SMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) m // :/- u.. z ^ -<- 1.0 If "SSI I.I 45 12.5 2.2 ■Ubi. mil 1.8 L25 |||||i.4 11 1.6 ^ ^. y] 7 C: c? / Photographic Sciences Corporation ?j ;y«ST MAIN STREET 'MEBSTER, N.V. MSSO \^\h) 872- 'i03 4^ '% CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical IVlicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Tha( toth The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ D Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other mat /iai/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires &uppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D D D E D D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt^ film6es d nouveau de fapon & obtenir la meilleure image possible. Thai pOM ofth filmii Origl begii thali •Ion, othai first •ion, or illi The I shall TINU whic Mapi diffai antin baglr right raqu math This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« hat bMn reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Univeriity of British Columbia Library L'exemplaire film^ fut reproduit grAce A la gAn^rositA de: University of British Columbia Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specif icetions. Les images sulvantes ont AtA reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposu^'e are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagranris illustrate the method: Les exemplalres origlnaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont fMmte en commenpant par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon ie cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont fiim6s en commenpan: par la premiAre page qui comporte une emprtinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par ia derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparaltra sur ia dernlArn image de cheque microfiche, selon ie cas: Ie symboie — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", ie symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seui clichA, ii est filmA A partir de i'angie supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de hAut en bas. en prenant ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iiiustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 iHr^ ffo58 CI Rh /S'}l I CABOT'S LANDFALL So much has been written on this subject that it may appear super fluous to spend any more time with the theme. I certainly should not attempt to write did I not feel confident that I can throw fresh light upon it. It must surely be admitted that notwithstanding the volumes of literature which have been published, all endeavorini,^ to fix the disputed point, still no tlioroughly satisfactory statement has yet been made. I do not pretend at present to say that this, my effort, shall be absolutely the last word on the question ; it does not fully satisfy myself, but it brings us a step nearer to a conclusion. I was induced to prepare this monograph through seeing an article by the Very Rev. Abbe Beaudouin in Le Canada Frangais of October, 1888, in which the reverend and learned author contended for Cape North, in Cape Breton, as the site of the landfall, Subsequer !y I saw an article by J. P. Howley, F.G.S., in the Transactions of the Geographical Society of Quebec, 1889. This Ltter article had for its object, first, to refute Professor Horsford, who contends for an imaginary site called Norumbega as the landfall ; second, to establish as most probably the site of the landfall some part of the Labrador coast between 55° and 60° north latitude. Incidentally Mr. Howley touches upon the Cape North theory, and shows the unreliable character of the supposed Cabot map of 1544, the only vestige of foundation on which that theory rests, which it is my intention here to put to final rest. But first I shall say a few word^, about the actual landing spot. At present all evidence tends to point to a place on Labrador, somewhere in the neighborhood of Mugford or Cape Chidley, 55° to 60" north. There still, however, remains a strong presump- tion in favor of Bonavista, or Cape St John, on the coast of Newfoundland. As a Newfoundlander, reared i.i tne tradition which has been held from time immemorial, that " Bonavista, happy sijjht ! " was the landfall, I feel loath to give it up without a struggle. It is still in possession, and until fairly and irrevocably displaced by irrefutable argu- ments, we have a right to hold on to it, and bring forth every possible title of proof in favor of it. This I have done, and I leave it to my readers to weigh the strength of the arguments. I will proceed at once to the consic'eration of the voyages and the fixing of the landfall, leaving the li' 26% CABOT'S LANUFALL •I-LUSTRATIV CABOT'S LANDFALL 269 I refutation of the Cap? North theory till afterwards, as it follows almost like a corollary from the former. The following are the only facts we know concerning the first voyage of Cabot (1497). We must carefully avoid applying to the first voyage facts and statements belonging to the second. The confounding of these data has hitherto been the cause of much con- fusion among writers, not only concerning Cabot, but all early navigators. The patent or commission of Henry VII. to John Cabot and his three sons, Louis, Sebastian, and Sanctius, is dated March 5, 1495, old style, as this was previous to the correction of the calendar by Pope Gregory XIII. (1582). The year, according to the Julian calendar, began on March 25, hence this patent was given in the spring of 1496, as we would now call it. The expedition, however, did not, for some reason or other, set out that year, perhaps owing to the intrigues of De Puebla, Spanish ambas- sador in England, at the instigation of Ferdinand and Isabella, who were jealous of this new English enterprise, and feared an encroachment on the realms so lately acquired for their crown by Columbus. At all events the expedition did not start from Bristol till May 2, 1497, and the voya- gers returned August 6. There was but one small ship, the Mattliciv, with eighteen men, principally sailors from Bristol. The accounts of the voyage extant, or at least which have yet been discovered, are very meagre. We have a letter, dated August 23, 1497, from a certain Lorenzo Pasquaglio, a Venetian merchant living in London, to his brothers, Aloisio