The Highlands of Ethiopia
By Sir William Cornwallis Harris
Published by Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, London.
This edition dated 1844.
Introduction to the Second Edition.
In putting forward a second edition of my "Highlands of Ethiopia," I
have two very different duties to perform: first, to thank the press for
the extremely liberal and generous manner in which it has received my
work; secondly, to reply to certain objections which have been made by
one or two periodicals, happily not of the first eminence, against both
me and my travels. So numerous, however, are the publications that have
evinced a favourable, I might almost say a friendly, disposition towards
me, that I am unable to specify them. They will, therefore, I trust,
accept in general terms my thanks to them one and all.
Their very flattering testimonies have induced me to revise carefully
what I have written, in order, if possible, to render it worthy of their
warm praise, and to justify their predilection in my behalf. On the
other hand, _fas est et ab hoste doceri_. I have consequently turned to
account even the animadversions of my enemies--for enemies unhappily I
have, and those, too, of the most implacable and malignant character--
mean persons to whom I have shown kindness, which they have apparently
no means of repaying but by inveterate aversion. This circumstance I
ought not perhaps to regret, except on their account. The parts we play
are suitable to our respective characters; and I should even now abstain
from prejudicing them in the estimation of the public, if I did not
apprehend that my forbearance might be misconstrued.
The points of attack selected by my adversaries are not many in number.
Ultimately, indeed, they resolve themselves into three: first, my style
of composition, which they say is gorgeous and inflated, and therefore
obscure; second, the inaccuracy of several of my details; and third, the
absence of much new information, which it seems the public had a right
to expect from me. On the subject of the first accusation it will not
perhaps be requisite that I should say much. To any one who cannot
understand what I write I must necessarily appear obscure; but it may
sometimes, I think, be a question with which of us the fault lies. That
my composition is generally intelligible may not unfairly, I think, be
inferred from the number of persons who have understood and praised it;
since it can scarcely be imagined that the majority of reviewers would
warmly recommend to the public that in which they could discern no
meaning. Besides, on the subject of style there is a great diversity of
opinion, some thinking that very extraordinary scenes and objects should
be delineated in forcible language, while others advocate a tame and
formal phraseology which they would see employed on all occasions
whatsoever. I may observe, moreover, that "style," as Gibbon remarks,
"is the image of character," and it is quite possible that my fancy may
have a natural aptitude to take fire at the prospect of unusual scenes
and strange manners. Still I am far from defending obstinately my own
idiosyncracies, and yet farther from setting them up as a rule to
others. In describing what I saw, and endeavouring to explain what I
felt, I may very possibly have used expressions too poetical and ornate;
but the public will, I am convinced, do me the justice to believe that,
in acting thus, my object was exactly to delineate, and not to delude.
I called in to my aid the language which seemed to me best calculated to
reflect upon the minds of others, those grand and stupendous objects of
nature which had made so deep and lasting an impression on my own. At
all events, I am not conscious of having had in this any sinister
purpose to serve.
It is a far more serious charge, that I have presented the public with a
false account of the Embassy to Shoa; that I have altered or suppressed
facts; that I have been unjust to my predecessors and companions; and
that I have at once misrepresented the country and its inhabitants. It
has been already observed, that my accusers are few in number. Probably
they do not exceed three individuals, two who affect to speak from their
own knowledge, and one whom they have taken under their patronage as
their cat's-paw. It may seem somewhat humiliating to answer such
persons at all. I feel that it is so. But if dirt be cast at me, I
must endeavour to shield myself from it, without enquiring whether the
hands of the throwers be naturally filthy or not. That is their own
affair. Mine is to avoid the pollution aimed at me. This must be my
apology for entering into the explanations I am about to give.
When I undertook to lay before the public an account of my travels in
Abyssinia, I had to choose between the inartificial and somewhat tedious
form of a journal, and that of a more elaborate history, in which the
exact order of dates should not be observed. I preferred the latter;
whether wisely or unwisely remains to be seen, though hitherto public
opinion seems to declare itself in favour of my choice. Having come to
this determination, it was necessary that I should act in all things
consistently with it. As I had abandoned the journal, it was no way
incumbent on me to observe the laws which govern that form of
composition. My business, as it appeared to me, was to produce a work
with some pretensions to a literary character; that is, one in which the
order of time is not regarded as a primary element, the principal object
being the grouping of events and circumstances so as to produce a
complete picture. I perfectly understood that I was to add nothing and
to invent nothing, but that I was at liberty to throw aside all trivial
details, and dwell only on such points as seemed calculated to place in
their proper light the labours of the mission, with the institutions,
customs, and type of civilisation found among the people to whom we had
been sent. In conformity with this theory I wrote. One of the first
consequences, however, of the view I had taken of my subject, was the
sacrifice of all minute personal adventures, which scarcely appeared in
any way compatible with my plan. I abandoned likewise the use of the
first personal pronoun, and always spoke of myself and my companions
collectively, thereby perhaps doing some little injustice to my own
exertions, but certainly not arrogating to myself any credit properly
due to others. Among my friends there are those who object to this
manner of writing, and I submit my judgment to theirs. In this Second
Edition, therefore, I have reconstructed the narrative so far as was
necessary in order to convert the third person into the first. To the
charge that I have not observed the strict chronology of a journal, I
have already pleaded guilty. It seemed to me far better to arrange
together under one head whatever belonged properly to one topic. For
example, when recording the medical services rendered to the people of
Shoa, high or low, I have not inserted in my work each individual
instance as it occurred, but have placed the whole before the reader in
a separate chapter. So likewise in other cases, that which appeared to
elucidate the matter in hand, was introduced into what I thought its
proper place, because there it might both receive and reflect light,
whereas in any other part, perhaps, of the work, it might have been
without significance, if not altogether absurd. Not being infallible, I
may possibly have misinterpreted the laws of rhetoric which I adopted as
my guide: of this let the public be judge. I have aimed, at all events,
at drawing a correct outline of Shoa and the surrounding countries, as
far as my materials would permit, and should I have sometimes fallen
into error, I claim that indulgence which is always readily extended to
authors similarly circumstanced. While in Abyssinia, my official
position very greatly interfered with my predilections as a traveller.
I could not move hither and thither freely. To enlarge the circle of
science was not the principal object of my mission; but at the same time
it must not be forgotten that I enjoyed some advantages which a
traveller visiting the country under other auspices would scarcely have
commanded. In drawing up my work, however, the character in which I
travelled was of considerable disservice to me. Much of the information
that I collected, it was not permitted me to impart, which I say, not by
way of complaint against the regulations of the service in which I have
the honour to be engaged,--on the contrary, I think it most just and
proper that such should be the case--but that the reader, when he feels
a deficiency in political or commercial information, may know that it
has not been withheld through any negligence or disrespect of the public
on my part.
