200 DAHLGREN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 



voyage (Pl. II), they are marked in their right position within this chain of islands. They 

 appear for the first time on a printed map in 1714, on Guillaume Delisle's Hémisphére 

 Septentrional (Fig. 17). On his world-map of 1720, on the other hand, they do not occur; 

 but among the numerous islands which there appear for the first time, we see, in about 

 the same place, an island with the name of S. Thomas. This island appears afresh both 

 on Delisle's Hémisphére Oriental of 1720 (Fig. 20) and on his Carte cFAsie of 1723 (Fig. 

 22); and immediately south of it we see, on both these maps, lie St. JRoch. From this it 

 appears as if Delisle regarded only the last-named as a new discovery by Frondat and 

 that he considered that lie must identify Frondat's Saint Antoine with the Santo Tomas 

 of the Spanish charts, whose discoverer is unknown to us. The French discovery was 

 again given full credit by J. N. Bellin, who, in his Hydrographie Franfoise, on the strength 

 of Frondafs journals restored S. Antoine and S. Roch to their right places, 1 while he 

 discarded all the islands and names in their neighbonrhood taken from the Spanish charts. 

 These last were again inserted by J. N. Delisle and Ph. Buache af ter the Anson chart; 

 and among them Frondafs islands were packed in as best they could be, as we see from 

 Fig. 23. But as the Anson chart soon became the sole standard for the cartography of 

 the Pacific, all its fictitious islands were religiously copied on låter maps, while S. Antoine 

 and S. Roch, which had been really observed and whose position had been fixed fairly 

 correctly, were excluded as apocryphal. It is only on a map here and there that we see, 

 as a reminiscence of Guillaume Delisle, one or other of these islands: 3 before the close of 

 the century they had entirely fallen into oblivion. 



Accordingly, when these islands were again observed by the navigatörs of a låter 

 time, they were regarded as new discoveries. The one that was first re-found was Saint 

 Roch. Captain John Meares, during a voyage in the ship "Felice" from China to the 

 north-west coast of America, saw, on 2 April 1788, a rock which presented such a confusing 

 resemblance to a ship under sail that everybody on board took it for one; and it was not 

 until they had got within two leagues of it that they realized their mistake. Its heiglit was 

 estimated at nearly 350 feet, 3 and its position was determined as 29° 50' N. lat., and 142° 

 23' long. E. from Greenwich. Meares, who says that this isolated rock was "one of the 

 most wonderful objects, taken in all its circumstances, which he ever beheld", ga ve to it 

 the name of Lofs Wife* 



On the British Admiralty chart the longitude is 140° 22' E., which is thus only about 

 2 degrees different from Meares' figure, as given in the text of his narrative. If, however, 



1 [J. N. Bellin] Observations sur la construction de la carte des mers comprises entré VAsie et 

 VAmérique, appellées par les navigateurs Mer du Sud et Mer Pacifique, dressée . . . par ordre de M. le Comte 

 de Maurepas, en 1741, s. 1. p. 11. — Followiug Bellin, the German cartographer Isaac Brouckner inserted the 

 islands S. Antoine et S. Roch ("découvertes par le S 1 ' Frondal 1709") in his Nouvel Atlas de Murine, 

 approuvé par 1'Académie R. des Sciences å Berlin 1'année 1749 (sheet X). See facsimile in De franska 

 sjöfärderna, p. 226. 



2 Amongst such maps may be mentioned one which Louis XVI drew for the instruction of his son the 

 Dauphin, and which can still be seen on a little stucco table in the dining-room in Petit Trianon: here we 

 have St. Roch but not St. Antoine, wliich shows that the royal draftsman copied from Delisle's map of 1720. 



3 The U. S. ship "Vincennes", of the North Pacific Surveyiug Expedition, made its height 299 feet; 

 The British Admiralty Chart gives 466 feet. 



4 John Meares, Yoyages made in the Years 1788 and 1789, from China to the North West Coast of 

 America. Lond. 1790, p. 96. 



