I, 2). St. Luke, therefore, although in Macedonia, was not with St. Paul either during his stay at Philippi or on his journey through Macedonia. I account for his absence by the supposition that St. Paul’s first busi- ness, on his arrival, was to despatch him with Titus to Corinth, and that he returned to Philippi before St. Paul (xx. 2). We can thus explain the manner in which he describes St. Paul’s proceedings on this occa- sion, so different from that which he uses when he was in’ his company. The next peculiarity I would advert to is the remarkable contrast between the writings of St. Paul and St. Luke respecting the contributions. It is quite obvious, from both of his Epistles to the Corinthians and that to the Romans, that St. Paul attached the highest importance to them: the very circumstance of his declining to take charge of them is a proof that they were of great importance ; and yet, were it not that it incidentally drops from him in his address to Felix (Acts xxiv. 17), that he came to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings, nothing whatever respect- ing this matter would have been known from the Acts. I attribute this silence on the part of St. Luke to the entire abnegation of self, which characterises his writings. I believe that the history of the contribu- tions belongsin a great measure to the history of St. 12 DISSERTATION: ON THE LIFE. Luke, and that he was not merely the selected " trustee, but a principal mover in the contributions of the earliest European churches, both to St. Paul per- sonally, and to the church at Jerusalem. Assuming then, as I do, that the fact mentioned in the subscription to the 2 Corinth. with respect to Luke is established, it follows that he is ‘ the brother whose praise is in the Gospel in all the churches’ of Macedonia. I do not, with Jerome and many commentators, suppose that St. Paul, in mentioning the Gospel, alludes to the Gospel written by St. Luke, but to his success in preaching the Gospel, and adopt the translation of Mr. Conybeare :— ‘The brother whose praise, in publishing the glad tidings, is spread throughout all the churches.’ Agreeing with this view, let us revert to the cir- cumstances under which St. Luke first visited Philippi. We learn from Acts xvi. 10, that the members of St. Paul’s mission, of whom St. Luke was one, proceeded to Philippi, where St. Paul founded the first European church; Paul, Silas, and Timothy then left Philippi, or rather were driven from it (Acts xvi. 40, and xvii. 14); but St. Luke certainly did not, as I have already shown, accompany them. This church, notwithstand- ing the absence of St. Paul,and all the other members of the mission except St. Luke, continued to flourish. Immediately after leaving it, St. Paul proceeded to Thessalonica ; and here we learn that he repeatedly received relief to his necessities from the Philippian church. I cannot doubt but that this assistance was mainly due to the devoted friend who remained with that church,—who knew his wants, and who exerted AND. WRITINGS -OF (ST. LUKE. 13 himself to supply them. St. Luke felt he was called upon to teach the Gospel to the Macedonians, and we must suppose that he obeyed the call, and laboured assiduously and successfully, as every indication con- nected with the Macedonian churches proves, Years roll on, and St. Paul again visits Macedonia. St. Luke, after fulfilling the mission to Corinth, re- turns to Philippi with the contributions, and is there joined by St. Paul, whom he accompanies to Jerusa- lem ; his journey thither is circumstantially related in the Acts, xx. 6 to xxi. 17, and need not be repeated here. St. Luke, as usual, is entirely silent respecting his own proceedings. There are, however, the strongest reasons for believing that, during the two years of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Czesarea, he composed his Gospel. There are several indications in that work which tend to prove that it was written in Judea. In the first place, he tells us in his preface that his object was to give an account ‘of the things which had been accomplished amongst us’ (περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων), showing that he was then writing in the scene of the events. In the next place, his descriptions are those of a person familiar with the localities,and who was upon the spot at the time of writ- ing ; thus, in relating the triumphal entry of our Lord into Jerusalem, he informs us of the exact place where the attendant multitudes burst out into Hosannas,—it was on ‘the descent of the Mount of Olives’ (Luke xix. 37), a circumstance only noticed by him. The last proof of the Judean origin of the Gospel is the manner in which he makes use of the national 14 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE denomination, ‘the Jews, as compared with the use he makes of it in the Acts. A person writing in the | country does not think of giving the national denomi- nation to its inhabitants, except in cases where it is unavoidable ; but writing out of it he very naturally does. Now in the Gospel St. Luke only uses the word ‘Jew’ five times, and that in cases where he could not help it,—namely, ‘the King of the Jews,’ “the elders of the Jews,’ ‘a city of the Jews ;’ but he never uses it when speaking of the people in general. In the Acts, on the other hand, it is used no less than eighty-two times. I infer from these indications that St. Luke’s Gos- pel was written in Judea ; but if so, it must have been written before he quitted it with St. Paul on his voyage to Rome, for there is no later period to which its composition can be referred. It was therefore written between A.D. 58 and A.D. 60, under circum- stances of all others the most favourable for historical investigation, on the spot where the transactions took place, and with constant opportunities of intercourse with those chiefly engaged in them. To this beloved friend of the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, himself, as I have shown, a leading member of the mission which first bore the light of the Gospel into Europe, every means of information at that time in the posses- sion of living witnesses must have been accessible. In the narrative of the voyage we have a minute account of the events of the life of St. Luke till the arrival of St. Paul at Rome, and we learn from the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon that he was still there when they were written. The only subse- quent notice in Scripture respecting him is that in AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 15 2 Tim. iv. 11, where we are told that he alone was with - the Apostle in the very crisis of his fate, ‘when the time of his departure was at hand, and when all but Luke had forsaken him. From his not being included in the greetings to the Philippians, it has been inferred that he had previously left Rome. This is confirmed by his silence as to the events alluded to in Phil. i. 12, as ‘having fallen out unto the furtherance of the Gospel.’ St. Luke mentions the results of these events when he states that St. Paul taught ‘those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confi- dence, no man forbidding him’ (Acts xxviii. 31). We can only account for this silence by supposing that he was not present when they took place. The change of style also, from that of an eye-witness, when he re- lates what took place on their arrival at Rome, to that of an historian, when he gives an account of the two succeeding years, points to the same conclusion. Thus he devotes thirteen verses to the proceedings of the first few days, and only two to the remaining two years. When St. Paul ascertained that his case could not come before the Emperor for a considerable length of time, and that till it was decided he was in no per- sonal danger, we find that his first care was to dis- patch Tychicus to the churches in Asia Minor. We may suppose that St. Luke would be sent on a similar mission ; but if so, the church of Philippi is clearly the one to which conjecture would lead us. Now, there is, I think, very strong reason for believing that he actually was there when the epistle to that church was written, and that the ‘true yoke-fellow’ (iv. 3), addressed in it, was no other than St. Luke, to whose 16 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE care the epistle would be naturally addressed. Had it been a Philippian presbyter that was meant, we must suppose that he would have named him ; whereas, if he sent Luke to the Philippians, as he did Tychicus to the Asiatic churches, it would be unnecessary. The terms in which the message is expressed show clearly that it was addressed to one of the class of St. Paul’s friends to which St. Luke belonged ; and from the evident allusions to what took place on his former visit to Philippi (compare Phil. iv. 3, with Acts xvi. 13), it must have been one of those who were with him at the time. Now, we know very accurately those who were the members of the mission. It consisted at first of Paul and Silas. Timothy joined them at Lystra (Acts xvi. 1), and the author of the Acts at Troas (ib. xvi. 10). There is no mention of any other of the Apostle’s companions; nor does St. Luke’s style of narration afford any warrant. for supposing that there were any except those mentioned. The true yoke- — fellow must, therefore, have been either Timothy, Silas, or Luke. Timothy it could not be, for he was at Rome when St. Paul wrote the epistle (Phil. i. 1). Neither, I apprehend, could it be Silas; he disappears from the page of sacred history at least ten years be- fore the date of the epistle, a circumstance which could not have happened had he continued a fellow- labourer of St. Paul. The last time we hear of him is about A.D. 56, when St. Paul wrote the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, from Corinth, in which city he preached along with St. Paul, and where he appears to have remained (see 2 Thess. i, 1, and 2 Cor. i. 19). After St. Paul’s departure, he probably returned to Jerusalem, and joined St. Peter, for next time we hear AND WRITINGS OF 51. LUKE. 17 of him is in connection with that Apostle (1 Peter v. Pay We are thus led-to. fix upon St. Luke. The very terms of the message point to one who was a beloved friend as well as a fellow-labourer. ' Assuming that the true yoke-fellow and the author of the Acts are identical, we are furnished with the date of the Acts, both with respect to time and place. It was written, or any rate finished, at Philippi, and sent from thence to Theophilus, in the summer of A.D. 63. It ends in one respect abruptly, as every history written by a contemporary inevitably must ; but in so far as respects the history of the progress of the Gos- pel, which it was the author’s object to record, the work is brought down to a period at that time cer- tainly the brightest which had yet occurred in its annals. In order to estimate its importance, we must lay aside our knowledge of subsequent events, and view it from the same point as the author did, and, as far as we can, enter into it with the same feelings. His object in the Acts was to record the progress of Christianity, as it had been his object in his ‘former treatise ’ to record its rise. He begins the Acts when the number of Christians together was about a hun- dred and twenty, and traces the progress of the Gos- pel throughout Syria, and Asia Minor, into Europe. At the first planting of a Christian Church in this quarter of the globe St. Luke himself assisted ; and we have every reason for believing that he continued to labour with success in the same field ; that the church at Philippi, with which he was more immediately con- nected, had received the unqualified approbation of St. Paul ; that other churches had sprung up in Mace- donia and the more distant regions of Greece; and C 18 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE that the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, he whose career it was his special object to narrate, was then in the capital of the civilised world, ‘ preaching the king- dom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him.’ If we can divest ourselves of our knowledge of the persecutions which were so soon to follow, it is difficult to imagine a conjuncture which afforded brighter prospects of the success of the cause in which he laboured. As a history therefore ‘the Acts’ concludes at.a well-marked epoch, and bears the most perfect evi- dence of having been finished two years after St. Paul’s arrival at Rome, which was in spring A.D. 61, and thereby furnishes a date of the utmost import- ance, for it establishes the earlier date of his Gospel ; and that, in its turn,.as I shall endeavour to show, establishes the still earlier date of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The works of the first three evangelists were therefore written within thirty years after the death of Christ, and the events recorded were within the memory of the then existing genera- tion. , I have stated that Luke concludes the history of the Acts of the Apostles as all contemporary histo- rians must. Let. us compare it with one in modern times. Elliot’s ‘ Life of Wellington’ contains no men- tion of the Battle of Waterloo. What modern critic, applying the usual rules of critical research, but would at once explain this omission, by assuming that. the book must have been written before the battle was fought, although there is nothing in the date (1815) to prove that it was? But Biblical critics, - AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 19 misled by their own preconceived views, have exhausted their ingenuity to explain away so obvious an infer- ence. What would be said of a modern critic who -would account for this author’s silence as to the Battle of Waterloo by saying it was an event so well known as to render any notice of it superfluous? yet the same is actually said of St. Luke’s silence as to the release of St. Paul. It is interesting to compare the last notices of the career of Wellington given by this author with that of St. Paul as given by St. Luke. After informing us that he went as Ambassador to Paris, the author adds, ‘since which period he has resided in that capital, fulfilling the important duties of his station with a degree of judgment and skill which prove that he is no less qualified to support the honour of his country by his diplomatic talents than by his military ones’ (p. 572). Having thus traced St. Luke to what I believe to - have been the great scene of his labours, we hear no more of him till near the conclusion of St. Paul’s course, when, he (St. Paul), says, he had fought the good fight, and finished his course ; when Demas and others had forsaken him, and only Luke was with him. (2 Tim. iv. 7, 10, 11.) Such was the termina- tion of the public life of one who but for his modesty would have ranked as high as a man of action, as he ever must as an able and faithful historian, We have no other well-authenticated notice of him, but tradition says that he died, at an advanced age, a natural death. St. Jerome, in his life of St. Luke, says that he died, unmarried, at the age of eighty- four, and that his bones were transported from Achaia Cc 2 20 DISSERTATION. ON THE LIFE to Constantinople, in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of Constantius.! The style of St. Luke as an historian is clear, ani- mated, and picturesque. This last attribute is of course most obvious when he describes scenes which fell under his own observation. Combined with these excellences, we find the total want.of anything like display or attempt at fine writ- ing, his sole object being to convey the truth to his readers, not to enhance his literary reputation. When he describes events on the authority of others, his style is purely historical ; when he describes those which fell under his own observation, it is eminently autoptical, and has all the minuteness and circum- stantiality which almost unavoidably characterise the descriptions of eye-witnesses. We are indebted to the autopticity of his style for the numerous facts which, combined with the infer- ences we draw from them, enable us to reconstruct the narrative of the Voyage and Shipwreck. It enables us also to judge with great certainty as to the pre- sence or absence of the author in the transactions which he has recorded. I may here observe that nothing but the most perfect truthfulness could have enabled us to draw conclusions in every instance con- sistent with themselves, and in numerous cases with facts, the knowledge of which we arrive at by recent — discoveries, and which could only have been known to the author from personal observation. As a voyage-writer St. Luke is possessed of | another most essential qualification,—he is thoroughly 1 Hieronymi Vita D, Luce. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 21 versed in nautical matters, and describes them in the appropriate language of seamanship. No man could by any possibility attain so com- plete'a command of nautical language who had not spent a considerable portion of his life at sea—not, however, as a seaman, for his language, although accu- rate, is not professional. The difference in the manner of describing nautical events by seamen and lands- ‘men is too obvious to require remark ; but there is a third class of authors who are, properly speaking, neither seamen nor landsmen. I mean those who from some cause or other have been much at sea, who from living with the officers of the ship, and hearing ‘nautical matters constantly discussed, necessarily acquire the use of the technical language of seamen. An attentive examination of St. Luke’s writings shows us that it is to this class of authors that he belongs. How he acquired this knowledge we have no means of knowing ; but I cannot help thinking that he must, at some period of his life, have exercised his profes- sion at sea. From the great number of persons which we often hear of in ancient ships,! we must sup- pose that they carried surgeons. Whether St. Luke ever served in that capacity or not is, of course, mere matter of conjecture: one thing is certain, no one un- accustomed to a sea-life could have described the events connected with it with such accuracy as he has done. But although his descriptions are accurate, they are, as I have already observed, uwuprofesszonal. The -seaman in charge of the ship has his attention perpetu- 1 The ship in which Josephus went to Rome carried 600. (Z7/e.) Ἂ: DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE ally on the stretch, watching every change or indication of change of wind or weather. He is obliged to decide | on the instant what measures must be taken to avail himself of favourable changes or to obviate the con- sequences of unfavourable ones. Hence in describing them he naturally dwells upon cause and effect. He tells us not only what was done, but why it was done. The impression produced by incidents at sea upon the mind of the passive observer is altogether different, and of course his mode of describing them equally so. He tells us what has happened, but rarely tells us how or why the measures connected with it were taken. In doing so he often mentions circumstances which a seaman would not think of noticing from their fami- liarity, or from their being matters of course ; and is frequently silent as to those which are of the greatest importance, and which no seaman would pass over. Now these are exactly the peculiarities which characterise the style of St. Luke asa voyage-writer ; for instance, when the ship was run ashore, he tells us that they loosed the bands of the rudders. A seaman would rather have told us, in the previous stage of the narrative, how the rudders were secured,—a matter of necessity in an ancient ship when anchored by the stern ; and when we remember that it was in the face of a lee shore, in a gale of wind, it must have been one of difficulty, whereas loosing them when they made sail was a mere matter of course. Thus, also, when the shipmen became aware of the proximity of land, no seaman would have neglected to mention what were the indications which led them to ‘deem — that they drew near to some country ’ (xxvii. 27). It would be easy to multiply instances from the AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 23 narrative, or to cite analogous ones from the published works of medical men who have written narratives of their voyages ; for those who are led by the love of science or adventure to make long voyages frequently become their historians. I prefer, however, making the comparison with a fragment of a journal of an officer in Captain Cook’s ship, from the ‘ United Ser- vice Magazine’ (May 1842, p. 46). There can be no doubt but that in this case the author was a medical man.! The correspondent who communicates it infers that he is so, from the circumstance of a medical case being in the same book. The professional manner in which he describes Captain Cook’s remains would have been proof sufficient to me that he was one. I prefer this as a case in point, because we have it as it was written on the spot, without being pruned or worked up for effect, and because we can compare it with the published accounts of the same events written by pro- fessional seamen. It exhibits the same peculiarities which I have alluded to, as characterising the style of St. Luke.2. The author relates the events as they fell 1 IT have no doubt that the author of this interesting fragment is Mr. Anderson, surgeon of the Resolution, Captain Cook’s ship, for the following reasons :—He calls the other ship the Discovery, but does not name his own. I find his description of Captain Cook’s remains in Captain King’s narrative of the voyage. Now it was natural that he should apply to the surgeon of the ship for it ; and he accompanies the two captains when they land on a newly-discovered island, —circum- stances which clearly point to the principal surgeon of the expedition. 2 In this respect the fragment presents a curious contrast with Cap- tain King’s eloquent account of the recovery and solemn committal to _ the deep of Captain Cook’s remains. By the surgeon’s account, some of the bones could not be those of Captain Cook, but he adds, ‘ We said nothing about it ; and some of the bones were brought to the ship the day after the funeral, and dropped into the sea as near as possible to the spot where the other bones were dropped the day before,’ a cir- cumstance Captain King says nothing about. 24 DISSERTATION ΟΝ THE LIFE under his observation in correct nautical language, but offers no explanation of the reasons which induced the officers to take the measures which he narrates. Take the following examples :— ‘24th Feb. (1779).—In the evening hauled our wind, and stood out clear of the islands.’ (‘ Journal,’ p. 46.) Compare this with Captain King’s account :— | ‘At sunset, observing a shoal which appeared to stretch a considerable distance to the west of Mowee, towards the middle of the passage, and the weather being unsettled, we tacked and stood to the south.’ (King’s ‘ Voyage,’ p. 84.) Or the following :— ‘ 28th.—Hauled our wind, and are to stand off and on for the night.’ (‘ Journal,’ p. 46.) ‘Tt being too late to run for the road on the south-west side of the island, where we had been last year, we passed the night in standing on and off.’ (King’s ‘ Voyage,’ p. 88.) Here it will be observed that the nautical lan- guage is quite as correct in the one case as in the other, the only difference being, that the seaman relates the causes of their proceedings, whilst the medical author of the journal omits them. When St. Luke mentions the incident of hoisting the boat on board, he informs us that it was a work of difficulty (μόλις, xxvii. 16), but he does not tell us wherein the difficulty consisted. In like manner, when the author of the journal notices the incident of getting the Resolution’s foremast into its place, he merely says :— ‘The mast after much trouble and risk was got in.’ AND WRITINGS: OF -ST. LUKE. 25 ~Compare this with the accounts given by seamen of the same circumstance :— ‘We had the satisfaction of getting the foremast shipped. It was an operation attended with great difficulty and some danger, our ropes being so exceedingly rotten that the pur- chase gave way several times.’ (King’s ‘ Voyage,’ p. 79.) This mode of writing accounts for the omission in the narrative of St. Luke of circumstances which, nautically speaking, were of much importance, and the insertion of others which were of none. But notwithstanding these omissions it is the style of all others best calculated to give us a clear idea of the events of the voyage. We can, generally speaking, infer the causes of the events from the effects, pro- vided they are stated truthfully and accurately ; while the familiarity which a professional man acquires, leads him to pass over circumstances which he knows others with professional knowledge will conclude must have taken place. Walter Scott in one of his letters notices the description of one of the battles in Spain by a volunteer officer who was present, thus :— ‘The narrative was very simply told, and conveyed bet- ter than any I have seen the impressions which such scenes are likely to make when they have the effect (I had almost said the charm) of novelty. I don’t know why it is, I never found a soldier could give me an idea of a battle.’ (‘ Life,’ vol. il. p. 324.) Had St. Luke’s object been to describe a sea- voyage, this style of narrating the events would no doubt have been liable to objections ; but it was no part of his intention to do so, except in so far as the 26 DISSERTATION ‘ON ΤΗΣ. LIFE events of the voyage illustrated passages in the life of St. Paul; and but for his circumstantiality .when relating events at which he was present, we should | probably have known no more than that the Apostle was shipwrecked at Melita on his voyage from Syria to Italy. His notices of events are altogether accidental and fragmentary. He records them simply because he observes them, not because they are intrinsically important. They drop unintentionally from his pen, and are never thrown in for the purpose of heightening the effect, although no doubt they very often do so, as in the account of the visit to Philippi, for it is im- possible to write autoptically without at the same time writing graphically. Still less are the circumstances thrown in for the purpose of lending probability to his narrative. On the contrary, they often detract from it—‘ Le vrai west pas toujours le vraisemblable, The most important circumstances probably did not fall under his notice, and he never stops to offer ex- planations. St. Luke, however, possesses two quali- fications as a voyage-writer, which in a great degree compensate for his omissions, and which enable us to supply many of them with the greatest certainty. The first of these is his perfect acquaintance with nautical matters, and the second his accuracy. No man who was not in an eminent degree gifted with this quality could have given a narrative capable of being tested as his has been in the following examination. He must not only have been an accurate observer, but his memory must have been accurate, and his habits of thought and reasoning not less so. Hence his-facts afford the firmest grounds for resting inferences upon, and these, in their turn, furnish data for mathematical AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 27 reasoning. Thereader may give an incredulous smile at working the dead reckoning of a ship from such dis- jointed and apparently vague notices: yet I have done so, and the result is nearer than I could have expected beforehand, had it been the journal of a modern ship, and had her log-book been lying before me.! 1 Extraordinary as is the coincidence above alluded to, it has re- ceived a confirmation not less extraordinary. My friend Dr. Howson found amongst the papers of the late Admiral Sir Charles Penrose a calculation of the course and distance. ‘ With respect to the distance,’ Admiral Penrose observes, ‘allowing the degree of strength of the gale to vary a little occasionally, I consider that a ship would drift at the rate of about one mile and a half per hour, which at the end of fourteen complete days would amount to 504 miles. But it does not appear that the calculation is to be made for fourteen entire days. It was on the fourteenth night the anchors were cast off the shores of Melita. The distance from the south of Clauda to the north of Malta, measured on the best chart I have, is 490 miles ; and is it possible for coincident calculations of such a nature to be more exact? In fact, on one chart, after I had calculated the supposed drift, as a seaman, to be 3504 miles, I measured the distance to be 503.’ (Conybeare and How- son’s St. Paul, vol. 11. p. 346, note.) Before comparing Admiral Penrose’s calculation with mine, it will be right to estimate, as nearly as the narrative will allow, the time elapsed from the departure of the ship from Fair Havens till her depar- ture from Clauda, and from thence till ‘ the shipmen deemed they drew near to some country’ (Acts xxvii. 27). The departure from Clauda must have been on ihe first day, after mid-day and before midnight ; taking the mean, the time is about thirteen days and six hours. Now the distance of the point at the entrance of St. Paul’s Bay from Clauda is, according to the accurate determinations of longitude and latitude of Admiral Smyth, 476°6 miles, which, at the rate of drift assumed by Admiral Penrose, would take 13 days, 5 hours, 47 min. According to my calculation it would take 13 days, I hour, 21 min. ; or, reckoning the distance, that given by the rate assumed by Admiral Penrose is 477 miles, by mine 4833, the actual distance from Clauda to St. Paul’s Bay being 476! miles. I may well say with Admiral Penrose, ‘Is it possible for coincident observations of such a nature to be more exact ?’ Cer- tainly none could have been more independent of each other, as my calculations, which were first published, were made in entire ignorance of the previous calculations of Admiral Penrose. 28 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE The care which St. Luke takes, on al! occasions, to select the most appropriate expressions, and the precision which results from it, are very remarkable ; thus, to express the progression of a ship, we have not only the substantive πλοῦς (xxvii. 9), but not less than fourteen verbs expressing the same thing, but with a distinction indicating the particular circumstances of the ship at the time. I may add that, with the ex- ception of the last three, they are all nautical expres- ‘sions. ‘They are also peculiar to the writings of St. Luke, occurring both in the Gospel and the Acts, but are not used by any of the other New Testament writers. The following is the list :— HAew, Luke vii, 23 ; Actsxx. 3, &c. &e. ἸΑποπλέω, Acts xill. 4, xiv. 26, XX. το, τι I. . Βραδυπλοέω. Acts xxvii. 7. . Διαπλέω. Acts xxvii. 5. ᾿ΕἘκπλέω. Acts xv. 39, xvill. 18, xx. 6. Καταπλέω. Luke vill. 26. ; Ὑποπλέω. Acts xxvii. 4, 7. . Παραπλέω. Acts xx. τό. 9. Εὐθυδρομέω. Acts xvi. 11, ΧΧΙ. I. 10. Ὑποτρέχω. Acts xxvii. τό. 11. Παραλέγομαι. Acts xxvil. 8, 13. 12. Φέρυμαι. Acts xxvill. 15. 13. Διαφέρομαι. Acts xxvil. 27. 14. Διαπεράω. Acts xxi. 2. OI AN AWD τ The reader cannot fail, in perusing his writings, to remark how much precision is thus given to his de- scriptions, and in how few words they are expressed. It may be asked, how can we be certain that the nautical language of St. Luke is so correct ? AND WRITINGS OF ST, LUKE. 29 The reply is, in the first place, that it must be a real language and correctly used, which admits of being deciphered as it has been. In the account of the voyage I have cited the case of a German phy- sician, who made a voyage in the same seas, and in some part of it under very similar circumstances ; but although he obviously intended to give an account of his voyage, his statements are not only confused, but impossible, and we have no difficulty in seeing that he does not understand what he is writing about. Independently however of this consideration, it so happens that although ancient literature is scanty in the department of voyages, it is not so in the ter- minology of seamanship. Julius Pollux, in his ‘Ono- masticon, has given many pages of Greek nautical terms and phrases. It will be seen by the notes that a large proportion of those employed by St. Luke are to be found in this author. I now proceed to inquire into the nature of the materials from which St. Luke drew up his historical works ; but before I do so, it will be convenient to state shortly what I believe were the historical records of Christianity when St. Luke visited Judea, czvca A.D. 58, and when, as I have already stated, there is good reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel. In my ‘ Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels,’ I have stated the evidence from which I conclude—first, that several of the Apostles, in- cluding Matthew, Peter and John, drew up memoirs of our Lord’s transactions immediately after they took place, some of which, certainly Peter’s, were in the language of the country, 1.6. Syro-Chaldaic, or Aramaic, known in the New Testament and works of, 30 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE the Fathers as Hebrew, or as the xative language (πατρίῳ) ; second, that St. Peter’s memoirs were the original, which, being afterwards translated by St. Mark, now forms the Gospel of Mark; third, that when the apostles were driven by persecution from Judea, St. Matthew drew up from these memoirs a history of our Lord’s life in Hebrew and Greek; the Greek version being the same as our first Gospel. That several such narratives had been written when St. Luke composed his Gospel, may be gathered from his preface, in which he informs us—first, that ‘many had undertaken to draw up a digest of the things which had been accomplished’ (v. 1); and, next, that ‘those who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word had delivered such accounts unto us’ (παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν) ; or in other — words, that he was in possession of such accounts, for the word ‘us’ must include St. Luke. Eusebius clearly understands that St. Luke means himself in particular, for he quotes the passage in the third person, παρέδοσαν αὐτῷ, ‘ delivered to him,—and rightly con- cludes that he meant to assure Theophilus that such were the authorities which he had made use of. He tells us — ‘One of these (St. Luke’s writings) is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered ¢o him, whom also, he says, he in all things fol- lowed.’ (H. E. 11. 4. Cruze’s Translation.) ἢ 1 Origen also tells us that Luke wrote what he had received (zapé- AaBe) from eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (Homil. in Zzc. opp. iii. 932) ; and Irenzeus, that he wrote his Gospel, as he himself testifies, saying ‘Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio con- templatores et ministri fuerunt Verbi.’ AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 31 The word ‘many’ is a relative term, and has reference probably to the literary habits of Judea, and the time which had elapsed since the events which he | has recorded occurred: just as Alison, in his preface to the history of the French Revolution, speaks of his authorities: ‘Although so short a time has elapsed since the termination of these events, the materials which have been collected for their elucidation have already become, beyond all precedent, interesting and ample. (Vol. i. p. 29.) Neither St. Luke nor Alison says that they made use of such materials. Why should they? Is it possible that St. Luke should write to Theophilus that he was anxious that he should know the certainty of the things in which he had been in- structed ; that he had carefully investigated every- thing from the beginning, and that he was in posses- sion of the accounts of those personally engaged in the transactions ; and yet that we should be in doubt as to whether or not he made use of such authorities ? I conclude therefore that St. Luke’s preface was meant to assure his readers that his authorities were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. St. Mat- thew was an eye-witness and minister of the word ; and it becomes a question, whether St. Luke made any use of his Gospel in drawing up his own. This can only be ascertained by comparing the two accounts. Now we have not to go far before we have evidence to prove that he did make use of St. Mat- thew’s Gospel. The parallelism between the Gospels _ begins with the public life of our Lord (Matt. iii. 1, Luke iii. 1); and at the 7th verse of the 3rd chapter of St. Luke we find a passage, extending to three verses, agreeing verbally with four verses of the same account 32. DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE in the Gospel of St. Matthew (vv. 7, 8,9, 10). Here, at least, St. Luke must have taken from a wyretten account in the same language ; and when I find such a passage in the work of an eye-witness and minister of the word, I am satisfied that I have traced it to its source. We have not to go far for another example of the same kind, for the 16th and 17th verses of the same chapter correspond verbally with the 11th and 12th verses of St. Matthew’s account. There are many others of the same nature. If examples can be ad- duced where similar agreements arise from any other cause than transcription from a work in the same lan-> guage, 1am quite ready to abandon my hypothesis ; but as I am confident that no such case can be ad- duced, I feel entitled to call the attention of the reader to the consequences which flow from the establish- ment of a point of such importance in the evidences of the origin of the Christian religion. Had St. Luke’s writings never been heard of till now, had they been discovered for the first time among the papyri of Her- culaneum, would any doubt have been entertained, with such evidence before us, that the author had made use of the Gospel of St. Matthew as one of his authorities ? It would have been held as the most valuable of all the ancient external evidences of the authenticity of that Gospel, as indeed it is, because it is at once the fullest and the most ancient, and be- cause the author had the most ample means of know- ing that it was indeed the work of an eye-witness. It proves that the Gospel of St. Matthew, as we now have it, was known to an author who wrote less than thirty years after the transactions, and when they must have been within the memory οἵ ἃ large portion of the then existing generation. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 33 My present object, however, is not to look at the consequences of my researches, but to consider the evidences upon which my conclusions rest. I must therefore, if I can, obviate the objections which have _been made to the supposition that St. Luke made use of the Gospel of St. Matthew. They all resolve them- selves into the negative one, that if St. Luke had known of the previous Gospel he would have written differ- ently from what he has done. Arguments which rest upon the opinion of critics never can overthrow positive proofs. Amongst those who have called my conclu- sions respecting the connection between Luke and Matthew in question, I may mention Mr. Alford, and Professor Thiersch of Marburg. Both of these critics admit the identity of the above-cited passages. Mr. Alford in his note observes that the agreement ‘ indi- cates a common origin ;’ and Professor Thiersch, who agrees with me entirely as to the originality of the second Gospel, and the use made of it by St. Luke, observes in a letter to me that— ‘There were more written accounts than St. Mark’s Gos- pel which they could make use of ; and it is inthis way that I should like to explain those coincidences in Matthew and Luke for which there are no parallels in Mark. In Germany we are in a continual struggle with Strauss and other scepti- cal antagonists of sacred history ; and therefore we feel more of that difficulty, with which you are less urged in England, vis. : If Luke had before his eyes the two first chapters of Matthew, how could he neglect them entirely >—If he did so, he must have ascribed very little value to them.’ The explanation of the connection between St. Luke and St. Matthew which I have to offer is, that Siar 34 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE the former meant to make his Gospel at once supple- mentary for those who possessed St. Matthew’s Gospel, and intelligible to those who did not. But it would not have been intelligible had he resolutely admitted everything in St. Matthew ; whilst, on the other hand, had he included everything in St. Matthew, his Gospel- would have exceeded the length consistent with a wide circulation, when the only means of multiplying copies depended on transcription. Admitting this conjecture, which at least is a probable one, it furnishes us with a reason for the omissions in St. Luke’s Gospel of im- portant matter which we find in St. Matthew’s Gospel. St. Luke leaves it out because St. Matthew had already recorded it. Both Professor Thiersch and Mr. Alford adduce the difference in the two first chapters of St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels as proofs that St. Luke could not have seen that of St. Matthew. But there is nothing contradictory in the two accounts. Mr. Alford ob- serves truly enough that ‘ The only inference from the account in these two chapters, whzch ἐς tnevitable, is that they are wholly independent of one another.’ It is quite true that in their accounts of the early por- tion of our Lord’s life they are independent of one another ; but independence is no proof that the later writer was ignorant of the work of his predecessor. Selection is the rule of all the evangelists. St. John repeatedly tells us that there were many things which Jesus did that are not written in his Gospel. It has been supposed, and, I think, with much probability, that St. Luke’s authority for the first two chapters in his Gospel was the mother of our Lord. The events related are such as His mother must have known and AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 35 was likely to narrate; they relate to private and do- mestic matters, whilst those in Matthew relate to public and historical events—events about which St. Luke was silent, because they were already related by St. Matthew. The conclusion to which a minute comparison be- tween the two Gospels has led me is, that St. Luke was in possession of the present Greek Gospel of St. Matthew ; that he did make occasional use of it, chiefly for the purpose of rendering his own account of the transactions and sayings of our Lord more complete, thereby proving that it (the Greek Gospel) was the work of ‘an eye-witness and minister of the word.’! This is no contradiction to the patristic evidence that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; nor do I hold - the supposition that he wrote in two languages to be a compromise between competing evidence. The state of Judza with respect to language at the time required that any work meant for all classes of its inhabitants should be bi-lingual. Josephus, who was the contemporary of St. Matthew, and who wrote like him for the use of the Jews, informs us in his preface to his Greek history of the Jews’ Wars, that he had also written it in his native language (πατρίῳ, the word used by Eusebius for the original language of St. Matthew), for the use of those who did not understand Greek (οἱ βάρβαροι). The conditions of the agreements which subsist ι The discovery of the Curetonian Syriac MS. satisfies me that Luke was also possessed of the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, and made use of it in the composition of his Gospel; for proof of this, see the concluding pages of this article. 1) 2 36 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE between Luke and Mark are altogether different from those between Luke and Matthew. In Luke and Matthew we have two historians writing in the same language ; but in Luke and Mark we have an histo- rian (Luke) who uses an original autoptical memoir in another language (Peter), which is translated by Mark, and which had also been made use of by the preceding historian (Matthew). These are the agreements of contemporary historians, and are so simple in themselves, and of such every-day occur- rence, that I question if we can examine any series of contemporary writers who narrate the same transac- tions in a language different from that of the persons engaged in them, without meeting with them all. I have elsewhere! illustrated this view of the connection of the three first Gospels by examples from the his- torians Alison, Napier and Suchet, who hold the same relation to the events of the Peninsular campaigns in respect to time, which Luke, Matthew and Mark hold to the events in the life of our Saviour; Alison being an historian who takes as his authorities the accounts of those who witnessed the transactions ; and when it suits his purpose to give extracts from the originals, he transcribes from Napier and translates from Suchet ; just as Luke, when he extracts from the originals, transcribes where the language is the same, translates where it is different. Now I find, when I compare the passages peculiar to Luke and Matthew, the phe- nomena are those of transcription; when I compare the passages peculiar to Luke and Mark, the phe- nomena are those of translation. Hence I arrive at the conclusion that Mark is a translator. But it may © 1 Dissertation on the Gospels, pp. xxvii, xxxil. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 37 be asked, if the Gospel of Mark be a translation of memoirs written by Peter, why is it not called the Gospel of Peter? To this I answer, that the title it bears is only that affixed to it by tradition, for the work itself is anonymous; and I cannot admit that _traditional evidence can supersede that which is the result of inductive reasoning. In holding that Mark is the translator of Peter’s memoirs, I do not rest altogether on the evidence drawn from the study of the phenomena, for the earliest quotation from the second Gospel is that by Justin Martyr, who gives it expressly as zt zs written in his (Peter’s) memoirs—yeypapOat ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημο- νεύμασιν αὐτοῦ (Ilérpov).! So also Jerome, in speak- ing of Mark’s Gospel, says it is called zs (Peter’s).? Assuming that we have in the three first Gospels a case of contemporary historians, the same as the very common one of Alison, Napier and Suchet, the nature of the agreement between them ought to be the same as that which we find between the modern historians. I have already adduced one _ between Luke and Matthew. As an example of that between Luke and Mark, I take that which I have alluded to in the introduction, as having first called my attention to the subject. It is perhaps the most instructive I PA RelA pe 333. 2 Cat. Sacr. Eccl, c. i.: ‘Evangelium juxta Marcum. . . hujus (sc. Petri) dicitur.’ Bishop Pearson says on this point, ‘ Marci evangelium credebant veteres nihil aliud fuisse quam Petri ἀπομνημονεύματα ᾽ (Vindicize Igna- tianze). And Bishop Gleig, ‘I am inclined to think likewise, that the Gospel by St. Mark contains little more than similar notes and memo- randums which had been made by St. Peter, which will sufficiently account for many of the ancients calling it St. Peter’s Gospel. (Directions for the Study of Divinity, p. 409.) 38 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE could select, because it is entirely free from the com- plication which arises from being mixed up with matter drawn from other authorities. It is also one of the few cases in which St. Matthew makes no use of the original of St. Mark, ie. the memoir of St. Peter. We have here, then, the very simple case of an histo- rian drawing up an account of an event from two pre- ceding works, one of which is in a different language. CHRIST “STILLS: THE -TEMPEST. MATT. VIII. LUKE VIII. MARK Iv. 22 ᾿Εγένετο δὲ 35 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὀψίας γενομένης“, 23 Καὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτᾷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη εἰς πλοῖον, εἰς πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ" καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, See first line. See v. 18. Διέλθωμεν Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς λίμνης" εἰς τὸ πέραν. 26 Καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν © ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἀνήχθησαν. 23 Πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν. 24 Καὶ ἰδοὺ καὶ κατέβη : 27 καὶ γίνεται σεισμὸς μέγας λαῖλαψ λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἐγένετο ἀνέμου ἀνέμου, ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, εἰς τὴν λίμνην" ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον καλύπ- τεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κυμάτων" καὶ τὰκύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, ὥστε ἤδη καὶ συνεπληροῦντο, γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον. . Kal ἐκινδύνευον. αὐτὸς δὲ 38 Καὶ ἣν αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον, ἐκάθευδεν. καθεύδων, AND WRITINGS OF ST. MATT. VIII. 25 Kal προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα. 26 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί δειλοί ἐστε, ὀλιγόπιστοι ; τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ, καὶ ἔγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. 27 Οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν, / A Lae : Ποταπὸς ἐστιν οὗτος, ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι LUKE VIII. 24 Προσελθόντες δὲ διήγειραν αὐτόν, λέγοντες, Ἐπιστάτα, ἐπιστάτα, ἀπολλύμεθα. ‘O δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἔγένετο γαλήνη. 25 Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ; Φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν, λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ ; LUKE. 39 MARK IV. καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα ; 39 Καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ, καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. Καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὃ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. 40 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν ; 41 Καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ ὃ ἄνεμος καὶ 7 θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ ; TRANSLATION. MATT. VIII. 23 And when he was entered into a boat, his disciples followed him. LUKE VIII. 22 And it came to pass on one of the days, that he entered into a boat and his disciples ; and he said to them, Let us go over to the other side of the lake. MARK IV. 35 And on that day, when even was come, he saith unto them, Let us go over to the other side. 40 MATT. VIII. 24 And, behold, a great disturbance arose in the sea, © so that the boat was being covered with the waves : but he slept. 25 And having gone to him they awoke him, saying, Lord, Save US, we perish. 26 And he saith to them, Why are you afraid, O ye of little faith ? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea ; and there was a great calm. LUKE VIII. And they put off. 23 And as they sailed he fell asleep. And there came down a squall of wind into the lake, and they were being filled and were in jeopardy. 24 But having gone to him they woke him up, saying, Master, Master, we perish. But he rose up, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water ; and they ceased, and there was a calm. But he said to them, Where zs your faith ? DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE MARK IV. 36 And having sent away the people, they take him just as he was in the boat ; and there were other boats with him. 37 And there arises a great squall of wind ; and the waves were beating into the boat so that the boat was now filling. And he was sleeping at the stern, on the seat cover : And they awake him, and say to him, Teacher, carest thou not that we perish ? ” And he rose up, and ~ rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind fell, and there was a great calm. And he said to them, Why are you afraid ? Have ye | τὶ not yet faith ? AND WRIZENGS OF STE LORE. 41 MATT. VIII. LUKE VIII. MARK IV, 27 But the men But they 41 And they being afraid feared with great fear, wondered, wondered, saying, saying one to another, | and said one to another What man is this, Who then is this, Who then 15 this that even the winds that even the winds that even the wind he commandeth and the sea and the water, and the sea obey him ? and they obey him? | obeys him ? Here the accounts of Sts. Luke and Mark are obvi- ously too closely connected to admit the supposition that they are separate and independent accounts of the same event; one of them must therefore be taken from the other, or both from a common source. This last supposition is so far true that the accounts bear internal proofs of being derived from an original in another language. But St. Mark’s account bears the strongest internal evidence of having been written by an eye-witness. It must, therefore, be a translation of an autoptical memoir ; and a literal translation of an autoptical memoir may be held as an original authority where the original itself is lost. It is right, however, to observe that the second Gospel is held by Griesbach and others to be a com- pilation from the Gospels of Sts. Matthew and Luke. According to this view, what I hold to be omissions on the part of St. Luke are additions on the part of St. Mark, and what I hold to be additions on the part of St. Luke are omissions on the part of St. Mark. I come first to the matter which is peculiar to St. Mark. He states— ist. The particular day on which the miracle took place. be “DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE 2nd. The time of day. 3rd. The dismissal of the multitude. Ath. That the disciples took our Lord into the boat ‘even as he was.’ 5th. That there were other boats in company. 6th. That our Lord was in the stern of the boat. 7th. That he was reposing on the seat cover. 8th. The words with which he rebuked the storm. Here are no less than eight facts mentioned in this short account, not one of which could possibly be taken from either of the other evangelists ; for they are neither expressly noticed, nor can they be inferred from their accounts. With the exception of the date, they are all purely autoptical, such as an eye-witness” would very naturally relate, but such as an historian would omit, because they do not affect the main event, neither do they render the other accounts clearer. | Let us subject the matter which is peculiar to St. _ Luke’s account to a similar examination— Ist. He leaves the date undetermined. 2nd. He adds that it was ‘the lake’ to which the expression ‘ the other side’ refers. 3τ. The nauesl expression, ‘ They shoved off, and when under way. 4th. That the squall ‘came down on ive lake.’ 5th. That they were in danger. 6th. That the disciples were astonished at the events as well as terrified. Ist. With regard to the date, when we examine the context carefully, it will be found that there is a differ- ence between Sts. Matthew and Mark with respect to the time when the event took place. I have already AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE, 43 shown that St. Luke made use of St. Matthew’s Gospel. I am now showing that he also made use of St. Mark’s. Had he in this case adopted the arrangement of St. Matthew, he must have differed from that of St. Mark ; with both before him, by using the expression ‘on one of the days, he differs from neither. We have, therefore, an obvious reason why he left the exact day undetermined. 2nd. The expression τὸ πέραν, ‘the other side, applied to the eastern side of the lake, is a provin- cialism, or rather Capernaumism, which St. Luke corrects by explaining that it is ‘ the other side of the lake’ which is meant. Here also the reason for the addition is obvious. 3rd. The nautical expressions are characteristic of St. Luke’s style of describing nautical events; they give great clearness to the narrative, and they can be inferred with certainty from the other accounts. 4th. By the expression κατέβη, St. Luke, by a single word, gives the effect of the particular kind of squall with perfect precision, and at the same time corrects the Hebraism of St. Matthew, who speaks of a great disturbance in the Sea. 5th. ‘They were in danger’ (καὶ ἐκινδύνευον). St. Luke here supplies a qualification, the want of which in the other Gospels is remarked by Dr. Bloomfield in his notes on the passage. 6th. The effects of the miracle upon the disciples are described by St. Matthew as those of ‘ wonder,’—- by St. Mark, of ‘fear. St. Luke combines them both, ‘ They, being afraid, wondered.’ There are none of these additions but what are either inevitable inferences from the statements in St. 44 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE Mark’s account, or are taken from St. Matthew’s, and in each of them we can see a reason for its insertion. I hold, therefore, that in the preceding Gospels we have the materials from which St. Luke drew up his account of this miracle ; that it is based upon that in the second Gospel, but completed from that in the first. I hold, also, that the original of the second Gospel existed in a different language from Greek when St. Luke wrote his. In order to ascertain this point, we must lay out _of sight all the changes made by St. Luke as an histo- rian, and also the matter which he has taken from St. Matthew, and confine the comparison to passages in which he has adhered to the account in St. Mark. Where he has done so, I find twenty-one lines in which there is no change except that which arises from translation. Of these, eight lines are expressed in identical terms and thirteen in synonymous terms. This is about the usual proportion which we find in independent translations. Thus, in the example of independent translations from the French given in my former work, consisting of nineteen lines, I find that there are eight lines identical and eleven synonymous or translational. St. Mark then is a translator; but if a translator, he must be the translator of St. Peter, and by that designation he is known by the earliest Christian writers,—‘ Mark, the translator of Peter, Μάρκος ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, being the designation given to him by Papias, the first writer by whom he is mentioned. I have already glanced at the external evidence which would lead us to conclude that St. Peter was the original author of the second Gospel. The internal AND WRITINGS OF ST; LUKE. 45 evidence furnished by a minute examination is not less conclusive. The author of the account of stilling the tempest, whoever he was, was a Galilean residing on the western shore of the lake; he must have been in the boat when the event happened, and he must have been familiar with the navigation of the lake: all of which characteristics agree with those of St. Peter. But we can come still nearer to him, for he relates, as an eye-witness would, things which could only be known to three of the disciples—Peter, James, and John ; such as what took place in the house of Jairus (v. 37 ff.), at the transfiguration (ix. 2 ff.), and in the house of Peter (i. 29-31). In this last case we can strike off James and John. They are mentioned as being present, but only as spectators ; and no men- tion is made of Peter, who must also have been pre- sent. But aman does not think it necessary to say he was in his own house. Lastly, he speaks of Peter’s house exactly as the owner would. Who but Peter would think it necessary to tell us that Andrew was a joint tenant? I have elsewhere entered into the evi- dence at greater length ; for my present purpose it is sufficient to show that St. Luke, in making use of such an authority as we find in St. Mark, was making use of the best historical evidence, that of ‘an eye- witness and minister of the word.’ St. Luke’s connection with St. Paul gave rise to an early tradition that he was indebted to that Apostle for the matter of his Gospel. Tertullian mentions it, but only as a tradition, which he accounts for by say- ing that ‘it was natural to ascribe to the master what the disciple promulgated.’’ Origen states that the * ‘Luce digestum Paulo ascribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri que discipuli promulgarint.’ (Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.) 46 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE Gospel was praised by Paul.! Irenzeus, indeed, goes further, and says that ‘Luke wrote what Paul preached ;’ but he says elsewhere that ‘ Luke delivered to us what he had learned from the Apostles, as he himself testifies in his preface;’* we can lay no weight, therefore, upon this assertion, further than that when he wrote, the tradition alluded to was pre- valent and in his mind at the time. We must, however, suppose that Paul communi- cated to Luke accounts of his own transactions and spoken addresses ; but we cannot suppose that St. Paul preached in the historical style in which St. Luke wrete. There is indeed one great historical event in the life of our Lord narrated by St. Paul, which he stated that he had received by revelation, namely the institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff), which, if my views of the time and place of writing the Gospel be correct, we should expect to find made use of by St. Luke as an authority. Now it has been long observed that St. Luke’s account agrees more nearly with St. Paul’s than with any of the others. There are indeed, or rather there were, difficulties which a minute com- parison suggested, difficulties which have not escaped modern criticism; for example the passage in the received text—‘ καὶ εἶπε, λάβετε, φάγετε, ‘and said, Take, eat’—occurs in St. Matthew’s account, but not in St. Luke’s. Upon this, De Wette observes, ‘It is not probable that Matthew was acquainted with Paul’s 1 Kal τὸ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον evay- γέλιον. (Ap. Euseb. “7. £. vi. 25.) Origin evidently alludes to 2 Cor. viii. 18, and supposes Paul meant the Gospel of St. Luke by the ex- pression τὸν ἀδελφόν, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. 2 «Lucas ... ea que ab eis (Apostolis) didicerat tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testificatur, dicens,’ ἕο, AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 47 account ;’ and it would contradict Paul’s account that he had received it from the Lord, were we to suppose he got it from Matthew. In the early MSS., however, no such difficulty exists, for the passage does not occur in the account in the Epistle to the Corinthians. The agreement is then too close to admit of any supposition, except that one of the accounts must be taken from the other ; and as St. Paul informs us that he had received his ‘of the Lord, St. Luke must have taken his from it. Since the foregoing pages were written, new and important light has been thrown upon the writings of St. Matthew and St. Luke, by the discovery of a more ancient Syriac manuscript of the Gospels than any hitherto known, by the late Rev. Dr. Cureton ; and a careful examination of the Gospel according to St. Matthew led that eminent scholar to conclude ‘ that this Syrian text of the Gospel of St. Matthew has, to a great extent, retained the identical terms and expres- sions which the Apostle himself employed.’ Such a conclusion, cautiously, but as respects the author’s own conviction decidedly expressed, and coming from such a quarter, if not a reason for adopting it, was at least one for giving it a most minute and searching examination. As a first step, and in order to ascer- tain the precise relations between the Syriac and the Greek, I transcribed the ¢ertus receptus of the Greek of Matthew, line for line, on paper of the same size and with the lines at the same distance as the printed text of the literal translation of the Syriac, so that by laying the columns beside each other I could see at a glance how far they agreed or disagreed ; the result was sufficiently remarkable, both as to agreement and variation. I found that every line of the literal trans- 48 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE lation from the Syriac was represented in, and had the same meaning as the Greek version; there was, however, one striking exception at chapter xx. 28, where I found a gap of no less than eighteen lines. On consulting Dr. Cureton’s preface, I found that the Codex Bezz contained a Greek version of the missing lines with the exception of the two last, which, how- ever, I discovered as forming the conclusion in the parallel passage in the Gospel of St. Luke (xiv. 8, 9, | 10),—a proof, as I hope to show, that the original Syriac was known and used by that Evangelist. But before I do so I must first inquire how far the phe- nomena elicited by so minute a comparison confirm or disprove the conclusions of Dr. Cureton that the Syriac is virtually identical with the original Gospel of St. Matthew, written in the then vernacular lan- guage of Judza, termed Hebrew in the New Testa- ment and by the Fathers. My present object is to elucidate the origin of St. Luke’s historical works, but I must in the first place en- deavour to show that the minute comparison to which I have subjected the Curetonian Syriac, with the Greek version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, leads to the irresistible conclusion that we are now in possession of the original so-called Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, with no alterations but such as the gradual changes in a language unfixed by important literary works, must in the course of centuries inevitably produce. So far, the result of the present inquiry is in confir- mation of Dr. Cureton’s conclusions ; but it goes fur- ther,—-it furnishes fresh and independent evidence of what I have alluded to in the foregoing pages, but stated more fully in my ‘ Dissertation on the Origin AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 49 and Connection of the Gospels’ (p. lxi) ; I mean that _we have in the first Greek Gospel what I would call an ‘authorial’ translation—that is, a translation made by an author of his own work. I may here add that I con- sider that the characteristic feature of such a translation is its combination with vevzszon. I cannot indeed produce many cases in point where authors do as I suppose Matthew to have done,—first to write in one language and then translate their work into another,—but in ‘every case in which I can, I find the translation is also revised. Thus, Mr. Beckford wrote his romance of ‘Vathek’ in French and afterwards translated it it into English, the English version having on its title, ‘corrected and revised. Lord Mahon, now Earl Stanhope, wrote the ‘Life of Condé’ in French and then translated it, at least superintended the transla- tion. He states in the preface that it is revzsed. My friend Dr. Alexander Blair made a translation in cor- respondence with the author of the original, who insisted on its being revised ; and another friend, the Rev. John M‘Leod Campbell, wrote a tract in two languages, English and Gaelic, which he also revised. One can easily understand why it should be so. I shall now inquire how far the phenomena indi- cated by a comparison of the Curetonian Syriac with the Greek version of the Gospel of St. Matthew con- tains evidence of revision as well as of translation. This will be best illustrated by examples taken from Dr. Cureton’s literal translation of the Syriac, compared with a literal translation from the Greek. The following may serve as examples of the nature of the revision :— E 50 DISSERTATION SYRIAC, Matt. i. 16, Zo whom was es- poused Mary the. Virgin. i. 22, By the mouth of Esaia: the prophet. ii. 7, Appeared 20 them ii, 20, Seeking the life of the boy ¢o take ut away iil. 5, Zhe children of Jerusalem iii. 10, The axe is avrzved upon the root iii. 14, Fohn forbade iv. 1, The spirit of holiness iv. 21, While they were sz/ing in the boat iv. 24, Upon each one of them he waslaying hishandand was healing them all. v. 18, One letter Yod. v. 23, Against thee zm enmuty. vi. 30, Gathered and falleth into the oven vil. 21, He shall enter into hea- ven’s kingdom vil. 22, Have we not zz thy name eaten and drunk, andin thy name prophesied ? vili.. 9, Iam a man that is under authority, and there is to me authority also Zo me ON THE LIFE GREEK. The husband of Mary. By the prophet. Appeared Seeking the life of the young child Jerusalem The axe is /azd at the root He forbade The spirit In the ship He healed them. One iota. Against thee. Cast into the oven Om. Gr. did we not prophesy in thy name? I am a man under authority Or take an entire passage (Matthew xvi. 13-14). SYRIAC, He was asking his disciples, and saying, What say men concerning me that I am? who forsooth is this Son of man? His disciples say to him, GREEK. He was asking his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that The Son of man is? But they said AND WRITINGS OF ST, LUKE. 5I SYRIAC. GREEK. There are who say that Some indeed (οἱ μέν), he is John the Baptist ; John the Baptist ; others say that he is Elia ; and some (ἄλλοι) Elias ; others say he is Jeremia ; and others (ἕτεροι), Jeremias others say he is or one of the prophets. one of the prophets. This may be taken as an example of the revised translation we possess in the Greek version of the first Gospel. I have now to inquire into the nature of the con- nection between the Curetonian Syriac and the Greek Gospel of St. Luke, which, as in the former case, will, be best illustrated by examples. In the first column of the following extracts we have short passages of the literal translation of the Syriac by Dr. Cureton. In the other two columns we have literal translations of the same passages of the Greek Gospels of St. Mat- thew and St. Luke. MATT. SYRIAC. MATT. GR, LUKE. li. 3, Written by spoken of by ill. 4, wrztten in the book of the words of iv. 11, left him for leaveth him iv. 13, departed from a season him 72// a sea- son iv. 4, Jesus an- he answered lv. 4, Jesus an- swered swered iv. 9, worship ée- worship me iv. 7, worship de- fore me fore me v. 12, be glad iz be glad vi. 23, be glad zz that day that day v. 15, 20 man neither do ¢hey Vill. 16, 720 one v. 47, what is your what do ye more vi. 32, what zs your grace grace vii. 4, how art thou how wilt thou vi. 42, how art thou able able vill. 16, at the sun’s when even was come iv. 40, at the sun’s setting setting x. 33, before zs om. Matt. xii. 9, before the an- angels gels of Gog | E2 52 DISSERTATION: ON THE LIFE MATT. SYRIAC. MATT, GR., LUKE. xii. 1, rubbing in om. Matt. vi. 1, rubbing with their hands their hands xll. 10, whose right having a withered vi. 6, and his right hand was hand hand was withered withered xii. 32, that shall whoso speaketh xil. 10, having d/as- blaspheme against phemed against against xiii. 22, fe// among sown among the viii. 14, fe// among the the thorns thorns thorns xxil. 25, left not cz/- not having seed xx. 29, childless dren xix. 13, lay his hand put his hands on Xvili. 15, touch them on them them xix. 16, that I may that I may have xviii. 18, shall I inherit znherit xix. 20, since 7wasa@ om. XVill. 21, from (my) boy youth xxi. 23, and say Zo saying xx. 2, and spake hig; unto him say- ing It will be observed that Luke seldom adopts the emendations of Matthew. I shall now give what is in fact a synoptical section of a parallel passage in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which, from the pas- sage in Matthew not being included in the received text, did not form part of the synopsis of the three first Gospels made by me, nor, as far as I am aware, in any other synopsis of the Gospels, and which only occurs in Greek in the Codex Bezz. Dr. Cureton has however brought forward such a mass of external evi- dence as to leave no doubt in my mind that it did occur both in the original Aramaic and the earliest Greek version of St. Matthew’s Gospel. In addition to Dr. Cureton’s evidence, I have to add that of St. Luke. The passage in question is parallel with that in St. Luke’s Gospel, xiv. 8,9, 10, and the only two lines in Dr. Cureton’s literal version which I could not find translated or at least represented in Greek, were AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 53 as follows:—‘ Thou shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests ;’ St. Luke’s version being, ἔσται cou δόξα ἐνώπιον πάντων τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι. St. Matthew, in the Greek version, merely says it will be profitable or useful (χρήσιμον) «εἴ, not to assume a high place. In a Latin poetical translation of the passage by Juvencus in the first half of the fourth century, evidently from the Greek, he completes the somewhat abrupt conclusion of the Greek version by supposing that the reward of modesty was not ‘glory in the eyes of the guests,’ but a better place at the feast. ‘Ad potiora pudens transibit strata tororum.’ The’ passage in question is as follows :— SYRIAC, GREEK, MATT. XX. 28 LUKE ΧΙν. 8. Whenever ye are in- Παρακληθέντες Ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος vited to the house of a supper | δειπνῆσαι eis γάμους, be not sitting down μὴ ἀνακλίνεσθε μὴ κατακλιθ Hs in the honoured place, εἰς τοὺς ἐξέχοντας εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, τόπους, lest should come he μήποτε μή ποτε that is more honoured | ἐνδοξότερός ἐντιμότερός than thou, σου σου ἢ κεκλημένος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and to thee ἐπέλθῃ, καὶ προσελθὼν | καὶ ἐλθὼν the lord of the supper | 6 δειπνοκλήτωρ ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας should say, εἴπῃ σοι | ἐρεῖ σοι, Come near below, and | ἔσι κάτω χώρει, καὶ Abs τούτῳ τόπον" Kal TOTE thou be ashamed καταισχυνθήσῃ" ἄρξῃ μετὰ αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν. in the eyes’ of the guests. But if thou "Eady δὲ "AAW ὅταν κληθῇς πορευθεὶς sit down in the avaméons εἰς τὸν ἀνάπεσε εἰς τὸν little’ place, ἥττονα τόπον ἔσχατον τόπον, ἵνα ὅταν and he that is lessthan | καὶ thee should come, ἐπέλθῃ σον ἥττων, ἔλθῃ 54 DISSERTATION. ON THE LIFE. ~ SYRIAC. GREEK, MATT. XxX. 28.! LUKE XIv. 8. and to thee the lord of the supper shall say, ἐρεῖ σοι 6 δειπνοκλήτωρ | 6 κεκληκώς σε ἐρεῖ σοι, Φίλε Come near and come up | Σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω, προσανάβηθι ἀνώτερον" and sit down, thou also shalt have καὶ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο τότε ἔσται σοι χρήσιμον. more glory in the eyes δόξα ἐνώπιον πάντων of the guests: . τῶν συνανακεμένων σοι. A glance at the above will show the condensed emendation of St. Matthew, with the disregard to con- densation by St. Luke, whose evident object was to express the meaning of the original fully and clearly ; hence his translation is somewhat paraphrastical, and he omits a circumstance not necessary for the eluci- dation of the object our Lord meant to inculcate— the entrance of an inferior person to the feast. The general remarks of our Lord, which in Mat- thew precede, but in Luke follow what he terms ‘a parable, are expressed antithetically. In the former the contrast is between ‘little and great ;’ in the latter between ‘exalted and abased :’ both cases refer to social position ; in Luke this is expressed more clearly, and the antithesis more formally put. I have translated γάμους a feast, as I find it so used without reference to marriage. Commentators generally sup- pose that this passage, as it occurs in Codex Beze, is taken from Luke, and even Dr. Cureton acquiesces in this view, in the following passage :—‘ It certainly be- longs to the most ancient times of Christianity ; and the fact of the same advice of our Lord in very similar words being found in the Gospel of St. Luke would at least make it appear that it is to be referred ulti- - AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 55 “mately to him, whatever might have been the channel through which it has been derived’ (p. xxxviii). I own I can see no difficulty in the case. If the manu- script in which it is found be the work of St. Matthew, then is the passage in question also his. Had I en- tertained any doubt of the priority of St. Matthew’s Gospel to that of St. Luke, the comparison of his Gospel with the Syriac version would have settled the matter ; there can be no more decisive proof of priority than the occurrence of unimportant facts naturally mentioned by an eye-witness, but also natu- rally omitted by a subsequent historian. Now, here we have a case of this kind. In the Syriac, mention is made of the entrance of an inferior person, in these words :—‘ And he that is less than thee should come.’ Matthew shortly renders it, καὶ ἐπέλθη cov ἥττων. Luke omits it entirely. If we suppose he took the passage from Matthew, we can easily understand why, as an historian, he should leave out notice of a fact which is in itself of no importance. If, on the other hand, we suppose Luke’s account to be the original, there is nothing whatever in it which could suggest its insertion. So far therefore as concerns the passage in question, it proves its priority to Luke’s version ; but such merely autoptical facts occur not unfrequently in the Gospel of Luke, and were, till the discovery of the Curetonian Syriac, inexpli- cable. In forming the synopsis of the first three Gospels, there were three which perplexed me in an especial manner: first, that the daughter of Jairus was an only daughter ; second, that in the miracle of the cure of the withered hand, it was the: right hand which was cured ; and lastly, that when the disciples 56 DISSERTATION ON THE: LIFE pulled and ate the ears of corn on the Sabbath ‘ they rubbed them with their hands’ (vi. 1). In the first ef these cases the passage is wanting in the Syriac, whilst in the other two they occur in St. Luke’s Gospel, but are omitted in the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, —obviously because it was immaterial in the miracu- lous cure of the withered hand which hand it was, and because the infringement of the observance of the Jewish Sabbath consisted in plucking and eating the ears of corn, and not in the necessary act of rubbing off the husks in their hands. I attempted to account for this conjecturally, and cite my explanation merely to show of how little value conjecture is in such inquiries : ‘‘‘ Rubbing them with their hands” is, I believe, a paraphrastic addition ; the Evangelist men- tions what must have been done in eating ears of corn. The simple explanation is, that in the ori- ginal Aramaic the passage occurs exactly as given by St. Luke, and that from that original he derived it. I have already stated the very remarkable agree- ment between the Curetonian Syriac and the Greek so that every line of the Syriac was represented in the Greek. There are indeed here and there vacant lines for which there is no corresponding Greek text ; nearly all of which can be accounted for by the con- densation of revision, with the exception of the parable of the invited guests already explained and the names of the three kings in the line of our Lord’s descent mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. 10, 11, viz. Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. Without pretending to explain the difference in the Old Testament line from that of the New, I refer to Dr. Cureton’s remarks on the sub- ject, and hold that this reading is a proof amongst others of the great antiquity of the Syriac. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. τ, Another class of phenomena elicited by the com- parison I have made is the occurrence of passages in the received Greek which have no corresponding pas- sages in the Curetonian Syriac. The explanation I have to give is, that the Syriac is in reality more ancient than the Greek manuscripts which contain the pas- sages in question. But it is confirmed by the Greek MSS. of the same early age ; nearly all the readings in which it is wanting agreeing with the most ancient textual authorities, especially with the recently dis- covered Codex Sinaiticus N. Ν Β C D IV. 2. νύκτας τεσσαράκοντα ...«....« {ον πο δεξί oa Yenc ecerhieestqenccncens D Ἐπ eg τί, ICT Or nacs eye va tasasasenasaces Ν ΤᾺ ΣῪ μεριμνῶν. so cticcnnnenseasenstaensiits δ ΣῊ AAU POULOS. «iis cosine seins nsaaeanasae N τυ λυ - Nasi. necesaaseveevihecssece¥ss N B EE AT x icles nc Wises 46 a.g/stsis'-a/s bide enc, bes B oe Oe a Peat Abele cask Se ΕΣ ΡΠ ΠΡ ΤΟ. eee ee oe ae Ν Β D BON Σ τς Pe Re eens ΡΤ X B ΠΟΤ 2, ἀν OR gee 2 eS BE. oa I & B XVlll. 35. τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν ......... N D BARD 2.05) καίω, ὦ ots ROLY ATOR λεῖοι cise ase XN Ly. MAONTAS.. 0255 nieslosaboddenh dhandevien δ D ΖΝ, Ns BIS 2. oie Wa ΕΝ. ἐς ac od LSE TOU OLAV οἷν πος τὶς ἐξοίσει τον νων D RAM Po. ὀμύσηι.. .« .. 8, δ᾽ Gt TY clas 2 58 DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE The preceding table exhibits the agreements in this matter between the Curetonian Syriac and the most authoritative of the ancient Greek MSS., viz. the Vatican (B), Codex Ephraemi (C), Bezz (D), and Sinaiticus (X). The Alexandrian (A) is not included in it,as it wants the greater part of the Gospel of St. Matthew. Of this class of differences between the Cure- tonian and Greek, only four are unsupported by ancient MSS. The next class of variations from the Greek text consists in the use of equivalents which are certainly not translations, in place of employing words having the same meaning, for instance, speaking of Joseph, it is said in the Syriac ‘to whom was espoused Mary ;’ in the Greek it is ‘the husband of Mary ;’ or in the Syriac, where Mary is spoken of, instead of naming her she is mentioned as his (Joseph’s) wife. Simon, in reference to such changes, observes, ‘Ne pourroit-on pas méme conjecturer que celuy qui a traduit d’Ebreu en Grec J’original de saint Mat- thieu, l’a abrégé en quelques endroits, et qu'il a quel- quefois pris la liberté d’en traduire plutdt le sens que les mots?’ (* Hist. Crit. du ‘texte N.’T.,.’ ch. ize The answer is, that an author translating his own work may condense his narrative and translate the sense rather than the words, but a translator is not entitled to such liberties,—still less is he entitled to introduce circumstances which he did not find in the original, such as in the cure of the withered hand, the information that it was the right hand which was cured, or the fact that the disciples rubbed off the husks from the ears of corn before eating them. AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE. 59 Most of the above readings appear to be addi- tions, the result of repeated transcriptions. The reader will observe that Codex Ephraemi C contains all the passages wanting in the earlier MSS.,—a proof that, whatever be the date of that particular manu- script, the text of the Vatican and Cambridge MSS. is older than it, and that in that of the Curetonian Syriac and Sinaitic MS. we have the oldest existing documentary evidence of the text of the Gospels. Neither of them can be altogether free from error. In ch. xxiii. 18, Dr. Tregelles explains the omission thus, ‘per errorum librarii δι᾿ ὁμοιοτέλ. In conclusion, the inference I draw from the phe- nomena presented by these most interesting and im- portant discoveries is in entire accordance with that I formerly arrived at in my inquiry into the origin and connection of the Gospels—our Lord and his disciples spoke and wrote in the vernacular language of Judea, but when it became necessary to record their transac- tions in writing the task devolved upon St. Matthew, a Jew holding office under the Roman government, and therefore necessarily master of both languages spoken in Judea, namely Greek the language of government and of the more educated classes, and Aramaic, termed in Scripture and by the fathers Hebrew, by Eusebius and Josephus πατρίῳ. St. Matthew’s object of communicating the Gospel to his countrymen could only be done in both languages, and accordingly we find from St. Luke’s Gospel that St. Matthew’s already existed in both languages. He tells us in his preface that his authorities were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. Wecan trace in the Gospel three of his original authorities,—first, St. Peter’s memoirs not yet 60. THE ‘LIFE, AND’ WRITINGS OF 571. LUKE: translated by St. Mark ; second, St. Matthew’s Gospel in the original Aramaic; and lastly, the same in the language in which we now have it. Having in my dissertation stated very fully the evidence upon which my conclusions rest, I can only add that the result of the inquiry into the sources of his writings goes to prove that on every occasion in which it is possible to trace them, we find that those _ sources are written accounts by Apostles ; and we are warranted in supposing from his preface that those of his writings which we cannot trace to any existing authority were drawn from similar sources ; and from the perfect fidelity with which he adheres to his au- thorities where we can put it to the test, we cannot entertain a doubt that he is a true and faithful histo- rian of events which either fell under his own observa- tion or which he derived immediately from those who were engaged in them. CHART oF «τ PAULS VOYAGE FROM CASAREA TO PUTEOLI BY JAB SMITH)ESQT F.R.S. Smothracio> ots Ἧπως | Ϊ | TYRRHENEAN SE fay | Lycia Engrawod by Τ ν᾿ WelLex, Dube Str Hoewnaley London, Longinan & ὦ. DARRATIVE..OF THE VOYAGE, CHAPTER 5 CASAREA TO MYRA. (Acts xxvii. 1-6.) AFTER two years’ imprisonment at Czsarea, and after repeated examinations before Felix and Festus, successive Roman governors of Judea, and before 1 ‘Qe δὲ ἐκρίθη τοῦ dro- 1 And when it was de- πλεῖν ! ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν’, παρεδίδουν τὸν τε Ϊαῦλον καί « , « τινας ἑτέρους δεσμώτας ἑκα- termined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other pri- soners unto ove named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band. τοντά ὀνόματι ᾿Ιουλίῳ σπεί- ρχῆ Ovo, fe ρης Σεβαστῆς. 1 ΤΑποπλεῖν. Literally ‘to sail from.’ St. Luke, by his accurate use of nautical terms, gives great precision to his language, and expresses by a single word what would otherwise require several. Mitford ob- serves, that ‘we are often at a loss to render the verb πλέω otherwise than by our word 20 saz/, though they are far from being of the same precise import. ‘The use of oars, so prevalent in Grecian navigation, is so little known in our seas, that to sail is our only general term for going by sea.’ (Hist. of Greece, ii. 362.) St. Luke alone of the sacred writers uses this nautical term, either simply or as in the present instance in composition, 62 _ CAESAREA TO MYRA. Kite Agrippa the last of the Herod family, St. shears appealed unto Cesar. In consequence of this appeal it was determined that he should be sent, along with other prisoners, by sea to Italy. He was accordingly committed to the charge of a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial band, a person who, upon all occasions, treated the apostle with humanity and consideration. Czsarea was at that time the principal seaport of Syria.! It would appear, however, that there were no ships bound for Italy in the harbour capable of ac- commodating the party of Julius, including the prisoners and their guard. He therefore embarked them in a ship of Adramyttium,? a seaport of Mysia, on the Eastern shore of the Atgean Sea, opposite Lesbos. This ship was evidently bound for her own port, and her course from Czsarea thither necessarily led her close past the principal seaports of Asia.? 1 See account of Czesarea in Josephus, Atig. xv. 13. Bryant, ab- surdly enough, supposes that Ptolemais (Acre) was the port of embarka- tion ; and adds, as if it were a mere conjecture, ‘Grotius is of opinion that they went from Czesarea.’ It would have been quite contrary to St. Luke’s usual method to have omitted the land journey from Ceesarea o Ptolemais, had it actually taken place. (See Acts xxi. 7, 8.) 2 See a very full account of the notices in ancient authors of this place, in Wetstein ad loc. 3 By Asia St. Luke means proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, i.e. the western part of Asia Minor, which, according to Cicero, comprehended Caria and Lycia ; and, according to St. Luke, did not include Pamphylia. (Acts ii. 9, 10.) By attending to this, we are left in no doubt as to ‘ the places’ (τοὺς téwovs) meant in the text, which they would arrive at by the route they pursued. The places ‘ κατὰ τὴν Aciay,’ which may be translated ‘along the coast of Asia,’ were then flourishing sea-ports, three of which are mentioned by St. Luke; namely, Myra (Acts xxvii. 5), Patara (xxi. 1), and Cnidus (xxvii. 7).. For an account of the present state of Myra, see Spratt and Forbes, ἴμεν. ἊΝ Z — -- Se ὁ πα ΡΨ ΟΝ CHASAREA TO MYRA. . 63 Now this is also the course which a ship would take in .making a voyage from Syria to Italy ; they would: therefore be so far on their voyage when they reached the coast of Asia, and in the great commercial marts on that coast they could not fail to find opportunities of being carried on to their ulterior destination. On St. Paul’s former voyage from Philippi to Syria (Acts xx. 6 to xxi. 7) the same plan was adopted: they sailed to the places on the coast of Asia (κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν), and changed ship at one of them, Patara, just as we find was done in the present instance at Myra. We have, therefore, an obvious reason why they took their passage in this ship. The apostle was on this 2 Ἐπιβάντες δὲ πλοίῳ 2 And entering into a ᾿Αδραμυντηνῷ μέλλοντι πλεῖν ship of Adramyttium, which 1 κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν was about to sail by the τόπους ἀνήχθημεν, ὄντος σὺν coasts of Asia, we launched ἡμῖν ᾿Αριστάρχον Μακεδόνος one Aristarchus, a Macedo- Θεσσαλονικέως. nian of Thessalonica, being with us. εἰς τους Travels in 7,γεΐα, 1. 125. It has been observed that the magnitude of ancient cities may be inferred from that of their theatres ; the dia- meter of that of Myra is 360 feet and the ‘arena is now a corn-field.’ (/6. 132.) The theatre of Patara is also a magnificent structure. See a view of it in the /onian Autiguities, published by the Dilettante Society (vol. ii. pl. 56, 57), and an account of it in Beaufort’s Cara- | mania, p. 5. For an account of Cnidus, see Clarke’s Zyavels, vol. ii. p. 216. 1 Μέλλοντι πλεῖν eis τοὺς. &c., is the reading of the Vatican, Sinai- tic, and Alexandrian MSS., the earliest, and, in a case like the present, the best authorities, and is that adopted by Lachmann and Tregelles ; the common reading is μέλλοντες πλεῖν εἰς τοὺς, &c. : the preposition eis renders the meaning obvious, by showing that the ship was to touch ~ at ‘the places’ &c. 64 C4SAREA TO MYRA. occasion accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, and St. Luke, the historian of the voyage. The former appears to have been a prisoner, for St. Paul, in his epistle to the Colossians, designates him as his fellow-prisoner.! (iv. 10.) On the day after they left Czsarea they touched at Sidon. From the distance accomplished, sixty- seven geographical miles, we must infer that they had a fair, or at least a leading wind, probably westerly, which is the wind which prevails in this part of the Mediterranean.? We are not informed of the cause of their stopping at Sidon; probably, however, it was for the purposes of trade.? Whatever was the cause 2 Ty Te ἑτέρᾳ κατήχθημν 42. And the next day we εἰς Σιξῶνα, ; touched at Sidon. 3 Φιλανθρώπως τε ὁ ᾿Ιούὐ- 2 And Julius courteously λιος τῷ Παύλῳ χρησάμενος entreated Paul, and gave him ἐπέτρεψεν πρὸς τοὺς φίλους liberty to go unto his friends πορευθέντι ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν. to refresh himself. — 1 This companion of St. Paul is very unceremoniously mentioned by our English translators, by the gratuitous insertion of the word ‘ ove.’ He is twice previously noticed in the Acts, once as a Macedonian (xix. 29), and once as a Thessalonican (xx. 4) ; here he is mentioned as both. 2 *The wind continues to the westward. I am sorry to find it almost as prevailing as the trade winds.’ (4th July 1798, near Alex- andria.—Life of Lord de Saumarez, i. 210.) ‘ We have just gained sight of Cyprus, nearly the track we followed six weeks ago, so in- variably do the westerly winds prevail at this season.’ (19th Aug. 1798. ---7ό. i. 243.) A westerly wind would be fair between Czesarea and Sidon, as the bearing of the coast-line between the two places is about N.N.E. See Sazling Directions for the Coast of Syria, by Capt. E. Smith, R.N. 3 According to Strabo, Sidon was situated on the finest harbour of the Continent, and contested with Tyre the supremacy of the Phoenician. CHESAREA TO MYRA. 65 of the delay, it afforded the centurion an opportunity of showing kindness to St. Paul, for we are told in the narrative that he ‘ gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself’ [or rather ‘ to receive their attention ;’ ie, perhaps, ‘to obtain from them that outfit for the voyage which, on account of the official precision of his custody at Czsarea, he could not there be provided with.—ALFORD. ] Loosing ' from thence they were forced, by con- 4 Κἀκεῖθεν ἀναχθέντες 4 And when we_ had ὑπεπλεύσαμεν τὴν Κύπρον διὰ launched from thence, we τὸ τοὺς ἀνέμους εἶναι évay- sailed under Cyprus, because τίους, the winds were contrary. cities (lib. xvi. c. 2). Achilles Tatius cails it the metropolis of the Phoenicians, μήτηρ Φοινίκων ἣ πόλις ; he describes it as having two har- bours, one of which is large with a narrow entranc-, where.merchant ships can winter in safety (lib. i.). To judge from its present state, the shelter was afforded by a ridge of rocks, parallel to the coast, forming a natural breakwater. The harbour was filled up during the wars of the Middle Ages. For an account of its present state, see Robinson’s Biblical Researches, and Wilson’s Lands of the Bible. The latter author gives a plan of the harbour. See a view of it in Carne’s Syria and the Holy Land Illustrated, vol. iii. p. 6. 1 ᾿Αναχθέντες is one of those nautical terms about which there is no donbt as to the meaning—which is, to depart from a place ; it is used _ by St. Luke both in the Gospel and Acts, and is rendered in the authorised version, ‘to launch,’ ‘ to loose,’ ‘to sail,’ ‘to set forth,’ ‘to depart.’ ᾿Ανάγεσθαι is amongst the nautical terms of Julius Pollux. There is no precisely corresponding term in English. Mitford observes, that in rendering it ‘we must risk the sea phrase ἐσ get under way, or content ourselves with the inaccurate expression 20 set satl.’ (Hist. of Greece, vol. 11. p. 232, note.) St. Luke uses the words ἀποπλέω, ἐκπλέω, and αἴρω, to express the same thing. ‘The last is an elliptical expression : it occurs in verse 13 - of this chapter, and is translated ‘loosing.’ It would have been more accurately rendered ‘ weighed,’ τὰς ἀγκύρας, the anchors, being under; F 66 CESAREA TO MYRA. trary winds, to run under the lee of Cyprus.' A ques- tion here arises, which was the lee side of Cyprus? In passing it, did they leave it upon their right or upon their left ὁ Commentators are divided upon the subject, but it is generally supposed that they left it on their right ; that is, that they passed to the south of that island. This opinion is evidently founded upon the erroneous suppositions that the coast of Syria is comprehended by St. Luke in the term Asza, and that the ancients only made coasting voyages. The question is not one of importance, further than that it is desirable to leave nothing uncertain ‘where certainty can be attained, and because, in the next place, if we are sure of the meaning of the author in this case we can compare the proceedings of the ancient navigators with those of modern ones, who have been placed under similar circumstances in the same locality, and can thus form a more correct esti- mate of their seamanship, As I dissent from the generally-received opinion stood. Thus, in Plutarch (Pompey, p. 1208), ἀραμένοι τὰς ἀγκύρας. It is, however, generally used absolutely, as in the present case, and as its English equivalent to weigh. See Wetstein ad loc. The corre- sponding word for coming to land, Sg she Jul. Pollux, Oxom. i. 102, occurs in the ΒΡΘΟΒΠΙΒΕ verse. 1 πεπλεύσαμεν, ‘we sailed under the lee.’ Dr. Falconer, in his Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage, supposed it.meant to sail to the south of a place, because the maps of the ancients, like those of the moderns, were constructed with the north point uppermost. The ex- planation of Wetstein is, however, unquestionably the true one : ‘ubi navis vento contrario cogitur a recto cursu decedere, ita ut tunc insula sit interposita inter ventum et navem, dicitur ferri zfra insulam.’ We meet with the same word again in the seventh verse, where ample proof will be given that this is the meaning of the term. Kuindol erroneously supposes that it means to sail close to the shore : ‘ sublegere, oram cominus legere.’ ων CESAREA TO MYRA, 67 that they sailed by the south of Cyprus, I shall, in the first place, state the arguments upon which that opinion is founded. Dr. Falconer, in his ‘ Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage,’ says,— ‘On their loosing from Sidon, they found that their inten- tion of continuing their voyage along the coasts of Asia Minor would be frustrated by contrary winds, which obliged them to pursue their voyage under or on the southern side of the island of Cyprus, instead of the northern, as according to their plan of sailing along the coast they had at first pro- posed.’ Dr. Bennet, a late commentator on the Acts, ex- presses himself thus :— ‘Sailed under or to the south of Cyprus, on account of the winds being contrary, when they would otherwise have taken them to the north, along the Asiatic coasts.’ (‘Lectures,’ Ρ. 399.) _ When we hear of contrary winds, and wish to as- certain their direction, the chief points to be deter- mined are the ship’s actual position and intended course. Now, when St. Luke talks of contrary winds, we know that the ship had left Sidon, and must have been in sight of Cyprus, for he tells us that the winds forced them to leeward of that island. Their ultimate object was Italy and their proximate one was one or other of the ‘places in Asia,’ which I have already shown lay in the same direction. As St. Luke does not include Pamphylia in Asia, the nearest part of that region to Syria is Lycia,and a ship’s course from Sidon thither is W.N.W., leaving Cyprus on the right. St. Luke was perfectly aware of this, for upon the former voyage, in which he accompanied St. Paul, he : Ε 2 68 CHSAREA TO: MYRA. tells us that on their passage from Patara, one of the ‘places in Asia,’ to Phoenicia, ‘they left Cyprus on the left’ hand,’ ic. on the north. (Acts xxt. 3.) The winds therefore which prevented them from taking the straight course to the places in Asia must have been from the westward. Now these are the very winds which might have been expected in this part of © the Mediterranean at this season (summer). Admiral de Saumarez writes, 19th August, 1798 :— ‘We have just gained sight of Cyprus, so invariably do. the westerly winds prevail at this season.’ (‘ Life,’ 1. 243.) Under these circumstances, sailing under Cyprus is equivalent to saying that they left Cyprus on their left hand ; but this point is put out of doubt by St. Luke himself, for he tells us in the 5th verse that they sailed through the sea of Cilicia (διαπλεύσαντες), not over, as in the authorised version ; but as this sea lies altogether to the north of Cyprus, they could not have sailed through it without leaving the island on their left. In pursuing this route they acted precisely as the most accomplished seaman in the present day would have done under similar circumstances ; by standing to the north till they reached the coast of Cilicia, they might expect when they did so to be favoured by the land wind, which prevails there during the summer months, as well as by the current, which constantly 5 To re πέλαγος τὸ κατὰ 5 And when we had τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίαν — sailed over the sea of Cilicia διαπλεύσαντες κατήλθαμεν eic and Pamphylia, we came to Μύρρα τῆς Λυκίας _ Myra, a city of Lycia. CESAREA TO MYRA. 69 runs to the westward, along the south coast of Asia Minor.! M. de Pages, a French navigator, who made a voyage from Syria to Marseilles, took this course, and has given the reasons why he did so. He informs us, that after making Cyprus, ‘The winds from the west, and consequently contrary, which prevail in these places during the summer, forced us to run to the north. We made for the coast of Caramania (Cilicia) in order to meet the northerly winds, which we found accordingly.’ 2 Fynes Moryson, in his ‘Itinerary, narrates a sea voyage from Syria to Crete, in which the circumstances of wind and weather bear a still more marked resem- blance to those experienced by the ancient mariners than any of the above. He sailed from Scanderoon the port of Aleppo, with the intention of disembarking at the city of Candia on the north side of Crete, and therefore his course so far was the same as that of St. Paul and his companions. At first he tells us,— ‘We sayled prosperously, but after the winds grew so contrary as we were driven to the south of Candia.’ (p. 251.) Here, in the seas where I infer from the silence of ' “From Syria to the Archipelago, there is a constant current to the westward.’ (Beaufort’s Description of the South Coast of Asia Minor, p. 39.) Dr. Pococke found this current running so strong between Rhodes and the Continent, that it broke into the cabin windows even in calm weather. (Description of the Last, ii. 236.) * “Nous fimes route sur l’ile de Chypre. Aprés l’avoir cétoyée, les vents de l’ouest, par conséquent contraires, qui régnent pendant été dans ces parties, nous firent élever au nord; nous cherchions la cote de la Caramanie, pour rencontrer les vents du nord, que nous y trouvames en effet.’ (Voyages autour du Monde, tom. i. p. 406.) . 70 CAASAREA TO. MYRA. St. Luke that the circumstances of St. Paul’s voyage were favourable, they ‘sayled prosperously ;’ and in the seas where St. Paul’s ship met with contrary winds, μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς Tov ἀνέμου, ‘the winds grew con- trary, and had precisely the same effect upon the ship, which it drove to the south of Crete ; and, what is still more remarkable, Moryson is carried to Fair Havens. It is not, perhaps, easy to recognise in ‘the wild rocks called Calis Miniones’ the Fair Bays which give the harbour its name, and which it still retains in Calos Limeones. There is no doubt, however, of the identity of the places, for Moryson marks the position of Calis Miniones by saying it is ‘Some three miles distant froma monastery called Santa Maria Aggidietra,’ just as St. Luke marks it,.as ‘nigh unto the ‘ery Lasea.’ The monastery still remains: in Pashley’s map it is spelt Hodhetria, and is exactly three miles above the ‘rocky promontory’ which separates the two bays upon which Moryson was landed. (See the account of a visit to the monastery, by the Rev. _ George Brown, Appendix i.) | Favoured, as they probably were, by the land wind and currents, they arrive without any recorded incident at Myra of Lycia, then a flourishing seaport, now a desolate waste. The stupendous magnitude of its theatre attests the extent of its former population ; the splendour of its tombs,! its wealth. But it is not 1 «Sepulchres, which for the elegance of their design, costliness of execution, and size, seem to have been suited rather for the keeping of the ashes of rulers and kings, than of common citizens.’ (Spratt and Forbes, i, 132.) See a view of Myra in the above work, frontispiece to vol. i, CESAREA TO MYRA. γι my intention to describe the ancient or modern state of the places visited, farther than as they illustrate the events of the voyage. This city is situated, according to Admiral Beaufort, about three miles from the sea; according to Strabo, the distance is twenty stadia, or about two geographi- cal miles, the difference being probably caused by the silting up of the river Andriaki, which flows past it into aspacious bay. This river, which Appian calls the port of the Myrians (Μυρέων ἐπίνειον), ‘ Bell. Civ.’ lib. iv. cap. 82, was navigable to Myra, for he informs us that Lentulus, having broken the chain of the har- bour, ascended to that city. The voyage has hitherto been prosperous, and the object which the party had in view in proceeding to ‘the places in Asia’ is attained. At the first of them which lay in their way, the centurion found a ship of Alexandria, loaded, as we afterwards learn, with wheat, bound for Italy, in which he embarked his charge. Egypt was at this time one of the granaries of Rome, and the corn which was sent from thence to Italy was conveyed in ships of very great size.! From the dimensions given of one of them by Lucian,’ 6 Κἀκεῖ εὑρὼν ὃ exaror- 6 And there the cen- τάρχης πλοῖον ᾿Αλεξανδρινὸν turion found a ship of Alex- πλέον sic τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ἐνεβί- andria sailing into Italy ; and Pacer ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτό. he put us therein. 1 After the capture of Jerusalem the Emperor Titus returned to Italy in one of these ships, touching at Rhegium, and landing at Puteolli. (Sueton. Vit.-ch. 5 ; see also Vit. Augusti, 98 ; and Seneca, ᾿ 22:7. 77.) 2 In the Dialogue Πλοῖον ἢ Edxat. See the Dissertation on Ancient Ships, 2092. 72 C4ESAREA ΤῸ MYRA. they appear to have been quite as large as the largest class of merchant ships of modern times. We need not be surprised, therefore, at the number of souls which we afterwards find were embarked in this one,! or that another ship of the same class could after the © shipwreck convey them to Italy, in addition to her own crew. Some commentators have supposed that Myra lay so much out of the track from Alexandria to Italy that the term Alexandrian must mean the particular ° ‘build’ of the ship, just as we say Liburnian galleys, and not as marking the port to which she belonged. Now it is quite true that Myra is out of the direct course from’ Alexandria to Italy, which is by the south of Crete. But with the westerly winds which prevail in those seas, ships, particularly those of the ancients, unprovided with a compass and ill calculated to work to windward, would naturally stand to the north till they made the land of Asia Minor, which is peculiarly favourable for navigation by such vessels, because the coast is bold and safe, and the eleva- tion of the mountains makes it visible at a great dis- tance; it abounds in harbours, and the sinuosities of its shores and the westerly current would enable them, if the wind was at all off the land, to work to windward, at least as far as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased.2, Myra lies due north from Alex- 1 Granville Penn, on the authority of the Vatican MS., reads * seventy-six,’ instead of ‘two hundred and seventy-six’ See his note on the subject ; the Sinaitic, and other uncial MSS., however, have two hundred and seventy-six [except the Alexandrian, which reads ‘two hundred and seventy-five.’ Westcott and Hort follow the Vati- can, and read ‘about seventy-six ’]. 2 We learn from Thucydides (viii. 35), that Cnidus was frequented by merchant ships from Egypt, am Αἰγύπτου ὁλκάδες. CASAREA STO MYRA. 73 andria,! and its bay is well calculated to shelter a windbound ship. The Alexandrian ship was not, therefore, out of her course at Myra, even if she had “no call to touch there for the purposes of commerce. We may suppose that the same westerly winds which forced the Adramyttian ship to the east of Cyprus, drove the Alexandrian ship to Myra. The land wind on the Cilician coast appears to be quite local, and therefore might enable St. Paul’s ship to reach Myra, although the prevalent wind did not admit of the ships in that harbour proceeding on their voyage. 1 According to Ptolemy it lies just east of the meridian of Alexan- dria, which is precisely its position. I have never had occasion to con- sult this great geographer without being astonished at the extent and accuracy of his information. It is easy for modern writers to find fault with him ; the very precision he introduced into the science enables them to detect errors unavoidable in the state of knowledge which the ancients had of distant regions, or caused by errors in transcription. The edition of Tauchnitz, which I have used, though unpretending in form, is I believe the most correct. 74 CHa eR ΤΙ VOYAGE FROM MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS IN CRETE. (Acts xxviii. 7, δ.) IN this ship of Alexandria, in which the centurion and his party embarked, they proceeded on their voyage. Their progress after leaving Myra was extremely slow ; for we are told that it was ‘many’ days before they were ‘ come over against Cnidus,’ that is before they reached the entrance of the A®gean Sea. As the distance between the two places is not more than 130 geographical miles, which they could easily have accomplished with a fair wind in one day, they must either have met with calms or contrary winds. 1 infer that the delay was caused by contrary winds, from the expression μόλις, which is translated in our authorised version ‘scarce, producing the impression that the ship- had scarcely reached Cnidus when the winds became contrary ; but which ought to be rendered ‘ with diffi- culty,’ expressing the difficulty which ships experience in contending with adverse winds. The same word 7 Ἔν ἱκαναῖς δὲ ἡμέραις 7 And when we had βραδυπλοοῦντες καὶ μόλις sailed slowly many days, and γενόμενοι κατὰ THY Kvidor, μὴ = scarce. were COME | Over προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, against Cnidus, the wind not ὑπεπλεύσαμεν τὴν Kpyrny suffering, as we sailed under κατὰ Σαλμώνην, Crete, over against Salmone, —— ll ee ee ee - - ee ἥν Slane MYVRA.TO FAIR HAVENS. 75 occurs in the following verse, where it is translated ‘hardly, where there can be no doubt as to its mean- ing, for the general trending of the south coast of Crete, which they were navigating (παραλεγόμενοι, v. 8), was the same as that of Asia, east and west ; and we are now told that the winds were contrary (v. 7). Cicero, in one of his epistles, uses very similar terms to express the effects of contrary winds :— ‘Quum sane adversis ventis usi essemus, ¢ardegue et in- commode navigassemus.’ ! ‘Having met with contrary winds, and sazled slowly and with difficulty.’ I am satisfied, therefore, that the words in the original, βραδυπλοοῦντες Kal μόλις γενόμενοι, ‘ sailing slowly and with difficulty were come, &c., express the delays which a ship experiences in working to windward. The question now occurs, what was the direction of the wind which produced the effects recorded in the narrative. We are told, that when they ‘ were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, _we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone.’ (v. 7.) The direct course of a ship on her voyage from Myra to Italy, after she has reached Cnidus, is by the north side of Crete, through the Archipelago, W. by 5S. Hence a ship which can make good a course of about seven points from the wind, which I have shown else- where ? cannot be far from the truth, would not have been prevented from proceeding on her course, unless the wind had been to the west of N.N.W. We are 1 Epist. ad Familiares, lib. xiv. epist. v. 2 Dissertation on Ancient Ships, 2095. 76 MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. next told that she ran ‘under Crete, over against Sal- mone,’ which implies that she was able to fetch that cape, which bears about S.W. by 5. from Cnidus ; but unless the wind had been to the north of W.N.W., she could not have done so. The wind was, there- fore, between N.N.W. and W.N.W. Tne middle point between these points is North-West, which can- not be more than two points, and is probably not more than one, from the true direction. The wind therefore would in common language have been termed north-west. Now, this is precisely the wind which might have been expected in those seas towards the end of summer. We learn from the sailing direc- tions for the Mediterranean, that ‘Throughout the whole of the Mediterranean, but mostly in the eastern half, including the Adriatic and Archipelago, the north-west winds prevail in the summer months ;’ ! which agrees with Aristotle’s account of these winds.? According to Pliny, they begin in August, and blow for forty days.’ With north-west winds the ship could work up from Myra to Cnidus ; because until she reached that point she had the advantage of a weather shore, under the lee of which she would have smooth water, and as formerly mentioned, a westerly current; but it would be ‘slowly and with difficulty.” At Cnidus these advantages ceased ; and unless she had put into ! Purdy’s Sadling Directions for the Mediterranean (1841), p. 197. 2 Οἱ Ἐτησίαι λεγόμενοι μίξιν ἔχοντες τῶν τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἄρκτου φερομένων καὶ ζεφύρων. (Arist. de Wundo, cap. iv. 15.) 3 ¢Perflant diebus quadraginta quos Etesias vocant.’ (Plin. lib. ii. cap. 4.) MYRA-TO FAIR HAVENS. 77 that harbour, and waited for a fair wind, her only course was to run under the lee of Crete, in the direc- tion of Salmone! (κατὰ ΣαλμώνηνῚ, which is the eastern extremity of that island. After passing this point, the difficulty they experienced in navigating to the westward along the coasts of Asia would recur ; but as the south side of Crete is also a weather shore, with north-west winds, they would be able to work up as far as Cape Matala. Here the land trends suddenly to the north,and the advantages of a weather shore cease, and their only recourse was to make for a har- bour. Now Fair Havens is the last harbour before arriving at Cape Matala, the farthest point to which an ancient ship could have attained with north-westerly winds. The delays experienced by navigators proceeding westward in this part of the Mediterranean during the summer months, are of such constant occurrence that I have scarcely found an instance in which they have not been encountered. Rauwolf, a German physician, who travelled in the Holy Land in the sixteenth century,? passed and re- passed by the same track which St. Paul did. On his voyage eastward, the winds were favourable, 1.6. westerly. The ship touched at and watered at a port which he calls Calismene (p. 16), which is evidently Fair Havens. After passing Cape Salmone, they met with a ship coming from the eastward, which had 1 This promontory stillretains its ancient name. (See Strabo, lib. ii. cap. 14. Apol. Rhod. lib. iv. ver. 1693. Prtol. lib. iii. cap. 17.) * Leonharti Rauwolfen Ratiss in die Morgenlinder, Augsburg, 1582. It is translated by Ray, and included in his Collection of Travels, vol, il. 78 MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS, been seven weeks on her passage from Tripoli, hav- ing been delayed by the prevailing westerly winds, and which they were obliged to supply with biscuit, On their return they met with the same contrary winds which that ship, as well as. St. Paul’s, had en- countered when off the coasts of Lycia and Pamphylia. At length when they had reached the small moun- tainous island of Scarpanto, he tells us that a orth wind sprang up which he says drove them on their right course towards Salmone.’ It is interesting to compare the confused and blun- dering account of the physician of Augsburg with the few but accurate notices of the physician of Antioch. In the first place, had the wind been northerly, no ship bound for the westward would have run down from Scarpanto to the south side of Crete ; and in the next place, this was not ‘ the right course, which was W. by S. across the A£gean Sea, to the north of Crete, for which a northerly wind would have been favour- able. Rauwolf’s ship could, as we learn, lie within about six points of the wind ;? hence a northerly wind would have been quite fair. St. Luke, in a ship in the same position between Carpathus (Scarpanto) and Cnidus, and meeting with the same winds, says shortly but correctly that the winds did not permit of their proceeding on their course,’ and that they ran to leeward of Crete (v. 7). Ὁ ΞΡ. 465. 2 He tells us that, as they were proceeding eastwards, there were only three out of eight winds that were contrary : Sirocco, Levante, and Gregale (p. 18) ; hence the ship could lie within six points of the wind. 3. Commentators very generally suppose that μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, meant that the winds defeated the purpose of taking shelter in the harbour of Cnidus. Dr. Hacket in his Commentary on the Acts MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. 79 It appears to me that in the ancient ship they ‘had, not only a more correct historian, but more skil- ful seamen. St. Luke tells us that they succeeded in reaching Fair Havens, although it was with diff- culty. Rauwolf says that, although they got into smooth water under the lee of Crete, in their appre- hensions of being driven towards Africa, they kept so close to the high land that they had much difficulty in avoiding being shipwrecked on Candia ;! a pro- ceeding which argues anything but good seamanship.’ They saved their ship, but failed in their attempt to reach a harbour, which could be no other than Fair Havens, and were obliged to put back to the Calderon Islands. Sir James, afterwards Lord de Saumarez, return- ing from Aboukir, after the battle of the Nile, with a detachment of Lord Nelson’s fleet, stood to the north till he discovered the island of Cyprus, from whence he intended to pass by the north side of Candia (Crete) ; observes, ‘That mpooedw does not occur-in the classics. Πρός cannot well mean farther, as some allege, since they would have no motive to continue the voyage in that direction, even if the weather had not op- posed it.’ Admiral Penrose, however, a better authority in such a matter, takes the same view as I have done. He explains the passage thus : “ The wind not suffering them ἐσ get on in the direct course. (See. ‘Conybeare and Howson, ii. p. 326, note.) We are not told wherein the difficulty of entering Cnidus, if they wished it, lay. Mr. Alford takes what I have no doubt is the correct view; see his note on the passage. 1 «Also wurden wir des Getdses und Rauschen der Winden und Wellen wol loss : dargegen cam unser Schiff den Gestadten Candiz so nahe, das wir alle Augenblicke miisten eines Schiftbruchs gewartig sein.’ (p- 465.) 2 Ships standing too close to high land in stormy weather, with the wind off shore, are apt to be caught in what may be called eddy squalls, This was evidently the case in Rauwolf’s ship. 80 MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. but the winds proved contrary, and he was forced, like the ancient voyagers and Rauwolf,! to run to the south ' of that island. His delightful journal, addressed to Lady Saumarez, and written from day to day, throws much light upon the circumstances which affect the navigation of this part of the Mediterranean, and shows how perfectly they agree with those experienced by St. Paul and his companions. On August 28, 1798, he writes :— ‘We are still off the island of Rhodes, which appears | fertile and well cultivated. We have also sight of Candia, at the distance of above thirty leagues ; our present route is different from any of the former, as we go to the northward of Candia, amidst the innumerable islands that form the Archipelago.’ ? This was precisely the course which St. Paul’s ship was pursuing. The contrary winds, however, forced Sir James Saumarez, as they had forced the ancient navigators, to run to the south of Crete. On Septem- ber I, 1798, he thus writes to Lord Nelson :— ‘After contending three days against the adverse winds which are almost invariably encountered here, and getting sufficiently to the northward to have weathered the small islands that lie more immediately between the Archipelago and Candia, the wind set in so strong from the westward that I was compelled to desist from that passage, and was compelled to bear up between Scarpanto and Guxo (Carpa- thus and Casus). ὃ It is to be observed, that the fleet could not ‘ fetch ’ Salmone with the wind at west ; which shows that in PP 405. 2 Life, ῬὉ. 248. 3. Life, p. 253. "HLUND ‘SNHAVH Ulva MYVRA ‘TO FAIR HAVENS. 81 the apostle’s case the wind must have been to the north of west. : I have already adduced the case of Fynes Moryson, whose ship was also forced to deviate from the original intention of going to the north of Crete, and take the same course as St. Paul’s. After these instances, it will scarcely be thought necessary to have recourse to an ancient scholiast for the reasons which induced the navigators of St. Paul’s ship to pass by the south of Cape Salmone; yet recent commentators assure us that ‘this question is resolved by the account of Eustathius, who on another occasion mentions that there were no good ports on the northern side of that island (Crete)— δυσλέμενος ἡ Κρήτη πρὸς τὴν βοῤῥᾶν. In fact, it so happens that there are two excellent harbours on the' north side of Crete—Souda and Spina Longa. After working up along the southern coast of Crete, they reached Fair Havens, which we have seen is the farthest point which an ancient ship, navigating under the ἰδὲ of Crete, could reach with north-west winds. As this is an important point in the voyage, it becomes necessary to ascertain precisely its situa- tion, as well as that of the port of Phenice and the 8 Μόλις τε παραλεγό- 8 And hardly passing it, μενοι αὐτὴν ἤλθομεν εἰς τόπον Came unto a place which is τινὰ καλούμενον Kadovc Διμές called the Fair Havens ; vac, ᾧ ἐγγὺς ἦν πόλις Aacéa. nigh whereunto was the city of Lasea. 1 Valpy’s edit. of N. Test. ad loc., quoted from Dr. Falconer. Even Barthélemy, in his Anacharsis, is misled by Eustathius, and assures us there are no harbours on the north side of Crete. G 82 MYVRA TO FAIR HAVENS. island of Clauda. St. Luke marks the position of Fair Havens by its vicinity to the city of Lasea; but neither Fair Havens nor Lasea are noticed by any other ancient authority, nor have the ruins of the city been discovered in modern times.’ Commentators have generally supposed that Καλοὶ Λιμένες, or Fair Havens, of St. Luke, is the same as Καλὴ ᾿Ακτή, or Fair Strand, of Stephanus Byzantinus. This, how- ever, is ‘said to be a city of Crete; but St. Duke mentioning Fair Havens as in the vicinity of a city, seems to show that there was no city there. Mr. Pashley found a district in Crete bearing the name of Akté, and supposes with probability that the city mentioned by Stephanus was situated there.. This district is however at the west end of Crete, and cannot be the same as Fair Havens, which from the context must be on the south coast. Mr. Pashley afterwards visited the place, which still bears the ancient name, and which I am prepared to show is identical with the Fair Havens of St, Luke ; but unfortunately the work terminates with- 1 Since the above was written, the ruins of this city have been dis- covered by my friend and relative the Rev. George Brown. (Appendix No. 1.) It lies just east of Fair Havens, and still retains its name... [The ruins, but not the name, seem to have been discovered by Captain Spratt in 1853. He writes (Feb. 13, 1855) : ‘ Lassea was discovered by me on the coast about two miles east of Fair Havens.’ 2 Anrth 6 αἰγιαλὺς, καὶ 6 παραθαλάσσιος τόπος, “ ἀκτή, the beach, and place along the sea.’ (Hesych.) Notwithstanding the authority of Hesychius, which, however, is not great in such matters, I suspect that ἀκτή and αἰγιαλός are not synonymous; that the latter means a sandy beach (see note on v. 39) ; the former, a more general term, equivalent to the English strand. Julius Pollux distinguishes the χωρία ἐπιθαλατ- τίδια into ἀκτή, ἠών, αἰγιαλός, χηλή, ὕφορμος, ὅρμος, λιμήν. (Lib. i. 99.) 3 Καλὴ ᾿Ακτὴ πόλις Κρητῶν, &c. MVRA TO FAIR HAVENS. 83 out any account of his observations. I am however indebted to Signor Antonio Schranz,! the able artist who accompanied him, for the view of this interesting locality taken upon the spot. Dr. Pococke appears to have been the first who ascertained its exact situation ; he says— ‘In searching after Lebena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of greater consequence, because mentioned in Holy Scripture, and also honoured by the presence of St. Paul, that is, the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea ; for there is another small bay, about two leagues to the east of Matala, which is now called by the Greeks Good or Fair Havens (Διμέονες Καλούς).᾽ 3 Dr. Pococke found no ruins here, nor is there reason to suppose that it ever was more than it is at present —an open roadstead, or rather two roadsteads con- tiguous to each other. Its retention of its name is owing, no doubt, to its appropriateness. In the old sailing directions, ‘ Licht der Seevaert’ (Amst. 1621), and ‘ Miroir de la Mer,’ it is thus described :— ‘Right to the coast of Cabra (an islet) lies a fair bay (een schoone bay, Dutch ; une belle baie, Fr.), where there is good anchorage ; there is also one immediately to the west of it, where there is also good anchorage.’ ὃ 1 Tt will be seen that this view enabled my friends Messrs. Tennent and Brown to identify the locality. (Appendix No. 1.) 2 Travels in the East, vol. 11. p. 250. 3 «Recht beeosten Cabra leygt een schoone bay, daer seer goed trede is, desheliger ook een der recht bewesten daer’t saer goedte leg- ghen is.’ (Lzcht der Seevaert, p. 217.) ‘Ily a, droit a Vest de Cabra, une belle baie, ot il y a une fort bonne rade, comme aussi encore une autre droit ἃ l’ouest de la, ou il fait aussi bon d’ancrer.’ (Afiroir de la Mer, p. 80.) G2 84 MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. |. The most conclusive evidence, however, that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture is that its position is precisely that where a ship, circumstanced as St. Paul’s was, must have put in. I have already shown that — the wind must have been about N.W., but with such a wind she could not pass Cape Matala; we must therefore look near to this promontory, but to the east- ward of it, foran anchorage well calculated to shelter a vessel in north-west winds, but not from all winds, otherwise it would not have been in the opinion of seamen an unsafe winter harbour. Now, here we have a harbour which not only fulfils every one of the conditions, but still retains the name given to it by St. Lake.’ Here, we learn, they were detained till ‘ navigation had become dangerous,’ ? in consequence of the ad- vanced state of the season. The fast, supposed of the Expiation, which took place about the period of — the autumnal equinox, was now past. It would appear that by this time all hope of completing the 1 «We have now examined the journeys and. voyages of St. Paul and his companions; and of the numerous places named therein, we find but seven which are omitted by Strabo, the chief of the ancient geographers that are come downto us. The rest are described by him in exact agreement with the history of the Acts. Of the seven omitted — by him, five are fully and clearly spoken of by other ancient authors. There remain only two, therefore, of which a doubt can be admitted.’ (Biscoe, p. 383.) Headdsina note, ‘The two arezhe Fair Havens and Lasea, of which the former it is probable is the Καλὴ ᾿Ακτή of Stephanus, the latter the Lasos of Pliny.’ The position of Zasea agrees with the — Lisia of the Peutingerian tables, i.e. about the centre of the south coast — or Grete. ~ (See note; p. 82.) “ 2 V. 9, ἐπισφαλοῦς τοῦ πλοός, the appropriate nautical term, πλοῦς ἀσφαλής, Jul. Pollux, 1. 105. MY RA’ LTO FAIR AVENS: 85 voyage during the present season’ was abandoned ; and it became a question whether they should winter at Fair Havens, or move the ship to Port Phenice, a harbour on the same side of Crete, about forty miles further to the westward. St. Paul assisted at the consultation, and strongly urged them to remain, addressing them in the follow- ing terms :—‘ Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.’ The officers of the ship were, however, of a different opinion, and the centurion naturally deferred to it. The event justi- fied St. Paul’s advice. At the same time it may be observed that a bay open to nearly one-half of the compass could not have been a good winter harbour.” 1 According to Vegetius, the sailing season did not close so early ; he states that ‘ex die igitur tertio iduum Novembris, usque in diem sextum iduum Martiarum, maria clauduntur. Nam lux minima noxque prolixa, nubium densitas, aeris obscuritas, ventorum, imbrium, vel ni- vium geminata szvitia. Non solum classes a pelago, sed etiam com- meantes a terrestri itinere deturbat.’ (Lib. v. 9.) These dates correspond better with their stay in the island of Melita: chap. xxviii. v. 11. Μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς μῆνας ἄνήχθημεν, &c. 21 have allowed this passage to remain as it stood in the first edi- tion ; for it is interesting to observe how each addition to our knowledge of the scene of the narrative confirms its authenticity and accuracy. It now appears, from Mr. Brown’s observations and the late surveys, that Fair Havens is so well protected by islands, that though not equal to Lutro, it must be a very fair winter harbour ; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprang up in the passage from Fair Havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by the master and owner was extremely questionable, and that the advice given by St. Paul may pro- bably be supported even on nautical grounds. 86 MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. It was determined at this consultation to attempt to reach Phenice, a harbour of Crete, which looked, according to St. Luke, κατὰ Λίβα καὶ κατὰ X@por, which is rendered in our. version, ‘lieth toward the south-west and north-west.’ The intermediate point between these two winds is west ; and it is generally understood that the harbour looked to, or was open to, the west. Father Giorgi, aware that if it could be 9 Ἱκανοῦ δὲ χρόνου δια- γενομένου καὶ ὄντος ἤδη ἐπι- σφαλοῦς τοῦ πλοὸς καὶ τὴν νηστείαν ἤδη παρελη- λυθέναι, παρήνει 6 Παῦλος το Λέγων αὐτοῖς ᾿Αγὸρες, θεωρῶ ὅτι μετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζημίας ov μόνον τοῦ φορτίου καὶ τοῦ πλοίου ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν. Ti =O” δὲ τῷ κυβηρνήτῃ καὶ τῷ ναυκλήρῳ € / EKATOVTAPKIC μᾶλλον ἐπείθετο ἢ τοῖς ὑπὸ Παύλου λεγομένοις. τοῦ πρὸς πλείονες 2 ἃ 12 ’AvevOérov ὃε λιμένος ὑὕὑπάρχοντος παραχειμασίαν οἱ ἔθεντο βουλὴν ἀναχθῆναι ἐκεῖ- θεν, εἴ πως δύναιντο καταντή-. σαντες εἰς Φοίνικα παραχει- τῆς βλέποντα κατὰ Λίβα καὶ κατὰ Χῶρον. μάσαι, λιμένα Κρήτης διὰ τὸ 9 Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished ¢hem, to And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. 11 Nevertheless the cen- turion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul. τ .And*. because aime haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part . advised to depart thence also, if by any means they might attain to Phenice, azd there to winter; zhich 15 an haven of Crete, and lieth toward the south-west and north-west. MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS, 87 proved Phenice was on the south side of Crete, a ship could not be driven off the island towards the Adriatic Gulf, infers from this that it was at the west end of the island,! and that the situation of Clauda is uncer- tain. Dr. Falconer, a man of undoubted learning, admits that it is not easy to determine the exact im- port of this passage; but supposes it to be ‘ open to both quarters of the heavens from whence these winds proceed, and of course unsheltered from these winds :’ he then observes that ‘ this would, according to Vitru- vius, leave 105° open to the west.’?, Such a harbour would certainly not be ‘commodious to. winter in,’ and would not have warranted the attempt which was made to move to it. | Although they never reached this. harbour, it becomes of importance to ascertain its position ; ' because, unless we do so, we can draw no safe infer- ences respecting the ship’s place when she encoun- tered the gale, a point which it is of importance to determine. The harbour of Phenice no longer retains its name ;* there is, indeed,a place named Pheenikias in Pashley’s map, not far from the position assigned to it by Strabo and Ptolemy ; but this cannot be the port of Phenice, for it is not on the coast; although it may possibly be the city of that name, for Ptolemy 1 , > , 2 ETLCOVTEC ἐφερόμεθα. let her drive. 1 The appropriate nautical term, equivalent to the English one, to scud, is ἀνακωχεύειν, ‘dicitur cum exorta tempestate in mari demptis velis navigium ventis sine repugnatione permittitur.’ (Suidas.) The translation of Giorgi expresses the same meaning, ‘non potente aspi- cere contra ventum, concedentes ferebamur.’ Canon Wordsworth quotes with approval, ‘We gave the ship to the gale and scudded before it.” The action of scudding before the wind could not be more ~ clearly described than it is in the text. 12 "100 CAETE LO MELILA, island! We know that it blew them out of their course towards the island of Clauda; if therefore we know whereabouts the ship was when the gale over- took her, we can form a tolerable estimate of the 1 It is objected to this interpretation of kar’ αὐτῆς that πλοῖον, a neuter noun, has hitherto been used to designate the ship, and therefore had the ship been in the mind'of the writer, it would have been κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Now, without pretending to know the reason, I think it not improbable that there may be occasions in which ναῦς would be a more appropriate term than πλοῖον, and that this may be one of them, just as in modern language there are cases in which the less general term ‘ship ’ would be used in preference to the more general one ‘ vessel.’ In verse 41, St. Luke says ‘they ran the ship ashore,’ ἐπέκειλαν τὴν ναῦν, although in verse 39, where this measure was only contemplated, he speaks of ‘ thrusting the vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) into a creek.’ Assuming this to be the case, I do not consider that we must of necessity refer the pronoun to the last preceding noun. I, however, defer to the opinion of better scholars than myself, and admit the interpretation of Mr. Alford, Mr. Howson, and, I may add, the Rey. Mr. Drake of Coventry, and the Rey. Dr. Miller of Glasgow, who did me the honour to write to me on the subject; the former of whom, alluding to my explanation of κατὰ λίβα, &c., observes, ‘ exactly according with your views, κατ᾽ αὐτῆς means Zown from zt, down from the mountain-gorges of the island.’ So also Mr. Alfore understands it as ‘down the highlands forming the coast.’ Mr. Alford supposes that when they had doubled, or were perhaps now doubling Cape Matala, the wind suddenly changed, and the typhoon ‘ came down upon them from the high lands.’ When I compare what Mr. Alford supposes must have happened to St. Paul and his companions, with what did happen to my friend Cap- tain Spratt, R.N., and in the same circumstances, I am more per- suaded that his view of the passages is the right one. Captain Spratt thus writes me: ‘In respect to the gale of wind I met with after start- ing from Fair Havens for Messara Bay, we left wth a light southerly wind and clear sky—every indication of a fine day, until we rounded the cape (Matala), to haul up for the head of the bay. Then we saw Mount Ida covered in a dense cloud, and met a strong northerly breeze —one of the summer gales so frequent in the Levant, but which in general are accompanied by terrific gusts from those high mountains, the wind blowing direct from Mount Ida.’ -" ee ρον a ee CRETE TO MELITA. ΙΟΙ direction of the wind which drove them thither. Ac- cording to the narrative, it was not long, ov πολύ, after the ship was close to Crete, which can only mean that she had not passed over much of the space interposed between that point and the intended ter- .mination of her voyage, Port Phenice. The term employed by the Evangelist is a relative one, and must mean less than the half. Hence the ship must have been somewhere between Cape Matala, and a point bearing W.N.W., distant seventeen miles. But the former point bears E. 7° N. from Clauda, to which they were driven, and the latter E. 43° N. The wind, therefore, which drove them thither, must have been to the north of E. 7° N,, but .to the east of E. 43° N. The intermediate point, which cannot be so much as a point and a half from the true direction, is E. 25°N., or E.N.E.iN. Another circumstance mentioned in .the narrative indicates the direction of the wind within still narrower limits. When under Clauda they were apprehensive of being driven towards the Syrtis (v.17); but the winds which blow from Clauda towards the Syrtis range between E. 18° N. and E. 37° N., the mean of which is E. 27° 30’ N., and the mean of both deductions is E. 26° 15’ N.,or about E.N.E. 4 N., which cannot deviate so much as one point from the true direction of the wind, and does not differ a quarter of a point from the former determination. Writers, such as Bentley and Penn,'! who have drawn their conclusions from etymological reasons, infer that the wind’ was from the point between Eurus ene. .quilo, or ἘΝ ΕΘ © We have. therefore three separate modes of estimating the direction of the gale 1 See Appendix for the remarks of these writers. 102 CRETE TO MELITA, perfectly independent of each other, and none of them . differing from the other so much as half a point. Now there is not one circumstance mentioned in the subsequent part of the narrative which is not perfectly accounted for upon the supposition that this was the true direction of the wind; I differ, therefore, from the commentators who think that it was not a ‘ point wind,—that is a wind blowing steadily from one point,—for I consider that no change took place in its direction during the remainder of the voyage. The sudden change from a south wind to a violent northerly wind is a common occurrence in these seas.!' - ‘The term ‘ ¢typhonzc, by which it is described, indicates that it was accompanied by some of the phenomena which might be expected in such a case, namely the agitation and whirling motion of the clouds caused by the meeting of the opposite currents of air when the change took place, and probably also of the sea, rais- ing it in columns of spray. Pliny, in describing the effects of sudden blasts, says that they cause a vortex, which is called ‘typhoon ;’? and Gellius, in his ac- count of a storm at sea, notices ‘ frequent whirlwinds,’ 1 Captain J. Stewart, R.N., in his remarks on the Archipelago, observes, ‘It is always safe to anchor under the lee of an island with a northerly wind, as it dies away gradually ; but it would be extremely dangerous with southerly winds, as they almost invariably shift to a vio- lent northerly wind.’ See also the note at p. 100. So also Messrs. Tennent and Brown, when they landed to examine Port Phenice, their vessel being becalmed with light airs from thesouth and south-east, before they could reach the bay, saw a heavy squall from the north blowing out of it ; this blew the yacht, a large powerful vessel of about 200 tons, out to sea, and left the visitors on shore for the night. (See Appendix No. 1.) 2 Lib. ii. c. xlviii. De Repentinis Flatibus : ‘ Vortic:m faciunt qui Typhon vocatur.’ CRETIOIO MELITA, 103 «.... and the dreadful appearances in the clouds which they call typhoons.’! St. Luke therefore by the single word ‘typhonic’ expresses the nature and violence of the gale, and by another, its direction. In the subjoined Dissertation on the wind Euroclydon 1 have stated my reasons for preferring the reading of the most ancient manu- scripts and versions, Euro-aquilo, which must be between Eurus and Aquilo, or E.N.E.? I now proceed to inquire into the effects it pro- duced upon the ship. Nothing more is said in the narrative than that it defeated their object of reaching Port Phenice, and forced them to run under the lee (ὑποδραμόντες ὅ) of Clauda. It will, however, be found τό Νησίον δέ τι ὑποδρα- 16 And having run under μόντες, καλούμενον Καῦδα, a certain island, which is ἰσχύσαμεν μόλις περικρατεῖς called Cauda, we had much γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης, work to come by the boat, 1 Lib. xix. c. i. : ‘Turbines etiam crebriores. . . et figure que- dam nubium metuendz quas tup@vas vocabant.’ NHesychius merely calls it the ‘great wind,’ τυφῶν 6 μέγας ἄνεμος“. 2 This is another question in Biblical criticism set at rest by recent discovery. Since that of the Codex Sinaiticus, no critic, who knows how to weigh evidence, will sanction the word Euroclydon, or suppose that St. Luke could have written the passage ἄνεμος Tupwrixds ὁ καλούμενος εὐροκλύδων, “ἃ typhonic wind which is called an eastern wave’! Canon Wordsworth, Dr. Tregelles, Bornemann, and Lach- mann, in their critical editions adopt the reading εὐρακύλων, and my friends Dean Alford and Dr. Howson, although they at first adhered to the received reading, have also given up Euroclydon. (See Dissertation 1, * On the wind Euroclydon.’ 5 Ὑποδραμόντες, ‘having rum under the lee of.’ St. Luke exhibits here, as on every other occasion, the most perfect command of nautical terms, and gives the utmost precision to his language by selecting the 104 CRETE TO MELITA. that the ship must have strained and suffered severely in her hull, and that the leaks she then sprang were gradually gaining upon the crew, and that if they had not providentially made the land, and been thereby enabled to save their lives by running the ship on shore, she must have foundered at sea, and all on board perished. As the knowledge of this fact can only be gained by circumstantial evidence, and as it throws a clear light upon the subsequent proceedings, it is necessary to state the proofs at some length; but before I do so, I would observe that such a result of a typhoon, not unfrequent in modern times, seems to have been almost inevitable in ancient times. Pliny calls the ty phoon— ‘The chief pest of seamen, destructive not ond to the spars but to the hull itself.’ ! In the accounts of shipwrecks which have come down to us from ancient times, the loss of the ship must, in a great number of instances, be ascribed to this cause. Josephus tells us that on his voyage to Italy the ship sank in the midst of the Adriatic Sea.? He and some of his ‘companions saved themselves by swimming ; the ship, therefore, did not go down during the gale, but in consequence of the damage she sustained during its continuance. One of St. most appropriate ; they ran before the wind to leeward of Clauda, hence it is ὑποδραμόντες : they sailed with a side wind to leeward of Cyprus and Crete ; hence it is ὑπεπλεύσομεν. 1 ¢Preecipua navigantium pestis non antennas modo verum ipsa navigia contorta frangens.’ (Lib. 11. cap. xlviii.) 2 Βαπτισθέντος γὰρ ἡμῶν Tov πλοίου κατὰ μέσον Tov ᾿Αδρίαν. (Vita, c. iil.) ΘΟΕ TO! MELT A> 105 Paul’s shipwrecks must have taken place under the same circumstances; for he tells us, ‘a day and a night I have been in the deep,’ supported, no doubt, on spars or fragments of the wreck, or it may be in boats. In Virgil’s description of the casualties of the ships of A‘neas, some are driven on rocks, others on quicksands ; but, Ἵ ‘Laxis laterum compagibus omnes Accipiunt inimicum imbrem, rimisque fatiscunt.’ The fact, that the ships of the ancients were pro- vided with hypozomata, or cables ready fitted for undergirding, as a necessary part of their stores, proves how liable they were to such casualties ; and I may add as another proof the frequent notice of lightening ships we meet with in ancient authors. In the present narrative they occur not less than three times. In the ship of Jonah it is stated that ‘they cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea to lighten it’ G. 5); and Juvenal, in describing the dangers encountered by Catullus, not only uses similar language, but assigns the reason— ‘Cum plenus fluctu medius foret alveus, ... . pie “decidcre jaetur’ (Sed ae.) It is easy to account for the comparative immu- nity of modern ships from such casualties. The most obvious cause is the improvement in naval architec- ture ; but another, and I suspect a more efficient one, is the manner in which they were rigged. In modern times the strain is spread over three masts, with small sails which can be quickly taken in; but the ancient 106 CRETE TOTMELITA, ships had to sustain the leverage of a single mast, with a ponderous yard at the upper end. We can scarcely suppose that St. Paul’s ship escaped un- ‘injured. The circumstances mentioned, of her being undergirded, lightened, and finally run ashore, afford conclusive evidence that she did not. Keeping this in view, we may form some idea of the hardships the ship’s company endured. St. Luke shared them all; but he never mentions them, except on one occasion, and that was to illustrate a passage in the lite of St, ‘Paul. At the time the ship was caught in the gale, she must have been near a small group of islands, called the Paximades, in the Gulf of Messara. The island of Clauda lay about twenty-three miles to leeward, and thither they were driven, as the expression ἐπιδόντες ἐφερόμεθα (ver. 15)! implies, before the gale. Upon reaching it they availed themselves of the smooth water under its lee, to prepare the ship to resist the fury of the storm. Their first care was to secure the boat, by hoisting it on board. This had not been done at first, because the weather was mo- derate, and the distance they had to go short. Under such circumstances it is not usual to hoist the boats on board, but it had now become necessary. In running down upon Clauda it could not be done, on account of the ship’s way through the water. To enable them to do it, the ship must have ‘been 1 Rightly rendered by Canon Wordsworth, ‘ We gave the ship to the gale and scudded before it,’ ad ἐπιδόντες. supplendum 7d πλοῖον quod preecessit. Heliod. “thzof. i. 3, τοῦ κυβερνήτου ἐνδόντος (scil. τὸ πλοῖον) τῷ ἀνέμῳ. . . Herod. 11]. 30, ἐφέροντο κατὰ κῦμα καὶ ἄνεμον. (Note on the passage. ) CRETE TO MELITA. 107 rounded to, with her head to the wind, and her sails if she had any set at the time trimmed, so that she might have no head way, or progressive movement. ‘The boats then hoisted in are fix’d on board And on the deck with fastening gripes secured.’ (‘Shipwreck,’ canto ii.) In this position the ship would drift bodily to leeward. I conclude that they passed round the east end of the island ; not only because it was nearest, but because there are dangers at the opposite end.! In this case the ship would be brought to on the star- board tack,—that is, with the right side to windward.” This must be kept in mind, because it throws light upon a subsequent passage. St. Luke tells us that they had much difficulty in securing the boat (v. 16). He does not say why ; but independently of the gale which was raging at the time, the boat had been 17 “Uy ἄοαντες βοηθείαις 17 Which when they had ἐχρῶντο ὑποζωννύντες τὸ taken up, they used helps, πλοῖον" undergirding the ship ; 1 ¢ An extensive reef, with numerous rocks, extends from Gozo to the N. W., which renders the passage between the two isles very dan- gerous.’ (Sazling Directions Ὁ. 207.) ‘On peut passer entre Gozo et Gozo Pulo ; il faut de la pratique, et nous ne voyons pas la nécessité de s’engager dans un passage dangereux.’ (Zanuel de Pilotage, Ὁ. 412.) 2 «J consider the ship to have drifted with her starboard side to- wards the wind, or on the starboard tack, as a sailor expresses it. When the south wind blew softly, the ship was slowly sailing along the coast of Crete with her starboard side towards the land, or towards the north . . . The storm came on her starboard side, and in this manner . she drifted.’ (Admiral Penrose’s observations ; Conybeare and Howson, vol. 11. p. 339.) 108 CRETE TO MELITA. towed between twenty and thirty miles after the gale sprung up, and could scarcely fail to be filled with | water. Having accomplished this necessary task, . their next care was to undergird the ship, which the state in which she was had rendered imperative. This expedient is so rarely had recourse to in modern times, that I have only met with one naval officer who had seen it put in practice, although almost all of my nautical friends whom I have consulted, could furnish me with instances in which they had heard of its being done. The officer to whom I allude, Mr. Henry Smartley, who was master of the Royal Sove- reign, was employed in 1815, to pilot the Russian fleet from England to the Baltic. One of the ships (the Jupiter) was frapped round the middle by three or four turns of a stream cable. Mr. Smartley is father to the talented marine painter, Mr. Smartley of Jersey ; and it was under his direction that the under- girding is represented in the view which I have given of the ship anchored by the stern. The mode in which ships are undergirded is thus described by Falconer, in his ‘ Marine Dictionary :’— ‘To frap a ship (cecntrer un vatsseau) is to pass four or five turns of a large cable-laid rope round the hull or frame of a ship, to support her in a great storm, or otherwise, when it is apprehended that she is not strong enough to resist the violent efforts of the sea ; this expedient, however, is rarely put in practice.’ It would not be difficult to multiply instances where this mode of strengthening ships has been put in practice in modern times ;! I content myself with 1 The Albion, 74, encountered a hurricane on her voyage from India, and was under the necessity of frapping her hull together, in ΟΕ LORMELIT A: 109 the latest I can find. Captain (now Sir George) Back, on his perilous return from his Arctic voyage, in. 1837, was forced, in consequence of the shattered and leaky condition of his ship, to undergird her. It was thus done :— ‘A length of the stream chain-cable was passed under the bottom of the ship four feet before the mizen mast, hove tight by the capstan, and finally immovably fixed to six ring- bolts on the quarter-deck. The effect was at once mani- fested by a great diminution in the working of the parts already mentioned ; and in a less agreeable way, by im- peding her rate of sailing ; a trifling consideration, however when compared with the benefit received.’ ! We are told, that subsequent to this they met with a gale :— , ‘The water rushed in violently below, more especially about the stern-post and heel-hook, and oozing through ‘ different parts higher up, fell like a cascade into the bread- room and run . . . While apprehensive that further injury had been sustained about the keel, another length of chain was passed under the bottom and set well tight to a part of itself, across the after part of the quarter-deck.’ (P. 438.) ? We are next told by St. Luke, ‘that being appre- hensive of being driven towards the Syrtis, they low- ered the gear. It is not easy to imagine a more order to prevent her sinking. (United Service Mag. May 1846.) The Queen came home from Jamaica frapped or undergirded ; and the Blenheim, in which Sir Thomas Troubridge was lost, left India frapped. See other instances in Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul, vol. li, p. 337, note. * Voyage, Ρ. 433- 2 See details of undergirding in Dissertation on Ancient Ships. IIo CRETE! TO WELLL A. erroneous translation than that of our authorised version :— ‘Fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, strake sail, and so were driven.’ (Ver. 17.) It is in fact equivalent to saying that, fearing a certain danger, they deprived themselves of the only possible means of avoiding it.’ It is not by striking mast or sail that such dangers are to be avoided. I have already shown that the same wind which drove them, ‘when yielding to it’ (ἐπιδόντες), to Clauda, would, if they had continued to scud, have driven them directly towards the Syrtis. Under the circumstances in which they were now placed, they had but one course to pursue in order to avoid the apprehended danger, which was to turn the ship’s head off shore, and to set such sail as the violence of Do Bovperoi τε μὴ εἰς τὴν Σύρ- And, fearing lest they should τιν ἐκπέσωσιν, χαλάσαντες τὸ fall into the quicksands, δκεῦος, οὕτως ἐφέροντο. lowered the gear, and: so were driven. 1 Of course, if any sail were set it could not be the mast which was lowered, as many commentators suppose ; indeed, it is not possible to suppose that the main-masts of large sailing ships were made to strike, like those of a Thames barge, although no doubt those of the row- galleys were :— Ἔν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν Ἱστὸν ἄφαρ χαλάσαντο. (Apollonius Rhodius, ii. 1267.) Juvenal tells us that the mast of the ship of Catullus.was ‘cut away’ (Saz. xii. 54), and recommends his friends to provide themselves with hatchets before going to sea : Adspice sumendas in tempestate secures.’ (Saz. xii. 61.) CRETE. TO MELITH. 111 the gale would permit them to carry. As they did avoid the danger, we may be certain, notwithstanding the silence of the historian, that this was the course which was adopted. I have already assigned my rea- sons for supposing that the ship must have been laid to on the starboard tack under the lee of Clauda, for it was only on this tack that it was possible to avoid being driven on the African coast ; when, therefore, they had taken every precaution against foundering which prudence or skilful seamanship could dictate, all that was required was to fill their storm sail, pro- bably already set, and to stand on. The question remains to be answered, What is the meaning of the expression ‘lowering the gear,’ "χαλά- σαντες TO σκεῦος Ὁ Σκεῦος, which I have translated ‘gear,’ ' when applied to a ship, means appurtenances of every kind, such as spars, sails, rigging, anchors and cables, &c. Now, every ship situated as this one was, when preparing for a storm, sends down upon deck the ‘top-hamper, or gear connected with the fair-weather sails, such as the suffara, or top-sails. A modern ship sends down top-gallant masts and yards ;* a cutter strikes her topmast, when preparing for a gale. The author here, as elsewhere, states the fact, but gives no details; a seaman could scarcely 1 Rightly translated by Bockh, ‘Gerathe;’ Scoticé, ‘Graith.’ ‘There I beheld a galeasse gazly graithit for the weyr, lyand fast at ane ankir ’ (Complaynte of Scotland), i.e. ‘ Gallantly furnished for the war.’ M. Jal, whose courage asa translator is more conspicuous than his caution, amusingly renders it—‘ Qui virait gaiement sur I’ancre.’ * Gower in his Zveatise on Seamanship, gives the following in- structions for preparing for a gale:--‘Let the top-gallant yards and masts, mizen-topsail yard, mizen yard, and cross-jack yard, be got down on deck, that the ship may be made as snug as possible.’ (P. 54.) 112 CKRELE: ΤΟΥ ΖΕ ΙΑ, have avoided doing so, if he had mentioned the cir- cumstance at all. It is unnecessary to multiply in- stances which are so common as to occur in almost every account of a storm at sea; I content myself, therefore, by giving a parallel case with the present, namely that of one who was not a seaman, but was perfectly cognisant of nautical matters, Donald Camp- bell of Barbreck.! On his passage from Goa to Madras he was shipwrecked on the coast of Malabar. Many of the events bear a striking resemblance to those recorded by St. Luke in his account. ‘ Lower- ing the gear’ is mentioned in the following terms :— ‘Such exertions were made that, before morning, every stick that could possibly be struck was down upon the deck. The only plausible conjecture I have met with respecting what was lowered, is that of Pricaeus, who supposes it was ‘not the mast, but the yard with the sail attached to it.? This, indeed, is but a conjec- ture, but it is a probable one. We know, from the representations on coins and marbles, that the an- cients were in the habit of furling their sails aloft ; and unless the main-yard was lowered when the ship was running before the wind, which we are not told was the case, it must have been done now. This, however, is but conjecture ; and, in such an inquiry as the present, it is necessary to distinguish between conjecture and inference. At all events, we may con- clude with perfect certainty, that their object in ‘lowering the gear’ was to enable them to avoid the Syrtis ; because we are, in effect, told that it was so, 1 Yourney to India, pt. iil. p. 16. 2 «Non malum, sed cum appenso veloantennam,’ (Priceus in log.) CRE TEVWIOUMELIT A. 113 —‘fearing lest they should be driven to the Syrtis, they lowered the gear.’ This alone, however, was not sufficient to have kept the ship off a lee shore. There were but two ways by which that could have been effected. She might have been anchored,! or her head might have been turned off shore, and such sail set as the violence of the gale would permit her to carry. We know that the first of the alternatives was not adopted ; we must therefore conclude that the last was, for by no other way could she have avoided the apprehended danger. A ship at sea, in a gale, must either scud or lie-to. In the present case, to have adopted the former alter- native would have been to have rushed on certain destruction. Falconer, in his notes on the shipwreck, observes :— ‘The movement of scudding is never attempted ina contrary wind unless, as in the present instance, the condition of the ship rendered her incapable of any longer sustaining on her side the mutual effort of the wind and waves. The principal hazards incident to scudding are generally a pooping sea; the difficulty of steering, which exposes the vessel perpetually to the risk of broaching-to ; and the want of sufficient sea-room. A sea striking the ship violently on the stern may dash it inwards, by which she must inevitably founder ; in broaching-to suddenly, she is threatened with being immediately over-set ; and for want of sea-room she is endangered with shipwreck on a lea-shore, a circumstance too dreadful to require explanation.’ This last must have been the inevitable consequence, 1 There is an anchorage at Clauda; but it is open to the E.N.E., and therefore would have afforded no shelter in the present case. I 114 CRETE ΤῸ MELITA. had the ship been allowed to be driven at the mercy of the winds, as is generally supposed. The only question which now remains to be an- swered is, Which tack was the ship laid-to upon? The answer is not difficult : if it had been on the port tack, that is, with her left side to the wind, she must have inevitably drifted upon the coast of Africa, with the wind at E.N.E., as we have proved it to have been,! and would, moreover, have been driven com- pletely out of her course. We are thus forced to the conclusion, when we are told that ‘they were thus borne along, οὕτως ἐφέροντο, that it was not only with the ship undergirded and_ made snug, but that she had storm sails set,? and was on the starboard tack, which was the only course by which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis. With this notice concludes the first eventful day. On the following day (τῇ ἑξῆς, ver. 18), the gale continuing unabated, they lightened the ship.? Every 18 Σφοδρῶς δὲ χειμαζομέ- 18 And we being exceed- νων ἡμῶν τῇ ἑξῆς ἐκβολὴν ingly tossed with a tempest, ἐποιοῦντο, the next day they lightened the ship. 1 See Dissertation on Euroclydon. 2 ‘In a storm with a contrary wind or on a lee-shore, a ship is obliged to lie-to under a very low sail ; some sail is absolutely necessary to keep the ship steady, otherwise she would pitch about like a cork, and roll so deep as to strain and work herself to pieces.’ (Zzcyc. Brit. art. ‘Seamanship.’) . 3. The technical terms for taking cargo out of a ship, given by Julius Pollux, are, ἐκθέσθαι, ἀποφορτίσασθαι, κουφίσαι τὴν ναῦν, ἐπελά- φρυναι, ἐκβολὴν ποιήσασθαι τῶν φορτίων. So that both here and after- wards in the 38th verse, when St. Luke says, ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον, he uses appropriate technical phrases. CRETE TO MELITA. 115 step hitherto taken indicates skilful seamanship. In an old French work on maritime law,' I find every one of these precautions pointed out as proper to be taken by able mariners under similar circumstances. Ist. With regard to undergirding, the author ob- serves :— ‘Il y a des mariniers habiles, lesquels prévoyant les tourmentes, plongent en l’eau, ceignent ou rident par bas tout le corps du navire avec des guerlins nommez en Levant gomenes, c’est a dire, grosses cordes, ce quil’asszste et le rend plus puissant a résister aux secousses.’ (P. 528.) 2nd. ‘ Lowering the gear :’— * Abatsser les mats de hune ou mdfereaux.’ 3rd. ‘ Laying the ship to :’— ‘Dans le péril convient caposer ou mettre le navire ἃ la cape, c’est ἃ dire, amarrer le gouvernail bien ferme et im- mobile pour suivre abandon du vent ; trousser toutes les voiles sauf le pafi (mainsail, old French), qu’on laisse bour- ‘soufler, d’autant que le vent s’enfermant en iceluy pousse en haut le vaisseau, le soulagent beaucoup au hurt et ἃ la tombée.’ 4th. ‘ Lightening the ship :’— ‘Pour prévenir le malheur en ces occurrences et pour se conserver, le jet est nécessaire, ‘‘echason a la mar de lo qui viene en la nave para salvarla.”’ On the third day they threw overboard ‘the tackling of the ship’ (ver. 19). From the expression 1 Os et Coutumes dela Mer. Rouen, 1672. 1 2 116 “CRETE TO MELITA. ‘with our! own hands, αὐτόχειρες, I suppose the main-yard is meant ; an immense spar, probably as long as the ship, which would require the united efforts of passengers and crew to launch overboard. The relief which a ship would experience by this, would be of the same kind as in a modern ship when the guns are thrown overboard. A dreary interval of eleven days succeeds; the gale continues with unabated fury (σφοδρῶς δὲ χειμα- ζομένων) ; neither sun nor stars can be observed ; and at length we are told that ‘all hope of being saved was taken away.’ But why was all hope taken away ? An ancient ship, without a compass and without celestial observation, had no means of keeping a 19 Kat τῇ τρίτῃ αὐτόχειρες \ Ν - ! 9, τὴν σκευὴν τοῦ πλοίου ἔριψαν. \ , 20 Μήτε δὲ ἡλίον μήτε of 3 ͵ 3 \ , ἄστρων ἐπιφαινόντων ἐπὶ TAEL- ονας ἡμέρας, χειμῶνός τε οὐκ ἐπικειμένον, λοιπὸν ὀλίγον περιῃρεῖτο ἐλπὶξρ πᾶσα τοῦ ἊΨ. ς - σώζεσϑαι ἡμᾶς. 21 Πολλῆς τε ὑπαρχούσης τότε σταθεὶς ὁ > ,ὔ ἀσιτίας Παῦλος ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν εἶπεν 1g And the third day they cast out with their own hands the tackling of the ship. 20 And when neither ‘sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tem- pest lay on ws, all hope that we should be saved was then ~ taken away. 21 But after long absti- nence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, 1 [The MS. authority (A, B, δὲ, C, &c.) is conclusive for ἔριψαν, ‘ they threw overboard,’ instead of the received ἐρρίψαμεν, ‘we threw.’ — τὴν σκευὴν, which Alford explains ‘the furniture of the ship—beds, — movables of all kinds, cooking utensils, and the spare rigging,’ is pro- bably distinct from τὸ σκεῦος in ver. 17.] CRETE TO MELITA. ΕἸ reckoning. This was no doubt a situation of danger, but not one of despair, for she might have been driven into safety. The true explanation, I appre- hend, is this: their exertions to subdue the leak had -been unavailing; they could not tell which way to make for the nearest land, in order to run their ship ashore, the only resource for a sinking ship; but unless they did make the land, they must founder at sea. Their apprehensions therefore were not so much caused by the fury of the tempest, as by the state of the ship. We are now told that after much abstinence Paul addressed them ; but before we hear his address the question occurs, what caused the abstinence ? A ship with nearly three hundred people on board, on a voyage of some length, must have had more than _a fortnight’s provisions ; in point of fact the ship was loaded with wheat, as we learn afterwards ; and it is not enough to say that, ‘worn out with their labours and fears, they did not think of eating.’ Now, although the connection between heavy gales and ‘much abstinence’ is by no means obvious, yet we find it is one of their most frequent concomitants. The impossibility of cooking, or the destruction of provisions from leakage, are the principal causes which produce it. Breydenbach, the dean of Mentz, in his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, experienced two gales of wind,’ and very feelingly records the absti- 1 «Continui labores et metus a periculis effecerant ut de cibo capi- endo non cogitarent.’ (Kuinoel.) 2 Mentz, 1486. See account of this curious work in Dibdin’s Ades Althorpiane, and the Fournal of the Geographical Society, vol. ix. P- 311; a3 it is not paged, I count thg leaves from the end. 118 CRETE TO» MELITA. nence that ensued on each occasion. In one case a sea struck their vessel, and ‘destroyed their caboose or cooking-place, and broke everything within it ;! in the other he tells us ‘there was no thought of eating or drinking, because the cooking-place was altogether under water.’ ἢ John Newton, the celebrated vicar of Olney, in his interesting autobiography, relates a circumstance which occurred in his own experience of sea life ; on a voyage from Cape Lopez a sea struck his ship, and strained her so much that she nearly foundered :— ‘We found that the water having floated all our mov- ables in the hold, all the casks of provisions had been beaten in pieces by the violent motion of the ship. On the other hand, our live stock, such as pigs, sheep, and poultry, had been washed overboard in the storm ; in effect, all the pro- visions we saved . . . would have subsisted us but a week, at a scanty allowance.’ (Omicron’s ‘ Letters,’ letter vil.) In the case of the ‘Guipuscoa, the Spanish ship mentioned in Anson’s Voyage, those who could work 1 «Porro tempestate illa durante cum naves ab invicem longius essent separate, una vi ventorum acta ad latus nostre galez grandi impetu impegit vehementer barcamque collateralem dirupit penitus, et destruxit nostram vero coquinam fregit earum et omnia quz in ea erant.’ —19th leaf from the end. On the same leaf will be found the following invocation by the mariners to the Virgin, which I Have not met with elsewhere :— ‘Sa've, Splendor Firmamenti ! Tu caliginosz menti Desuper irradia. Placa mare, Maris Stella ! Ne involvat nos procella Et tempestas obvia.’ 2 *Nec fuit memoria cibi aut potus hac tempestate, quia coquina era in aquis tota.’ (76. 17th fol. from end.) CRETE FO MELITA: 119 at the pumps were reduced to an ounce and a half of biscuit per diem ; those who could not were allowed an ounce of wheat. To some such cause the absti- nence mentioned by St. Luke may doubtless be ascribed. The hardships which the crew endured during a _ gale of such continuance, and their exhaustion from labour at the pumps and hunger, may be imagined, but are not described. Under these circumstances St. Paul encourages them by the assurance that their lives would be spared. He thus addresses them :— ‘Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. And now I exhort you to be of good cheer ; for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night, an angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul ; thou must be brought before Cesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer ; for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me. Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain island.’ "Ἔδει μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πειθαρχή- σαντάς μοι μὴ ἀνάγεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης κερδῆσαί τε τὴν ea ΄ \ ᾿ - , upply ταυτην καὶ τὴν ζημέαν. 22 Καὶ τὰ νῦν παραινῶ ε - Ε - ᾽ ay \ ‘ ὑμᾶς εὐθυμεῖν, ἀποβολὴ γὰρ - iN ΄ of eS ᾿ς ψυχῆς οὐδεμία ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν " \ - ΄ πλὴν τοῦ πλοίυν. 23 Παρέστη γάρ μοι , - - - ΓᾺ ταύτῃ πῇ τυκτὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὗ ε ε εἰ , - "Ἢ \ λ ἐν , 4 \ tl, ᾧ καὶ AaTpevw, ἄγγελος, Sirs, ye should have hear- kened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. 22. And now I exhort you to be of good cheer : for there shall be no loss of azy man’s life among you, but of the ship. 23 For there stood by me this night an angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, 120 CRETE TO MELITA. At length, on the fourteenth night of their being ‘driven through’ (διαφερομένων) the sea of Adria, towards midnight the seamen suspected (ὑπενόουν) that land was near (προσάγειν αὐτοῖς, literally, was nearing them '). indications were ; St. Luke does not tell us what the and the only conjecture I have seen is that of Balmer that they became aware of it by the sense of smell. He says :— ‘Ils soupconnérent lapproche de la terre, non par la vue, parce que c’était ἃ minuit et qu’ils étaient dans des pro- fondes ténébres, mais apparemment par l’odeur de la terre, ou par la fraicheur, ou par les vents.’ 24 Aéywv Μὴ φυβοῦ, Παῦλε' Καίσαρί σε δεῖ tapa- στῆναι, καὶ ἰδοὺ κεχάρισταί σοι ὁ Θεὸς πάντας τοὺς πλέοντας μετὰ σοῦ. 25 Διὸ εὐθυμεῖτε, ἀνδρες" πιστεύω γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ ὅτι οὕτως ἔσται καθ᾽ ὃν τρόπον λελάληταί μοι. 26 Εἰς νῆσον δέ τινα δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐκπεσεῖν. 27 Qe δὲ τεσσαρεσκαιδε- κάτη νὺξ ἐγένετο διαφερομένων ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ᾿Δδρίᾳ, κατὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτὸς ὑπενόυυν οἱ ναῦται προσάγειν τινὰ αὐτοῖς χώρα:". 24 Saying, Fear not, Paul ; thou must be brought before Czesar : and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. 25 Wherefore, sirs, be of © good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me. 26 Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain island. 27 But when the four- teenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country ; 1 St. Luke here uses the graphic language of seamen, to whom the ship is the principal object, whilst the land rises and sinks, nears and recedes— ‘ Terreeque urbesque recedunt.’ The word χώραν evidently means the land as distinguished from the sea. CRETE TO MELITA., 121 But all these. conjectures require off-shore winds. A storm on the face of a lee shore is not the time when— ‘Gentle gales, Fanning their odoriferous wings, dispense Native perfumes, and whisper whence they stole Their balmy spoils.’ The only other conjecture is that they saw or heard the breakers on a rocky coast. Such are the usual premonitory warnings to ships unexpectedly falling in with the land at night. If we assume that St. Paul’s Bay, in Malta, is the actual scene of the shipwreck, we can have no diffi- culty in explaining what these indications must have been. No ship can enter it from the east without passing within a quarter of a mile of the point of Koura; but before reaching it the land is too low, and too far from the track of a ship driven from the eastward, to be seen in a dark night. When she does come within this distance, it is impossible to avoid observing the breakers ; for with north-easterly gales the sea breaks upon it with such violence, that Admiral Smyth, in his view of the headland, has made the breakers its distinctive character, realising Campbell’s line— ‘The white wave foaming to the distant sky.’ By a singular chance I can establish an important link in the chain of evidence respecting the identity of this locality, namely that the distance at which the breakers could be seen here is about a quarter of a mile, and that they are seen at this distance when the land itself is not seen. 122: | -CRETE TO \MELITA:? On one of those rare occasions when there was no ground-swell and a boat could land on the point of Koura, I landed with my friend the Rev. Mr. Robert- son of Saline, and was engaged in demonstrating to him upon the spot, how rigidly every one of the con- ditions required to make it agree with the narrative was here fulfilled. To the east lay the low and - receding shores of Malta, nowhere ‘approaching’ within a mile of the track of a ship coming from . Clauda, and which therefore could not be seen ona night such as that described in the narrative. In the opposite direction the shore, begirt with mural pre- cipices (τραχεῖς τόπου9), where a ship would be dashed to pieces, but with ‘creeks with shores,’ into which she might be thrust ; and on the rocks where we stood, net more than twenty feet above the surface of the sea, and totally destitute of vegetation, lay | huge fragments of rock, forcibly torn up by the waves, and lodged at least twelve feet above the level of a tideless sea, affording no doubtful evidence of what must have been the force of the breakers in a. gale from the Greco Levante E.N.E. (Euro-aquilo), the point at which it is most exposed. One of our boatmen, who was listening attentively, said he knew what I was speaking about, and could point out the spot of the shipwreck; that he was a boy when it happened, and had gone to sce the ship next day. This produced an explanation. He told us that thirty or forty years ago, the ‘ Lively’ frigate fell in unexpectedly with the point, in a dark night, and, missing stays, had run ashore at a spot which he showed us, and that, a gale coming on, she had gone to pieces. CRETE TQ MELITA.: 123 Struck with the coincidence, on my return to England I applied at the Admiraity, and examined the proceedings of the court-martial held on the officers of the ship, from which it appears that on August 10, 1810, the ‘Lively’ frigate, coming from the westward with a fair wind, made the land of Gozo and the west end of Malta before it was dark. The weather, however, afterwards turned thick, and the land was lost sight of. When the captain (M‘Kinlay) went below, he left orders with the master to heave the ship to at a certain hour, to get her put in order, before running into the harbour of Valetta next morning. This was accordingly done; but the ship was, unfortunately, and against the opinion of the Lieutenant of the watch (Lieu- tenant, now Admiral Lord Fitzhardinge), brought to with her head in-shore. Soon afterward the quarter- master on the look-out gave the alarm of rocks to leeward.! He states, in his evidence, that he did not see the land, but ‘the curl of the sea’ upon the rocks, at the distance of about a quarter of a mile. This was upon the point of Koura, the very spot where a ship driving from the east into St. Paul’s Bay must 1 In reporting to the master, the quartermaster said there was neither room to ta:k nor wear, but ‘if all was thrown aback the ship might back out stern foremost.’ There can be no doubt but that if this plan had been adepted, the ship would have drifted clear of the point ; but the officers could not know hew far the rocks extended, and there was no reason to fear that the frigate, 27. properly handled, would ‘ miss stays ;’ this was evidently the opinion of the court, who put repeated questions as to the cause of the ship’s not coming round: one of the witnesses attribut d it to the confusion caused by the captain’s coming suddenly on deck, another to a brace being let go too soon. The master was reduced in rank for bringing the ship to with her head in- shore. 124 ‘CRETE TO.MELITA. have seen and heard the breakers, and the only spot where she could have done so. Upon perceiving the danger, the order ‘ready about and clear the.anchor’ was immediately given by Lieutenant Berkeley ; and as they were bracing round the maintop-sail to fill upon the ship, the man at the lead sounded, and found twenty-five fathoms. Before, however, she had suffi- cient way upon her, the helm was put down; but the ship missed stays, that is they could not get her head round on the opposite tack. The anchor was then let go; but before the ship brought up, she ΕΠ ἡ broadside on the rocks, and a gale coming on she went to pieces. Before proceeding to compare the notices in the narrative with the peculiarities of the supposed site, let us stop to inquire whether the data with which this inquiry has furnished us will not enable us to as- certain, within certain limits, by @ przorz reasoning, whereabouts the ship was, that is her longitude and latitude, when the ‘shipmen deemed that she drew near to some country.’ I have already shown, from three independent sources, that the wind must have been E.N.E. iN. to the nearest quarter of a point; and that the ship must have been on the starboard tack, that is with her head to the north, in order to avoid the Syrtis, The first question which presents itself is, what was the direction of the drift mentioned in the seven- teenth verse, ‘so were driven’ (οὕτως ἐφέροντο). The answer depends on the angle the ship’s head makes 1 This does not appear from the proceedings of the court ; but one of our boatmen told us he assisted in sweeping for it, and that it was found many years afterwards. CRETE TO MELITA. 125 with the wind and the lee-way. But an ancient ship could probably not lie nearer the wind than seven points, which added to six points of lee-way, makes thirteen points, as the angle which such a ship would probably make with the wind.! E.N.E. 3} N. is 22 points to the north of east : if we add thirteen to this, it makes the azimuth of the ship’s course from Clauda W. 2N., or W. 8° N., which ἐς the bearing of Malta to the nearest degree. The next point to be ascertained is, how far would she have driven from Clauda about midnight ‘ when the fourteenth night was come.’ The knowledge of this depends upon the rate of drift and the time con- sumed. The result. which the calculations. founded upon these data gives us is so very striking, that I feel called upon to state the elements on which it is founded at some length, lest I should be accused of ‘cooking’ them—that is of selecting those only which answered my purpose, and rejecting those which did not. In order to ascertain what might be supposed to be the mean rate of drift of a ship circumstanced as that of St. Paul was, I consulted two nautical friends, both of them at the time commanding ships in Valetta harbour, and both of them familiar with the navigation of the Levant. To the first of these officers whom I met with (the late Captain W. 1 T arrive at these results thus : ancient ships could sail on opposite tacks, ‘in contrariam’ (Pliny, ii. 48), hence they could lie with eight points of the wind, but they certainly could not lie so near the wind as modern ships, say six points; the mean, therefore, is seven points. The lee-way of a ship in a gale varies from 54 to 6} points (see Fal- coner’s Marine Dictionary, article ‘ Lee-way’) ; the mean of which is six points, 126 CRETE: TO MELITA.: M‘Lean, R.N.), I put the question, ‘What would you say would be the probable rate of drift of a ship laid to ina gale of wind?’ His answer was, ‘ That de- pends on the force of the gale and the size of the ship. Upon explaining that I considered it a large ship, even as compared with modern merchantmen, and that the gale might be reckoned as one of mean intensity, he said, after considering the matter,’ that speaking in round numbers forty miles in twenty- four hours might be reckoned a fair allowance. I put the same question to Captain Graves, R.N., who replied, ‘From three-quarters of a mile an hour to two miles an hour. The mean of these extremes is thirty-three miles in twenty-four hours, and the mean of both estimates is thirty-six and a half miles in twenty-four hours.! I come now to the time elapsed. It is quite clear from the narrative that St. Luke counts the time from the day the ship left Fair Havens. We hear of the ‘third day’ (ver. 19); the preceding is termed ‘ next day,’ which brings us to the first day both of the gale and the voyage. It is also clear that the events of that day must have occupied a large portion of it. The time consumed in driving through the Sea of Adria, from the time they left the island of Clauda till they became aware of the vicinity of land at mid- night of the fourteenth day, is therefore thirteen days complete and a small fraction. But the distance from Clauda to the point of Koura, where I suppose 1 When Captain Graves said from three-quarters of a mile to two miles an hour, I replied, ‘Very well, I may suppose a mile and a half an hour about a mean rate,’ to which he assented, agreeing exactly with Admiral Penrose’s estimate of the probable rate of drift. CRELTEVMIO MELITA. .. 127 that this happened, is 4766 miles, which, at the rate as deduced from the information of Captains M‘Lean and Graves, would take exactly thirteen days, one hour, and twenty-one minutes.! The coincidence of the actual bearing of St. Paul’s Bay from Clauda, and the direction in which a ship must have driven in order to avoid the Syrtis, is if possible still more striking than that of the time actually consumed, and the calculated time. The direction of the ship’s course is inferred from that of the wind, from the angle of the ship’s head with the wind, and from the lee-way. I have shown (see p. 101) that the mean direction of the wind, as deduced from the notices in the narrative, was E. 26°15’ N. In the Dissertation on Ancient Ships I have assigned reasons for supposing seven points as the angle a ship’s head would make with the wind, which, added to six points for lee-way, makes an angle of 146° 15’, which, added to the angle of the wind, makes the azimuth of the ship’s course, as 1 This distance is deduced from the position of the places by the following formula :-— Lat. N. Lon. E. Point of Koura, 35° 56’ mer. parts 2313 14°. 25) Clauda, 34 52 mer. parts 2235 DAF 02, PUG ese hE) ae OA! Diff. 8 Dil 9° χη 577" | As mer. diff. of AS Fads Siar a) ek Gh 8 ΓΟ ΘΙ. 5)010, lat. 78 . log. 1°892095 is to diff. lat. 64°. . 1°806180 isto τοῦ" ο΄ .~ 40000000 sO is sec. course ΞΟ ΞΟ 577 « 270. 1,60, a4 825 79! oo. ν᾿, 12°872007 12°761176 12°678187 1°892395 10°000000 to tang. course 10°869081 to distance 4766. . 2°678187 ae ri an 128 \ CRETE TO MELITA. drawn: from these data, E. 172° 30’ N., or N. 82° 30’ W., which agrees with the bearing of St. Paul’s Bay, 82° 17',as drawn from the foregoing calculation to 13’, which at the distance between Clauda and Malta is equivalent about two miles and a half. Hence according to these calculations, a ship starting late in the evening from Clauda would, by midnight on the 14th, be less than three miles from the entrance of St. Paul’s Bay. . I admit that aicomer dence so very close as this, is to.a certainvextens accidental, but it is an accident which could not have happened had there been any inaccuracy on the part of the author of the narrative with regard to the numerous incidents upon which the calculations are founded, or had the ship been wrecked anywhere but at Malta, for there is no other place agreeing, either in name or description, within the limits to which we are tied down by calculations founded upon the narrative. Q SS 2. Half a Mile (1009 Yards) 3 MN Seale te. PAUL'S BAY Ig fae ¥ trom the Survey by Adm! Smyth Ὁ 9 ( δ ἱ fb 7 (( 5 τ Dae nt) Wf te ΕΝ τον ὩΣ & se \\ A bath ἢ ΟΣ WG ; δ ἘΞ: gee τ δι ἐστ Poa | ett 5 a = Hy ya a “i CHATEER: TV. ΡΜ P WRECK. THE ship now approaches the termination of her disastrous voyage. Land is not indeed in sight, but to the watchful senses of the ‘shipmen’ the sound or appearance of breakers tells them that it is near, or in the nautical language of St. Luke, that it is approach- ing. Such indications are the usual harbingers of destruction ; here they call forth a display of presence of mind, promptitude and seamanship, which could not be surpassed in the present day, and by which, under Providence, the lives of all on board were saved. However appalling the alarm of breakers may be to a ship unexpectedly falling in with the land on an unknown coast, and in a dark and stormy night, it afforded in the present case a chance at least of safety. The hope which was taken away is restored. They can now adopt the last resource for a sinking ship, and run her ashore; but to do so before it was day would have been to have rushed on certain destruc- tion. They must bring the ship, if it be possible, to anchor, and hold on till day-break, when they may perhaps discover some ‘creek with a shore,’ into which they may be able to ‘thrust the ship.’ K 130 THE SHIPWRECK. The progress of the. narrative has brought us to the question, Whether the traditional locality is in reality that of the shipwreck? Now, if we attend minutely to the narrative, it will be seen that the number of conditions required to be fulfilled, in order to make any locality agree with it, are so numerous as to render it morally impossible to suppose that the agreement which we find here can be the effect of chance. The first circumstance mentioned is that at mid- night the shipmen suspected the vicinity of land evidently without seeing it. The ship was driving from Clauda; her previous track must have been at such a distance from the land, and the land itself must be so low, as to prevent its being seen. Now, upon | laying down the track of a ship driving in that direc- tion to St. Paul’s Bay, on Admiral Smyth’s chart of Malta, I find that the land, which in that part of the island is very low, nowhere approaches within a mile of it,! but that it is impossible to enter the bay without passing within a quarter of a mile of a low rocky point, which juts out and forms its eastern entrance (the point of Koura). When the ‘Lively’ frigate unexpectedly fell in with this very point, the quarter- master on the look-out, who first observed it, states in his evidence at the court-martial, that at the distance of a quarter of a mile the land could not be seen, but that he saw the surf on the shore. Here then we establish the explanation of a hitherto unexplained passage of Scripture, by the oath of a competent 1 Off Valetta the distance of the track of a ship from Clauda to St. Paul’s Bay is three miles ; it gradually diminishes to one mile. ‘VanOw AO LNIOd ——SSE——— ee τῷ ae - σα 7 |e Ὁ ite 1 ie ie De τ * 4 + Pad ye eee i LHEYSAHIPWRECK. 131 witness. Till the ship arrived at the entrance of the bay they could not be aware of the vicinity of land ; when they did come to it they could not avoid becoming aware of it. When they did so, they sounded, and found twenty fathoms.’ But a ship coming from the eastward must, immediately after passing the point, pass over this depth.? It is quite true that every ship in approaching the land must pass over twenty fathoms and fifteen fathoms; but here not only must the twenty-fathom depth be close to the spot where they had the indications of land, but it must bear E. by S. from the fifteen-fathom depth, and at such a distance as would allow of preparation for anchoring, with four anchors from the stern; for we are not to suppose that ships from sea, unex- pectedly falling in with land, can be prepared to anchor in an unusual manner on the instant. Now, about half an hour farther, estimating the ship’s rate of progression by the time which had been hitherto consumed, we find the depth to be fifteen fathoms. 28 Kat βολίσαντες εὗρον 28 And sounded, and ὀργυιὰς εἴκοσι, βραχὺ δὲ dua- found it twenty fathoms, and στήσαντες καὶ πάλιν Bodioav- when they had gone a little τες εὗρον ὀργυιὰς δεκαπέντε" further, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. 1 The ancient fathom (ὀργυιά) so nearly agrees with the English fathom, that the difference may be neglected. According to Hesychius, it is 7 τῶν ἀμφοτέρων χειρῶν ἔκτασις, the space between both hands extended, ; ae 2 See chart of St. Paul’s Bay to the west of the point of Koura. I have given the soundings as they are laid down in Admiral Smyth’s chart. Although the depth of twenty fathoms is not marked, we know it must be between seventeen and twenty-four. Κ 2 132 THE SHIPWRECK. Here we are told that fearing lest they should have fallen upon rocks,! they cast four anchors out of the stern. This implies that there were rocks to leeward, on which, if they had not anchored, they must have fallen, but the fifteen-fathom depth is as nearly as possible a quarter of a mile from the shore, which is here girt with mural precipices, and upon which the sea must have been breaking with great violence. Upon the former alarm the ship weathered the point ; here it was impossible. From the position of the ship’s head, the breakers must have been seen over the lee bow. Their only chance of safety, therefore, was to anchor ; but to do so successfully in a gale of wind, on a lee shore, requires not only time for prepa- ration, but holding ground of extraordinary tenacity. In St. Paul’s Bay the anchorage is thus described in the sailing directions :— ‘The harbour of St. Paul is open to easterly and north- east winds. It is, notwithstanding, safe for small ships, the ground, generally, being very good ; and while the cables hold there is no danger, as the anchors will never start. (Pi 261.) 29 Φοβούμενοί re μή που 29 And fearing lest we κατὰ τραχεῖς τόπους ἐκπέσω- Should have fallen upon μεν ἐκ πρύμνης ῥίψαντες ἀγκύ- rocks, they cast four anchors pac τεσσάρας, ηὔχοντο ἡμέραν out of the stern and wished γενέσθαι. for day. 1 Tpaxvs is mentioned as a hydrographic term by Julius Pollux, and classed with the words δύσορμος, ἀλίμενος, &c., lib. 1. 101. When Ulysses is wrecked on the coast of Phzeacia, — Τόφρα δέ μιν μέγα κῦμα pepe TpnXEtav em ἀκτήν. Ἔνθα κ᾽ ἀπὸ ῥινοὺς δρύφθη, σὺν δ᾽ ὀστέ' ἀράχθη, Εἰ μὴ, K.T.A, (Od. ν. 425.) ‘HLONOS FHL WOWd ‘VLIVW ‘AVA S.1NVd “LS THE SHIPWRECK. 133 The proximate cause of anchoring was no doubt that assigned by St. Luke, namely the fear of falling on the rocks to’ leeward ; but they had also an ulterior object in view, which was to run the ship ashore as soon as daylight enabled them to select a spot where it could be done with a prospect of safety ; for this purpose the very best position in which an ancient ship could be, was to be anchored by the stern. We have no occasion, therefore, to account for this proceeding, by showing that a certain class of vessels in the eastern seas anchor in this manner. To explain away the difficulty, is much the same as if the biographer of Lord Nelson were to explain away the well-known manceuvre of anchoring by the stern at the battle of the Nile,' by attempting to prove that this was a common practice with English ships. That of the ancients was the same as the moderns ; except under particular circumstances, they anchored by the bow,—‘ Anchora de prora jacitur.’ The reasons for doing so are obvious ; it is much easier to arrest a ship’s way by the bow than by the stern. It is proper, however, to observe, that from the very necessity of the case the ancient navigators were forced to depend much more upon their ground- tackle 1 Appian ascribes the success of a former naval victory on the coast of Africa to the manceuvre of anchoring by the stern, and for the same reasons as Lord Nelson’s—it obviated the necessity of exposing the weak points of the ships to the enemy in turning round. The ships of the Carthaginians were anchored along-shore, like the French fleet. The Romans attacked them from the sea, in the usual manner, but in turning round to repeat their blows, they received those of the enemy on their sides, till at last they let go their anchors by the stern, and with a long scope of cable hauled out their ships, κατὰ πρύμναν, by the stern. (De Bell, Pun., edit. Stephani, p. 76.) ἜΧΩΝ THE SHIPWRECK. than the moderns. » Ships constructed and rigged like theirs could not, when caught in a gale, work off a lee shore, they must of necessity anchor ; hence they must have been very amply provided with anchors and cables, and habituated to the use of them in every possible contingency. I may also add that as both ends of their ships were alike, there was nothing in their form to prevent this mode of anchoring from being put in practice. There is still one difficulty to be obviated, which I am indebted to a naval friend for starting. Upon pointing out to Captain M‘Lean, R.N., whose autho- rity 1 have already cited, the advantageous position in which it placed the ship for the purpose of running her ashore, he replied, ‘ Very true ; but were the ships of the ancients fitted to anchor by the stern? had they hawse-holes aft? because, if they were, we are only coming back to old practices.’ This is the difficulty of a seaman, who immediately thinks of how the thing is to be done. I must admit myself too much of a landsman to have thought of it, otherwise I should have been able to have answered it, which I was not at the time; for I had copied from the ‘ Antichita di Ercolano’ the figure of the ship, in the picture of Theseus deserting Ariadne, which contains details showing, not only that they were so fitted, but the manner in which it was done; and that too in a ship so strictly contemporaneous with that of St. Paul, that there is nothing impossible in the supposition, that the artist had taken his sub- ject from that very ship, on loosing from the pier of Puteoli. A hawser is seen towing astern,—it passes - through the rudder-port, and within board it is seen THE SHIPWRECK. 135 coiled round an upright beam or capstan, in front of the break of the poop-deck. We see, therefore, that ships of the ancients were fitted to anchor by the stern ; and in the present in- stance that mode of anchoring was attended with most important advantages. If St. Luke had been a seaman, we can scarcely suppose that he would have omitted to have men- tioned the reasons for this particular mode of anchor- ing, or the precautions which were necessary in order to insure its being done with success ; but as usual he is contented with a bare statement of facts, with- out assigning reasons or offering explanations. One most essential precaution in such a case, and pro- bably under the circumstances a difficult one, was to lift the rudders out of the water, and secure them by lashings; we are not expressly told that this 136 THE SHIPWRECK. precaution was taken, but we learn afterwards indirectly that it was. Perhaps also the main-mast was cut away. Falconer, a seaman, contemplates the possibi- lity of saving the ship by doing so,— ‘The hull dismasted there awhile may ride, With lengthened cables on the raging tide.’ (‘Shipwreck,’ canto 11.) The circumstance of the artemon having been hoisted! when they ran the ship ashore, lends proba- bility to the conjecture, and nothing can be inferred from the author’s silence, but it is nothing more than a conjecture ; and I have not ventured, in the view of the ship anchored by the stern, to represent it so. (See Frontispiece.) The advantages of being anchored in this manner are, that by cutting away the anchors (τὰς ἀγκύρας περιελόντες). loosing the bands of the rudder (ἀνέντες τὰς ζευκτηρίας τῶν πηδαλίων), and hoisting the artemon (ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμωνα), all of which could be, as they were in effect, done simultaneously, the ship was immediately under command, and could be directed with precision to any part of the shore which offered a prospect of safety. Whereas, if anchored in the usual mode, she might have taken ‘the wrong cast, or drifted on the rocks before she was under command, The number of anchors which were let go shows that the able commander (κυβερνήτη5) left nothing to 1 In the ship of Catullus, when the mast is cut away, they hoist the artemon,—‘velo prora suo,’ which the scholiast explains ‘artemone solo velificaverunt.’ (Juv. Saz. xii. 69.) See Dissertation on Ships, for proof that the artemon was the foresail. THE SHIPWRECK: 137 chance. The ship is now in a situation where escape is possible, but not certainly one in which it is pro- bable. From the state of the ship she may go down at her anchors, or the coast to leeward may be iron- bound, affording no beach (αἰγιαλός) upon which they can land in safety. Hence their anxious longing for day ; hence also the ungenerous but natural attempt of the seamen to save their own lives, by taking to the boat ; an attempt not peculiar to ancient times.! They lower the boat under pretence of laying out anchors from the bow.2. The design is penetrated and defeated by St. Paul. He tells the centurion, that unless they remain in the ship they cannot be saved. The soldiers cut the boat’s hawsers, and allow her to go adrift. 30 Τῶν δὲ ναυτῶν ζητούν- των φυγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου καὶ IA \ Ε ,ὔ ς χιλασάντων τὴν σκάφην εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν προφάσει ὡς ἐκ πρῴρης ἀγκύρας μελλόντων ἐκτείνειν, ' 30 And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under colour as though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, , 1 When the Azhéntenne, 64, was lost on the Skerki rocks, near Sicily, in 1806, two boats’ crews deserted her. (See United Service Magazine, February 1845, p. 229.) in the boats. There were no officers 2 We hear of anchors being laid out from both ends of a ship (ἕκα- τέρωθεν). (Appian.) It is to be observed, that casting anchors out of the foreship could have been of no possible advantage in the circumstances, and that as the pretext could not deceive a seaman, we must infer that the officers of the ship were parties to the unworthy attempt, which was perhaps de- tected by the nautical skill of St. Luke, and communicated by him to St. Paul. 138 THE SHIPWRECK. During the interval which remained till day, St. Paul exhorted them to take food, saying, — ‘This is the fourteenth day! that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing, wherefore I pray you to take some food, for this is for your health, for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.’ They were now to eat in the ship for the last time, and needed no longer to stint themselves to 31 Εἶπεν ὁ ἸΠαῦλος τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ καὶ τοῖς στρατιώ- ταις “Kay μὴ οὗτοι μείνωσιν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, ὑμεῖς σωθῆναι ov δύνασθε. 32 Tore ἀπέκοψαν οἱ στρα- τιῶται τὰ σχοινία τῆς σκάφης, καὶ εἴασαν αὐτὴν ἐκπεσεῖν. 23 Αχρι δὲ οὗ ἡμέρα ἤμελλεν γίνεσθαι, παρεκάλει ὁ Παῦλος ἅπαντας μεταλαβεῖν τρυφῆς λέγων Τεσσαρεσκαιδε- κάτην σήμερον ἡμέραι προσ- διατελεῖτε, δοκῶντες ἄσιτοι μηθὲν προσλαβόμενοι" 31 Paul said to the cen- turion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved. 32 Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off. 33 And while the day was coming on, Paul be- sought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the four- teenth day that ye have tar- ried, and continued fasting, [literally, ‘that ye wait for and continue fasting ’] having taken nothing. 1 Granville Penn thinks the reading ought to be ‘ τεσσάρας, καὶ δὲ καὶ τὴν σήμερον ἡμέραν, four, days even this very day,’ supposing that the apostle meant that they had literally taken nothing for so many days ; but surely there is no difficulty in the case. St. Luke, when he speaks as a historian, terms their fasting ‘much abstinence’ (πολλῆς ἀσιτίας, ver. 21). taking very little taking nothing. whom it was addressed. St. Paul uses the strong but common language, of calling It could not be mistaken by those to THE SHIPWRECK. 139 an allowance; the apostle sets the example, and giving thanks to God takes a piece of bread, and breaking it, begins to eat; inspirited by this, all of them partake a full meal, the first since the com- mencement of the gale ; and with renewed strength: make a last effort to lighten the ship,! not only by pumping, but by throwing the wheat? into the sea. 34 Διὸ παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς «μεταλαβεῖν τροφῆς, τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει. οὐδενὸς γὰρ ὑμῶν θρὶξ ἀπὴ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀπολεῖται. 25 Εἴπας ὃδὲ ταῦτα καὶ λαβὼν - - ᾽ ΄ / \ τῷ Θεῷ ἐνώπιον πάντων καὶ ἄρτον εὐχαρίστησεν κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν. 36 Εὔθυμοι δὲ γενόμενοι πάντες καὶ αὐτοὶ προσελάβοντο τροφῆς. 37 μεθα δὲ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ ἐν τῶ πλοίῳ διακόσιαι ὃ ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ. 24 Wherefore I pray you to take some meat, for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you. 35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all, and when he had broken it, he began to eat. 36 ‘Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat. 37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls. 1 Ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον, they lightened the ship. Amongst the nautical terms of Julius Pollux we find κουφίσαι τὴν ναῦν. The Septuagint has κουφισθῆναι (Jonah, i. 5). 18.) (See note to verse * Some suppose that by τὸν σῖτον the remainder of the ship’s pro- visions is meant; but to suppose that they had remaining such a quan- tity as would lighten the ship is quite inconsistent with the previous abstinence ; and besides wheat was the staple commodity imported from Alexandria to Italy. 3 [Westcott and Hort read ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ (about seventy-six). διακόσιαι in margin. ] 140 THE SHIPWRECK. When day broke they did not know the land ;! but it had certain peculiarities, and unless we can show that the shore to the west of the ship’s sup- posed position possesses the same peculiarities, it will not agree with that mentioned in the text. The first of these is, ‘rocky places’ (tpayets τόπουΞ) ; the fear of falling upon which at night had caused them to come to anchor. Now the shore here is skirted with precipices, against which the ship must have been dashed in pieces, had she not been anchored. The next is, a ‘creek with a sandy beach’ (κόλπον ἔχοντα αἰγιαλόν) ;* and the third is, ‘a place of two 38 Κορεσθέντες δὲ τροφῆς 38 And when they had ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον ἐκβαλλό- eaten enough, they lightened μένοι τὸν σῖτον εἰς τὴν θάλασ- the ship, and cast out the σαν. wheat into the sea. 1 It has been asked, if Malta was the island, how came it not to be known to some of the crew, for it is not to be supposed that Alexan- drian seamen could be ignorant of that island? Major Rennel, with his usual candour, says: ‘It must be admitted, that, on a supposition that it was the island of Malta (as the author certainly concludes), it might appear extraordinary that it should not have been recognised by some of the crew of the ship, which belonged to Alexandria (chap. AXVil.), as it may be supposed that Malta was well known to the navi- getors of that port. This, however, I cannot pretend to account for.’ Archeologia, xxi. 103.). But St. Paul’s Bay is remote from the great harbour, and possesses no marked features by which it could be recog- nized. 2 *A creek with a shore.” Commentators tell us that every creek has a shore, and that it should be ‘a shore with a creek’ (vzde Kuinoel ad loc.) ; but αἰγιαλός, although it sometimes: means the shore in gene- ral, ina restricted sense means a sandy beach, in contradistinction to a rocky coast. St. Luke here uses the correct hydrographical term. Arrian uses it frequently in this sense. Thus, in describing the shores of the Red Sea, he talks of a great and small beach, αἰγιαλὸς καὶ μικρὸς καὶ μέγας (Perip. Mar. Eryth. p. 9); and in the Periplus of Nearchus, Engraved by H. Adlard ζζζεΖζ: Mb: Yer of ld “22 tH lhe / » Lihédliitt 7, WE. Ae ΄ THE SHIPWRECK, 141 seas’ (τόπον διθάλασσον). It will be seen how per- fectly these features still distinguish the coast. Having observed from the ship a creek, such as we have described, they determined if it were possible to thrust the ship into it ; they now cut their cables, and left the anchors in the sea ; and loosing (ἀνέντες) the lashings of the rudders,? and hoisting up the arte- mon,? or foresail (ἀρτέμωνα), they made for the creek, which they had previously selected for the purpose. 39 Ὅτε δὲ ἡμέρα ἐγένετο, 39 And when it was’ day τὴν γῆν οὐκ ἐπεγίνωσκον, κόλ- they knew not the land, but πον δέ τινα κατενόουν ἔχοντα they discovered. ἃ certain αἰγιαλὸν εἰς ὃν ἐβουλεύοντο creek with a shore, into the we are told that the fleet was moved from one sandy beach to another, which was named Neoptana. ᾿Αλλὰ ἔπλεον yap ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ, ἄραντες, τῇ γῇ προσεχέες, καὶ πλεύσαντες σταδίους ws ἑπτακοσίους ἐν ἄλλῳ αἰγιαλῷ ὡρμισάντο. Νεόπτανα ὄνομα τῷ αἰγιαλῷ. (P. 23.) 1 The marginal translation in our version is certainly the correct one : literally, cutting off the anchors and leaving them in the sea. 2 Aneient ships were steered by two large paddles, one on each quarter. When anchored by the stern in a gale, it would be necessary to lift them out of the water and secure them by lashings or rudder- bands, and to loose the rudder-bands when the ship was again got under way. 3 The artemon was certainly the foresail, not the mainsail, as in authorized versiun. (See Dissertation on Ancient Ships.) A sailor will at once see that the foresail was the best possible sail that could be set under the circumstances. In the gale in the Crimea, in No- vember 1854, the captain of the ship the Lord Raglan states that he cut away the main and mizen masts, but adds, ‘/ held on the foremast in case of her parting, to carry her end on.’... ‘There was nothing left for us but to beach; accordingly we ran before it, trying to avoid running foul of the other ships on shore, which we fortunately managed. The foresail was blown adrift, which helped her on. On striking, the sea swept over her,’ &c. © (77mes, December 5, 1854.) 142 THEO SHIPVCRECE, The ship must have been driven to the west side of the bay, which is rocky, but has two creeks. One of these, Mestara Valley, has a beach. (See chart.) I am, however, inclined to think that the point of appulse was in the other creek, which has no longer a sandy beach, but which must have had one formerly, although now worn away by the wasting action of the sea; it is near the spot marked in the chart of St. Paul’s Bay, as the traditional scene of the wreck. My chief reason for supposing that it was hereabouts that the ship was run ashore, is its proximity to what St. Luke calls ‘a place of two seas’ (τόπον διθάλασ- cov)! or as our authorised version renders it by a - 7° ~ ΄ εἰ δύναιντο, ἐξῶσαι τὸ πλοῖον. which they were minded, if it were possible, to thrust ? in the ship. .3 A ‘ > ‘4 40 Kat rac ἀγκύρας περιε- ͵ , λόντες εἴων εἰς THY θάλασσαν, ἅμα ἀνέντες τὰς ζευκτηρίας bs Wedd τῶν πηδαλίων, Kal ἐπάραντες δ ᾽ , ~ , τὸν ἀρτέμωνα τῇ πνεούσῃ - Ν κατεῖχον εἰς τὸν αἰγιαλόν. 4o And when they had cut the anchors, they left them in the sea (marginal translation), and loosed the rudder bands, and _ hoised up the foresail to the wind, and made toward shore. 1 Eis τόπον διθάλασσον, in locum bimarem. It is generally supposed to mean an isthmus, which is no doubt dithalassic ; but the interposi- tion of land between the two seas is not necessary. Strabo calls the Bosphorus dithalassic. —MéAayos ὃ καλοῦσι Προποντίδα * κακεῖνο εἰς ἄλλο τὸ Εὔξεινον προσαγορευόμενον πόντον, ἔστι δὲδιθάλαττο 5 τρόπον τινα οὗτος. (Lib. ii. cap. 5, 22, Oxford fol. vol. i. p. 164.) The narrow sound between the island and the main in St. Paul’s Bay is a Bosphorus in miniature. 2 [The ordinary reading ἐξῶσαι (which is adopted by Tregelles) means Zo run the ship aground. Westcott and Hort read ἐκσῶσαι, which would mean Zo save the ship; but ἐξῶσαι in the margin. ] THE SHIPWRECK. 143 happy conjecture, ‘a place where two seas met.’ From the entrance of the bay, where the ship must have been anchored, they could not possibly have suspected that at the bottom of it there should be a communication with the sea outside ; this unexpected circumstance naturally attracted the attention of the author, and served to mark the spot where the ship was wrecked. Selmoon Island, which separated the bay from the sea on the outside, is formed by a long rocky ridge, separated from the mainland by a channel of not more than a hundred yards in breadth. Near this channel, which a glance at the chart will show must be where a ship from the eastward would be driven, they ran the ship ashore (ἐπέκειλαν τὴν ναῦν) ;! the fore part stuck fast (ἐρείσασα), and re- mained entire, but the stern was dashed to pieces by the force of the waves. This is a remarkable cir- cumstance, which, but for the peculiar nature of the bottom of St. Paul’s Bay, it would be difficult to account for. At Περιπεσόντες δὲ εἰς 41 And falling into a τόπον διθάλασσον ἐπέκειλαν place where two seas met, τὴν ναῦν, Kal ἡ μὲν πρῷρΡα they ran the ship aground, ἐρείσασα ἔμεινεν ἀσάλευτος, ἡ and the forepart stuck fast, δὲ πρύμνα ἐλύετο ὑπὸ τῆς βίας and remained unmoveable, [τῶν κυμάτων. but the hinder part was being broken by the violence [of the waves. | 1 Julius Pollux has ὥκειλεν 7 ναῦς, προσώκειλεν, ἐξώκειλεν. The word is used in the same sense as in the text by Arrian, Xenophon, Polybius, ἄς, 144 | THE SHIPWRECK. The rocks of Malta disintegrate into extremely minute particles of sand and clay, which, when acted upon by the currents or by surface agitation, form a deposit of tenacious clay ; whilst in still water where these causes do not act, mud is formed; but it is only in the creeks where there are no currents, and at such a depth as to be undisturbed by the waves, that the mud occurs. In Admiral Smyth’s chart of the bay, the nearest soundings to the mud indicate a depth of about three fathoms, which is about what a large ship will draw. A ship, therefore, impelled by the force of a gale into a creek with a bottom such as that laid down in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, whilst the stern was exposed to the force of the waves. The ship has now reached the shore ; but, before relating the escape of the passengers and crew, I shall endeavour to give the reader some idea of what must have been their privations and sufferings, and — to supply what is wanting, or merely hinted at, in St. Luke’s account, by citing examples of ships circum- stanced as theirs was. I take the outline from the ancient voyage, and fill up the details with ‘modern instances, limiting myself to two cases, that of a crazy ship (Captain Back’s) undergirded, and strug- cling with a gale ; the other of the India Company’s ship ‘ Bridgewater’ caught in a typhoon.! I have already shown that the inevitable result of such a storm must have been to have strained the hull severely, and rendered the ship leaky to an 1 From the United Service Magazine, 1831, part ii. p. 49. The ship encountered the typhoon, March 4, 1829. THE SHIPWRECK. 145 alarming degree; and that the knowledge of this fact, which we only arrive at by inference, gives us a key which explains all the subsequent incidental notices which drop from the author. Such was the case both with the ‘Terror’ and the ‘ Bridgewater.’ The leaks in the former ship were partly, no doubt, caused by the ice; in the latter case they were the effects of a typhonic gale. The officer who describes it says, they ‘found the ship had suffered severely in the hull. After undergirding St. Paul’s ship,— Ver. 17. ‘They lowered the gear.’ ‘Got our top-gallant masts and yards on deck.’ (Bridge- water. ) Ver. 18. ‘Exceedingly tossed by a tempest.’ ‘The unabated fury of the gale, strengthened by squalls, raised a long breaking sea, in which she plunged so heavily, that it was often unusually long before she recovered her- self. Itwas evident she was getting more water-logged, and the straining and creaking of her whole frame, the working of the bulk-heads, which actually raised the officers’ bed- places, the rickety twisting occasioned by the fore and aft motion, and the prolonged dull roll to windward, to say nothing of the cascade-like rushing of the water within ; all these were certain indications of a consummation which no exertions of ours would probably be sufficient long to defer.’ (‘Voyage of Terror,’ p. 438.) ‘Next day they lightened the ship.’ ‘It was determined that the guns should be thrown overboard, as well as part of the cargo.’ (Bridgewater. ) L 146 . THE SHIPWRECK. Ver. 19. ‘Cast out . . . the tackling of the ship.’ — ‘Cut away the sheet and stream anchors.’ (Bridgewater. ) Ver. 20. ‘All hope that we should be saved was — then taken away.’ ‘I confess that all hope of ultimate preservation entirely left me.’ (Bridgewater. ) Ver. 21. ‘ After long abstinence.’ ‘To aggravate our disasters, the ship too laboured so as to make it impossible to light a fire, and thus deprived us of the nourishment essential to the restoration of our exhausted energies.’ (‘ Terror,’ p. 440.) ‘With the exception of a biscuit and a glass of spirits occasionally, not aman in the ship had throughout three days either sustenance or sleep. Owing to this, together with the great exertions required of them at the pumps, they had become completely exhausted and dispirited.’ (Bridge- water. ) Ver. 29. ‘ They anchor the ship.’ ‘Near midnight anchored safely in Loch Swilly.’ (‘ Terror,’ Ρ. 441.) Ver. 39. ‘They discovered a certain creek with a shore (beach), into which they were minded, if it were possible, to thrust in the ship.’ ‘Finding that their united efforts were unable to keep her afloat, it was determined to run her ashore on a small sandy beach, selected for the purpose.’ (‘ Terror,’ p. 442.) I offer these extracts, not as curious coinci- dences, but that the reader may see from parallel cases what was the state of the ship, and the cause of their running her ashore. THE SHIPWRECK. 147 They have now escaped the dangers of the sea; but other dangers await them: the guard, in con- formity with the stern behests of Roman law, pro- posed to kill the prisoners, in order to prevent their escape. ‘But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose ; and commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land, and the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass that they escaped all safe to land.’ 42 Τῶν δὲ And [τἢε6 soldiers’ στρατιωτῶν 42 Μ ΄ e x , βουλὴ ἐγένετο ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώ- τας ἀποκτείνωσιν, μή τις ᾽ , 7 5 ἐκκολυμβήσας ΠΕ ἢ \ ΄ 43 O δὲ ἑκατοντάρχης; βουλύμενος διασῶσαι τὸν Παῦ- Ν ~ λον ἐκώλυσεν αὐτοὺς τοῦ βου- λήματος, ἐκέλευσέν τε τοὺς ὃ Z ~ > , υναμένους κολυμβᾷν, ἀπορί- ψαντας πρώτους ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐξιέναι, - A x 44 Καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ove \ > A , a ἊΣ > ’ μὲν ἐπι σανίσιν ovc O€ ETL τινων τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλοίου" καὶ el οὕτως ἐγένετο πάντας διασω- θῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. counsel was to kill the pri- soners, lest any of them should swim out and escape. 43 But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded that they which could swim should cast ¢hem- selves first into the sea, and get to land, 44 And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship: and so it came to pass that they es- caped all safe to land. 148 CHAPTER -V. ΜΕΙΙΤΑ TO. TTA LY (Chap. xxviii. 1.) AFTER reaching the shore, they learnt, for the first time, that the name of the island was Melita. Their previous ignorance of this has been adduced as an argument! that this could not be a place so well known as the African Melita, now Malta. Major Rennel, with his usual candour, states the difficulty, and admits that he cannot remove it. This circum- stance, however, will not be felt as a difficulty by any ene acquainted with the locality; the sailors were probably little acquainted with any part of the island, except the great harbour (of Valetta) and the coast near it; the scene of the shipwreck lies remote from it, and is out of the usual track of ships approach- ing the harbour; and there is no marked feature in the configuration of the land which could make it known even to a native, if he came unexpectedly upon it.” 1 Kat διασωθέντες τότε Ι And when we were 69- ἐπέγνωμεν ὅτι Medirn® ἡ νῆσος caped then we knew that the καλεῖται. island was called Melita. 1 Georgi, p. 191. See note at p. 140. 2 Admiral Smyth makes use of Selmoon palace, the university tower, and the breakers on the point of Koura, as landmarks, - 8 Westcott and Hort read Μελιτήνη. MELITA ΤῸ ITALY. 149 The natives! received the unfortunate voyagers with kindness, and kindled a fire, because of the rain, and because of the cold. These meteorological remarks prove that the wind was to the north of east, for if it had been a Sirocco wind (S.E.), as Bryant and others contend, it would have been hot and sultry, for such is the character of that wind in the Mediterranean even so late as the month of November. I may add, that the Sirocco seldom or never lasts more than three days.” 2 Οἵ re βάρβαροι παρεῖ- 2cAnd. the | barhareus χαν ov τὴν τυχοῦσαν φιλαν- people showed us no little θρωπίαν ἡμῖν, ἅψαντες yap kindness, for they kindled a πυρὰν προσελάβοντο πάντας fire, and received us every ἡμᾶς διὰ τὸν ὑετὸν τὸν ébe- one, because of the present στῶτα Kal Cia τὸ WuKoc. rain, and because of the cold. 1 In the Dissertation on the Island of Melita, I have answered the arguments of Bryant, founded on the term βάρβαροι, applied by St. Luke to the natives. 2. Gales, in other directions, are of much longer continuance. Mr. Greswell cites a case which agrees in a remarkable manner with that of St. Paul. Aristides (the orator) encounters a gale in the AXgean Sea, and is driven through it for fourteen days and nights. Térrapes πάλιν αὗται πρὸς ταῖς δέκα ἡμέραι καὶ νύκτες, χειμῶνος κύκλῳ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ πελάγους φερομένων. (Dissertations, vol. iv. p. 197.) Professor New- man met with a continuous easterly gale on the coast of Cyprus, in December 1830. He writes: ‘We were bound for Latakia in Syria, the course almost due east ; but were driven back and forced to take refuge in the port of Famagousta, the ancient Salamis. Here we lay wind-bound for days. Owing to our frequent remonstrances, the cap- tain three times sailed.out, . . . but was always driven back, and once after encountering very heavy seas and no smalldanger, It was finally the first of January when we reached the Syrian coast.’ 150 MELITA TO ITALY. A circumstance now occurs which has given rise to much discussion :— ‘When Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat and fastened on his hand ; and when the natives saw the veno- mous beast hang upon his hand, they said among them- selves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. He, however, shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 3 Συστρέψαντος δὲ τοῦ Παύλου φρυγάνων τι πλῆθος καὶ ἐπιθέντος ἐπὶ τὴν πυράν, ἔχιδνα ἀπὸ τῆς θέρμης ἐξελ- θοῦσα καθῆψε τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ. : 4 Ὥς δὲ εἶδαν οἱ βάρβαροι κρεμάμενον τὸ θηρίον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔλεγον Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος ὃν διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ δίκη ζῃν οὐκ εἴασεν. e \ κ > Leer 5 O perv οὖν ἀποτινᾶξας TO θηρίον εἰς τὸ πῦρ ἔπαθεν οὐδὲν κακόν" 6 Οἱ δὲ προσεδόκων αὐτὸν ῃ , a , μέλλειν πίμπρασθαι ἢ καταπίπ- τειν ἄφνω νεκρόν. ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ αὐτῶν προσδοκώντων καὶ θεω- ρούντων μηδὲν ἄτοπον εἰς \ ΄ αὐτὸν γινόμενον, μεταβαλόύ- μένοι ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν. But they expected that he would have swollen, or 3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat and fastened on his hand. 4 And when the barba- rians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom though he hath es- caped to sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 5 And he shook off the beast into the’ fire, and felt no harm. 6 Howbeit, they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead sud- denly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that.he was a God. ‘MELITATOVTIALY. 15! fallen down dead suddenly ; but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to, him, they changed their minds and said that he was a God.’ The difficulty here is that although there are ser- _pents in Malta, they are not venomous, as the term ἔχιδνα (viper) implies. Upon this point I would merely observe that no person who has studied the changes which the operations of man have produced on the Fauna (animals) of any country, will be sur- prised that a particular species of reptiles should have disappeared from that of Malta. My lamented friend, the late Rev. Dr. Landsborough, in his interesting excursions in Arran, has repeatedly noticed the gra- dual disappearance of the viper from that island since it has become more frequented. In the statistical account of the parish of Urr, the writer informs us that ‘The small deadly coluber, said to be found in Galloway, has very probably existence ; though this animal be rare. This probability is ad- mitted not only from numerous traditions, but because the writer of this account has once or twice met with a copper-coloured worm or little serpent, differing greatly from both the viper and the common blind- worm (Anguis fragilis). (Stat. Acc, vol. xi. p. 67.) The reasoning is not conclusive; but it proves that there is a tradition of the former existence of vipers in Galloway, although now unknown. Mr. Lyell, in quoting the travels of Spix and Martius in Brazil, observes :-— ‘They speak of the dangers to which they were exposed from the jaguar, the potsonous serpents, crocodiles, scorpions, centipedes, and spiders. But with the increasing population 152 MELITA TO ITALY. and cultivation of the country, say these naturalists, these evils will gradually diminish ; when the inhabitants have cut down the woods, drained the marshes, made roads in all directions, and founded villages and towns, man will by de- grees triumph over the rank vegetation and the noxious animals.’ ! Perhaps there is nowhere a surface of equal extent in so artificial a state as that of Malta is at the pre- — sent day, and nowhere has the aboriginal forest been more completely cleared ; but it by no means follows that this was the case when St. Luke wrote. Indeed, there are traditions and other indications of former woods in the island. We need not, therefore, be sur- prised that with the disappearance of the woods, the noxious reptiles which infested them should also have disappeared. We are now told, that ‘ In the same quarters were the possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius, who received us and lodged us three days courteously.’ 7 Ev δὲ τοῖς περὶ τὸν 7 In the same quarters τόπον ἐκεῖνον ὑπῆρχεν χωρία ΝΞ possessions of the chief τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς. νήσου, ὀνόματι man of the island, whose Ποπλίῳ, ὃς ἀναδεξάμενος ἡμᾶς name was Publius, who re- ἡ μέρας τρεῖς φιλοφρόνως ἐξένι-ὀ ceived us and lodged us σεν. three days courteously. ' Principles of Geology, 10th edit. vol. ii. p. 454. The evidence of Pliny has been adduced to show that when he wrote there were no noxious animals in the Africanislands. The passage is as follows :—‘ Mox Gaulos (Gozo) et Galata, cujus terra scorpionem dirum animal Africz necat.’ (Lib. v. c. 7.) Answer: Melita is not mentioned ; scorpions are not vipers ; there are scorpions both in Gozo and Malta, MELITA TO ITALY. 153 The term πρῶτος τῆς νήσου, ‘the chief or first of the island, may mean either that Publius was the principal person in the island, as our translators have understood it ; or it may be an official title. There are several reasons for supposing that it is in the latter sense that St. Luke uses it. The word in the plural, οἱ πρῶτοι, is elsewhere appropriately used to designate the principal men of a place: Mark vi. 21, Acts xiii. 50, xxviii. 17 ; but it is nowhere in the New Testament used in this sense in the singular, and it is difficult to suppose that in a populous island there was any one who, independently of official rank, was sO prominent as to be mentioned, by his position, even in preference to his name. It is also to be observed that the father of Publius was alive, and it is unlikely that, except by official rank, the son should have been so emphatically styled the chief man of the island, in his lifetime. But we have nearly conclusive proof that πρῶτος was an Official designation, in two inscriptions, one in Greek and the other in Latin, still, or lately,! in 1 These interesting and important inscriptions were certainly seen and carefully copied by Ciantar, from whose work I give the Greek in- scription, as being probably the most correct copy. He says, —‘ Questo marmo si trova oggi posto alla pila d’un fonte che scaturische nel fosso sotto la mura e alla porta della Citta Notabile (Citta Vecchia).’ (T. i. p- 515.) The inscription is as follows :— A. K. ... ΚΙΟΣ KYP ΠΡΟΥΔΙΝΣ ἹΠΠΕῪΣ POM ΠΡΩΤῸΣ MEAITAINN KAI ΠΑΤΡΩΝ APZA> KAI AM@#ITIOAETS A & ΘΕΩ ATTOY ΤῸ ints ἘΣ Ghee ye: eek eg e's, ΝΕ: which has been restored conjecturally thus, — A(vAos) Κ(αστρι)κιος Kup, Tpovdivs ἱππευς Pw Πρωτος MeAitaiwy και Tlarpwy αρξας και αμφιπολευς Α(υγουστῳ) Σ(εβαστῳ) Θεῳ αὐτου (Σεβα)- CEO... Νιτ,λ, 154 DIPLERT A LO ΖΑ ΨΥ,: Malta. In the former, a certain Roman knight, ΑΚ... «tos, is styled by the same title as Publius, chief of the Melitans (πρῶτος Meduraiwy) ; and in the Latin inscription subsequently discovered, the same title occurs, MEL. PRIMUS. ν Π1 conclude, therefore, that πρῶτος here is an official title.! We come now to the miraculous cure of the father of Publius. His disease is mentioned in the accurate and professional language which distinguishes the writings of St. Luke: it is stated that he lay, seized with, or labouring under (συνεχόμενον), fevers and dysentery (πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεντερίῳ). " / \ A , 8 ᾿Εγένετο δὲ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Ποπλίου πυρετοῖς καὶ dv- σεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον κατα- -~ \ ~ κεῖσθαι, mpoc ov ὁ Παῦλος bd θὰ \ rae εἰσελθὼν καὶ προσευξάμενος ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῳ ἰάσατο 8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands ἢ him, and αὐτὸν. healed him. It is supposed to form a votive inscription by a Roman knight, named Aulus Castricius, chief of the Melitans (Πρῶτος Μελιταίων), to the emperor. The Latin inscription was discovered at Citta Vecchia, in excavating the foundation of the Casa del Magistrato, in 1747 ; it is incribed on the pedestal of a column, and is said by Ciantar to be pre- served in the hall of that building. ! I was unable to find either of these inscriptions. It is to be hoped that they will be brought to light, and preserved in the valuable collec- tion of Maltese antiquities, in the Knights’ Library. 1 Schaeffer, in his Déssertatio de Publio πρώτῳ Melitensium (4to. Jena, 1755), arrives at the same conclusion. His labour, however, is chiefly bestowed upon the attempt to prove that Publius was of a Roman family. 2 ¢In speaking of Simon’s wife’s mother, who was taken with a great fever, he uses the term συνεχομένη in the same sense that the ΠΟ ΖΔΕ, 155 ‘To whom Paul entered in and prayed, and laid his hands on him and healed him. So when this was done, the others also which had diseases in the island came and were healed.’ Here we have the evidence of a medical man dis- tinguished for his caution, upon a point upon which he could not be mistaken, and where he was an eye- witness. But this was not the only miraculous cure wrought by the apostle ; for ‘the others also, which had dis- eases in the island, came and were healed, who also honoured us with many honours: and when we were departing, they laded us with such things as were necessary. 9 Tovrov δὲ γενομένου 9. So when this was done, [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ the others also, which had ἔχοντες ἀσθενείας προσήρ- diseases in the island, came χοντο καὶ ἐθεραπεύοντο, and were healed : 10 Ot καὶ πολλαῖς τιμαῖς το Who also honoured ἐτίμησαν ἡμᾶς καὶ avayoue- US with many honours, and νοις ἐπέθεντο τὰ mpoc Tac when we departed they χρείας. laded us with such things as were necessary. 11 Mera δὲ τρεῖς μῆνας LL) And after > tare ἀνήχθημεν ἐν πλοίῳ παρακε- months, we departed in a χειμακότι ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ᾿Αλεξαν- — ship of Alexandria, which δρινῷ, παρασήμῳ Acooxovpox. had wintered in the isle, } whose sign was Castor and Pollux. Greek (medical) writers do.” (Walker Ox the Medical Language of St. Luke ; Gent. Mag. June 1841.) And Hippocrates uses the term muperot (fevers) in the plural. (Zf2d. iii.) 156 MEEITA' TQ ILALY, ‘And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. ‘And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days.’ After leaving this port, which is not more than a day’s sail from Melita, they proceeded circuitously (περιελθόντες) towards Rhegium. The meaning of the expression is not very clear. I am inclined to suppose that the wind was north-west, and that they worked to windward, availing themselves of the sinuosities of the coast; but with this wind they could not proceed through the Straits of Messina, from the tendency which the wind always has to blow parallel to the direction of narrow channels ; they were therefore obliged to put into Rhegium, at the entrance of the strait. But after one day the wind became fair (from the south); and on the fol- lowing they arrived at Puteoli, having accomplished a 12 Kat καταχθέντες εἰς 12 And, landing at Syra- Συρακούσας, ἐπεμείναμεν ἡμέ- ρας τρεῖς, 13 Ὅθεν κατηντήσαμεν εἰς περιελθόντες * ἱΡήγιον. Καὶ μετὰ μίαν ἡμέραν ἐπιγενο- μένου νότου δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς Ποτιόλους. cuse, we tarried there three days. 13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium ; and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli. 1 [Westcott and Hort read περιελόντες, 1.6. ‘having cast loose,’ cf. xxvll. 40. in the margin. ] But there the meaning seems to be that they cut the cables, which would be quite unsuitable here. They read περιτεθόντες MELALAYDOCLLALY; 157 distance of about 180 nautical miles in less than two days. Puteoli was then, as it is now, the most sheltered part of the Bay of Naples. It was the principal port of southern Italy, and, in particular, it was the great emporium for the Alexandrian wheat-ships. Seneca, in one of his epistles, gives an interesting and graphic account of the arrival of the Alexandrian fleet.2. All ships entering the bay were obliged to strike their topsails (suppara), except wheat-ships, which were allowed to carry theirs. They could therefore be dis- tinguished whenever they hove in sight. It was the practice to send forward fast-sailing vessels (tadel- lari@), to announce the speedy arrival of the fleet ; and the circumstance of their carrying topsails, made them distinguishable in a crowd of vessels. The sup- parum, therefore, was the distinguishing signal of the Alexandrian ships. The further proceedings of the apostle, till his 1 See remarks on the rate of sailing of ancient ships, in the Dis- sertation on the Ships, ἄς. of the Ancients, 2 ¢Subito nobis hodie Alexandrine naves apparuerunt, que pre- mitti solent et nuntiare secuturze classis adventum. Tabellarias vocant. Gratus illarum adspectus Campaniz est. Omnis in pilis Puteolorum turba consistit, et ex ipso genere velorum, Alexandrinas quamvis in magna turba navium intelligit, solis enim licet supparum intendere, quod in alto omnes habent naves. Nulla enim res sque adjuvat cur- sum, quam summa pars veli; illinc maxime navis urgetur. Itaque quoties ventus increbuit majorque est quam expedit, antenna submitti- tur, minus habet virium flatus ex huthili; cum intrare Capreas et pro- montorium ex quo Alto procellas speculatur vertice Pallas— czeterze velo jubentur esse contentz, supparum Alexandrinarum insigne est.’ (Zpist. 77.) 158 MELITA TO ITALY. arrival at Rome,I give in the words of our Authorised Translation. At Puteoli, St. Luke says (v. 14),— ‘We found brethren, and were desired to tarry with ~ them seven days ; and so we went toward Rome ; and from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns, whom when Paul saw, he thanked God and took courage. And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the pri- soners to the captain of the guard ; but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him.’ We learn, in the thirtieth verse, that. St.. Paul hired a house, and dwelt in it for at least two years. During this period, St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. This must have been in the third year of the governorship of Festus, the Roman procurator of Judea, an important date, for it establishes the still earlier date of his Gospel. This work, in its turn, proves the previous ex- istence of written accounts of the transactions of our Saviour, by eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.! ¥ See Dissertation on the Life of St. Luke. 159 DISSERTATION I. ON THE WIND EUROCLYDON. IN the former editions I gave Bryant’s arguments in favour of the reading ‘Euroclydon’ at full length, with my answers; but since then, the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript, which for reasons elsewhere as- signed I consider the earliest existing evidence for the text of the New Testament, and the determina- tion of the true reading of the Vatican manuscript by such competent observers as Dr. Tregelles and Dean Alford, have established, as I think, beyond dispute, the conclusion long ago arrived at by Bent- ley, Grotius, and others, that the true reading of the term employed by St. Luke was εὐρακύλων. When Bryant wrote the only manuscript authority which he had to contend with was the Alexandrian ; to this we have now to add the Sinaitic, and, as I shall now show by an extract of a letter from Dr. Tregelles in answer to my inquiries on the subject, the Vatican. Referring to a former letter, he says : — ‘T suppose that I wrote to you about the original reading in Acts xxvil. 14. In consequence of the incorrect manner in which the correction of B is given by Mai and Vercellone, I examined the point carefully myself when I was at Rome, so as to be sure that EYPAKYAON is the original reading. Several, as you are aware, have thought that the word was 160 ON THE WIND. EUROCLYDON. originally made to end in AQN, not AQN, but I am sure that the A was at first A. I was glad to find that Alford also examined this passage himself. For your satisfaction I give you his words :— ‘“ Acts xxvil. 14. 1. m. decidedly wrote ευρακυλων : 2. Τῇ. placed v over the a, and » between the « and the v, and altered A to A, but in so doing, he has left the right foot of the A of 1. m. visible beyond the corner of his own A.” ‘As our examinations were quite independent, and as they both confirm the collation of Birch, I hope that the united testimony will be thought satisfactory.’ Hence the three most ancient and authoritative Greek MSS. A, B, 8, concur in the reading ευρακυλων. In the only others which rank with them in antiquity or authority, C and D, the passage is wanting ; and there are no manuscripts entitled to the name of ancient,—that is, according to Dr. Tregelles, anterior to the seventh century,—which have any other reading. The same may be said of the ancient versions, espe- cially the Vulgate, which contains what may be called St. Jerome’s critical decision on the subject. We have thus the unanimous testimony of anczent MSS. in favour of the reading in question ; for in the only others which rank with the foregoing, the Codices Bezze and Ephraemi, the account of the voyage is wanting ; hence the ancient documentary authority is unanimous in favour of the reading Euro-aquilo ; but this is a case in which the antiquity of a reading is all-important, for it is not only a word of rare occurrence,-—indeed, so far as our knowledge goes, it is unique,—but is in a different language from the rest of the narrative, and every person who has had to correct the press, must know how apt such terms ON THE WIND EUVROCLYDON. 161 are to be blundered. St. Luke, writing in Greek, makes use of the Latin term Luvo-aquzlo, for eurus is the Latin for east, and aguz/o for north-east, adding, it was ‘called so’ (ὁ καλούμενος), doubtless by the crew of the ship, I have elsewhere stated that an east-north-east wind accounted exactly for every event subsequently narrated, which in itself is a conclusive proof that it must be the true reading. I now proceed to show the grounds upon which the earliest printers of the New Testament were in- duced to adopt the reading ‘ Euroclydon ;’ and here again I have to avail myself of the kind assistance of Dr. Tregelles, and give his statement in his own words :— 7 ‘In reply to your question, the only known uncial MSS, which contain the reading evpoxAvéwy in Acts xxvil. 14, are the Codex Mutinensis (H) and Codex Passionei (G or L). ‘In. H, which is supposed to be of the ninth century, the part from xxvii. 4 to the end has been supplied by a hand apparently of the eleventh century, du¢ οὐδέ tn uncial letters. ‘In L, of the.ninth century, it has the rough breathing evpokAvowy. | ‘The margin of the Harcleian Syriac (of the beginning of the seventh century) has ευρακλυδον in Greek letters, and this is the oldest Greek authority, I believe, for anything of the kind.’ In the later manuscripts the errors, as might have been expected, multiplied. Dr. Tregelles, in his cri- tical edition, enumerates no less than ten ways of spelling the word: one of these happened to be the first which was printed. Such is the ground upon which the term Euroclydon rests. M 162. DISSERTATION. ON. THE ASLAND MELITA I Now proceed to notice the arguments brought for-— ward by Bryant and others in support of the opinion that it was the Illyrian, and not the African, Melita upon which St. Paul was shipwrecked. Bryant, after concluding his remarks on the wind Euroclydon, proceeds thus :— ‘Having thus despatched, and I hope satisfactorily, what I first premised to take in hand, I come now to the second part, which was to ascertain the particular island upon which the Apostle Paul was shipwrecked. ‘This, one would ima- - gine, could be attended with no difficulty ; for it is very plainly expressed that, after being tossed for some time in the Adria, they were at last cast upon the island Melite. The only question is, which is the sea called Adria, and what island can be found zx that sea mentioned by sucha name ?’ (P. 23.) This is not a fair statement of the question ; the author of the narrative does not say that Melita was in Adria, but only that the ship was driven through Adria (διαφερομένων), after leaving Clauda, before she reached Melita. The real question is this—Was the sea which is interposed between Crete and Malta termed Adria when the narrative was written? for it is not denied by Bryant that this sea was known by the name of Adria afterwards. It is only necessary ON THE ISLAND MELITA. 163 to cast a glance at the map of the Mediterranean to see that this part of it forms a natural geographical division. Major Rennel terms it, with much propriety, ‘the middle basin of the Mediterranean.’! Now, this sea, as well as the gulf at present known by the same name, was then known as the Adriatic. The proof of this is very easily established. Ptolemy, who flourished immediately after St. Luke, describes this sea so often and so particularly by this name, as to leave the point without a shadow of doubt. With the accuracy of a geographer, he distinguishes the Gu// of Adria from the Sea of Adria; thus, in enumerating the boundaries of Italy, he tells us that it is bounded on one side by the shores of the Gulf of Adria, and on the south by the shores of the Adria? (lib. iii. c. 1), 1 Humboldt calls it the Syrtic Basin. ‘More to the west we have the Ionian Sea, or the Syrtic Basin, in which Malta is situated.’ (Kos- mos, Sabine’s translation, ii. 118.) Procopius calls this basin the Adria- tic Sea, and places Gaulos and Melita (Gozo and Malta) upon the verge of it, making them the boundary between it and the Tyrrhenian Sea on the west : ᾿Αράμενοί τε κατὰ τάχος τὰ ἱστία, TavAw τε Kal Μελίτῃ ταῖς νήσοις πρόσεσχον αἵ τὸ τε ᾿Αδριατικὸν καὶ Τυῤῥηνικὸν πέλαγος διορίζουσιν. (Bel. Vand. i. 14.) Commentators gravely tell us that because Ptolemy calls Melita an African island it cannot be in the Adriatic Sea. 2 The only perplexing circumstance connected with Bryant’s specu- lations on this subject is the fact, that he should have succeeded in persuading himself that St. Paul’s ship was driven into the Gulf of Venice, as I believe he did. - That he should have persuaded others by an array of one-sided evidence is not wonderful. Macknight, who has adopted his views, assigns this as his reason: he says, ‘In support of his opinion, Bryant cites ancient authors, who, in enumerating the Adriatic islands, mention Melite very particularly.’ (Note, p. 128.) Mason, the poet, thus accounts for his self-deception: ‘He had been much engaged in antiquities, and consequently had imbibed too much of the spirit of a professed antiquary. Now we know from a thousand instances that no set of men are more willingly duped than these, es- pecially by anything that comes to them under the fascinating form. of a M 2 164 ON THE ISLAND MELITA, ἀπὸ δὲ μεσημβρίας TH Te τοῦ Adpiov παραλίῳ ; and that Sicily is bounded on the east by the sea of Adria (Ib. c. 4), ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αδρίου πελάγου. He further informs us that Italy is bounded on the south by the Adriatic Sea (Ib. c. 14), that the Pelo- ponnesus is bounded on the west and south by the Adriatic Sea (Ib..c. 16), and that Crete is bounded on the west by the Adriatic Sea (Ib. c. 17). Here, then, we have the bounds of this sea, which Ptolemy sometimes calls Adria, sometimes the Sea of Adria, and sometimes the Adriatic Sea, laid down with such precision, that it is difficult to understand how it could be made a question ; and those who have not read Bryant’s work must be puzzled to guess how he disposes of such proofs. The answer is that, although he adduces the authority of Ptolemy often enough when it answers his purpose, he passes over those parts of the work which bear directly on the question in total silence! I will, as in the case of his observations on Euroclydon, allow Bryant to state his own case :— ‘The grand difficulty, and, indeed, an insurmountable one, lies here ; that, as St Paul says expressly that the island he was cast upon was in the Adria, Malta, to be proved the place spoken of, must be made an Adriatic island. To effect this the learned Aochart¢ labours hard. He shows that the sea we are speaking of encroached upon new Ciscovery.” The patronising manner in which Bryant excuses the erroneous views, as he holds them to be, of such writers as Bentley, Grotius, Beza, Bochart, Grotius, Beza, Bochart, Cluverius, is amusing : the field they were conversant in was so ample, that ‘a person of the most extensive knowledge might sometimes be bewildered and lost’ 65). It is to be hoped that the school of antiquarians to which he belonged has now passed away. ON THE ISLAND MELITA. ‘165 the /onian,—that it extended itself to the Szmus Corinthiacus ; then, in order, it engrossed the Sicilian sea and the Cretan : and thus, advancing step by step, he includes Malta within its verge ; makes the coast of Africa washed by its waves, and would persuade you that Leptis, in Agro Tripolitano, was situated upon the Adriatic coast. All this-he does upon the authority of the poets and a few later historians. ‘As for the poets, their evidence is not worth taking notice of ; they make everything subservient to measure. Yet, even of these, nothing he quotes comes up to his pur- pose. The learned writer makes use of their trespasses, merely to prepare the reader for what is to come, that he may not be too much shocked by the violence of the after- evidence. What Ovid and Tibullus say is only preparative. Philostratus and Pausanias come but halfway ; those that speak to the purpose are Procopius, Orosius, and AZthicus, These are ‘they that advance the Adriatic to the confines of Barca ; and by the same proceedings might make Veen itself, if they pleased, an appendage to Ragusa. ‘But we ought to inquire of what rank and of what age the writers are whose authority he appeals to; . . . doubt: less writers of some eminence in their several times, so iet them have their due ; who lived, however, many cen- turies after the fact we are determining ; so that all you ean learn from their evidence in respect to St. Paul and his shipwreck, is how things were called four or five hundred years afterwards ; this is the utmost it will amount to. Ἐν 56 ἢ It would be difficult to string together a greater tissue of blunders even from Bryant’s writings. Yet, with the exception of those mentioned in the fore- going paragraphs, he has not noticed one of the autho- rities adduced by Bochart,! whom he undertakes to refute. 1 See Bochart’s observations on this subject, Appendix No. v. [See also Appendix No, vi. by the editor of this edition. ] 166 ON THE ISLAND. MELITA, Let us examine his statement in detail. It begins with the double blunder of supposing St. Paul the author of the Acts, and that it is expressly said in the narrative ‘that the island he was cast upon was in the Adria ;’ the next assertion is that Bochart confines his authorities to the poets and a few later historians. The poets are easily disposed of, ‘they make every- thing subservient to measure.’ Let us, therefore, pass to the later historians, .He says in one place that they are not to be believed because they ‘ lived four or five hundred years,’ in another ‘ many centuries,’ after the fact. The first question to be determined here is the date of the fact, When did St. Luke write the account of the shipwreck? Without entering very minutely into the inquiry as toits date, I think it probable that it was written A.D. 63. Now two of Bochart’s autho- rities, Ptolemy and Pausanias,! were contemporaries of Adrian, who was born A.D. 76. We do not know the dates of their births, but the chances are two to one against the supposition that they were both younger than the emperor. One of these authors, ' Ptolemy has recorded an eclipse observed by him in the eighth of Adrian (A.D. 125), (Almagest, lib. iv. c. 9); and Pausanias speaks of that emperor as living when he wrote. He relates the legend of the fountain of Arethusa, which is said to be the river Alpheus, which flows under the Adria from Greece to Ortygia (Syracuse), ἔμελλε δὲ ἄρα μηδὲ ᾿Αδρίας ἐπισχήσειν αὐτὸν τοῦ πρόσω, * Nor would the Adria restrain its flowing on’ (Arcadica, lib. viii.), and speaks of the Straits of Messina as communicating with the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas (Z/aca, lib. v.). Solinus does the same ; he says, ‘Sunt et alteri montes duo (in Sicilia), Nebrodes et Neptunus; e Neptuno specula est in pelagus Tuscum et Adriaticum’ (Polyhistor, 6, xi.). Camertinus thinks that this author was a contemporary of Pliny, whom he abridged: ‘ Suspicor vivente adhuc Plinio opusculum hoc suum scripsisse’ (Vita Solini). ON THE ISLAND MELITA. 167 and it is immaterial which, was probably born about the time when St. Luke wrote, or very soon after- wards.'! The supposition that either of them invented the name does not require notice. But in point of fact there is ample evidence that this name was given to the lower sea, between Crete and Malta, long be- fore either of them wrote. Like the seas in modern times, this sea had different names. It was called the Ionian, the Sicilian, and the Adriatic. Bryant is at pains to extract passages from ancient authors, who used other names than the Adriatic, and, as might have been expected from such a line of argument, proves a great deal too much. If his arguments be good for anything, there was no such sea at all as the Adria. This he admits in a note, apparently uncon- scious that it destroys his own case. The note is as follows :—- ‘The truth is, Appian calls the whole sinus the Ionian Gulf : and not only Appian, but Dio, in lib. 41, and Hero- dian do the same; so far from extending the Adriatic to Sicily or Malta, they do not seem to allow that such a sea existed.’ (Note, p. 33.) I proceed to Bryant’s next argument, which I will state in his own words :— ‘It is observable, that in speaking of the natives, the sacred writer never calls them Μελιταῖοι or Νησιῶται, but 1 [Mr. Το Falconer points out justly (p. 75) that there is here a mis- take. There is sufficient reason for believing that Ptolemy was alive A.D. 161, and Pausanias mentions a battle which appears to have taken place A.D. 174. Thus Ptolemy was alive 98 years and Pausanias ΠῚ years after the probable date of the Acts (A.D. 63).] 168 ON THE GSLAND. MELITA: βάρβαροι. The ancient Greeks called all nations that were not of Grecian origin indiscriminately darbarians. ‘This continued for a long time; but after they had been con- quered by the Romans, and, as it were, beat into manners, they by degrees laid aside their saucy distinction, and were more complaisant to their neighbours. Hence we find that Polybius, Diodorus, and others, who wrote after the decline of the Grecian power, seldom made use of the distinction, unless the people they treat of are notorious for their ferity or.rudeness. But supposing a Grecian writer might con- tinue this partial distinction, and look upon every country but his own as barbarous, yet St. Paul cannot be supposed to have acted so. He was no Greek, but a εν of Tarsus, and in the same predicament as those that are spoken of. ‘Whenever the Apostle calls a people barbarous, you may be sure it was the real character of the nation.’ (P. 39.) We have here again the blunder of supposing St. Paul the author of the Acts, and the stfil greater one of supposing that St. Paul would only have applied the term barbarian to people ‘ notorious for ferity and rudeness.’ St. Paul repeatedly uses the word; but upon no occasion does he use it in the sense which Bryant supposes he would, or in a sense inapplicable to the ancient inhabitants of Malta in contradistinc- tion to the Greeks. The Melitans were not Greeks, therefore they were barbarians. (Rom. i. 14.) If they did not understand the language of him who ad- dressed them, then each party would be barbarous to the other, (1 Cor. xiv. 11.) The natives ΟΠ πα. understand their visitors, therefore they were bar- barians. Bryant is at great pains to contrast the civilisation of the ancient inhabitants with that of the Illyrian ON THE ISEAND MEELIT A: 169 Melitans. He tells us that according to Diodorus Siculus and others, ‘ Melite Africana was first a colony of Phaenicians, and was afterwards inhabited successively by Carthaginians, Greeks, and Romans. Who will be so hardy as to denomi- nate any of these nations barbarous ?’ The answer to this question is not difficult ; no- body called the Greeks barbarians, but Scylax calls the Phcenicians barbarous,! and Polybius makes one of his speakers, a Greek, call both the Carthaginians and Romans barbarians.? In his anxiety to vindicate the ancient Maltese from the charge of barbarism, he actually quotes the Acts to show that the term did not even apply to the lower orders—again unconscious that he was over- turning his own argument, by admitting that it was the Maltese who received them hospitably. ‘But it is said that some of the lower sort might still be rude and savage, though the people of rank were otherwise. But St. Paul experienced nothing but civility from the lower sort, nay, ov τὴν τυχοῦσαν φιλανθρωπίαν, uncommon Civility, as he himself witnesses. Therefore, if the common people are civil and humane, and their superiors polite and inge- nious, a general imputation of barbarism can never square with that nation. In short, take them separately or collec- tively, this stain 15 incompatible with the natives of Malta.’ (P. 42.) 1 Scylax places the Phoenicians amongst the inhabitants of Sicily, who are barbarians. Ἔν δὲ Σικελίᾳ ἔθνη βάρβαρα τάδε ἐστίν, ᾿Εδυνοί, Σικανοί, Σικελοί, Φοίνικες, Τρῶες. (Periplus, p. 4.) 2 Agalaus of Naupactus advises the Greeks not to fight with each other, but unite to resist the barbarians (the Romans and Carthagi- nians). (δέ. lib. v. 104.) 170 ON THE ISLAND MELITA. The next argument is, that there are no vipers in Malta ; but St. Luke mentions that one fixed itself on St. Paul’s hand (ver. 3). Bryant does not dwell much upon this, but Giorgi lays considerable stress upon it, and Dr. Falconer! does the same. Both of these writers attribute the presence of these animals in Meleda to the moisture of the climate, caused by its woods, ‘ densissimas habet silvas’ (Giorgi),? and their absence from Malta to its aridity. Iam not disposed to call this in question. At present Malta is entirely clear of wood, and its surface is in the most artificial state ; but when St. Paul visited the island this was not the case, for there are still a few ancient carouba trees—evidently the remains of former woods. We have therefore suf- ficient cause for such a change in the Fauna as will account for the disappearance of this species of rep- tiles, as already noticed in the account of the voyage. Bochart says that as the ship in which St. Paul sailed from Melita was on her voyage from Egypt to Puteoli, we cannot suppose she would winter at the Illyrian Melita ; if she did, she must have gone much out of her way, ‘toto salo aberrasse.’ Bryant meets 1 «The circumstance of the viper or poisonous snake that fastened on St. Paul’s hand merits consideration. Father Giorgi, an ecclesias- tic of Melita Adriatica, who has written upon that subject, suggests very properly that as there are now no serpents in Malta, and, as it should seem, were none in the time of Pliny, that there never were any there ; the country being dry and rocky, and not affording shelter or proper nourishment for animals of that description. But Meleda abounds with these reptiles, being woody and damp, and favourable to their way of life and propagation.’ (Falconer.) 2 Giorgi consulted Vallisneri, a celebrated naturalist, who proved by experiment, that the earth of Malta was no protection against the bite of a viper. OW THE TSLAND. MELITA. 171 this with the case of Lucian’s ship, which was driven to Athens. He says :— ‘Upon Bochart’s principle one might argue that this ship coming to Attica and the Pirzeus must be a mistake, for it was certainly Malta that it arrived at, because Attica is quite out of the way for any ship to touch at that is bound from the Nile to the Tiber,—‘‘ Toto ccelo et toto salo errant,’ &c. But ships that lose their passage cannot always choose their retreat : they are at the will of the winds, and are sped in all directions.’ (8vo. ed. p. 412.) But there is no parallelism whatever in the cases: ships crossing the A‘gean, as this ship was, may meet with a southerly gale and be driven to the north. Every reader of Falconer’s ‘Shipwreck’ must be familiar with such a case; the ship was driven from Crete towards Athens :— ‘Now, through the parting waves, impetuous bore, The scudding vessel stemmed the Athenian shore ;’ but, less fortunate than that of Lucian, was wrecked on the coast of Attica. But if we are to believe that Adria means the Gulf of Venice, then we must sup- pose that by some means or other almost every ship coming from the Levant to the west side of Italy, found its way into it. We hear of four cases of ships in this predicament all about the same time, possibly in the same year:—Ist. St. Paul’s ship. 2nd. The ‘Castor and Pollux.’ 3rd. The ship of Josephus, which sank in Adria. 4th. The ship of Cyrene which picked him up and carried him to Puteoli.! * Fosebhi Vita, edit. Hudsoni, p. 905. 172 ON THE ISLAND MELITA. The only other argument against the supposition that Malta was the scene of the shipwreck which remains unanswered, is brought forward by Dr. Fal- coner ; he says— \ : ‘The disease with which the father of Publius was affected (dysentery combined with fever) affords a presump- tive evidence of the nature of the island. Such a place as Melita Africana (Malta), dry and rocky, and remarkably healthy, was not likely to produce a disease which is almost peculiar to moist situations.’ (P. 21.) It is obvious that the answer to the former argu- ment applies also to this one; but in point of fact, Dr. Galland, of Valetta, informs me that the disease is by no means uncommon in Malta. L’Avocat,! a French writer, merely repeats with- out adding anything to the arguments of Giorgi. He does not, however, as Bryant and Falconer have done, pass over the unequivocal testimony of Ptolemy in silence ; he says— ‘ Ptolémée, qui n’a vécu que plus de 80 ans aprés St. Luc, est le premier quia donné plus d’étendue ἃ la Mer d’Adria- tique au Golfe de Venise.’ (P. 40.) The answer to this is, that we do not know that Ptolemy lived even one year after St. Luke ; neither was he the first who used it. I have already noticed his contemporary Pausanias, who also used it, and as Major Rennel observes, ‘changes of names in geo- eraphy take place very gradually, and almost imper- 1 ὁ Dissertation Historique et Critique sur le Naufrage de St. Paul, dans laquelle on examine si cCest dans Vile de Meleda qwil ful mordu a’une vipere, et gwil guérit miraculeusement le pire de Publius.” (1745.) ON THE ASLAND MELITPA, 173 ceptibly.’! But Josephus, who made the same voyage, and probably in the same year, if not the year before, tells us in his life that his ship sank in the Adria,? and that he and others were picked up by a ship of Cyrene and carried to Puteoli. The events related by Josephus could not have happened in the Gulf. Ovid repeatedly calls this sea Adria,> and Horace places Actium on Adria.‘ There is another modern writer who takes the same side of the question, who is entitled at least to the merit of originality. In a modern French work, en- titled ‘L’ Univers, M. La Croix, the author of the account of Malta, tells us— ‘Qu’on remarque bien qu’il avait fait halte dans un port de la céte septentrionale de Candie :’ 1 Father Giorgi admits that after the time of Ptolemy the name of Adria was almost universally adopted ; he answers the question, ‘ Cur autem, si universi antea geographi secus docuerant, nova heec atque in- solens opinio non per gradus sed quasi uno impetu deinceps apud scrip- tores invaluerit ?’ by attributing it to the celebrity of Ptolemy. 2 Dr. Gray supposes that Josephus was in St. Paul’s ship ! (Con- nection of Sacred and Profane Literature, 1. 362.) 3 “ Adriacumque patens late bimaremque Corinthum.’ (Fastz, lib. iv. 501.) ‘ Aut hanc me, gelidi tremerem cum mense Decembris, Scribentem mediis Adria vidit aquis ; Aut, postquam bimarem cursu superavimus Isthmon, Alteraque est nostrze sumta carina fugee.’ : (Frist: isd. leg; 12.) [The above seem to be the only passages in Ovid which have any bearing on the question. ] 4 ‘ Actia pugna, Te duce, per pueros hostili more refertur ; Adversarius est frater ; lacus, Adria.’ (Z pest. lib. 1. ep. xvili., 61. 174 ON THE ISLAND MELITA. that the wind Euroclydon is— “suivant Pline, Vitruve, Aristote, et Strabon, un vent qui tient le milieu entre le midi et le levant ; c’était donc, pour parler le langage moderne, un vent de sud-est, ou ce qu’on nomme dans la Méditerranée le sirocco. Sur ce point il ne peut y avoir une ombre de doute.’ He then asks, ‘Dira-t-on que l’Ecriture Sainte a pu confondre la mer de Sicile, ott est située Malte, avec la Mer Adriatique? Une telle supposition est inadmissible. D’abord, Malte est trés-éloignée de la Mer Adriatique ; ensuite cette mer n’a > jamais eu d’autres bornes que celles que les géographes lui assignent aujourd’hui ; elle a toujours été deux cents lieues de longueur sur quarante dans sa plus grande largeur ; di- mensions sur lesquelles s’accordent Pline, Strabon, et Thucydide.’ The information that Fair Havens is on the xorth side of Crete; that Pliny, Vitruvius, Aristotle, and Strabo tell us the direction of Euroclydon ; and that Pliny, Strabo, and Thucydides tell us that the Adri- atic never had any other boundaries than its present, requires confirmation. M. La Croix cannot under- stand how, if Malta had been the island, St. Paul could have been delayed three months. The island, wherever it was, he says, must have been ‘ bien peu fréquentée par les navigateurs, ce qui n’a jamais été vrai pour Malte ;’ he should have added, not even in winter. It would be a waste of words to answer such arguments. Since the above was written, a new defender of the Dalmatian hypothesis has started up, in the Rev. ON THE ISLAND MELITA. 175 J. M. Neale, who has actually visited Dalmatia, and comes back with the cerfaznty, as he assures us, ‘that Meleda is Melita.” This conclusion, however, does not rest upon any observations of his own, for although he passed that side of the island of Meleda on which he tells us there is a creek called St. Paul’s Bay, which exactly answers the description, he passed it at night, his authorities being those put into his hands by the Dalmatian monks. Admiral Sir Charles Penrose, as quoted by Dr. Howson, had stated the distance of Meleda from Clauda as 780 miles, and that no ship could reach it without making a curve. Now it happens that there are two islands of nearly the same name in the Adriatic—Melada and Meleda. Admiral Penrose understood that Bryant meant the former, which is 780 miles from Clauda ; but he be- came aware of the mistake, and remarks in a supple- ment to his MS., ‘I never saw Bryant’s work, but I have seen an extract which makes me think he meant the southernmost of the Melitas in the Adriatic. This makes no difference in my argument, but it does in the distance, as the southern isle is 150 miles nearer Crete than the other. This is a sufficient answer to a very immaterial mistake, and neither distance can be reconciled to the facts stated in the narrative. Mr. Neale assumes, as plain facts, the objections of Cole- ridge and others; I have noticed them already, and need not repeat my answers here. Mr. Neale has, however, a theory of his own, which requires to be considered : he admits that the wind was E.N.E., and carried the ship to long. 22° in lat. 35°; this course would have led to Malta; but at this point he sup- poses the wind to have shifted to E.S.E., as zt often 176 ΟΝ THE: ISLAND: VELITA, does. The italics are the author’s own ; the meaning is that a northerly levanter often changes to a southern levanter ; but this is entirely contrary to the observed wind-phenomena of the Mediterranean. Captain Stewart, R.N., in his sailing directions, states that it is always safe to anchor under the lea of an island with northerly winds, as they die away gradually. No such event took place in St. Paul’s voyage ; but let us suppose that it did, and attend to the consequences. According to this author, there was not one szngle island to pass: this can only mean to pass within sight, for the Ionian Islands, Zante, Cephalonia, Corfu, &c. were passed on the right. This hypothesis of the ship’s track—for it is no more—is meant to show the possibility of the ship’s making the land at Meleda without seeing it; otherwise it would not agree with St. Luke’s narrative, which precludes the possibility of their having seen the land till after they were in 20 fathoms soundings. 1, then, it can be shown that a ship could not sail from Clauda to Meleda without seeing the land before she was in 20 fathoms sound- ings, then Meleda cannot be the Melita on which St. Paul was wrecked. Now the supposed track of the ship when abreast of Cephalonia is less than half a degree of longitude distant from that island, or about twenty-four geographical miles ; but Cephalonia, which is 5,300 feet high, can be seen at the distance of eighty miles. Before losing sight of it, the ship must have come within sight of the mountains of Corfu and the Acroceraunian range, followed by the high land on both sides of the Strait of Otranto, on the left by the mountains of Calabria, and on the right by those of Albania, till they came in sight of ON THE ISLAND MELITA. 177 the mountain-range of the island of Meleda, seen ac- cording to Lithgow in his Zravels from the entrance of the Gulf of Cattaro (p. 53),—a distance of forty miles. Lady Strangford, who visited Dalmatia since Mr. Neale, remarks on his work,‘ It appears to me impos- sible to imagine for an instant, that the ship (of St. Paul) could have passed up the narrow way between the coast of Otranto and the Acroceraunian moun- tains without seeing land.’ (The Eastern Shores of the Adriatic, p. 215.) On the south side of Meleda is a range of mountains sloping down to the water’s edge, with deep water close to the land: they must have been in sight directly in front of the ship’s course for more than one whole day. Nothing will account for the facts recorded by St. Luke, but a low flat island distant from any mountainous region, insular or continental. With regard to the Meledan St. Paul’s Bay—the creek so ‘exactly answering the description.’ It could not possibly be the first land they would make ; no ship from the south ever reached Meleda without making the high land on each side of the Adriatic below and above the straits of Otranto. It will not do to say it was at midnight, for the mountains of Meleda must have been seen right ahead on the two preceding days. I presume the monks of Dalmatia must have given the name to some creek in the island, but I have not been able to discover it, although I have searched both in the Hydrographic department in the Admiralty, and the map-room of the Geographical Society. As to its answering the description, I have the Admiralty chart | N 178 OW PH SSLAMD. WITT Ta, of the island before me, and I can neither find the name nor any creek which ingenuity could make to agree with the narrative ; for we must have a twenty- fathom depth and a fifteen-fathom depth, with such a distance between them as to allow their standing on, διαστήσαντες, till they had time to prepare for. anchoring with four anchors from the stern. They must moreover, at this depth, have had good holding- ground, with a creek having a sandy beech to leeward of their anchorage, and this creek must have been in a place where two seas met (τόπον διθάλασσον). We are told by this author—on the authority of course of his informers—not only that there is a creek ‘exactly answering this description’ in Meleda, but ‘there is no creek in Malta such as described ; the Maltese hypothesis makes the sailors take the Saimo- netta Strait for a creek.’ I never heard of such an ‘hypothesis, although I believe I have read nearly all that has been written on the subject. I call it a place where two seas meet (τόπον διθάλασσον), the term which Strabo! applies to the Bosporus, which divides the Euxine from the Propontis; and the strait in question is a Bosporus in miniature. At the inside entrance of the strait Admiral Smyth has placed the traditional wreck of St. Paul’s ship, in exactly the spot where a ship would be driven, and where the unexpected circumstance of a connection with the sea on the outside would naturally arrest the attention of the spectator. I admit this is no longer a creek having a shore or beach on which a ship could run ashore (κόλπον ἔχοντα αἰγιαλόν) ; but every a Libis, €ap.o5; ? See chart of St, Paul’s Bay (p.129). ON THE ISLAND MELITA, 179 geologist must know that it must have had one, and that at a period, geologically speaking, from the dip of the beds, by no means remote. It may almost be said to be in the act of falling, for a fissure runs parallel to the verge of the mural precipice which here forms the shore, and which threatens ere long the fall of a prodigious mass of the rock. ‘There is another creek, only separated from the above by a point, which still has a beach, namely the opening of the Mestara Valley. A ship anchored at the fifteen- fathom depth might run for either of these creeks, and from both of them the unexpected opening to the sea outside could not fail to arrest the attention of the crew. The monks of Dalmatia, like their Maltese rivals, make it a point of honour to uphold the claims of their own island ; and the Austrian proclivities of the reverend author, which he displays by emblazoning the vowels in letters of gold on the outside of his book, signifying ‘Austria Est Imperare Orbi Uni- verso, has led him, unconsciously no doubt, to give credit to reasoning resting on no foundation of fact. It is always an advantage to the cause of truth that both sides of a question like the present should be carefully and fully investigated. Our author en- deavours to show that a ship may have made the land of Meleda in the manner described by St. Luke, that is without seeing it till after she was in twenty fathoms of water; but as this is impossible, it is im- possible that the Dalmatian Melita can have been the scene of the shipwreck. 180 ON THE ISLAND MELITA. *.* The Admiralty chart above referred to is of Austrian as well as British authority. It is entitled, ‘ Adriatic Sea— Sheet 5.’ The Dalmatian Islands, from Slozella to Ragusa Vecchia. From the Austrian, English, and Neapolitan co- operations, directed by Colonels Campana and Visconti, and Captain W. H. Smyth, R.N., K.S.F, 181 DISSERTATION III. ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. THERE are few branches of classical antiquity of which so little is known as that which relates to ships, navigation and seamanship ; no work written expressly on those subjects by any ancient author has come down to us, and the scattered notices which we meet with in historians and poets often tend to mislead. The representations of ancient ships are in a great measure confined to coins and marbles, where we cannot expect to find accuracy of detail, except in detached parts, such as the aplustra or head and stern ornaments, rudders, anchors, &c. There are, however, two circumstances to which we are indebted for much valuable information re- specting the very class of ships with which we are at present chiefly concerned. The Emperor Commodus during a season of scarcity imported grain from Africa: in commemo- ration of which a series of coins (great and middle brass) was struck, bearing upon the reverse figures of ships under sail ; and one of the Alexandrian wheat ships was driven by stress of weather into the 1 The Emperor Leo, in his 7Zactics, in treating περὶ ναυμαχίας, makes the same complaint. He says he could find nothing written on the subject by the ancients. ᾿ 182 ON THE SHIPS OFS THE ANCIENiG Pirzeus. The extraordinary size of this vessel excited much curiosity on the part of the Athenians ; and Lucian, who visited her, lays the scene of his dia- logue entitled ‘The Ship or Wishes’ (Ποῖον ἢ Edya/) on board of her; in the course of which we learn incidentally many interesting circumstances regard- ing the ship, her voyage, and management. The marbles and paintings of Herculaneum and Pompeii also afford valuable details, and have the advantage of synchronising perfectly with the voyage of St. Paul; the catastrophe to which they owe their preservation having happened less than twenty years after his shipwreck. As all these authorities agree very well with each other, we can derive from them what we may consider a tolerably correct idea of a merchant ship of the period. The forepart of the hull below the upper works differed but little in form from that of the ships of modern times; and as both ends were alike, if we suppose a full-built merchant ship of the present day cut in two, and the stern half replaced by one exactly the same as that of the bow, we shall have a pretty accurate notion of what these ships were. The sheer or contour of the top of the sides was nearly straight in the middle, but curving upwards at each end, the stem and stern posts rising to a considerable height, and terminated by ornaments, which were very com- monly the head and neck of a water-fowl bent back- wards. This was called the cheniscus (ynvicxos). It forms the stern ornament of the ship on the tomb of Nevoleia Tyche at Pompeii (p. 206), the stern post of which terminates with the head of Minerva. Lucian, ON. THE: SHIPS. OF THE .ANCIENTS., 183 in describing the Alexandrian ship, mentions that the stern rose gradually in a curve surmounted by a golden cheniscus, and that the prow was elevated in a similar manner. In the coins of Commodus we find the cheniscus in some instances at the head, and in others at the stern. The bulwarks round the deck appear to have generally been open rails. There were projecting galleries at the bow and stern. The stern gallery is often covered with an awning, as in the ship on the tomb of Nevoleia. The galleries at the bow served, as it would appear from Lucian’s description, as places where to stow the anchors and also the otpo- peta and περιωαγωγεῖς. ‘The exact meaning of these terms is not clear. Some think they meant instru- ments for heaving up the anchors, others for helping the ship round. I think it is not improbable that both were meant. The στροφεῖα, ‘winders, were probably windlasses or capstans. We have evidence that both were used by the ancients, for in the ship of Theseus represented in one of the paintings found at Herculaneum, we see a capstan with a hawser coiled round it;' and in a figure of the ship of Ulysses, said to be taken from an ancient marble, in the edition of Virgil (3 vols. fol., Rome, 1765), we see he cable coiled round a windlass. The περιωαγωγεῖς, ‘drive-abouts, were probably paddles, for the purpose of helping the ship round when ‘slack in»the stays.’ The ancient ships were not steered, as those in modern times are, by rudders hinged to the stern- post, but by two great oars or paddles (πηδάλια), one 1 See figure of this ship, p. 207. 184 ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. on each side of the stern : hence the mention of them in the plural number by St. Luke; a circumstance which has caused, as Dr. Bloomfield observes, ‘no little perplexity to commentators.’' But no sea- going vessel has less than two rudders, although small boats and river craft, such as those on the Nile, 1 Note to Acts xxvii, 40. This is scarcely to be wondered at, at least by those who have had recourse to the most obvious sources of in- — formation—the writers de re navali antiqua. Berghaus, the mest volu- minous, and I believe the most laborious writer on the subject, has given a restoration of the after-part, //iztertheile, of St. Paul’s ship, with a square stern, a single hinged rudder with the tiller pointing aft, and with rudder bands with dead eyes spliced into the ends !—about as like an ancient ship as a Chinese junk is to an English yacht. The work of'this author, which is entitled Geschichte der Schiffartskunde der Vornehmsten des Alterthums (8vo. Leipzic, 1792), isin three ponderous volumes (1670 pp.), scarcely a page of which is not fortified by an array of authorities, all of which, he tells us, he has verified (‘habe ich meines Wissens kein Citatum von andern auf Treu und Glauben unter- nommen, ohne von-der Richtigkeit desselben ‘tiberzeugt zu seyn,’ Vor- rede, xxiv.). As may be supposed, he has carefully preserved all the blunders of his predecessors ; his anchors have no stocks, and the arte- mon is set at the mast-head. This author is fairly outdone in absurdity by M. Le Roy, author of Afémoires sur la Marine des Anciens, Hist. de l’Acad. des Inscript., tom. xxxvil. ; of Mouvelles Recherches sur les Na- vires des Anciens, Mém. de l’Institut, tom. i. ; and of Les Mavires des Anciens considérés par rapport ἃ leurs Voiles. ὅνο. Par. 1783. M. Le Roy has undertaken to explain the difficulties attending the description of the ship of Ptolemy Philopator, given by Athenzus ; amongst others we are told by that author that she took twelve hypozomes (under- girders) with her (ὑποζώματα δὲ ἐλάμβανε δώδεκα) ; this he renders, “ I] avoit douze ponts ou étages,’ twelve decks or platforms ! but. the most amusingly absurd part of his writings is his work on the - 4115 of ancient ships : a full-rigged ship, according to him, had a lateen sail at the bow (le dolon) ; the main-sail (l’acatian) is, in his representation, triangular with the apex below ; further aft than this was another lateen sail (l’artimon), and at the stern another lateen sail (l’épidrome). M. Le Roy had a boat rigged in this manner, and found she could both tack and turn to windward. Probatum est. ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. τᾶς were sometimes steered by one. Dr. Bloomfield is at the very unnecessary trouble of quoting a passage from Orpheus to prove, what was in fact the universal practice, that large ships had two rudders, and that it is— ‘Probable they were regularly taken off when the ship was in port and laid in dock. But the question 15, ow and where were they fixed on? Many (as Alberto, Bishop Pearce, and Kuinoel) think that the rudders were one at the stern and the other at the bow of the ship; while others suppose both to have been at the stern. I know not, how- ever, of the numerous passages cited by the above commen- tators, any one that defermines this point ; but that which I have adduced from Orpheus undoubtedly does—namely, as we have seen, that they were both at the stern.’ Writers are not in the habit of telling what every one knows. I question if I could prove by a quota- tion that the rudders in English ships are at the stern ; but every representation—and they are nu- merous—shows us that those of the ancients were there. Commentators who suppose that the two rudders in sailing ships were, one at the head and one at the stern (‘unum in prora, alterum in puppi, Kuinoel), have been misled by a passage in Tacitus (Ax. ii. 6), who is not describing sailing vessels, but flat-bottomed boats on the Rhine, which were to be moved by the current, and had a rudder at each end, just as river boats of the same description have at the present day, in which the ancient paddle rudders are retained. With regard to the question how they were fixed, the answer is that they were not fixed any more than other oars are. In small vessels they rested in a notch or rowlock in the upper gunwale, 186 ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. and were secured by a tropoter or leathern thong, or by an iron clamp. Instances of both modes of re- taining the rudder in its place may be seen on Trajan’s Column. In those vessels which had pro- jecting gangways, or stern galleries, the rudders were often passed through them.! Some larger vessels had a rudder case fixed on the outside, on each quarter. In others the wales of the ship projected far enough from the side at the stern to allow space for the rudder to pass through them. This may be observed in the ship on the Tomb of Nzvoleia Tyche at Pompeii ;" but the most common way was to have rudder ports at each quarter, as in the ship of Theseus (see figure at page 135). These also served for hawseholes, when the ship was anchored by the stern. This mode of steering was retained till a com- paratively late period. In a bas-relief over the door- way of the leaning tower of Pisa, built in the twelfth century, ships are represented with the paddle rudders, as are those in the Bayeux tapestry, repre- senting the Norman invasion. They must have been in use till after the middle of the thirteenth century, for in the contracts to supply Louis IX. with ships, the contractors are bound to furnish them with two 1 There is a bronze model of a ship under sail in the Grand-Ducal gallery at Florence, with the rudders fitted in this manner. See also the figures of galleys on the coins of Adrian, pp. 228, 229. 2 In the Peregrinatio ad Terram Sanctam of Breydenbach, Mentz, 1486, in which the details of the figures of ships are extremely correct, we have the figure of a ship in the transition state, in respect to her rudders. She has a hinged rudder, but.she has also a paddle rudder slung at her side, passing through the wales, as in the above example. See view of Modon. OY THE SHIPS Ol, LAB ANCIENTS, 187 rudders (duos t2mones).' This may no doubt mean a spare one ; but we learn from Joinville that the king’s ship had rudders, expressed in the plural, ‘ gouver- naus’ (ch. 78). ‘By the middle of the following century we find the hinged rudders on the gold noble of Edward III. The change in the mode of steering must therefore have taken place about the end of the thirteenth, or early in the fourteenth century. With regard to the dimensions of the ships of the ancients, some of them must have been quite equal to the largest merchantmen of the present day. The ship of St. Paul had, in passengers and crew, 276 per- sons on board, besides her cargo of wheat; and as they were carried on by another ship of the same class, she must also have been of great size. The ship in which Josephus was wrecked contained 600 people. But the best account we have of the size of some of these ships is that which I have already alluded to as given by Lucian, on the authority of the carpenter (vautrnyos) of the Isis, the Alexandrian wheat ship, which was driven by contrary winds to Athens. Both Bryant? and Dr. Falconer adduce this ship as an ex- ample of the great size of vessels of the class to which she belonged ; but both of them exaggerate her di- mensions to an absurd degree. Bryant compares her with the Royal George, which was at that time proba- bly the largest ship in the Britishnavy, the dimensions of which he gives ; but, with his usual inaccuracy, he makes the breadth of the ancient ship one-third, in place of one-fourth of her length, or nine feet broader, 1 Archéologie Navaile, ii. 388. 2 Bryant’s Observations, p. 16. 188. ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. instead of six feet narrower, than the Royal George. Dr. Falconer corrects this error, but falls into one nearly as great; for in calculating her tonnage, he multiplies by the length given by Lucian, which is evidently the extreme, instead of by the length of the keel, which was till lately the rule, and is the only one applicable in cases where the only dimensions given are length and breadth. The consequence of calcula- ting in this manner is that he increases her tonnage by at least one-half, making it more than 1,900 tons, whereas it must have been less than 1,300. The rule by which the tonnage of the Royal George was com- puted, was to multiply the length of keel’ by the ex- treme breadth, and the product by half the breadth for depth, and divide the whole by 94. Dr. Falconer has made the ship of Lucian to measure 1,938 tons. Her length, according to Lucian, was 120 cubits, which, at a foot and a half each, is 180 feet; her breadth one-fourth, or 45 feet. Now, it is evident that Dr. Falconer has calculated in the manner I suppose : for if we take the extreme length, 180 feet, as the multiplier, the tonnage is exactly what he makes it, SS = 1,038 tons. Although we have no means of knowing the length of this ship’s keel, we may from the dimensions given by Lucian form an estimate of her relative size, as compared with any other ship the dimensions of which are known. I take the Royal George, as the ship these authors compare her with, and the dimen- 1 As the fore-part of the keel joins the stem-post in a curve, in order to obviate uncertainty it was measured as far as the perpendicular of the length on deck, and three-fifths of the breadth of beam deducted for the fore-rake. OW THE. SHIPS: OF THE ANCIENTS. 189 sions of that ship as given by Bryant, which appear to be correct ; but as the height is given in one case to the taffrail, and in the other to the upper deck, I take one-half of the breadth for the depth, which is the usual rule for computation, in bothcases. Hence, ova Georee, 212°75. xX ΟἿ Χ 25 = 276681 isis, Lucian’s ship, 180°x ‘45 Χ 22°5 = 182250 This is in the ratio of 2,000 tons to 1,320; if, there- fore, the keel of the ancient ship was as long in pro- portion to her extreme length as that of the Royal George, she would measure upwards of 1,300 tons; but we know that the ancient ships had projections at each end, much greater than in modern ships, and as they are not included in the measurement for tonnage, they must be deducted ; that at the prow of the one in question is distinctly mentioned by Lucian. Inthe Navicella at Rome the keel is only about half the ex- treme length. Perhaps an early-built English ship, when the ancient ‘beak-head, or projection forward, was still retained, will give the most correct idea of her propor- tions. We have a very particular account of the Royal Sovereign,'! or, as she was called during the Commonwealth, ‘The Sovereign of the Seas.’ Her 1 See account of her, bearing the title, ‘The Commonwealth’s great ship, commonly called the Sovereign of the Seas, built in the year 1637, with a true and exact account of her bulk and burden, and those decore- ment which beautify and adorn her, with the carving work, figures, and mottoes upon them. She is, besides her tonnage, 1,637 tons in burden ; she beareth five lanthorns, the biggest of which will hold ten persons to stand upright, without shouldering or pressing on one another, with the names of all the ropes, masts, sails, and cordage that belong unto a ship.’ 4to. Lon, 1653. 160 ON THE SHIPS OF THE ANCIENTS. . length is stated to be, ‘a prora ad puppim, 232 foote,’ the length of the keel 120 feet. If the keel of the ancient ship bore the same pro- portion to her length ‘a prora ad puppim, which this one did, it would be only 99 feet; and the tonnage, calculated by its length, instead of the extreme length, | would be 1,015 tons. Taking the mean of the two results, it is probable that the ship of Lucian would measure between eleven and twelve hundred tons, Although, therefore, her dimensions are not so won- derful as former calculations make them, they were equal to those of a large modern merchant-vessel. We need not therefore be surprised at the numbers we sometimes hear of as being carried in ancient ships. 'From every representation which has come down to us, as well as from every notice in authors, they appear to have been rigged with extreme simplicity. They depended for progression upon a single square sail, all the other sails which we hear of being subsi- diary. It is evident that this was the case in Lucian’s ship, notwithstanding her unusual size. We hear of his friends looking up with wonder on the magnitude of the mast and yard; the sail therefore must have been furled aloft. We hear indeed in another part of the same dialogue, of ships with three sails (τριάρ- μενα 1), but we are not told whether they were set upon Ὁ 1 Lucian has mentioned a circumstance which has perplexed com- mentators, and which I do not pretend to explain : he speaks of ‘ look- ing up and counting the piles of hides’ (ἀναβλέποντες ἀριθμοῦντες τῶν βύρσων τὰς ἐπιβολάς), or rather the rows of hides placed above each other. Scheffer supposes that by hides the author means sails, which, he says, ‘ex corio pellibusque primum facta videntur. Nomen indi- care potest, est enim velum a vellere, id est pelle, ut Varro docet’ (p. ON THE, SHIPS’ OP THE, ANCIENTS; 191 separate masts, or one above another. From the manner in which they are mentioned, it is obvious that these three-sailed ships were of the largest size ; we must conclude therefore, that it was not a common circumstance to have so many as three principal sails. What may be considered, therefore, as the plain sails of an ancient ship consisted of one great square sail, with a small one at the bow. The following figure, taken from the ‘ Archéologie Navale’ of M. Jal, from a marble in the Borghese col- lection at Rome, appears to give a good idea-of the relative size and position of the sails, except that the mainmast is evidently placed too near the bow. 141). He translates the above passage ‘ sursum spectantes numerantes vela alia aliis imposita,’ adding the following criticism on the Latin translation : ‘interpres ibi coria scripsit, quod nullum habet sensum,’ Captain Spratt R.N, supposes with Scheffer that sails are meant : he writes me, ‘ That passage of Lucian, ‘‘ looking up and counting the hides,” may be explained by supposing the sails to have been sometimes made of light hides sewn together . . . . The thin flexible goat-skins now tanned in the Levant would form excellent sails.’ 1.2. ΟΝ THE “SHIPS OF “THE ANCIENT, We hear of other sails, but from the manner in which they are mentioned by Pliny,' we must suppose that they were considered as extrasails. Julius Pollux ‘calls ‘the great and proper mast’ (ὁ μέγας καὶ γνήσιος taTos) the acatian ; he adds, however, that some give that name to the smallest. Xenophon,?on the other - hand, calls the principal sails ‘the great sails, τὰ μεγάλα ἱστία, and the small ones ‘acatia.’ The pro- priety of Xenophon’s terms is confirmed by the Attic Tables, which speak of the acatia, in contradistinction to the great sails. The name of the small sail at the bow of the vessel, or the fore-sail, has very generally been sup- posed to be the dolon. I believe, however, that this is a mistake, and that the name of this sail was the ‘artemon. As this is the name of the sail stated by St. Luke to have been hoisted when the ship was run ashore, and as lexicographers and translators differ as 1 ᾿ 4 rors ‘ he 4 . x ὰ ? 4) . il i , 5 , > Ἂ ' ’ é ta ἐν 7 ἐν ! 3 . se s, . εὐ . ' ae ν " ᾿ . ry ἣ ἢ δ ‘ ἢ & . . 7 : Vt ’ ‘ κἂν λ :3 ; ὃ ‘ δι ως ἷ ae Ῥ ΄ ᾽ re : ‘ ἢ ‘ * ‘ ‘ - ‘ ὺ Υ ἵ » ᾿ (A ; ᾿ i ‘ ‘ ) ' ‘ ie} ᾿ a * \ . ͵ : ~~ ‘ a ‘ ‘ ἢ ᾿ ‘ . " εὖ ᾿ f te δε : i aw ἵν. ‘ kh j' 4 : ΄' ω ) j ἵ t Ψ ῇ i ὶ ᾿ Υ ὶ ‘ my ere Ν / Pa 4 * t CONYBEARE AND HOWSON’S WORK ON ST. PAUL. THE IFE AND EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. By the Rev. W. J. CONYBEARE, M.A. Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; and The Very Rev. J. S. HOWSON, D.D. Dean of Chester. _ THE STUDENT’S EDITION, revised and condensed, in One Volume, ‘crown 8vo. with 46 Illustrations and Maps, price 7s. 6d. cloth extra, red edges. To be had also bound by Riviére in tree-calf or calf antique, price 15s. and in morocco antique, price 20s. THE INTERMEDIATE EDITION, carefully revised and corrected; with a Selection of Maps and Woodcuts, and 4 Plates, 2 vols. square crown 8yo. price 21s. cloth; or 42s. bound by Riviere in tree-calf or in calf antique. Νὴ THE LIBRARY EDITION, with all the Original Illustrations, viz. “numerous Maps (some coloured), Landscapes engraved on Steel, Woodcuts of Coins, Antiquarian Remains, Views, ὅσο. 2vols. 4to. price 42s. cloth. or gilt top ; or £5 bound in morocco antique, with red and gold edges. : SELECT CRITICAL OPINIONS. _ ‘We shall do good service to our readers if we can direct their attention to a careful reading of this work.’ JournaL of Sacrep LITERATURE. _ ‘We doubt if any modern literature possesses a treatise more complete or satisfactory in its design and execution............ It is no small merit of the work that, while it extracts information from every source, an admirable spirit of Christian faith, accompanied by a manly love of truth and soundness of judg- ment, characterise it throughout. While its hand is in every German treatise, ‘its heart is thoroughly English ; and its effect will everywhere be to confirm those great central truths round which it has grouped the accessory and subor- dinate matter......... The sacred chronicle has never before had such diligent and loving labour bestowed on it.’ EpinpurcH Review. _ ‘This excellent edition is a boon to the less affluent portion of the reading community. Messrs. ConyBeare and Howson’s free translation of St. Paul’s ‘letters is especially valuable, as it clears up many obscure passages in the authorised version without in the slightest degree weakening the terse vigour of the original. The Apostle’s biography, likewise, displays a careful study of the times in which he lived, and of the men and circumstances by which he was “surrounded. As it does not fall to every man’s lot to travel in the East, and acquire by personal experience an accurate knowledge of Oriental life, any work should be heartily welcomed that makes up for this inevitable shortcomings on ‘the part of the majority of Bible students. Such a work is Conyprarz and “Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, which cannot be too strongly recom- mended to the notice of the public’ SpPecTATOR. ‘This elaborate work has become sufficiently known by the wide circulation οὗ the first edition to give it a place, and that an honoured one, among our old ‘literary acquaintances. The form in which it now presents itself will be 2 ConyBEARE & Howson’s Work on St. Paul. heartily welcomed by many who, being desirous of possessing so valuable an | aid to the perusal of that important portion of the New Testament, the writings of St. Paul, will be enabled by the reduction in the price to eratify their wish. | Nothing material to the illustration of the subject has been omitted in the pre- | sent improved edition, there being still an ample supply of plates, woodcuts, and maps. The text remains intact, except so far as it has undergone the process of revision and correction; and the student of the History and Epistles | of St. Paul will here find the information which could be obtained from various” sources collected and placed within his reach, in a lucid and chronological — arrangement. The work deserves to rank with the best and most erudite — productions of exegetical literature.’ Joun Bux. Select American Notices. Od ‘We know of no more interesting and valuable contribution to the history οὗ the Apostolic Age.’ GERMAN RerorMED ΝΙΈΕΒΒΕΝΘΈΕΒ. ‘This must now be considered as the standard work on the subject, at least in the English language.’ _ ® Brptiorueca Sacra. — ‘ Merits high praise for its thorough research, ample and beautiful illustra-— tions, and excellent spirit.’ BiBLioTHECA SACRA. | ‘This is a work of extraordinary merit. It should be in the hands of every — minister and intelligent layman.’ PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERIAN. ‘ We have no hesitation in pronouncing this to be one of the most complete, — interesting, and valuable contributions to Biblical learning that the English — press has ever furnished.’ Boston Eventnc TRAVELLER. ‘This work is a noble monument of the zeal, ability, and piety of its authors. — Berincens The traces of conscientious fidelity, open-hearted candour, and earnest — piety, are manifest on every page.’ Norra American Review. ‘Its descriptive parts are drawn with the hand of a master, and its historical — and narrative parts exhibit great extent of research, a careful sifting of mate- _ rials, and a nice faculty of arrangement. The style is everywhere clear and © chaste. We regard it as a most valuable contribution to the Christian litera- — ture of our age.’ New Yorx INDEPENDENT. 4 } The Original Edition of this work, surviving Joint-Author, the Ilustra- : in quarto, with numerous Illustra- tions are somewhat fewer; the — tions, was completed in 1852; the Text is given without abridgment, Intermediate Edition, with fewer 1]- but the Nores in the narrative lustrations, but after careful revision, portion are slightly condensed and — appeared in 1856. Both these Edi- adapted to unlearned readers. Thus _ tions have been several times re- each of the three Editions of © printed. In the Student's Edition, this standard and popular work © price 7s. 6d. which has been tho- has a distinctive character of its” roughly revised for the press by the own. LLLP London, LONGMANS & CO. -ς-. - ay [Δ ‘ Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer ‘Library ΒΡ - ge ΓΟ 1} ere μαμὰ Ee wee CA a κχοὶ -Ἱ ~ ΡΞ ie. | ΔΕ ee is Ἂ £ af on Ε τ εν. = te? val Ψ si. é ΠῚ ee on ean uv a Ζ 4 m o GAYLORD ‘