Sir THOMAS HOLDICH: I have first of all to ask you to accord a welcome to a very distinguished traveller, who has returned amongst us from a far countryCaptain Deasy. For months past we have only dimly heard of the excellent work he has been doing in a remote corner of the world, the south-west corner of Kashgar or the Chinese "New Dominion." Next we have to deplore the absence of our President on this occasion. When the expedition to Magdala was undertaken in 1868, Mr. (now Sir) Clements Markham was appointed to accompany it as historian and geographer, and it is from his excellent book on the subject that we know as much as we do about the physiography of the northern parts, which seem to differ in no very essential degree from what Mr. Weld Blundell has told us about the southern. To me the most interesting feature about Abyssinia is the existence there of a Christian community, which has lasted so much longer in high Africa than any other similar community in high Asia; where such communities disappeared before Mohammedanism. I believe the Abyssinians date their Christianity from the teachings of that eunuch of Queen Candace, of whose conversion we read in the Bible. Historical evidence places it about the beginning of the fourth century. However that may be, it is certainly a Christianity which recognizes symbols and forms and ceremonies very much more than the ordinary practices of the Christian religion. One symbol in particular, I remember, is the exhibition of something blue as an indication of a bond of religious affinity; this claims an Abyssinian's friendship and regard as to a brother Christian. The origin of this I have never been able to discover, but I observed in those very quaint pictures which decorate their churches, which are either caricatures of Byzantine works of very ancient date, or else, as I am inclined to think, of Portuguese works of later date, they carefully preserve the blue colour for the robe of the Madonna -exactly in the same way as you will see in the medieval art of the old masters. I believe Colonel Conder also mentions, in one of his books on Syria, blue as a recognized symbol of Christianity amongst the communities there. No one, however, has been able to tell me what the origin may be. I asked my learned friend Sir Henry Yule about it, and he was unable to tell me exactly when it originated.*

Of the Abyssinian's regard for observances I had an uncomfortable proof on one occasion when surveying the upper sources of the Atbara during the Abyssinian expedition. I happened to light one day on the same camping-ground as the wellknown Tigre chief Yessus, who had made himself objectionable in many ways. I was so little inclined to take up my position alongside him, that I began to make tracks elsewhere; when he sent a deputation to remind me that next day was Easter Sunday, and asked me to join him in celebrating it. I thought I had better not refuse the invitation, and I attended. banquet at which I have ever assisted. the ground to eat raw meat and drink raw tipsy. I had misgivings as to how things outside to assist me out of difficulties, if necessary.

66

It was the crudest and rudest sort of In the centre of a big red tent we sat on tej," and my host got uncomfortably would end, so I had stationed a guard Next day I meditated a return

* At the conclusion of the lecture, it was pointed out to me by Mr. Levi, a learned Oriental scholar, that blue was the national and religious colour symbol of the Hebrews (vide Numb. xv. 38, 39), and that in all probability it was borrowed from them by the Abyssinians or Ethiopians in very early days. As the colour representing the feminine principle in nature, it is at least as old as the myth of Venus rising from the sea, and in heraldry blue is denoted by horizontal lines representing the sea. Yet the colour symbol of the prototype of Venus (the goddess Ishtar) of the early Chaldæans appears to have been pale yellow.-TH. H.

call to say "thank you" for the entertainment of the day before, but my host had left, and in an absent-minded manner he had taken all my transport with him.

I must ask you to join with me in rendering thanks to Mr. Blundell for his admirable lecture, which has interested us exceedingly.

(To be continued.)

HUDSON'S VOYAGE TO SPITSBERGEN IN 1607.*

By SIR MARTIN CONWAY.

THE most puzzling of all the accounts of early voyages to Spitsbergen is that which describes Hudson's voyage of 1607. The fault was probably not Hudson's, for he is known to have been an accurate observer, but John Playse's. Playse (or Pleyce) was one of the ship's company, who kept a journal and seems to have copied into it extracts from Hudson's log. It is clear, however, that he either misunderstood what Hudson wrote, or altered it in the copying, for the purpose of claiming new discoveries beyond those made by Barents in 1596, as well as the attainment of a far higher latitude than was actually reached. In support of this contention I now proceed to analyze Playse's account, as printed by Purchas (vol. iii. p. 567), and reprinted by the Hakluyt Society in 1860 (Henry Hudson the Navigator,' edited by G. M. Asher, pp. 1-22).

On May 1, 1607, the Hopewell, eighty tons, with Henry Hudson for master, John Colman mate, William Collins boatswain, and a crew of eight men and a boy, weighed anchor at Gravesend and sailed for the northern seas. After spending some time on the coast of Greenland, they sailed eastward for Spitsbergen, of whose discovery by Barents they were aware, and by whose chart they apparently directed their course. The claim that they independently rediscovered the island cannot be sustained. On June 27 (p. 8), “about one or two of the clocke in the morning, we made Newland [i.e. Spitsbergen], being cleere weather on the sea; but the land was covered with fogge, the ice lying very thick all along the shore for 15 or 16 leagues, which we saw. Having faire wind, we coasted it in a very pleasing smooth sea, and had no ground at an hundred fathoms foure leagues from the shoare. This day at noone, wee accounted we were in 78 degrees [i.e. near the mouth of Ice fiord], and we stood along the shoare. This day was so foggie, that we were hardly able to see the land many times, but by our account we were neare Vogel Hooke [the north end of Prince Charles foreland, lat.