I now come to consider more in detail the objections which have been
urged against my travels. Some of these, it will at once be perceived,
are so loose and indefinite as to be wholly incapable of being answered.
For example, it is said, I have made no addition to the information
already existing respecting the southern provinces of Abyssinia. How
can I reply to this? Must I reprint all the works which had been
previously published, and point out the additions I have made? The
process, it will be acknowledged, is an unusual one. Besides, the
scientific world has not hitherto been averse to look at several views
of the same country, to compare them for itself, and to derive from the
very comparison both pleasure and information. Some additions,
moreover, to geographical science I undoubtedly have made, and there are
those who have not been ashamed to borrow them. I have ascertained, for
example, that the Gochob does not flow into the Nile, as it is made to
do in a map which I have seen, constructed by one of the reviewer's
greatest authorities. The inquiries I instituted render it probable
that the Gochob is the same river with the Juba. And, above all, the
longitude of Ankober was, under my directions, and by a laborious series
of operations, correctly determined. The importance of this to
travellers who may not possess the ability or the means of resolving it
themselves, I need scarcely point out. Previously, every position in
the maps of Southern Abyssinia was calculated from a false position, and
therefore of necessity wrong. But I shall not here enter upon an
inventory of my humble services to science. I could wish they were more
numerous, but such as they are I trust they will be found not wholly
without their value.
In "ethnography," or rather perhaps "ethnology," the critic discovers my
ideas to be all wrong; and he accounts for the circumstance by supposing
in me some innate aversion to the "savage." I certainly dislike that
particular variety of our species whether at home or abroad, but it does
not necessarily follow that I have been therefore guilty of
misrepresentation. These things, nevertheless, I leave to be determined
by public opinion, which, so far as I can perceive, is little, if at
all, influenced by the bitter and self-interested censures of my
enemies.
When I determined on making some reply to the "slashing" Aristarchus who
has assailed my work--I would say publicly, but that the thing is so
obscure that few persons have even heard of it--my design was to attempt
something like order, that I might not by a multiplicity of disjointed
remarks confound the memory of my readers. But the impossibility of
following any rational plan soon became apparent. The reviewer with
whom I have to deal is a man who scorns all order and regularity. His
only rule is that of _hysteron proteron_, or putting the cart before the
horse. Not possibly that he considers such a method of writing best in
itself, but that by introducing perfect anarchy into his critique, and
returning a dozen times to each objection urged, my faults might in
appearance be so multiplied that they would suffice to fill a whole
encyclopaedia. Now if in my reply I followed any other than his
fragmentary system, I might perhaps seem to many not to answer all his
objections, whereas my intention is to demolish every one of them. I
resolved therefore to begin _ab ovo_, and giving quarter to no
impertinence or absurdity by the way, to clear the ground completely,
and leave a perfect _rase campagne_ behind me. That in so doing I shall
not prove tedious, is more than I can hope. My adversary is insipidity
personified. But if the controversy be unamusing, it shall, at least as
far as I can render it so, be brief.
The critic whose vagaries I have undertaken to expose, though affecting
not to be hypercritical, first dwells with a puerile pertinacity on the
title of my book, which he pronounces to be a misnomer, because,
forsooth, the territories of Shoa are not high lands, but a high land!
Possibly he figures to himself the whole of Abyssinia as one single vast
plateau, whose surface presents neither elevation nor depression,
otherwise the reader will see no reason why it should be spoken of in
the singular.
In describing the contents of the second volume, my reviewer speaks of
"a slaving expedition among the Galla, _in which the Embassy_," he
affirms, "_took part_." The assertion, however, is incorrect, not to
apply to it a harsher epithet; for the spectator who looks on a play can
with no propriety be said to take part in the acting of it. The mission
was sent to Sahela Selassie, not to the city of Ankober. It was
consequently my business to attend the king, to watch his movements, and
study his character, just as the Embassy under Sir John McNeil attended
the Shah of Persia to Herat, though instead of taking part in the siege,
he laboured earnestly to put a stop to it.
The contents of the third volume are next wilfully misrepresented, the
critic desiring to make it appear that a very small portion indeed has
reference to the country or people of Abyssinia, though at least
two-thirds treat expressly of those subjects, whilst the remainder is
strictly connected with them.
But it is not merely in the third volume that the critic is unable to
discover any information respecting Shoa. He takes courage as he
proceeds, advances from particulars to generals, and contends that the
book contains no information at all in any part of it, that no account
is given of the geography of the country, no sketch of its history, in
short no account of it in any way whatsoever. Afterwards, indeed, an
exception is made in favour of religion. Taking no interest in this,
however, he treats it as a twice-told tale with which he was previously
familiar. Considering the modes of thinking prevalent in the quarter,
it may, without much uncharitableness, be permitted one to doubt this.
Not to insist, however, on a point which may be disagreeable to the
reviewer, I hasten to compliment him on his sagacity, which, through the
table of contents, has made the discovery, that the political history of
Abyssinia for the last thirty years is not given. I acknowledge the
omission, and may perhaps have been to blame for suffering any
consideration connected with the size of the volumes to weigh with me in
such a matter. The historical sketch in question, however, was actually
written, though the critic would probably not have derived from it any
more satisfaction than from the rest of the book. He objected to its
absence because it was not there. Had I introduced it, he would have
said it was a twice-told tale, and absolutely good for nothing.
My adversary now and then qualifies, as he proceeds, his absolute
affirmations. Having again and again maintained that there is no
account, "historical or otherwise," given of the country, he afterwards
admits his error, but says the account is "confused and unintelligible."
I think it was Mr Coleridge who made the remark, when persons
complained that they could not understand his work, that it was their
fault, since all he had to do was to bring the book, and that it was
their duty to bring the understanding. I make the same reply to the
critic. Other people understand my account of Abyssinia; and if he
really does not, I am sorry for him, but can offer him no assistance.
However, there is an old proverb, I believe, which says, "There are none
so blind as those who won't see."
The argument by which I am proved to have read Mr Salt, though I make
no allusion to him, is curious; but I either profited by my reading, or
I did not. If I profited, the consequences must be visible in my work;
if I derived nothing from Mr Salt, then my work can contain no proof
that I did. But it does, according to the critic, contain such proof;
_ergo_, I have profited by Mr Salt's labours. It would have been well,
however, if the critic had pointed out where and how much; for until he
does so, my word will probably be thought as good as his, especially as
he is anonymous, and I am not. One proof of my careless reading of Mr
Salt is, I own, very remarkable. It seems, had I been well versed in
his production, I should have known that Oubie is "still alive and ruler
of Tigre;" Mr Salt having, of course, been careful to relate that
circumstance. It so happens, however, that at the period I was engaged
in writing my work, Oubie was a prisoner, and another prince seated on
his throne--a fact, I believe, not preserved in Salt.
