e. It was a history
of the French navy, by a Lieutenant Lapeyrouse-Bonfils, published
about 1845. As naval history pure and simple, I think little of it;
but the author had a quiet, philosophical way of summing up causes and
effects in general history, as connected with maritime affairs, which
not only corresponded closely with my own purpose, but suggested to me
new material for thought--novel illustration. Such treatment was with
him only casual, but it opened to me new prospects.

It would be difficult to define precisely to what degree the art of
naval warfare had been formulated, or even consciously conceived, in
1885. There could scarcely be said to exist any systematic treatment,
or extensive commentary by acknowledged experts, such as for
generations had illuminated the theory of land warfare. Naval
histories abounded, but by far the most part were simply narratives.
Some valuable research, however, had then recently been done; notably
by Captain Chevalier, of the French navy, who had produced from French
documents a history of the maritime war connected with the American
struggle for independence. This he followed with a less exhaustive
account of the wars of the French Revolution and Empire, which also
appeared in time for me to use. These were marked by running comment,
rather than by a studied criticism such as that of Jomini or Napier.
In Great Britain, James held, and I think still holds, the field for
exhaustive collection of information, documentary or oral in origin,
during the period treated by him, 1793-1815; but he has not a military
idea in his head beyond that of downright hard fighting, punishing and
being punished. In his pages, to take a tactical advantage seems
almost a disgrace. The Navy Records Society of Great Britain had not
then begun the fruitful labors which within the last decade and a half
has made accessible in print a very large amount of new matter; nor
had the late Admiral Colomb published his comprehensive book, _Naval
Warfare_. So far as I was concerned, the old works of Lediard, Entick,
Campbell, Beatson,--in French, Paul Hoste, Troude, Guerin, and others
equally remote,--had to be my main reliance; though numerous modern
scattered monographs, English and French, were existent. In connection
with these one of my most interesting experiences was lighting upon a
paper in the _Revue Maritime et Coloniale_, describing in full the
Four Days' battle between the English and Dutch in 16