* Not 1608, as misprinted on Hondius' chart of 1611 in Pontanus, and often elsewhere in the early literature of polar exploration.

79°]. About eight of the clocke this eevening, we purposed to shape our course from thence north-west."

They tried to get away from the land, but the ice drove them back. About midnight after the 28th they were west and in sight of Vogel Hook. On July 1 at noon (p. 10), "wee were embayed with ice, lying between the land and us. By our observation we were in 78 degrees 42 minutes, whereby we accounted we were thwart of the great Indraught." The "great Indraught" is the "Grooten Inwyck" of Barents, the modern Ice fiord. The latitude of its mouth on Barents' chart is 78°, which is approximately correct. If they were in 78° 42', they must have been off Cape Sietoe of Prince Charles' foreland. "To free ourselves of the ice, we steered between the south-east and south, and to the westward, as we could have sea [i.e. they could not have been making rapid progress; yet] about six this evening it pleased God to give us cleere weather, and we found we were shot farre into the inlet, being almost a bay, and environed with very high mountains, with low land betweene them; wee had no ground in this bay at an hundred fathoms." The description of the bay and the depth suggests that they were inside Ice fjord, 90 miles sailing from their position at noon, which is impossible. If the position was fairly correct, as is probable, they must merely have been somewhat east of the south point of Prince Charles Foreland, but certainly not up Foreland sound.

66

The log continues, Being sure where we were, we steered away west [the natural course if they were off the mouth of Ice fiord, but an impossible course if they were in Foreland sound], the wind at south, east and calme, and found all our ice on the northern shore, and a cleare sea to the southward."

On July 2, "the wind at north-east, a faire gale with cleere weather, the ice being to the northward off us, and the weather shore [i.e. land being to the northward], and an open sea to the southwards under our lee," they were outside the mouth of Ice fiord, but not yet clear of the south extremity of Prince Charles Foreland. They sailed 10 leagues to the north-west, and at noon, by observation, they were in lat. 78° 56', i.e. nearly off Vogel Hook again. On the third (at noon?) they were, by observation, in lat. 78° 33', i.e. off the middle of Prince Charles foreland. "This day wee had our shrouds frozen; it was searching cold; we also trended the ice, not knowing whether we were cleare or not, the wind being at north. The fourth was very cold, and our shrouds and sayles frozen; we found we were farre in the inlet." They accordingly stood south-south-east, south, and south-west by west, which seems to prove that they must have been at the southern entrance to Foreland sound, up which the tide may have carried them in the fog. Such courses would not have taken them out of Ice fiord.

At twelve on July 5, "we strooke a hull, having brought ourselves neare the mouth of the inlet." On July 6 they were in the open sea,

in 77° 30′ by observation; that is to say, off Bell point, south of the entrance to Bell sound. The day was clear, but nothing is said of land in sight. The 7th was again clear. They reckoned that they were in 78°, and "out of the Sacke." What is meant by the Sacke I do not know, but it cannot have been either Ice fiord, or Foreland sound, or any other land-locked bay. The recorded latitudes prove that Hudson had not spent his time during the whole of the first week of July either in Foreland sound or in Ice fiord, as commentators generally assume.

"Now, having the wind at north-north-east, we steered away south and by east, with purpose to fall with the southermost part of this land, which we saw; hoping by this meane, either to defray the charge of the voyage [? by discovery], or else, if it pleased God in time to give us a faire wind to the north-east, to satisfie expectation." If the intention was to sail round the south cape of Spitsbergen and then to the north-east, it was soon abandoned, for, after some hours' calm on the 8th, they "stood away north-east," and continued sailing north-east as steadily as possible during the 9th and 10th. But in the afternoon of the 10th they had to sail south-south-west out of the ice "to get more sea-roome.' On July 11," having a fresh gale of wind at southsouth-east, it behoved mee to change my course, and to sayle to the north-east by the souther end of Newland." Clearly here "souther" is a misprint for "norther," for they went on sailing towards the north. At noon their latitude was 79° 17', and the sun on the meridian bore "south and by west, westerly," which gives the compass deviation.

#

They soon ran into ice again, and had to turn south once more. At noon on July 12, "by our accompt we were in 80 degrees," but this is probably an error for 79°. They continued sailing north and northeast. At midnight (p. 13), "out of the top William Collins, our boatswaine, saw the land called Newland by the Hollanders [i.e. Vogelhook],† bearing south-south-west twelve leagues from us." This would put them in lat. 79° 30′ or less, as they generally overestimated distances. On July 13, at noon, "by observation we were in 80 degrees 23 minutes." Seeing that we know their courses from this point till next day, when they were off the mouth of Whales [King's] bay, and can thus reckon back from a known position, it is demonstrably probable that for 80° 23' we should read 79° 23'.

* Passages written in the first person singular are assumed to be copied by Playse, verbatim, out of Hudson's own log. The whole passage relating to July 11 (p. 12) is of this character.

† Which throughout this log is assumed to be the most northerly point seen by Barents.

This emphasis on the land discovered by the Hollanders is intended to prepare for a claim presently to be made for "land by us discovered," Playse's idea being that Barents only discovered as far as Vogelhook-au utter blunder, if not an intentional fraud.