[101]. In the Philosophical Transactions, vol. lxviii. part I. p. 102, we have a Letter from Mr. Anderson to Sir John Pringle, describing this remarkable stone. The account sent home from the Cape, and read before the Royal Society, is much the same with that now published, but rather fuller. In particular, he tells Sir John, that he went to see it at Mr. Mason’s desire, who, probably, had not had an opportunity of sufficiently examining it himself. In the account of his journies, above referred to, p. 270, he only says, “there are two large solid rocks on the Perel Berg, each of which (he believes) is more than a mile in circumference at the base, and upwards of two hundred feet high. Their surfaces are nearly smooth, without chink or fissures; and they are found to be a species of granite, different from that which composes the neighbouring mountains.”
Mr. Anderson having, with his letter to Sir John Pringle, also sent home a specimen of the rock, it was examined by Sir William Hamilton, whose opinion is, that “this singular, immense fragment of granite, most probably has been raised by a volcanic explosion, or some such cause.” See his Letter to Sir John Pringle, annexed to Mr. Anderson’s, in the Philosophical Transactions.
[102]. It is strange that neither Kolben nor de la Caille should have thought the Tower of Babylon worthy of a particular description. The former [vol. ii. p. 52, 53, English Translation,] only mentions it as a high mountain. The latter contents himself with telling us, that it is a very low hillock, un très-bas monticule. Voyage de la Caille, p. 341. We are much obliged to Mr. Anderson for his very accurate account of this remarkable rock, which agrees with Mr. Sonnerat’s, who was at the Cape of Good Hope so late as 1781. His words are, “La Montagne de la Perle, merite d’être observée. C’est un des plus hautes des environs du Cap. Elle n’est composée que d’un seul bloc de granit crévassé dans plusieurs endroits.” Voyage aux Indes, tom. ii. p. 91.
Mr. Sonnerat tells us, that Mr. Gordon, commander of the troops at the Cape, had lately made three journies up the country, from which, when he publishes his Journal, we may expect much curious information.
[103]. Vol. III. p. 35.
[104]. Nichelson.
[105]. Mr. Dun.
[106]. See Vol. IV. p. 243. These islands are there said to be in the latitude of 48° S., that is, two degrees farther south, than what here appears to be their real position.
[107]. See Vol. IV. as above. Dr. Forster, in his observations made during that voyage, p. 30., gives us this description of the chart then communicated by Monsieur Crozet; that it was published under the patronage of the Duke de Croye, by Robert de Vaugondy. Captain Cook tells us lower in this chapter that it was published in 1773.
[108]. Captain Cook’s proceedings, as related in the remaining part of this chapter, and in the next, being upon a coast newly discovered by the French, it could not but be an object of his attention to trace the footsteps of the original explorers. But no superiority of professional skill, nor diligence in exerting it, could possibly qualify him to do this successfully, without possessing, at the same time, full and authentic intelligence of all that had been performed here by his predecessors in the discovery. But that he was not so fortunate as to be thus sufficiently instructed, will appear from the following facts, which the reader is requested to attend to, before he proceeds to the perusal of this part of the journal.