and Francesco, in Venice. The letter contains the popular error, not then exploded, that the land newly discovered was the eastern shore of Asia, the land of the Grand Kham described by Marco Polo. " The Venetian, our countryman," writes Pasquaglio, " is returned, and says that seven hundred leagues from this he discovered land. He followed the coast for three hundred leagues, and landed. He did not see any human being; but he brought to the king certain nets or snares for taking game, and a needle for making nets. He also found some felled trees, wherefore he supposed there were inhabitants, and returned to his ship in alarm. He was three months on his voyage, and on his return he saw two islands to starboard, but he did not land, time being too precious. He says that the tides are slack, and do not flow as they do here. He planted on his new-found land a large cross, with one flag of England and another of St. Mark, by reason of his being a Venetian, so that our banner has floated very far afield." Ne.xt we have a letter, written almost at the same date, August 24, 1497, from Don Raimondo Soncini, envoy of the Duke of Milan, at the court of Henry VII. of England. He was well acquainted with the 270 CABOT S L tNDFALL Cabots, and describes what he actually witnessed with his own eyes. Both these letters, it will be observed, were written only about three weeks after Cabot's return, and while all En^jland was ringing with the wondrous news. Raimondi writes: "Some months since, his majesty sent a Venetian, who is a great navigator, and who has great skill in discovering new isles. He has returned safe and sound, after having discovered two isles, very lar^re and very fertile. He places the discovery of the new land at four hundred leagues from the west coast of Ireland." On December 18, 1497, Raimondo wrote another letter to the Duke of Milan, which gives some further particulars. He says that Cabot, having rounded th« southwest coast of Ireland, "bent his course towards the north, and after a few days (/ra qualrjic giorni) he left the north on his right hand and began to sail towards thtVast " — i.e., the west,* After wandering a long time {avcndo crrato assai) ht.found terra fcrma, where he planted the royal banner and took possession in the name of the king. He says that the sea in those parts was full of fish called stocchi fisci (stock fish, or cod), which are taken not only by means of nets, but by a sort of basket or pot immersed in the water." All this he (Raimondo) says he had from the mouth of John Cabot himself. He says also that Cabot made a map and a globe, or solid sphere, " on which he shows where he landed." " He [Cabot] says that he went much {2iX\.'^<::x eastioardc than Tanais,\ and thinks that the land dis- covered is that where grows the Brazil wood and the silk tree ; and now that they know where to go, they say it is a voyage of not more than fifteen days." We have another letter touching this first voyage. It was written on July 25, 1498, while the explorers were still away on their second voyage. It is from Pedro de Ayala, protonotary and ambassador of Spain in England, to their majesties Ferdinand and Isabella. It reveals the jealousy with which the action of England was regarded by Spain at the time. De Ayala says he saw the map which Cabot had made, and on it the direc- * The writers of that day speak of the west as the east and vice versa. Believing in the rotundity of the earth, they knew that if one could proceed far enough westward he would come to the east, and they believed the new lands discovered were the East Indies. So on the other hand this same Raimondo says elsewhere of John Cabot, that when on one of his journeys to Mecca, seeing the caravans of spices coming from the far east to Alexandria, he argued that they must come from the country of the north UKiHirds the west (i.e., east), or from China (Cathay) or Japan (Chipango). j;7aiiais was the classical name for the River Don. separating Europe from Asia ; it was sun- posed to divide the earth into two equal parts, east and west, as alluded to in the following line of Lucretius : " Mediii; dirimens confinia terra;," f! CAI'.OT S LANDFALL 271 \K\ U I tion which the cliscovcrers had taken, and the distance which tiiey had run upon the sea. He also (Ayahi) speaks of the ima<;inary scz'cn cities,* and says that for the past seven years the people of Bristol had annually sent three or four vessels in search of these isles at the instigation of the Genoese {i.t'., Cabot). De Ayala also speaks of the imaginary isle of Brazil, where was supposed to grow the tree aesalpinia cchinata, from the wood of which was made the celebrated red dye. In conclusion he writes: " I will not send this time to your majesties the copy of the viappa viundi which Cabot has made. I think the new land is not more than four hundred leagues from here. In my opinion the map is false, for it shows that the land in question " (/".r.,the land discovered by Cabot) " was not the same as the said isles." That is to say, De Ayala was of opinion that the land discovered by Cabot, and claimed for England, was in reality that which had been discovered a few years before by Columbus for England. Hence, because ii did not seem to occupy the same place on the map, De Ayala suspects Cabot of having made a false map.f These are all the particulars that remain to us of the first voyage of Cabot. No trace has been found up to the present day either of the map or globe made immediately after, or more probably during, the voyage. From the words of De Ayala it would seem that every day's journey, with course and distance, was plotted out on the chart as exactly as it is done by our most skillful navigators of the present day. " I saw," says De Ayala, " on the map the course they took and the distance run." L,eaving out the errors current in that semi-classical age concerning the isles of the ocean, the seven cities, and so forth, we find the following facts. On rounding Cape Clear, the southwest point of Ireland, the voyagers turned their course northwardly, and coasted along the western * The idea of this imaginary place arose from a tradition of seven Spanish bishops flying from the Saracens in the eighth century. The name is still retained by a part of the