Gosselin, after writing a learned work to prove that the statement of Herodotus was correct, wrote a still more learned work to prove the reverse. The new idea which had turned the current of his conclusions was, _the impossibility of such a voyage without the compass_. Major Rennell presses him with objections, asserting the consistency of the narrative, and authority of the evidence, and, arguing against the objection, says, that “the barks of the ancients were adapted for coasting navigation, could keep close in shore, and might be hauled up on the beach. This voyage, immense as it was, did not therefore necessitate any venturesome entrance into the open sea--they needed not to have lost sight of the land even for a day.” Heeren seats himself on the bench, and sums up, and without combating M. Gosselin, decides against him. “This gentleman’s arguments,” he says, “amount to nothing; for _are we_ in a situation to judge of the perfection of Phœnician navigation? Nations accustomed to coasting navigation are generally much better acquainted with its difficulties than _great_ sea-faring nations. It has been recently ascertained that the difficulties in reaching the Cape from the Red Sea, are not so great as from the Mediterranean. All here combined to facilitate the progress of the expedition.” Yet these favourable circumstances, however, served only until the coast of Guinea was reached, and thence “to the Straits of Gibraltar, was _the most difficult part of the voyage_.” Why does Heeren slur over the difficulty of which he is evidently aware? Was it that, placed in a dilemma between the desire of deciding a controversy, and the fear of risking his character for “critical discrimination,” he had recourse to a little mystification?[194] For those who have the compass, it is true that the difficulties are less in coming from the Red Sea, but exactly the reverse for those who have it not:--a vessel sailing from the Guinea coast to the Straits of Gibraltar, must keep far out to sea.[195] Gosselin was perfectly right in his second work, when he said that the circumnavigation of Africa was impossible without the compass, as he was right in his first, when he asserted that it had been circumnavigated. There is no contradiction between the two propositions.