[Footnote 88:  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 Masson’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 200 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.—­D.]

“Its circumference, I think, must be at least half a mile, as it took us above half an hour to walk round it, including every allowance for the bad road, and stopping a little.  At its highest part, which is the S. end, comparing it with a known object, it seems to equal the dome of St Paul’s church.  It is one uninterrupted mass of stone, if we except some fissures, or rather impressions, not above three or four feet deep, and a vein which runs across near its N. end.  It is of that sort of stone called, by mineralogists, Saxum conglutinatum, and consists chiefly of pieces of coarse quartz and glimmer, held together by a clayey cement.  But the vein which crosses it, though of the same materials, is much compacter.  This vein is not above a foot broad or thick; and its surface is cut into little squares or oblongs, disposed obliquely, which makes it look like the remains of some artificial work.  But I could not observe whether it penetrated far into the large rock, or was only superficial.  In descending, we found at its foot a very rich black mould; and on the sides of the hills some trees of a considerable size, natives of the place, which are a species of olea.[89]

[Footnote 89:  “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 tres 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’etre observee.  C’est un des plus hautes des environs du Cap.  Elle n’est composee que d’un seul bloc de granit crevasse dans plusieurs endroits.” Voyage aux Indes, tom. ii. p. 91.