Island of St. Michaels, \\\ the Azores. f This confounding of the discoveries of Cabot and Columbus will account, it seems to me, for the strange intermingling, on the early maps of Verrazani, MajoUo, Ribero, etc., of the names of places in the West Indies with those of the coast of Newfoundland. Thus interwoven with Baccalaos, Bonavista, Fuego, Avcs, C. de Grat, C. de Raz, C. Spera, C. de Pinos, Rognosa, Labrador, and others still existing on tiie coast of Newfoundland, we find others which have not now, and never had, antxistence there, such as Monte Christo, Mille Virgines, Sombrero, St. Thomas, Santa Cruz, St. Anna, Point Diamante, etc. Now, if we look at a map of the West Indies, beginning with the island of San Domingo, and tracing through the Leeward Islands, not only do we find all these names, but what is more, in the exact order in which they occur on the maps of Verrazani and Ribero. This discovery, which I have only lately made, will, I think, help to throw great light on the study of those maps, especially when taken in connection with the suspicions exprcis»>d by De Ayala in the above-([uoted letter. 272 CAHOTS LANDFALL shores of Ireland and Scotland for some few days ; then they turned to the cast {i.e., west), leavinfj the north on the starboard side, or on the riglit hand {n uiaiio dritta, so writes Raimondo). A vessel sailing with the north on her right side, is, of course, sailing westwardly. Sailing in this direc- tion they discovered land either at four hundred leagues distant or at seven hundred leagues, or (as 1 shall show) at both these distances. We have no exact statement as to how far they sailed northwardly before turning to the west, but we can give a pretty accurate guess from the data before us. The navigators said that the new land was about seven hundred leagues, or twenty-one hundred miles distant, and that they could reach it in fifteen days. That would be allowing about one bundled and forty miles a day (14OX 15 = 2,100), or nearly six knots an hour (24x6=144), which is very good sailing. Now, Raimondo says that on rounding Cape Clear they sailed north for a fciv days (quale he giorni). Taking this expression in its ordinary acceptation, we may allow three or four days. Sailing northward from Cape Clear for four days, at six knots an hour, more or less, would give five hundred and sixty miles (140x4=560). This would bring them to the neighborhood of St. Kilda's, or Rockall, or between that and the Feroe Islands. Then turning their course west- ward, more or less, they would meet exactly at four hundred leagues distant. Cape Farewell in Greenland. Thus would be verified the state- ment of the two writers, Raimondo and De Ayala; that the navigators found the new land at four hundred leagues. On Majollo's map (1527) there is a point given exact- responding to this cape, and marked tierra-firvte (Spanish). It is ev. .i.tly intended to represent the first land seen by Cabot, which point Raimondo calls terra feriiia (Italian). This was doubtless the first land seen by Cabot ; but being uninviting in appearance, bleak and barren, moreover being evidently only a head- land, and the open ocean being still to the westward before him, he pushed onwards without landing, and some three hundred leagues further on — thus making up the seven hundred leagues as mentioned by Pasquaglio, and reconciling those hitherto apparently conflicting statements — he would again strike land, either on the coast of Labrador or on the east coast of Newfoundland. If he had continued westwardly from Greenland, with a tendency towards the north, say west northwest, he would strike the coast of Labrador, about where the Island of Mugford is situated, or between 55° and 60° north latitude. If, however, he had allowed his course to tend somewhat more towards the southwest, he would make land at the same distance of three hundred leagues on the east shore of Newfoundland, and somewhere in the neighborhood of Cape St. John or Cape Bonavista. I I ■iMiiiiM M iii CAIiOT S LANDFALL VI W to ^'^'•ilt lort/i free. at shall siiow hereafter that there isa probabi'ity, at least, of his having done so, but for the present we will take the former supposition. Pasquaglio tells us that Cabot took possession of the land by raising the royal standard of England and the standard of Venice or St. Mark. Now, on this spot, namely, between 50' and 55^ north latitude, we have on Ribero's map (152S) a headland called Cape de Marco. Again, it is stated that Cabot dis- covered the land on St. John's day, June 24, and gave it the name of the saint, or rather (as stated on the legend of Clement Adams's map f)f 1 549) " a little island which stood out from the land he called St. John." Here again we have on all the old maps, Verrazani, Majollo, and Ribero, in latitude about ^(f , a small island off the coast, called San Juan. From all these data it is clear that at that date it was believed that this was Cabot's landfall. It was certainly intended by these cosmographers to represent it. It is quite possible that they may have had by them copies of Cabot's lost map. At all events they had all the traditions of the event fresh in their memories, as they were only removed from the actual event by some thirty years. And Ribero might have had recourse to Cabot him- self, who was in Spain during the construction of his map, which continued from 1494 to 1529. Still the knowledge of the new world was as yet so vague and elementary as to easily allow of the east coast of Newfoundland being the site of the landfall of the first voyage. The proofs of the second voyage are more conclusive in favor of Labrador, and are so ample and clear as, in my opinion, to remove all shadow of doubt from any reasonable and unprejudiced mind. The writers who have hitherto discussed this question have invariably, as far as I have seen, confounded the descriptions of the two voyages (1497 and 1498), taking certain statements which were made only in reference to the second voyage as if they belonged to the first, and vice versa. Thus, for instance, with regard to the latitude. While there is not any allusion whatever to latitude in the accounts of the fir.'