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 consistent 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 versant in nautical matters, and describes them in the appropriate language of seamanship.

No man could by any possibility attain so complete 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 accurate, is not professional. The difference in the manner of describing nautical events by seamen and landsmen 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 profession at sea. From the great number of persons which we often hear of in ancient ships, we must suppose that they carried surgeons.

* The ship in which Josephus went to Rome carried 600. (Life.)

Whether St. Luke ever served in that capacity or not is, of course, mere matter of conjecture: one thing is certain, no one unaccustomed 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, unprofessional. The seaman in charge of the ship has his attention perpetually 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 consequences 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 familiarity, or from 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 characterize the style of St. Luke as a 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 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 Service 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

* I have no doubt but 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,—circumstances which clearly point to the principal surgeon of the expedition.

accounts of the same events written by professional seamen. It exhibits the same peculiarities which I have alluded to as characterizing the style of St. Luke.* The author relates the events as they fell 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.)

'It 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 language is quite as correct in the one case as in the other, the only difference being, that the seaman relates the causes of their

* In this respect the fragment presents a curious contrast with Captain 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 ot er bones were dropped the day before,' a circumstance Captain King says nothing about.

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 (μoλɩs, 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.'

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 purchase 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, provided 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: