had the chief command in all that concerned the navigation of the vessel; in which his opinion was final. Hence the centurion, as was usual, took his opinion, in preference to that of Paul, although he might have known that the apostle was a person of experience in nautical matters;-for such doubtless he was, from his frequent voyages and the dangers he had undergone, which were more and greater than St. Luke has had occasion to relate: for we are informed by the apostle himself, that he had been thrice shipwrecked, and had even been a day and a night in the deep (2 Cor. xi. 25. The functions which the "governor" discharged, and the qualifications which were required in him, are fully stated by ancient writers. His usual post was on an elevated place at the stern of the vessel, whence he issued his orders to the steersman and to those who managed the sails-often himself taking the helm. Besides the practical knowledge which this implied, it was requisite that he should be acquainted with the constellations, that the course of his shy might be directed by them; and with the winds-their names, the quarters from which they blew, and the seasons in which they were prevalent. He was also expected to have a knowledge of ports, and places fit to put in to, when oecasion required, as well as of rocks and shoals; nor was he to be ignorant of the signs of approaching storms. ia says that the Carthaginian vessels had always two of these "governors" in a ship; which was, we suppose, a measure of precaution, that the ship might not be unprovided with a commander, in case one should die during the long voyages which those vessels made. Under other circumstances, only large vessels, such as the present, carried both a "governor" and supercargo; both offices being discharged by the same person in the smaller trading vessels.

12. "Phenice."-Paul had advised that they should stay in the Fair Havens for the winter: but as it did not appear commodious for that purpose, the master, with whom the majority concurred, although he assented to the necessity of wintering in Crete, thought he might venture to carry the ship to the more convenient haven of Phenice. This place is mentioned both by Ptolemy and Strabo as a port on the southern coast of the island of Crete. It was opposite the small island of Clauda or Gaudos, and about fifty-two nautical miles to the north-west of the Fair Havens. The name of the place was, properly, Phoenix, and it was in aftertimes the seat of a bishop. The description, which follows, of the aspect of this port, seems to indicate that it was crooked with two jutting horns, so that it looked into the sea not only to the south-west, but to the north-west. It was thus protected from the south wind, which was the most dreaded, and to which the Fair Havens was probably exposed. It is possible that the south side of Crete may have been sought, in the first instance, voluntarily-even at the expense of doubling Cape Salmone-from the knowledge that there are no good harbours on the northern coast of the island.

14. "A tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon."-The name here given to the wind, has supplied occasion to not a little discussion-the word being not found in any other writer. Various emendations have been suggested, chiefly with the view of reducing it to the nearest resembling term, expressing a point wind. We cannot here follow these investigations; and it is the less necessary to do so, as it appears best to take the term as it stands, since it may be found to offer a sense really better than any of the emendations would supply. It is not necessary to make it refer to a point wind, however unfavourable; but far better to understand it of one of those whirlwinds or hurricanes so common in those seas at this time of the year, and which is so well known to our seamen by the name of a Levanter, and which the ancients called Typhon, and the modern Italians Tuffone. This wind is, of course, not a point wind, but shifting about in all quarters from N. E. to S.E.,--but East prevailing; a description which well corresponds not only to the directions in which the vessel was driven, but to the more obvious meaning of " Euroclydon," which may be rendered the wavestirring East wind," its quality being added to distinguish it from the steady East wind. There is a fine description of such a storm and its effects in Virgil, i. 103–113.

16. "Clauda," called also Gaudos, a small island, about twenty-five miles to the south of the port of Phenice, which our navigators had hoped to reach.

"We had much work to come by the boat."-Every ship, as at present. had a boat; but, as now in the East, it was not at the commencement of the voyage taken up and secured on deck, but left on the water, attached to the stern by a rope. The reason of this difference is clear. The modern navigator bids adieu to land, and has no further present need for his boat; but the ancient seamen, in creeping along the coast, maintained much intercourse with the land, for which the boat was kept always ready. When however a storm arose, and there was danger that the boat would be dashed to pieces against the sides of the ship, it was drawn close up under the stern. In the present case we under stand that this was done, and that the passage prefixed to this note declares that there was much difficulty in thus securing the boat.

17. "They used helps, undergirding the ship."-They were evidently afraid the vessel would go to pieces, particularly if it struck the sand-banks, as they apprehended. With respect to the "helps" (Bonésiais) Dr. Bloomfield observes, "I am inclined to think that these here chiefly mean long beams or planks, extending horizontally, and forming a belting. Now the ancients, from their want of skill in navigation, were very timid, and therefore very careful: and I have no doubt but that, in the larger vessels, shipwrights were taken on board (as carpenters on board our men-of-war), to attend to the repairs of the vessel." The "undergirding the ship" appears to mean the drawing of thick cables around it, to keep its timbers together. This was sometimes done when such dangers were apprehended, and is alluded to by Horace:

"The wounded mast

And sail-yards groan beneath the southern blast,

Nor without ropes thy keel can longer brave

The rushing fury of th' imperious wave.”—CARM. 1. i. 14.

Modern instances of the same practice might be adduced. See Anson's 'Voyage,' p. 24. 4to.

"Lest they should fall into the quicksands."-The original (Tv Eugri) implies that they feared being cast on the Syrtis-meaning doubtless the Syrtis Major on the coast of Africa, occupying great part of what is now called the Gulf of Sidra. There were two Syrtes; but the Syrtis Minor was too far to the west to be a subject of apprehension, whereas the Syrtis Major lay to the south-west, in the direction in which the vessel seems to have been driving when it passed under Clauda, which, by the way, is the nearest European island to the coast of Africa on which the quicksands are found. It is true that even the Syrtis Major was still at a greater distance than would seem to justify any immediate apprehension; but we are to recollect the timidity of the ancient mariners, the uncertainty and confusion which the storm occasioned, and, above all, the horror which the very name of the Syrtes inspired, The Syrtis Major is a wide shallow gulf, penetrating very far within the northern coast of Africa, and not only certain parts of its shores are formed of moveable sands, but the gulf itself is thickly sown with shallows of the same kind, which, yielding to the force of the waves, are subject to variation in their forms and position: from which, and other causes, the depths in the gulf were so uncertain, that experience seems to have proved of no avail to mariners. The mouth of the Syrtis

Major was, in particular, thickly set with shallows. See an account of the Syrtes in Rennel's Geog. of Herodotus,' sect. xxiii. Dr. Bloomfield conjectures that possibly by the Syrtes is here meant, not only the Syrtes properly so called, but that sandy belt by which the whole of the part of the African shore opposite to them was encircled. "Strake sail."-The word rendered “sail” (σxsvos) is of doubtful signification, and hence interpreters have been much divided in opinion concerning it. They mostly concur with our translators; but some will have it to mean the anchor, and others the mast. Kypke observes that they had probably already let down their sails; to which Dr. Bloomfield adds the observation that sails are on such occasions (being furled) rather raised than lowered. This may be true now, (though not with respect to all sails); but in the ancient vessels, as still in all Oriental vessels, there were no fixed yards. The sail might be, and was, if opportunity allowed or occasion required, reefed to the yard without being lowered-but, being reefed, it was lowered with the yard, unless the occasion for reefing were merely temporary. This point is clearly proved by all our cuts, ancient and modern, which exhibit sails, all fixed to moveable yards; some of them are set; others in the act of being reefed; some remaining reefed on the still elevated yard; others lowered, with the yard, without being reefed. The objection therefore is not, on this ground, good, to our understanding the sail in the present instance. If there be others more valid, there certainly is no objection to our understanding the mast, since it is certain, as Dr. Bloomfield (who thinks this the better alternative) states, the mast was so formed as to go in a socket, and be raised or lowered at pleasure. The result leaves the question to be--whether they now took down their yards and sails, "scudding under bare poles," to use the nautical phrase; or else took down their mast, for the same reasons that sometimes induce our mariners to cut away the masts of their vessels in dangerous extremities.

18. "They lightened the ship," by throwing overboard part, at least, of the lading.

19. "The tackling of the ship.”—Probably all such of the ship's stores as were not indispensable to their safety; but it seems idle to speculate, as some do, concerning the particular articles that were thrown overboard. Probably the baggage of the passengers was included.

27. "We were driven up and down in Adria."-That is, in the Adriatic Sea. Now if by "Adria" we are to understand, in the modern sense, the Gulf of Venice only, there remains no alternative but to acquiesce in Dr. Falconer's conclusion that the island of Melita, in which the ship was ultimately wrecked, was not, as is commonly supposed, Malta, but an obscure island in the Gulf of Venice, anciently also called Melita, and now Meleda. This opinion is not by any means a new one; but the learned writer (following Bryant chiefly) has stated the arguments for it very clearly, and has adduced some fresh ones to strengthen his position. He is of course careful to insist that the "Adria" can only mean the Gulf of Venice, the admission of which position would certainly exclude Malta. To this we cannot subscribe, as it appears to have been solidly shown by Beza, Bochart, Grotius, Wetstein, and others, from Ptolemy, Strabo, and other writers, that, at the time in question, the Adriatic Sea was considered to comprehend the whole of the sea between Greece, Italy, and Africa; so that it comprised the Ionian, Cretan, and Sicilian seas. In 1730, P. Ignazio Giorgi published at Venice his Ispezioni Anticritiche, in which he laid great stress on the restriction of the name Adria' to the Gulf of Venice, as establishing the preferable claims of Meleda. Dr. Falconer appears to have seen this work; and we therefore regret that he did not also refer to the large body of counter evidence brought together in the Malta Illustrata,' published at Malta in 1772. Fra. Abela, in the original work published in 1647, had considered the relative claims of Malta and Meleda somewhat largely; and in putting forth a new edition, the Count Giovannantonio Ciantar applied himself to enlarge the evidence in favour of Malta, by opposing the main argument of Father Giorgi; which he did by adducing a multitude of citations (in Lib. ii. Not. vii.) from ancient historians, geographers, and poets, to show the large extent which they assigned to the Adriatic Sea. All the other objections to Malta are met, and the arguments in its favour stated, in the Malta Illustrata' at considerable length: and, for ourselves, although we do think that there is quite enough to be said in favour of Meleda, and against Malta, to justify the stand which has been made for the former island, the weight of evidence of all kinds preponderates greatly in behalf of Malta. The subject is one in which we feel considerable interest, and to which we should be glad to give a full consideration. We regret that our limits preclude us from this indulgence, and confine us to the expression of the conviction which we have stated.

28. "Twenty fathoms."—The Greek measure (ogy) here expressed, denoted the utmost extent of both hands, stretched out till they form a straight line, including the breadth of the body.

29. “Four anchors.”—The anchors in use at the time of this voyage had much resemblance to our own, except that they wanted the transverse beam of wood. It seems that large stones originally served in the place of anchors; and then blocks of wood filled with lead, and which of course acted by their weight only. Bags of sand and baskets of stones also served the same purpose. When iron anchors were first invented, they had but one point, or tooth, as it was called. Anchors with two flukes, or teeth, are said by Pliny to have been invented by Eupalamus; but Strabo ascribes the invention to Anacharsis. A large ship carried several anchors; and it seems that the iron ones did not at once supersede those of wood, for Hiero's great ship is said to have been provided with four wooden anchors and eight of iron. The anchors were such as we should consider small in proportion to the size of the ship; doubtless because they could not provide their vessels with a mechanical power, adequate to the raising of such ponderous anchors as are now in use: hence also the necessity of using several anchors at once. Even in what we call the "middle ages," ships usually carried eight or ten anchors of a certain weight. The ancient ships had one anchor much larger than any of the others; and this was called "the sacred anchor," because it was only used when all the others were lost, or in the last extremity of danger-probably on account of the difficulty with which it was raised.

"Out of the stern."-This has been objected to, seeing that anchors are at present cast from the prow, and not from the stern of ships. The difference between the prow and stern was, however, much less considerable in ancient than in modern ships. Among the Romans, undoubtedly, it was the general practice to cast the anchor from the prow; yet this was not an invariable practice, for instances have been adduced in which anchors were dropped from the stern, as mentioned by Julius Cæsar (Bell. Civ. i. 29) and Val. Flaccus (v. 27). Fosbroke mentions an instance of even a Norman ship with an anchor at the stern, over the side. But it is to be recollected that the Roman practice proves nothing in the present case, the ship being of Alexandria in Egypt; and we do not know but that it was the practice for such vessels to carry their anchors at the stern. I find," says Dr. Bloomfield, "on the authority of James Epist, preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (and cited by Wetstein), that there were, in his time, ships yet at Alexandria, plying between that port and Constantinople, that carried anchors in the poops. And this the same learned writer confirms by a passage of Heliodorus." Sir John Chardin, who, as it appears from Harmer's citation of his manuscripts, supposes the ship in which this voyage was made was like a large modern Egyptian saique of 320 tons, and capable of carrying from twenty-four to thirty guns, observes, that they always carry their anchors at their stern, and never at

their prow. When they cast anchor, the anchors are carried to some distance from the ship, by means of the skiff, and are dropped in such a manner that the ship has always one anchor on one side, and the other on the other side, so that the vessel may lie between them, lest the cables should be entangled with each other. We may presume that, in like manner, the four anchors cast out at the stern, in the present instance, were dropped two on each side of the vessel.

30. "As though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship."-This is very remarkable, taken in connection with the statement in the last verse, and while it corroborates the view we have just taken, supplies what appears to us a very clear illustration of the whole transaction. The seamen, whose own custom it was to cast their anchors out at the stern, being aware that it was the Roman practice to drop them at the prow, and having very probably during the voyage discussed the comparative advantages of the two methods with the Romans on board, and heard them insist on the superiority of their own practice.-employed an alleged intention of trying this method, for giving additional security to the vessel, as a pretext for getting possession of the boat, in which they purposed to escape from the ship. Here query occurs:-Were these anchors also at the stern, and did they want the boat to carry them forward and drop them at the foreship? or, the anchors being already at the prow, did they profess to need the boat in order to carry them out and drop them at some distance from the ship, according to the method described in the preceding note? The latter seems to us the most probable alternative; and, in that case, we find that, although it was their usual practice to drop their anchors at the stern, they were prepared for the alternative of dropping them at the prow, according to the Remas method, if need were. Observe also, that although they had already dropped four anchors, they had more remaining which circumstance is explained by the observation already made respecting the number of anchors carried in ancient vessels.

37. "Two hundred threescore and sixteen souls."-A very large number, according to our notions, for a trading-vesse to carry. It helps us, with other circumstances, to collect that the ship was a large one. This might be illustrated by a reference to what Chardin says, as quoted above, concerning the Egyptian saiques. But indeed it appears, from Lucian and others, that the vessels which carried corn from Egypt to Rome were generally of very large dimensions. 38. "Cast out the wheat."-The remainder of the cargo probably; for every circumstance leads to the conclusion that this vessel from Alexandria was laden with corn for Rome. The imperial city derived its principal supply from Egypt Perhaps the wheat now thrown out, was the portion which had been reserved for provision.

39. "A certain creek with a shore."-The people of Malta have from time immemorial considered this "creek" to have been what is now called the Port of St. Paul. This is a deep bay on the north coast, being the last indentation of the coast, but one, from the western extremity of the island. This bay is about two miles deep by one mile broad. The harbour is very unsafe to some distance from the shore, although there is good anchorage in the middle for light vessels. The greatest danger is at the western headland at the entrance of the bay, particularly as close to it is a small island (Salamone) and a still smaller islet (Salamonetto), the currents and shoals around and between which are particularly dangerous in stormy weather. It is usually supposed that the vessel struck at this point. In the neighbourhood of this port there are some ancient habitations, hollowed in the rock, but which are now almost destroyed by the north

winds and the sea acid which abounds in this part. From this place the old city is distinctly seen, at the distance of about five miles: and on viewing the bay from the church upon the top of the hill on which the city stands, it occurred to ourselves that the people of the town might easily from thence perceive, in the morning, that a wreck had during the night taken place in the bay.