?t voyage, there are several such con- cerning the second. It is a mistake to speak of these statements of lati- tude as belonging to the first voyage ; yet we may indirectly draw from them certain conclusions which will throw light on the first, and that for the following reasons : First, Cabot on this second voyage had in view the same object as on the first — to find a passage to Cipango and Cataia, the imaginary land of spices, of the silk and Brazil wood, of the gold and precious gems. Hence he made for the same place at which he discovered land on the previous voyage, thence to take a new departure in search of the coveted spice- islands. This is not a mere supposition or conjecture. It is expressly Vol. XXVI.-No. 4.-18 274 CADOTS LANDFALL J stated by R.iimondo, in his letter of December 13, 1497. " He intends," says Raimondo, "startinj^ from the i^oint already occupied the previous year, to go farther towards the east | /.<•., west], coasting along all the time." ("A? qucllo loco gin occii/^oto andarscuc scinprc a riva-riva verso il levanted) That is to say, first making land as near as possible to the land- fall of the i-M-evious year, he will then coast along towards the west, always in search of the passage to Cipango. Second, he intended to follow the same route as in 1497, as ap|)ears from what the voyagers said to Raimondo : " Now that we know where to go, we can reach there in fifteen days." Hence they intended to go to the same pi ice. Third, the track tley followed, along the coasts of Ireland and Scot- land northwardly, as lar as the point for turning west, was a well-known one at that time to Cabot, Columbus, and other navigators, the route to Iceland. Hence \vouJd coast, between 55° and 60" north latitude, or about Cape Mugford. My line of argument would aL;o point to the conclusion that there also was the landfall of the first voyage. Still it is not absolutely conclusive on that point, and leaves the possibility that the landfall may have been a little farther southward ; namely, on the east coast of Newfoundland. From the earliest dates an unbroken tradition has existed that Cape Bonavista was the veritable landfall, and while there remains a shadow of a proba- bility in its favor, I do not wish to yield up my belief in this time- honored tradition. I shall now briefly sliow the reasons which induce me still to hold fast to this claim of Bonavista, which only of late years has been called into doubt. The authorities for the first voyage make the distance either four hundred or seven hundred leagues. I have accounted for this discrepancy by supposing Cabot to have first sighted Greenland, which is exactly four hundred leagues from St. Kilda's, his starting point. If then he continued in the same course he would make Labrador coast, but it would not be at three hundred leagues farther, but at a little over two hundred and fifteen leagues; while if, after sighting Greenland, he had altered his course somewhat to the southwestward, either on account of ice, or if he had been blown to the southward, or drawn by the Arctic current, or for any other reason, he would then have made the Newfoundland coast in c.ract/ythvcc hundred leagues from Greenland, just about the site of the present Bonavista, or Baccalieu Island, or Cape St. John, between 48° and 50° north latitude. Pasquaglio says that on the first voyage, having made land, he coasted along for three hundred leagues. Unfortunately, he does not say whether northwardly or southwardly, but I believe it to have been southwardly and westwardly, and for this reason : We know that on the second voyage, after making land, he coasted northwardly, into the strait and bay of Hudson, in search of the passage to Cathay. Hence I conclude that on the first voyage he had not gone in that tlirection, and that he explored it for the first time on this second voyage. It follows, therefore, that on the voyage of the previous year he must have coasted in a south- wardly direction from the point of landfall. In that case, remembering the object he had in view — the discovery of the passage to Cathay — he no doubt penetrated every inlet, bay, or fiord to satisfy himself as to whether t'ley afforded the looked-for passage or not. If, then, he had made land anywhere north of the straits of Belle Isle in coasting southward (as we have shown he did), as soon as he came to the said straits he would have entered them, and thus discovered the gulf of St. Lawrence. . This, however, we have no evidence of his doing. It has til fi I • i 278 CABOT S LANDFALL generally been supposed that the gulf of St. Lawrence and straits of Belle Isle were discovered by Jacques Cartier in 1534, but this is not correct. Although Jacques Cartier entered them in 1534, and explored the gulf, still it is evident that the straits and the Labrador coast as far as Old Fort (then called by the Bretons Brest), were well known. Cartier speaks of a large fishery being carried on at Blanc Sablon, and he met near Old Fort a large fishing vessel of La Rochellc. Still Cartier thought at that time that Newfoundland was part of the mainland. He was not aware of the southern entrance to the gulf of St. Lawrence between Cape Breton and Newfoundland. It was only on his return from his second voyage, 1 536, that he discovered it. On all the maps extant between Cabot's and Cart" :r's time there is no hint of a knovv^ledge of this passage, Newfound- land being always represented as a part of the mainland.