Next comes on the tapis the orthography of Ethiopia; _apropos_ of which,
the critic takes occasion to call in question my classical acquirements.
I was not, however, aware that, by preferring one orthography to
another, I was laying claim to profound erudition, or setting myself up
for "an authority among scholars." On the contrary, I followed those
who appeared to me very sufficient guides. Gibbon and Dr Johnson,--
authors who may perhaps, even by the reviewer himself, be permitted to
claim a humble niche among our classics. But they wrote, it may be
said, in the last century. I therefore refer to a perfectly new
publication, on a classical subject, if not the work of a classic,--I
mean Mr Saint John's "History of the Manners and Customs of Ancient
Greece," in which the orthography I have adopted is likewise made use
of. If then I have been affected, I have at all events indulged my
affectation in very good company. But the reviewer does not stop here.
He thinks the orthography involves a mystery, and he goes about the
unveiling of it in a very mysterious way. It is a proof he thinks that
I am indebted to Mr Krapf for what little proficiency I may have made
in the art of spelling; nay more, that I have derived from that
gentleman all my knowledge of Abyssinia of every kind!
Before I make any other remark on this part of the subject, I will take
occasion to compliment myself on my simplicity; for if I had desired to
conceal my obligations to Dr Krapf, and have been conscious of any
which I have not frankly stated, I should have been careful to spell
Ethiopia _classically_, that is, as the reviewer does, in order to
conceal the source from which I had drawn. I should thus clearly have
put him on a very wrong scent, since a single letter suffices to lead
him by the nose. But the most curious view of this question remains yet
to be taken. Dr Krapf, he says, possesses the most complete knowledge
of Abyssinia, its geography, language, and literature. He then goes on
to maintain that Dr Krapf imparted his knowledge to me, and I that same
knowledge to the public. But, no! the reviewer stops short here, and
affirms that I envied the public the possession of Dr Krapf's
knowledge, and withheld it all; since he everywhere asserts that there
is no information whatever in my book. Verily, I have been taking a
lesson from that ancient Briton who is represented as having plundered a
naked Scotchman:
"A painted vest Prince Vortigern had on,
Which from a naked Pict his grandsire won!"
Because, if I tell nothing new, and owe all I do tell to Dr Krapf, who
also imparted to me all he knew, his knowledge must clearly have been
very limited. I have acknowledged, however, and I repeat the
acknowledgment, that Dr Krapf was of essential service to me in various
ways; that he freely imparted to me the valuable information he
possessed, and gave me to understand that I was at liberty to make use
of it. I did make use of it, having previously however been careful to
publish my obligations to him. In fact, there is no man who would be
more ready than Dr Krapf, were he now in England, to express his
perfect satisfaction with what I have done. He has, indeed, expressed
it publicly in his "Journal," where he acknowledges himself to be under
obligations to me; and the Church Missionary Society, in its preface,
makes the same admission.
I am next blamed for not giving a connected history of the mission; the
proper answer to which is, that I never undertook to give it. I have
not entitled my book "the History of an Eighteen Months' Residence in
Shoa," but have said that my observations were collected _during_ an
eighteen months' residence there. They are not all my observations, nor
have I arranged them chronologically; therefore, though the reviewer
feels disappointed, he has no right to quarrel with me. He expected one
thing--I published another; simply because I did not write for him, or
such as he, but for the public. As it is, however, I am not sorry that
he is "tantalised," which he would not be if he possessed one-tenth of
the knowledge to which he obliquely lays claim. On most points he is
profoundly ignorant, and it suits my purpose to leave him so. Any
information that I can impart, without prejudice to the public service,
it is doubtless my duty to give; and accordingly, in this second
edition, I have stated some facts not recorded in the first. In most
cases, indeed, men publish a first edition as an _experiment_, to
ascertain how far their views of what information the public needs are
correct, that they may afterwards diligently, and to the best of their
power, supply it.
The Mission, it is said, has been "a complete failure." But how is this
proved? By a scrap extracted from some anonymous correspondent to a
newspaper, who writes, not from Angollala or Ankober, but from Cairo,
which is nearly as though a person residing in Saint Petersburgh were to
write authoritatively to China respecting what is going on in Lisbon.
But it does not follow that the Mission has been a failure, because some
Cairo gossip chooses to say so, or because all the fruits of it have not
yet been reaped. A treaty has been concluded, friendly relations have
been established, and upon this basis commerce will proceed, slowly
perhaps, but surely, to erect its structure. It will be for the next
generation to determine whether or not the mission was "a complete
failure." A reviewer residing in the purlieus of High Holborn is not
competent to do it.
On the subject of "German crowns," the critic may, for aught I know, be
a great authority; or, as he says on another matter, may know somebody
that is. But the quarrel which he seeks to pick with me is so utterly
puerile, that I will not engage in it. His positiveness, however, is as
usual proportioned to his ignorance, for even on so infinitesimal a
point as this he contrives to be wrong, since the marks are not _three_,
as he supposes, but _seventeen_, on the coronet and shoulder-clasp.
However, supposing I had here been wrong, would it therefore have been
fair to infer that on every other point I must be wrong also? An usurer
would be a better authority on the aspect of a gold coin than the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet in finance the Jew might not be a match
for the Chancellor. Let it not, however, be supposed that I desire to
compare myself with Mr Goulburn, or the critic to a Jew; I merely
mention these things by way of illustration. At any rate, my censor's
blunder must be obvious to every one who has seen a German dollar, and
to adopt his own phrase, "_Ex pede Herculem_."
On the practice observed by the Mohammadans in slaughtering animals, the
reviewer displays a vast deal of erudition, and quotes the treatise of
Mr Lane, on the "Manners of the Modern Egyptians." It happens,
however, that there are variations in the practices of the Moslems; and
he might as well have argued, that because there are pyramids in Egypt,
there must also be pyramids in Abyssinia, as that because the Egyptians
do not make use of certain words on particular occasions, therefore, the
Danakil and the Somauli cannot possibly employ them. My narrative does
not touch on the customs of Egypt, on which Mr Lane writes but on those
of a different part of Africa, in which, so far as I can discover, that
author has never been. What I relate, however, is matter of fact, and
the critic only exhibits his profound ignorance of human nature by
supposing that Mohammadanism is stereotyped in any part of the world,
since there are as many differences in the customs of the Mohammadan
nations, as in those of Christendom. For example,--the practice of
"bundling," so common in Wales, does not, I believe, prevail in Egypt;
but if our critic were to infer that it is, therefore, altogether
anti-Islamite, he would be as completely wrong as he is in the present
instance; for that which the Egyptian Mussulman detests, is the
established custom in certain parts of Afghanistan. So, likewise, is
the invocation of the name of God during the slaughter of animals. The
Egyptians, it seems, invoke the sacred name without coupling with it
"the Compassionate, the Merciful," which they think would sound like
mockery; but what proof is the reviewer prepared to advance in his
wisdom, that this rule is observed in India and every other part of the
East?
The Mohammadans, again, he says, never drink blood; and why? because it
is forbidden them by the Koran. But stealing is no less peremptorily
prohibited. Will he, therefore, argue, that there is no such thing as a
Mohammadan thief? The question is not as to what is forbidden or
ordained, but as to a simple matter of fact. I state what I saw with my
own eyes. The critic, who was never in the country, who cannot possibly
know what I saw or did not see, contradicts me. I leave it to the
public to judge between us; asserting, however, that he is fully as
ignorant of the people whose customs he so glibly writes about, as he is
of the rules of common decency.
For verbal criticism I entertain no contempt, though I think that a
strict application of its rules to a book of travels, is scarcely called
for. However, let us see how the critic succeeds in his task. I relate
that the Arabs call the cove _Mirsa good Ali_, the "source of the sea;"
from which he immediately infers my utter ignorance of Arabic. The only
thing, however, that is really clear from the remark he has made is,
that he does not understand English when it happens to be in the
slightest degree inverted. A Biblical critic. Dr Parr, if I remember
rightly, objected to a passage in the English version of the Bible upon
much the same grounds. "Thus," says the Scripture, "he giveth his
beloved sleep." Now the doctor maintains "beloved" to be an epithet
bestowed on sleep, although the real sense is, that sleep is given to
the "beloved." Still, in my opinion, the meaning is so obvious, that it
required some ingenuity to mistake it. In my own case, the meaning I
think is equally obvious; at least, what I intended to say was, that the
Adaiel bestow on Mirsa good Ali cove, the additional name of "the source
of the sea."
Upon the remarks on "mafeesh," I scarcely know what to say; but if he
were to ask me,--is there any point or sense in them? I should reply
"_mafeesh_, there is none"--an idiom well understood in English. Let
the critic try again at Richardson's dictionary, and if he really can
make out the Arabic characters, I think he will be able to discover a
meaning which would come in very properly where I have placed it. "It
is of no consequence," exclaimed the young assassin, "none," which is
precisely the answer sometimes given to the insatiate "beggars" that we
are told "surround the traveller" in certain countries, "there is no
money in my pocket--none." Nevertheless, as I have passed public
examinations, and obtained certificates of superior proficiency in no
more than four oriental tongues, I cannot be deemed so competent to
offer an opinion on this subject as the reviewer and his accomplices.
With regard to the critiques on the Amharic expressions found in my
work, it may be sufficient to say, that by his own confession "the
reviewer does not understand one syllable of the language," but hazards
his remarks on the strength of knowing somebody who does. This appears
to me a very poor qualification. It is as though I should set up as a
critic in Sanscrit because I have shaken hands with Professor Wilson.
However, let us examine the notions of this man who is so learned by
proxy. One of the greatest triumphs of his erudition is his explanation
of the Amharic word "Shoolada," which, strengthened by Salt, and others,
he determines to signify exclusively a "rump-steak." That it has this
signification there can be no doubt, but if the critic be disposed to
defer on this, as on other occasions, to Dr Krapf's Amharic
scholarship, he may yet, as he expresses it, "live and learn." In a
copy of manuscript notes in Dr Krapf's handwriting, still in my
possession, occurs the following passage, which I quote _verbatim et
literatim_:--"In one point the Abyssinian practices agree remarkably
with those of the Jews, we mean the practice mentioned in Genesis
chapter xxxii, where we find that the Israelites did not eat the nerve,
since Jacob had been lamed in consequence of his earnest supplication to
the Almighty, before he met his brother Esau. This nerve is called in
Amharic `Shoolada.' I cannot determine how far the abstinence from this
kind of meat is kept in the other parts of Abyssinia, but it is a fact
in Shoa, that many people, particularly those of royal blood (called
Negassian), do not eat it, as they believe that by eating it they would
lose their teeth, the Shoolada being prohibited and unlawful food.
Therefore, if anybody has lost his teeth, he is abused with the reproach
of having eaten prohibited meat, as that of vultures, dogs, mules,
donkeys, horses, and particularly of man, the meat of whom is said to
prove particularly destructive for the teeth."
From the above passage, if the reviewer be disposed to accept Dr Krapf
for his teacher, he may clearly learn one or two particulars not
hitherto comprehended within the wide circle of his knowledge. For
example, he will perceive that the idea of eating man's flesh is not yet
entirely exploded from that part of Africa. On the contrary, the
forbidden luxury would appear sometimes to be indulged in even by those
who are one step at least, advanced before the polite Danakil, whom, at
the sacrifice of my reputation for charity, I have denominated
"vagabonds and savages."
The critic's observations on the pronunciation of Amharic and Galla
words are so elaborate a specie men of trifling, that it would be wholly
lost labour to wade through them. Of the Galla language he knows
nothing, and had the case been different, still I might be permitted to
judge by my own ear in the case of a tongue absolutely unwritten. Those
acquainted with the works of travellers in the East are aware that
almost every one has adopted a peculiar system of orthography. All,
therefore, but one, might, by a disingenuous critic, be accused of
ignorance. But the reviewer goes on to inform the public that "the
_vulgar_ mistakes of English pronunciation--which are not participated
in by Germans--are the wrong insertion or omission of the aspirate."
This is designed as a death-blow to me for writing _Etagainya_ without
an initial A, which highly culpable omission he presently afterwards
takes occasion to rectify. Under this charge of vulgarity it is some
consolation to me to quote as my authority Isenberg's Amharic
Dictionary, more especially since that gentleman _is_ a German; but had
he even been otherwise, I think his views on this subject of the
aspirate might perhaps be preferred to those of any cockney.
The elaborate disquisition on _larva_ and _boudak_ [For _boudak_ read
_boudah_. It ought to have been translated _sorcerer_, but all
artisans, blacksmiths especially, are regarded as _boudahs_. Vide
Isenberg's Amharic Dictionary. For _larva_ read _lava_.] proves the
critic to be qualified for the reading of proof-sheets, which appears to
be the highest praise he can justly lay claim to. He can detect a
misprint in other men's works, and when his passions are unexcited, may
possibly be able to correct it. But in the matters of ear or style, I
would just as soon defer to the judgment of the great "Arqueem Nobba,"
whoever that may be, [Vide Anti-Slavery Reporter, November 29th, 1843,
page 222. For the information of my readers, it may be proper to
explain that "Arqueem nobba" is believed to be doing duty for "Hakim
nabaroo," "You were the doctor"] from whom he seems to have obtained so
much of his Oriental learning. He well knows to whom I allude, if no
one else does. I shall turn his weapons against himself, and take
occasion to question the classical attainments of a reviewer who
translates "_suum cuique_"--"be it for good or ill;" and shall direct
the public indignation to the fact of his having aroused curiosity
"without gratifying it," by the statement that I "studiously laboured to
keep out of sight _a very_ special service performed by the members of
the Embassy." What was it? He must surely be thinking of _his
reporters_, not of _my assistants_. Be this as it may, he will not
attempt to screen himself behind the printer's devil, it being clear
that no typical errors can be admissible in his forty pages of
letter-press, if two are to be held inexcusable in my twelve hundred!
It will by this time, I think, be apparent that an extremely peculiar
system of criticism has been adopted in reviewing my book. Here the
diction is attacked, there the want of information; now we have
complaints that information is given, but that it was obtained through
the instrumentality of Dr Krapf; then the reviewer wanders into
political and other considerations, and attacks my conduct as leader of
the Mission. Occasionally he appears to be overwhelmed by a painful
sympathy, an intense philanthropy, extreme sorrow for the dead, which
betrays him into persevering rancour towards the living. In discussing,
for example, the melancholy catastrophe at Goongoonteh, which, if credit
be given me for the smallest particle of human feeling, I must be
supposed to have regretted as much as any man, especially since Sergeant
Walpole and Corporal Wilson were under my command, and both highly
useful to me as soldiers and artisans, the critic suffers his compassion
so powerfully to disturb his intellect, that he literally knows not what
he says. He may, therefore, if such be his object, be thought extremely
amiable by some people, but, upon the whole, I apprehend, he will appear
to be infinitely more absurd: because, to obtain credit for a generous
and expansive humanity, it is necessary, at least, to bear the semblance
of an unwillingness to wound men's reputations, living or dead. A
genuine sympathy is always most active in proportion to the capacity of
feeling possessed by the object of it. Thus we sympathise with our
contemporaries more than with generations passed away; with Christians
more than with Turks and Pagans; with Englishmen more than with Chinese;
with our relations and friends more than with persons whom we never saw.
But my critic reverses this order of things. His benevolence clings to
individuals whose names he never heard, and urges him to inflict injury
at all events, and pain if he can, upon persons whose sensibilities, he
supposes, lay them open to his attacks. In one publication it seems to
be intimated that I killed the men myself, whilst in the other I am
conjectured to have been standing sentry, and to have dropped asleep at
my post. The former charge I shall leave the Government of my country
to answer; for if I be guilty and still at large. Government has made
itself my accomplice. Shall I on the second point enlighten the critic,
or shall I not? The fact is, I was not asleep, though with the greatest
propriety I might have been, but at the very moment of the perpetration
of the murder, I was leaning in bed upon my elbow, conversing with
Captain Graham. Nevertheless, from the form of the _wady_, I could not
command a view of every part of the encampment, or discern in the dark
the approach of the assassins, at the distant point which they selected
for their noiseless attack.
As to the manner in which I have related the circumstance, that is
another affair, and the critic is at liberty to judge of it as he
pleases. I claim, however, the same liberty for myself, and will
venture to observe, that this part of his review is more lumbering,
heavy, and absurd than ordinary; that in attempting to display feeling,
he is only betrayed into lugubrious affectation; and that however I may
be able to wield our mother tongue, he manages it so unskilfully that he
wounds no one but himself.
The next charge is based, like the former, on the critic's sympathy. I
relate that at the village of Farri the gentleman entrusted with the
command of the watch, "worn out by incessant vigils," fell asleep. The
apology, it will be perceived, precedes the statement of the fact. But
this new knight of La Mancha is not satisfied. Putting his redoubtable
quill in rest, he tilts most chivalrously at my narrative; and, the
operation over, chuckles with delight at my supposed discomfiture. He
may, perhaps, have learned from some prying visitor to what particular
officer I allude in the above passage. But most assuredly the public
has not, and therefore no evil consequence can arise from what I say.
All our critic's ideas, however, are peculiar. He considers it criminal
to hint indistinctly in a published work at a "breach of discipline,"
but thinks I might with propriety have reported the circumstance
officially to Government! My theory of propriety is different. I made
no report to Government; but when there were so many broad shoulders to
share the blame between them, I thought it quite safe to touch upon it
in my volumes.
Having waded through the above tedious list of charges, we arrive, so
the reader may be tempted to imagine, at something new. But that is not
the critic's plan. On the contrary, we find Monsieur Tonson on the
stage again. Well might Dr Krapf exclaim, "Deliver me from my
friends!" if the reviewer in question be really one among the number.
Secretly, however, it is not the Missionary that is aggrieved, but
another individual whose name I will not be provoked to print in my
pages. This person, we are told, came down to Dinomali, in company with
Mr Krapf, "to welcome the Embassy." What he came down to do is not,
however, the question. Come he certainly did; and I should have made
honourable mention of him had I, during my stay in Shoa, found no reason
to be dissatisfied with his conduct. The reverse was the case; and as I
did not choose to be at the trouble of writing in his dispraise, I
thought it better to say nothing. Let the reviewer be satisfied with
that, for, if I should say anything further, I am sure his satisfaction
would not be augmented. He is perfectly right in supposing, that I have
not imparted to the public all the knowledge I acquired in Shoa, and
that I have not related all the piquant comic anecdotes which were often
at my pen's point, struggling to see the light. But who knows? The
time for telling them with effect is not yet passed, and it is quite
possible that, under certain combinations of circumstances, I may yet
return to this part of my subject, especially if the anonymous system be
persevered in, and attempts be made to wound me from behind the friendly
figure of the Missionary.
I may here, however, mention by the way, that, besides the learned
Theban alluded to, the critic has two other authorities. Dr Krapf and
M. Rochet D'Hericourt. Upon them he relies with equal and entire
confidence. But I would beg to suggest, that there exist some slight
discrepancies between the statements of those two writers, and that
weight can be laid on the testimony of the one only in proportion as you
mistrust the other. Yet the critic appears to discover nothing of this,
never perceives that their testimonies are inter-destructive, but is
perfectly satisfied to play off each in his turn against me. These
authorities, in fact, are the legs on which his whole accusation appears
to stand, though there be in reality an anonymous authority, which, like
the third leg in the riddle, helps to support the tottering figure. To
Mr Krapf, it is said, the Embassy owed whatever influence it possessed
in Shoa. The officers of the Mission were nothing; the presents were
nothing; the expectation of assistance and support from the Indian
Government, in which Sahela Selassie indulged, were nothing:--the
reverend missionary was the "life and soul of the Embassy." I know not
whether, as Dr Krapf is a minister of the Gospel, this be meant as a
compliment or as a sneer; but so it is. I am said to have had no
influence with the king, save through him who was literally all-powerful
at court. This being borne in mind, turn we now to the critic's other
authority, M. Rochet D'Hericourt, who is said to have been equally
influential. But here comes the difficulty, which the critic either
perceived or did not perceive. In the latter case he is criminally
ignorant of what he ought to have known before he ventured to attack me;
and if he did perceive it, then he is still more criminal for having
suppressed the truth, and made that suppression serve the purpose of its
contrary. It will be seen that I abstain from harsh language, and
rather extenuate than otherwise the unworthiness of my adversary. The
circumstance, however, to which I allude, is this: the critic maintains
that Dr Krapf was all-powerful with Sahela Selassie; M. Rochet
D'Hericourt, on the other hand, asserts that Dr Krapf possessed so
little influence, that it was only through _his_ special interference,
and at _his_ earnest entreaty, that the king suffered him to proceed
towards the Galla frontier with the army. Nay, not only had the
missionary, according to this traveller, [Rochet D'Hericourt, Voyage
dans le Pays D'Adel, et le Royaume de Choa, pages 224-233.] no
influence, but the king displayed the strongest possible repugnance for
him, and made him feel the effects of his dislike throughout the whole
campaign. Consult the "Journal" [Journal of the Rev Messrs. Isenberg
and Krapf, page 187] of the worthy missionary himself; and we find that
both he and M. Rochet D'Hericourt were, without solicitation or
entreaty, on his part at least, "ordered to accompany the king." I am
not pretending to dictate to the public as to which of these authorities
it shall prefer. I only state facts, and leave others to draw the
proper inference. The authority of Dr Krapf, however, at the court of
Shoa to me seems to be strangely and wilfully exaggerated. It was a
reflected authority, if I may so speak, that he exercised during the
residence of the Mission in the country; an authority based upon the
influence of the British Government, represented there for the time by
me. The amount of his personal influence was such that the slightest
accident sufficed to overthrow it. Had it been greater, his application
to return would have been listened to. It may no doubt be observed in
reply, that neither could my influence, which was fully exerted in his
behalf, have been very considerable. But the caprices of despotism are
not always to be accounted for, and they will serve to explain both the
missionary's want of success, and my own.
This subject has been artfully connected with the return of the Mission
from Shoa. It is said, that had we not retired, we should have been
forcibly expelled. I can certainly offer no proof that we should not;
but the probability is, that the king of Shoa would have been in no
hurry to dry up a constant source of profit to himself. It may, in
fact, be laid down as a general rule, that no Oriental despot ever
expels the giver of presents. It is the receiver of presents that he
regards as an eyesore, the man who is dependent on him for his daily
bread. The critic, however, has been "assured," that had we not
retired, we should "probably ere long" have been expelled. But to this
I reply, that probably we should not; and I call on him to state his
proofs of the "disrepute" into which he asserts we had fallen. I have
been "assured," that "probably" he has none to give, and "probably" this
assurance is correct; otherwise, I think he would have been too glad to
offer them. Be this as it may, the fact is, that we were not expelled,
but recalled by our own government, when it considered that the duties
for which I had been deputed, were fully accomplished.
The next attack upon me is based on certain "strange stories," which the
critic says he has heard. For myself, considering the strange people
with whom he associates, I entertain not the slightest doubt in the
world that he has been crammed with "strange stories," and that he
firmly believes them. In fact, he reminds me strongly of an anecdote
related by Vossius, who, as Charles the Second observed, would believe
anything but the Gospel. So this critic, who has no appetite whatever
for plain truth, will swallow "strange stories" by the bushel. For
example, with an earnestness which does great credit to his simplicity,
he believes that the British officers in Shoa, with the few rank and
file under their command, assisted the king in making prisoners among
the Gallas. He believes, too, of course, that the field-piece, which
had been presented to the king, and was therefore no longer under the
control of the embassy, was employed to batter down villages, and, in
one word, to effect the triumph of Sahela Selassie over his refractory
subjects and heathen neighbours. I feel for the distress his humanity
must have suffered, and all through the "strange stories" to which he
lends so greedy an ear! But let him be re-assured. The slaughter was
not perpetrated by means of the galloper gun, which went not on the
expedition at all, but was left by the king at his palace newly erected
near Yeolo, the place of rendezvous. (N.B. This is not meant as a
translation.) There were no "rounds of _artillery_" in the case, and
the escort of British soldiers was taken with us, not to join in the
foray, but to protect our own tents. Neither is this "memorable
circumstance." "omitted in my volumes," as asserted by the veracious
critic. It is distinctly stated for the information of those who are
able to read, and the conduct of one of the privates stands specially
recorded, who was urged by the Amhara to destroy a Galla.
[As a military man, and an Engineer officer to boot, I may perhaps be
permitted to suggest, although with the utmost deference to the reviewer
and his anonymous authorities, that the term "ammunition" might here
have been employed with advantage. But perhaps he may consider "rounds
of _artillery_" to be a more _classical_ expression!]
The critic's persevering patronage of Dr Krapf is so chivalrous, that I
almost regret to show that it has been exerted in vain. Truth, however,
requires that I should do so. Perhaps, indeed, the reviewer's purpose
may be less benevolent than it appears at first sight. His object may
not be so much to exalt the clergyman, as to depress me, by creating, as
far as he is able, in the public mind, the belief of what he asserts so
positively, namely, that the Embassy fell into utter "disrepute" after
the departure of the missionary, that so far from being able to exercise
any influence, it would have been forcibly expelled, had it not beaten a
hasty retreat. My opponent is a man of dates, and parades them in a
manner truly pathetic. But how on these points did he happen to remain
so much in the dark? Had he not all the great Abyssinian authorities at
his elbow? Was he not acquainted with those who knew everything about
the country--Arabic and Amharic scholars, who, by the help of Isenberg's
Dictionary, could translate _boudah_, and with the aid of Richardson,
plunge into the mysteries of _mafeesh_? Where was the erudite
individual who weighed my classical attainments in the balance, and
found them wanting? Where was his _fidus Achates_, the "Arqueem Nobba?"
How happens it that his oracles grew suddenly dumb when he consulted
them on the subject of dates? The reader will scarcely credit the
reason of all this when it is stated; but the fact is, that the reviewer
had no other object in view than to misrepresent and injure me, though
of course aware that it was in my power fully to refute him. I shall do
so now, and, as I think, so satisfactorily, that he will not return to
the charge.
I state in my travels, that through the interference of the British
Embassy, four thousand seven hundred persons, reduced by an arbitrary
edict of the king to bondage, were liberated; upon which the critic,
full of the "strange stories" which his strange associates had related
to him, immediately concludes that Dr Krapf might have had some hand in
that transaction. At all events he must contrive to make it appear so,
otherwise what would become of his primary thesis, that the Embassy
"fell into such disrepute?" Montaigne, the reader will doubtless
remember, observes somewhere in his essays, that in order to catch his
critics napping, he often put forth the opinions of the greatest writers
of antiquity, without making the least allusion to the author, in order
that, if these should be turned into ridicule, as was not unlikely, he
might show that it was not himself that they had attacked, but Seneca,
or Cicero, or Plato. Without having any such intention, I have caught
my critic in a similar trap. Believing he could attribute the honour to
Dr Krapf, he does not call in question the issuing of the edict or the
liberation of the slaves, but inquires knowingly, "had _he_, the
missionary, nothing to do with their deliverance?" Next, with a skill
which does him much credit, he connects the liberation of the princes
with this other transaction, so that if the reader believes his
unfounded assertion that it was Dr Krapf, not the Embassy, whose
influence prevailed with the king in the one case, he may be led to
suppose that it was so in the other. This, it must be acknowledged, is
a very ingenious piece of workmanship, and has, I doubt not, earned its
author much credit. Nevertheless, it will not bear the touch of
examination. The simplest statement of facts in the world will suffice
to destroy it, together with the critic's main theory on the subject of
my loss of influence at the court of Shoa. Dr Krapf quitted Angollala
on the 12th of March, 1842, and during May of the same year, left
Massowah for Aden. His active influence, it may fairly be inferred,
terminated at this date. The forlorn Embassy was now abandoned to its
own resources. There was no one to interest the king in its behalf; no
one to perform great and benevolent actions, in order that I might
obtain the credit of them. While we were in this state of torpor, the
proclamation in question was published by the herald. Before Dr Krapf
quitted Massowah? Alas! no. For that event took place in May, whereas
the royal edict was only promulgated on the 3rd of August. It was by
me, therefore, and not by Dr Krapf, that the remonstrance was forwarded
to Sahela Selassie, which produced the liberation of the slaves. This
fact is known to every member of the Mission, and it ought to have been
within the recollection of some of those infallible authorities who at
once supplied the critic with facts and with learning, who remembered
for him, understood languages for him, and when need was, invented for
him.
The statement that the parents of the four thousand seven hundred
individuals liberated, were slaves, is not true. I have said that their
fathers were bondsmen, and their mothers free women, and this position I
maintain. To the question who delivered the petition, I reply, "my
dragoman of course." Upon his boasted maxim of "giving honour to whom
honour is due," the conscientious reviewer will doubtless award the sole
credit of the success attending this remonstrance, not to myself, but to
the party who presented it, and his doing so will be quite as reasonable
as the decision that I collected no geographical information, because my
assistant. Dr Kirk, was entrusted by me with the department of survey.
In equity he ought surely to have taken the case of Dollond into
consideration, since _he_ made the satellite glass and the sextant used
in determining the longitude of Ankober, upon which every recent
addition to the geography of southern Abyssinia is indebted for whatever
value it does possess.
Next comes the deliverance of the princes, which took place little more
than three months before my return to India. These facts, known to
every person in Abyssinia, the correctness of which will be vouched for
by every member of the Mission, and the whole particulars of which were
laid at the time before the Indian and British governments, may,
perhaps, suffice to show in what spirit I have been criticised, and how
totally unscrupulous my assailants have been. The gross misstatements
disseminated anonymously through some of the public journals, and
repeated by the candid reviewer, I have already publicly contradicted
with my name. I here also contradict the assertion, that the king
remained silent during my sojourn on the frontier. What object the sage
reviewer would propose by my going back to take _a second_ leave of His
Majesty, when such is the etiquette of no country in the whole world,
and my public duties imperatively required my presence at Farri, the
reader will be, as I am, at some loss to comprehend.
The treaty concluded with the king of Shoa having now been placed by
Parliament before the country, I should have thought it unnecessary to
notice the remarks which have been made on that subject, but for one or
two considerations connected with it. First, it is said, that the
ancient practice of detaining strangers had in usage been previously
abolished, and it seems that, notwithstanding the treaty, it was
afterwards, in one particular case, revived. Clearly the critic does
not perceive the force of his own statements; for if, in spite of the
most solemn engagements that a prince can enter into, Sahela Selassie
denied a British subject ingress to his country, does it not follow that
distinct stipulations on this point were necessary? What does it
signify, that practically Sahela Selassie had in many instances
permitted Europeans to enter his country? Were they not all, whilst
there, legally subject to his caprice, and was it not prudent to
endeavour to emancipate them from that caprice? But Sahela Selassie, it
is said, shortly violated the treaty, and his act is made the subject of
accusation against me. Had I broken it myself, the circumstance would
have been somewhat more germane to the matter. At present, all that can
be said is, that Sahela Selassie is a novice in European diplomacy.
The case of hardship alluded to, is that of Dr Krapf, who, having
quitted Shoa on urgent private business, was denied re-admission. On
this subject I might enter into a long explanation, which, because of
the peculiarity of my position, could never be complete. I therefore
judge it more satisfactory to refer to the testimony of the Church
Missionary Society, which, as well as Dr Krapf himself, has put on
record its entire satisfaction with my proceedings. If, therefore, the
parties most deeply concerned be content because they understand the
whole state of the case, I may safely despise the reproaches of a critic
who neither knows nor cares any thing about the matter, further than as
it may enable him to prejudice me in public opinion.
In every page of the criticism the sophisms and fallacies of which I
have undertaken to expose, there is some fresh proof that the reviewer
does not see his own way, and that he is perpetually at contradiction
with himself. For example, he insists on nothing more incessantly than
the all-powerful influence of Dr Krapf over the king of Shoa, to which,
he says, the Embassy owed whatever success it met with. No sooner,
however, does the missionary quit the precincts of the court, than he is
arrested and plundered, evidently, the reviewer insinuates, with the
knowledge and connivance of his fast friend Sahela Selassie. What then
becomes of his prodigious influence, since it did not suffice for his
own protection? But if Dr Krapf was powerless, so likewise, argues the
critic, was the Embassy; "for we read of no remonstrances, no
applications made to the king on behalf of the missionary, and surely
there are no political considerations to restrain communicativeness upon
a subject like this." He is perfectly mistaken. For although it may,
without compromising any one, be stated that remonstrances were made,
there are reasons, and those public ones too, which forbid me to explain
why those remonstrances were ineffectual. Had the critic, or his
Amharic philosopher, possessed one atom of sagacity, they would have
divined those reasons; but as the case is otherwise, I leave them in the
darkness which encompasses the whole coterie.
As to my having no right to use information expressly collected for me
by the Political Agent at Aden, and by Lieutenant Christopher, in
reference to the Eastern Coast, that is really a point upon which the
reviewer can hardly be reckoned a competent judge. Lieutenant Barker,
like Dr Kirk and the rest of my assistants, was under my orders, and
sent with me for the express purpose of taking share, as I might see
fit, in the duties allotted to me. The authorities quoted by the
reviewer, as having been first in the field with every particular
respecting slavery and the slave-trade in Shoa, do not bear out his
assertion. Not to go any farther, where does he find the fact, which is
rather an important one, that the king claims one out of every ten
slaves that pass through his dominions? Like most other points which
bear materially upon the subject, this is omitted in the "reports" which
are so confidently advanced, in order to throw dust in the eyes of those
who will take the Reviewer's word for whatever he has the effrontery to
assert.
Next comes the question of the royal arms of Shoa, which I have stated
to be the Holy Trinity. Here the critic, as he thinks, has me clearly
at disadvantage. He denounces me, accordingly, to be in the wrong, by
showing, not what the arms of Shoa are, but what are the arms of the
Ethiopic empire; which is exactly the same as if a traveller in
Flanders, having described the royal arms of that country, were to be
taken to task because the arms of the Austrian Emperor were different.
I make a statement on one subject, and he refutes me by making a
different statement on a different subject, which is somewhat comic, to
say the least of it. But the arms of Abyssinia are, it seems, the "Lion
of the Tribe of Judah," to which the Catholic missionaries have added a
cross. M. le Grand, in speaking of Abyssinian coronations, says: "The
escutcheon is a lion holding a cross, with this motto: _Vicit leo de
tribu Judah_." But all this has nothing to do with the king of Shoa,
who employs a device of his own, and that device is exactly what I have
represented.
The ignorance of the reviewer and his anonymous authorities is again
conspicuous in the remarks offered relative to the signet. Why has he
not followed the rule he has laid down for my guidance, and "said
openly," who these mysterious informants are, in order that, by their
calibre, the public might have been enabled to judge whether on any, and
on what subject, their opinion or their assertion is likely to be better
than my own? As it is, the reader might really be tempted to believe
that there existed a penny post in the kingdom of Shoa, and that every
subject was in the daily habit of corresponding through it with all his
acquaintance. But with exception of a few letters indited by His
Majesty, or by the Queen, there are, perhaps, not half a dozen penned
during the year, and those are upon scraps of parchment the size of a
visiting card, and have neither signature nor superscription, much less
device to adorn them. More than ignorance is displayed in the sneers
cast upon my ability to use the pencil and the rifle. These
qualifications, however incompatible their exercise may be with the
dignity to which the critic has been pleased to elevate me, are far from
being lightly estimated in Abyssinia; and that foreigner who can neither
draw portraits, nor ride, nor slay wild beasts, is not likely to hold a
very high place in the estimation of Sahela Selassie, whatever may be
thought of him by a learned reviewer.
The speculations indulged in as to the success or failure of my Embassy,
are artfully spread over the whole article, a little here and a little
there; so that the reader, should a reader be found, must always of
necessity have doubts unanswered in his mind. There is some skill in
this, and I give the writer credit for it; but though he manages his
matter well, the matter itself is good for nothing. He puts himself in
the place of the public, and demands certain explanations which I am not
permitted to give. Parliament alone has it in its power to satisfy my
critic, and to Parliament I refer him. Everybody else will feel that an
imperfect explanation would be worse than none at all; a complete one I
cannot furnish, though it may hereafter be permitted me to clear up the
whole matter, which I am fully able to do.
It appears to me that I have now answered every objection worthy of
notice that has been made against my work on Shoa. Not improbably, I
shall be thought by some to have been too minute and circumstantial in
my reply--to have exposed too seriously misrepresentations originating
in ignorance or wanton malice--to have expended argument on that which
deserved only contempt. But, respecting the public as I do, I judged it
to be incumbent on me completely to disprove the assertion that I had
imposed upon it. I trust I have established my own veracity, which I
have been far more solicitous to do than to defend the plan adopted in
the composition of my narrative. Much more might have been said, to
show that the truth is neither in the reviewer, nor his "private
informants," but it is not worth my while to trouble myself further with
such people. The public, I am convinced, will agree with me in thinking
that I have left no just cause for cavil, and if, therefore, the system
of abuse should be persevered in, it can only be because I happen to
have enemies who will make a point of pursuing me as long as I am above
ground, and perhaps much longer. I wish they could discover some better
and more profitable employment, and with that wish I leave them.
W.C. Harris.
_London, March_ 31, 1844.
Extract of Instructions Addressed by the Secretary to the Government of
Bombay to Captain W.C. Harris.
Bombay Castle, 24th April, 1841.
Sir,
I am directed to inform you, that the Honourable the Governor in Council
having formed a very high estimate of your talents and acquirements, and
of the spirit of enterprise and decision, united with prudence and
discretion, exhibited in your recently published Travels "through the
territories of the chief Moselekatse to the tropic of Capricorn," has
been pleased to select you to conduct a Mission which the British
Government has resolved to send to Sahela Selassie, the King of Shoa in
Southern Abyssinia, whose capital, Ankober, is computed to be about four
hundred miles inland from the port of Tajura on the African coast.
The Mission will be conveyed to Aden in the Honourable Company's steam
frigate Auckland, now under orders to leave Bombay on the 27th instant;
and it has been arranged that one of the Honourable Company's vessels of
war, at present in the Red Sea, shall be in readiness to convey the
Mission thence to Tajura, at which latter place it should immediately
disembark, and commence its journey to Ankober.
(Signed) J.P. Willoughby, Secretary to Government.
To Captain W.C. Harris, Corps of Engineers.
The Embassy was thus Composed:
Captain W.C. Harris, Bombay Engineers.
Captain Douglas Graham, Bombay Army. Principal Assistant.
Assistant-Surgeon Rupert Kirk, Bombay Medical Service.
Dr J.R. Roth, Natural Historian.
Lieutenant Sydney Horton, H.M. 49th Foot,--as a Volunteer.
Lieutenant W.C. Barker, Indian Navy.
Assistant-Surgeon Impey, Bombay Medical Service.
Mr Martin Bernatz, Artist.
Mr Robert Scott, Surveyor and Draftsman.
Mr J. Hatchatoor, British Agent at Tajura.