In this page, and in the preceding and following one, we have introduced four engravings, which seem calculated to convey some illustration of the various allusions to the parts of ships, which have occasioned so much perplexity to those who had no other ideas on the subject than such as modern European shipping furnished. We intend them simply as general illustrations of the text, as explained in the notes which have already in this chapter been given: and the cuts and notes together must be taken in the place of that more detailed and explicit account of the shipping of the time, which would doubtless be useful and interesting, but which our present limits do not allow us to furnish.

The first is from a bas-relief in the remarkable tomb of Nævoleia Tyche at Pompeii; and is interesting from the distinctness with which it exhibits the parts of the hull and rigging, and the general illustration which it affords of the

style of naval architecture among the Romans. The prow, the rudder, the mast, the sail, and the arrangement of the ropes deserve particular attention.

The second is of much larger size, probably larger than that in which St. Paul sailed. We have introduced it for the sake of its distinct exhibition of those more essential parts mentioned in this chapter; but being a vessel of we and built to be propelled chiefly by rowing, it necessarily differed considerably from the trading and sailing vessel to which the text refers. The poop, the prow, the sails, and the bulwark, will claim particular attention, nor will the rudder be overlooked. It is right to add, however, that this is not directly from an antique, but from a model framed from the study of various marbles, paintings, and other antiques preserved in the royal museum of Portici.

The third exhibits two modern Egyptian vessels alongside of each other. The propriety of introducing them wi appear from the illustration derived from them in the notes. The yards and sails may be particularly pointed out to the reader's notice.

The fourth is a Chinese war-junk at anchor. Mr. Wilkinson has pointed out some resemblance between the vessels of ancient Egypt, and those of the present Hindoos, and also of the Chinese. So much are we impressed with the same conviction, that we almost doubt whether the vessel represented in the present engraving does not offer a more satisfactory illustration of the narrative than any of the others which we have offered. The greatest difference was prebably about the hull, particularly at the stern and prow, and also in the rudder. But the masts, yards, and sai's seem to us very illustrative. We cannot follow the particular details: but may direct attention to the manner in which the sails are lowered with the yard, without being previously furled, and to the two anchors at the prow-for that there are two appears by the ropes by which they are attached to the vessel.

40. "Loosed the rudder bands."-" Loosed the bands of the rudders," would be more correct, the term being a r Saλv, "the rudders," in the plural. This has perplexed some commentators, to whom more than one rudder seemed incomprehensible. It is easily shown, however, that ancient ships had often more than one rudder. In the vessels portrayed in the paintings of ancient Egypt, we sometimes see vessels with two rudders. This was usual elsewhere as appears from Elian. Var. Hist. ix. 40; Heliodor. in Ethiop. v. 15; and Petron. Ixii., lxxiv. In one of the engraved gems published by Stosch, there is a representation of a vessel, without oars, under sail, with two rudders at the stera. (See also fig. 6, under 2 Chron. xx.) Sometimes indeed there were four rudders, as in the famous ship of Philopator (Athen. lib. v.); and Suidas (in voce Axgora) informs us that then two were at the stern and two at the prow. The ancients had great difficulty in turning their ships; and it was probably for this reason that rudders were fitted to the prow also, that, if need were, the vessel might-instead of being turned, or until a favourable opportunity for turning it occurred-proceed, so to speak, stern foremost. This was also probably the reason why there was, in general, so little real difference between the prow and the stern-namely, that they might be propelled either way when necessary. In this as in other points, the serious difficulties which nautical readers, and even land critics, have found in this instructive chapter, arise from their neglecting to advert to the very great difference between the ships of ancient and modern times.