* I conclude, then, that Cabot on his first voyage made land somewhere south of the straits of Belle Isle, about Bonavistaor Cape St. John, and coasted around the eastern and southern shore of the island of Newfoundland, penetr^ ting to the bottom of the vast bays of Notre Dame, Bonavista, Trinity, Con- ception, St. Mary's, Placentia, and Fortune Bay, Despair, etc., for three hundred leagues, and then returned home. On the second voyage, however, as he had already scoured the coasts to the southward, he determined to steer more northerly, hence he struck Labrador, near Cape Chidley, and penetrated Hudson bay and Fox inlet, till he reached (iy^°., as before mentioned. Then he turned about and sailed direct for Baccalao (Newfoundland), keeping outside of Belle Isle, and thus missing the straits. Having touched at Baccalao, he steered away for Nova Scotia, southward and westward, towards Florida. It may be said that this opinion of mine supposes a change of course after having sighted Greenland, and that we have no mention of any such change. ! fully agree with Mr. Howley in the remarks he makes as to the extent and accuracy of the nautical knowledge displayed by those early navigators, and that " we moderns are in the habit of greatly underestimating their qualifications as navigators." Nevertheless it must be remembered that we have not Cabot's own report of these voyages, and that the only accounts we have of them arc from authors who, though contemporaries, are professing to state what they heard from Cabot's own lips, yet not being nautical men themselves, we cannot expect critical exactness from them as to a point, or half or quarter of a point, of the compass. Again, even allowing for the utmost exactness, we know that even in our own * Al)l)e Beaudouin says : " The strait of Helle Isle is marked on the map of Reynel, 1505, and Kuiiatman 1620 ; " and Stevens seems to see an indication of it on the map of Juan de la Cosa, 1500. \ CABOT'S LANDFALL 279 coasts struck inlet, t and ■ IsJe. "sred may . r and ors, leir liat ily es, ot m '1, n d times a sailing vessel is liable, for many causes, to be carried many, even some hundred miles out of her course in crossing the Atlantic. Mr. Howley has a closely reasoned argument concerning the exact course taken by Cabot. He first gives the different statements made by various writers, and shows where, according to each one, Cabot ought to have struck land. " Herrcra gives latitude 68^ as the landfall; Eden, 58^ ; Hackluyt, 56° ; Galvano, 45°. As to the courses taken, Fabian says north- west ; Galvano, west ; others, west by north," The point 68° north is rejected " because to reach that point he would require to sail around Cape Farewell, in Greenland, then alter his course to something east of north, so as to reach Davis' straits," which, being so unlikely, is declared inadmis- sible. But according to a principle laid down by Mr. Howley in another part of his article, we must not reject contemporary testimony unless we have some more authentic and undoubted fact to replace it. Now, we have the direct contemporary testimony of Ramusio, wiio says he has a letter from Cabot, in which he (Cabot) says he sailed as far north as 6j}}°. We cannot reject this testimony, and if it appears inadmissible it is simply because we have not rightly understood it. According to the explanation given by me above, it not only can be admitted, but chimes in most harmoniously with the whole accoiant. This statement of 68'^ refers to the second voyage only, and ?ioi to the landfall, but the turning point of the voyage northwestward, after having left the landfall. With regard to the courses, Mr. Howley says : " Northwest, the course given by Fabian would strike the land just midway between the two points [55° and 58"], or at about 57° on the coast of Labrador, allowing, of course, for variation. The course north-northwest would strike Nova Scotia at 45" north. A west-by-north course would strike the coast of America at about South Carolina, and a west course would take him to the island of Cuba." These latter courses are consequently rejected as out of the question. This is only another example of trying to adjust facts to fit a pre- conceived theory. Raimondo tells us that Cabot sailed towards the west (or the casf, as he calL-> it). Novv he is a contemporary writer. He relates what he heard from Cabot's own mouth, and he is the on/jf writer who mentions the course of the first voyage. Now, although, as I said, we must not pin oir faith to him for a point or so of the compass, yet, on the principle mentioned, we cannot reject his authority. I will soon show that there is no occasion to do so. Mr. Howley, though reasoning well, sets out from a wrong starting point. He takes his courses from Bristol or Cape Clear, e,i}/ north. We know that the starting point should be at St. Kilda's or Rockall, 58° to 60° north. Taking our courses from this point, •rkrv^^ I ! » ■»»■» I>< 280 CABOT'S LANDFALL wcfind that the course of Fabian, northwest, instead cf striking Labrador at 57° north, would strike Greenland at 63° north. The course north- northwest, instead of striking the coast of Nova Scotia at the parallel of 45"^, would strike Labrador at about 54° north. A west-by-north course, instead of striking South Carolina, would take him to about the straits of Belle Isle; and finally a zccst course (and this is the o^t/y one mentioned of the first voyage), instead of bringing him to the island of Cuba, would bring him exactly to Cape Bonavista (Newfoundland). This is a new and startling revelation in favor of the old tradition. CAPE NORTH. What has been hitherto written ought to be sufficient to show that Cape North in Cape Breton island (latitude 47^^°) could not be the site of Cabot's landfall, yet I think it will be well to show the fallacy of the arguments upon which that theory is built. The whole foundation of this opinion rests upon a false basis and involves its supporters in palpable difficulties and contradictions at every turn. This foundation is a map discovered only quite recently (1854) in Germany, and now preserved in the imperial library in Paris, and sup- posed to be the identical one drawn by Sebastian Cabot in 1544. That Cabot did at the time draw a map seems certain from the words of Hack- luyt, who in producing in his voyages the map of Clement Adams, speaks of it as " the map of Sebastian Cabot cut by Clement Adams." There is a Latin inscription attached to this engraving of Adams, which bears intrinsic evidence of being composed and added to the map by Adams, who was a schoolmaster; ar J of not belonging to the original map of Cabot. It speaks of Cabot in the third person and as a stranger : '' John Cabot, a Venetian, discovered this land, etc." It is altogether incredible that Sebastian Cabot would mention his father in that way. Copies of this engraving of Adams's were to be seen as late as 1583, when Sir Humphrey Gilbert saw it hanging in the royal gallery at Whitehall; and it was extant when Hackluyt published his Voyages (1600). " It is to be seen," he says, " in her majesty's privie gallery at Westminster, and in many other ancient merchants' houses." The Latin inscription on this map of Adams's states that Cabot called the land terrain priintun visani, because, says the author of the inscription, "/ think [crecto] being at sea he first cast eyes upon the land." This inscription being at the foot of the map does not designate any particular spot as the *' land first seen," but it says that " an island which stood out from the land " (insula qiuc ex CAr30T S LANDFALL 281 ^t>rador north. ("stead Belle led of *'ouid 1^ and that |teof tile advcrso sita est) he called St. John, because it was sighted by him [ei apcria fuii) on the festival of that saint, June 24, "as I believe" {opinor). The map lately discovered and claimed to be the original of Cabot has the words terra (or tierra) prima vista as designating Cape North in Cape Breton, and an island near at hand marked Y. S. Juan, supposed to be the present Prince Edward island, though it has nothing of the shape of that island, nor is it in its proper position. • This supposed map contains also the inscription. I think that ought to be enough to deprive the map of being consHdercd as Cabot's work. Again, if the words prima vista were on the original map at Cape North, how came they to be omitted by Adams or by the copyist from whom Adams took his map, if he did not copy from the original ? Abb6 Baudouin says : *' We do not know from whom Adams copied his map. We know of two copies of that of Sebastian ; one in the national library of Paris, and one due to Chytlueus {variorum in Ettropa itinernui delicicc f Per horn \^g^),h\.\t Clement Adams did not copy cither of these. We must, therefore, admit a third copy of Sebastian which is not yet discovered." I would like to know if the point of Cape North is marked Prima Vista on these known copies, and if not, why not, if it is on the original. Biddle. a lawyer ol Pittsburg, wrote in 1831 a most exhaustive and ex- cellent memoir of Sebastian Cabot. He was the first who attempted to shake the belief in the old tradition of Bonavista as the landfall. In study- ing the inscription on the map of Adams he noticed the mention of an island called St. John off the coast, and he could find no such island off the coast of Newfoundland near Bonavista. He saw on the said map an island marked St. John in the gulf of St. Lawrence ; but he knew that Cabot could not have seen that island on the same day as that on which he sighted land, that is, in the supposition that he sighted land near Bona- vista. Neither would the island of St. John as marked (now Prince Edward island) answer the description of " an island off the coast." Moreover, he says, this island was discovered and called St. John long after by Cartier in 1535. He then cast about for further data. "He finds," says Abb6 Beaudouin, " on the map of Ortelius, 1570, an island of St. John off the coast of Labrador in latitude 56°. This he supposes to be the landfall." M. I'Abbe here refutes Bicldle by saying his whole argument is built on a false basis. In the first place Cartier did not see Prince Edward island at all ; it was a cape on the west shore of Newfoundland (now Cape Anguille) which he called St. John. Secondly, the map of Ortelius, which was not drawn from Cabot's but from Mercator's (1569), is his only authority. On NUMn 1 282 CAUOT S LANDFALL ^\ *f the first point M. I'Abb^ is correct, that Cartier did not see Prince Edward island ; but, as will appear hereafter, it does not strengthen his own argu- ment. On the second point, however, he is not exact, as the isle of St. John appears on all the maps previous to Ortelius' time. There can be no doubt that this island was put there to mark what was then believed to be the landfall of Cabot. They placed it in 56° because they •believed that to be the latitude of the landfall. Such was the general belief some twenty-five or thirty years after Cabot's voyage. There is, as already rcnvirked, no vestige of the southern entrance to the gulf, or of the island of Prince Edward, on any of the maps previous to Cartier's time. But if Biddlc had pushed his argument farther he would say there is no island of St. John off the coast of Labrador in latitude 56° or 55", nor anywhere off that coast. That is true, but it only tends to con- firm my argument that the landfall was a little farther south ; namely, on the east coast of Newfoundland. How, then, do I account for the absence of the isle St. John in this place? As follows: In latitude 50° on the Newfoundland coast (a little more than one degree north of Bonavista) we have at the present day Cape St. John, off which is a small island called Gull island. It is quite possible that the name of St. John was given to the island by Cabot, and afterward it was transferred to the cape on the mainland. M. I'Abb^ Beaudouin himself admits that the word "island" is often given to the mainland, and that of cape to an island. We have many examples of this. Labrador is constantly called an island ; in fact, the whole new world was called the new-found isle, and the island of the Bretons is calletl Cape Breton," and the little island of St. Paul's is called by Cartier Cape St. Paul. L'Abbe Beaudouin justly corrects M. Biddle in regard to Prince Edward island. Biddle says that Cartier discovered and named this island St. John on the 24th of June, 1534. A study of Cartier's voyage, however, shows that it was a part of the Newfoundland coast which Cartier so named. It is shown on some old maps about four leagues northeast from the present Cape Anguille. Biddle relied upon Hackluyt, who speaks of it as the " island called St. John," but it is only another confusion of the words " island " and " cape." As a matter of fact^i however, Cartier did not see Prince Edward island; but this fact, instead of helping, only completely breaks down the theory of Cape North as the landfall of Cabot. Cabot is supposed to have sighted land at Cape North, and at the same time, or shortly after, to have seen this " island off the coast," insula quce ex advcrso est, an island just alongside, en face or tout a c6tt\ Now * From a town of that name in the Landes, France. ¥ CABOT S LANDFALL 383 'dvvard rn argu. of St. ^ vvliat in 56° ^' M'as to the us to WouJd le 56° con- y, on sence the ) We aiied n to I the tid " ave act, the docs Prince Edward island answer to this description ? In the first place it is nearly one hundred and fifty miles long, and lies very low. At first sight it would not have been distinguished at all as an island. That fact could not be known without sailing between it and the mainland, through the straits of Northumberland. Much less can it be made to comply with the Latin inscription on Adams's map of " an island off the shore," or right alongside. It cannot be seen at all from Cape North.* Its nearest point, Cape East, is above seventy miles distant. Again, between Cape North and Prince Edward island arises an immense prom- ontory, forming part of Inverness and Victoria counties of Cape Breton island, a mountain over one thousand feet high. To surmount or cir- cumvent this difficulty M. Beaudouin is obliged to suppose that Cabot made the land for the first time at Cape North, "a little on the west side" un pen vers roiicst, but this involves another difficulty. To arrive at the west coast of this peninsula of Cape Breton, coming as he did from the east, he would be obliged to coast along shore for a whole day without seeing land, across Aspey bay and bay St. Lawrence, to round Cape North and Cape St. Lawrence (with his eyes shut ?) and then sail southwestward till he came to Cape Mabou, the nearest point to Prince Edward. But this would require nearly another day, as it is about eighty miles from Cape North ; and he would be no better off, for Prince Edward island would be still nearly thirty miles distant, and would not be seen at all from the deck of his vessel, and, if seen from the lofty summit of the hills ashore, would only appear as a dark blue outline of land lying low on the distant horizon, but not at all as a small island " just alongside." The only island near Cape North which would verify the title of " a small island off the shore " is St. Paul's, which Cabot could not have avoided seeing if he came to Cape North, yet there is no sign of it on his supposed map, and it has never been claimed that he saw it, which is strong proof that he never saw Cape North. How or when the island of Prince Edward came to be named St. John, and marked so conspicuously on this map, and placed so far out of its true position in the effort to make it comply with the Latin inscription, is a fact yet to be cleared up.f M. Beaudouin, in refuting Biddle, rightly says that Cartier never saw the island of Prince Edward, and, consequently, did not name it St. John. * 1 speak from experience, having spent the greater part of a day there last year. There was no glass aboard the ship powerful enough to enable us to descry this island, tout a cote, in fact it was far below the horizon. f It received its present name after the visit of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (father of Queen Victoria), in 1799. 284 CABOT S LANDFALL This is true ; but I think it completely demolishes the theory that Cabot saw Prince Edward island from Cape North. Cartier was a most observ- ant navi;^ator and explorer; his ucscripJons of harbors, islands, rocks, reefs, etc., arc of the minutest and most exact nature. His soundings are so complete and correct that one can trace his course on any modern chart by following the description of his voyages. Yet what do we find? In the year 1534 he spent three days, June 27, 28, and 29, exploring the Bird Rocks, the Bryon, and the Magd;ilen islands. These islands are about forty-five miles distant from Prince Edward island ; in other words, a little more than half the distance between Cape North and the said Prince Edward island, and yet he did. not see this latter island. As a rnatter of fact, being so low, it cannot be seen from the Magdalens. What is more, Cartier must have passed much nearer to the western end of Prince Edward island on sailing from the Magdalens to the Miramichi river. He must have been at least within twenty miles of it. And this is also the highest part of the island, yet he did not see it. The reason is because he passed it during the night. He left Bryon or Magdalen on Monday, June 29, and sailed west all day and all night, and on the morning of Tuesday, last day of the month, Mardi dernier jour dii dit mays, sollail h Vest, he saw the land at mouth of Miramichi river. Again, in 1536, on his return voyage, he spent from the 21st to the 26th of May in the neighborhood of Bryon and Magdalen islands, and thence he sailed to Cape North, which he explored, together with Cape Lorraine (now Cape St. Lawrence) and St. Paul's island, which he discovered and named, que nous nommasines Ic Cap de Sainct Paul ; in all this time, and traversing back and forth " he never saw the island of Prince Edward." They are the words of the abb^ himself: Je ne vit pas Vile du Prince Eduard. Yet we are asked to believe that this was an island "just along- side," tout a cotd, seen by Cabot at the same time that he sighted land. Finally, it is certain that up to Cartier's time the entrance to the gulf of St. Lawrence by the southeast, between Cape Ray, Newfoundland, and Cape Nfjrth, in Cape Breton, was unknown. Cartier shrewdly suspected its existence when exploring the Magdalens in 1534. " I am greatly of opinion," he says, " from what I have seen, that there is a passage be- tween the Newfound Land and the land of the Iketons." Jc prdsuine niiclx que aultrcnient a ce que fay vcu, qii il luy aid aulciui passaigc cntrc la Terre Ncuffue et la terre des Bretons / but it was not until he returned from his second voyage, 1536, that he actually discovered it and passed out through it. Now it is impossible to believe that this passage and the whole gulf should have bean well known, as Abb^ Beaudouin says, to Cabot, and yet IHi 1/ mm CABOT S LANDFALL 285 « I that Cnrticr should never have heard of it, and that it should not appear on some of the maps prior to Cartier's time. Any person studying the so-called Cabot map of Clement Adams in connection with Cartier's voyages will see that it is compiled chiefly from his description, the only addition being this island of St. John. If Cabot made a map anything like this it must be that he availed himself of the knowledge given to the world by Cartier's voyage. M. Beaudouin denies this and says Cabot could not have learned anything from Cartier, whose voyages were first published by Ramusio in Italian in 1555, ^^ eleven j'ears after the pub- lication of Cabot's map. The argument has no force. We have at present no original French account of Cartier's voyages ; Ramusio's is only a translation. The original is now lost, but it does not follow that it was not in existence when Cabot made his map, and that the contents of it were little known to the learned men of the time, such as Cabot. Again, M. Beaudouin says Cabot put on his map only such places as ne had himself seen or believed he had seen ; and yet we find on this map places and names undoubtedly explored and named by Cartier for the first time, and places which, even according to M. I'Abbe himself, Cabot could not have seen, as, for instance, Brest, Saguenay, Stadacona, Hon- gedo, and Cape Thiennot. In fact, the river is given almost as far up as Hochelaga or Montreal. Now how could Cabot have seen these places when, even according to M. Beaudouin's theory, he did not pene- trate beyond Bic or Trois Pistoles? One difficulty produces another in this theory. We learn from De Ayala that after sighting land Cabot coasted three hundred leagues. L'Abbe Beaudouin shows it was not southward along the coast of America, because Cabot did not take that course till the following summer (1498). H . is obliged, there- fore, to say that he entered the gulf and coasted around, going out by the straits of Belle Isle. In order to sail three hundred leagues be- tween Prince Edward island and Belle Isle he would have to ascend the river St. Lawrence as far as Trois Pistoles or the river Saguenay. Cabot was in search of the passage to Cathay and Cipango. M. Beaudouin says that, having entered the mouth of the St. Lawrence, it is natural to sup- pose, in ascending the river as far as Bic, he concluded the passage was not there, seeing the banks of the river began to approach each other. I think nothing could be more unnatural than to suppose any such thing. On the contrary, he would undoubtedly hpvc concluded that he had for a certainty found the long-looked-for passage, just as Cartier did really think some few years after when he found himself in the same spot, and as he was told by his guides : *• Our savages told us that this was the 286 CABOT S LANDFALL way, and the commencement of the great gulf of Hochclaga, which goes so far that no man had ever been to the end of it as far as they had ever heard." The river St. Lawrence is at least thirty miles wide at this point mentioned, and if Cabot had gone there I feel confident he would have explored the river as far as Montreal or Hochelaga, as Cartier did. I will mention one more example of the difficulties caused by this theory, and show how they vanish in view of the truth. M. Beaudouin says: "On the map of Sebastian Cabot we find in the river St. Lawrence a group of islands called Vs S. Juan at about 53". This group corresponds to the spot where we place Hie islands or Trois Pistoles. Cabot is the only map- maker who marks the isles of St. John in this place. There is, then, a strong presumption that John Cabot ascended the river as far as Hie or thereabouts, and gave his own name to the isles on the south coast, the terminus oretid of his course." Thus far M. Beaudouin. Now let us hear what Jacques Cartier says about those same islands: "On the 24th day of the montii (August, 1 535), we arrived at a harbor on the south side of the river, nearly eighty leagues from the said seven isles, which is behind three flat islands. The harbor where we anchored, which is on the south side of the river, is a harbor difficult of entry, and of very little value as a harbor." He is describing the isles and harbor of Bic most accurately. Now let us mark what follows : " We named these isles the islets of St. John, Ylcaux dc Sainct Jclian, because we entered there on the feast of the beheading or decapitation of that saint " (August 29). This seems to me one of the most convincing proofs that this pretended Cabot map was made in pursuance of Carticr's exploration of the gulf, and hence it cannot be of any weight in deciding Cabot's landing place. As to the two islands which Cabot saw \.o starboard (on his right hand) on returning, and which M. Beaudouin suggests may have been Anticosti and Newfoundland, the statement concerning them is so vague as scarcely to need consideration. They are first mentioned in a very passing way by Pasquaglio. " On his [Cabot's] return," he writes, " he saw two islands to starboard, but he did not land, time being too precious." Next, we find Raimondo Soncini magnifying t'liem into " two isles very large and very fertile," and speaking of them as if they were the sole object and result of the voyage. " After having discovered two isles, . . . he has returned safe." In the supposition that Labrador was the landfall, these isles may have been the two Belle Isles mentioned by Cartier afterward, or the Groais islands {lies dc Grots), or the Horse islands (St. Barbes), or any of the isles on the east coast of Newfoundland. In case of Cape St. John or Cape Bonavista being the landfall, these islands may have been St. CAIJOTS LANDFALL 287 Pierre and Miquelnn, or Brunette, or the Rameas, or any others, but it is useless with the present data to make any su^^gcstion. I think we may now safely conclude that tliis pretended Cabot map is an imposition. It is simply a copy of Clement Adams's map, on which some one inserted at Cape North the words, terra prima vista ; and it has been done, too, in a very bungling manner. Besides the reasons given in my Ecclesiastical History, p. 52, I may add that the words appear in a variety of forms. First in Latin, terra primum visa. Then ticrra prima vista, which is no language at all ; then tierra primiim vista, which is a fright- ful mixture of Spanish, Latin, and Italian. M, Beaudouin says: " John Cabot probably called the point of landfall ' first seen ' in English; then Sebastian, in making his map of 1544, trans- lated it into Spanish; and, finally, Adams, in engraving the map in 1549, translated it into Latin." To me all this supposition seems far-fetched, unnatural, and altogether unfounded. We have no account of John Cabot's having called the land " first seen," and any one who knows Eng- lish will at once understand that such an expression is a barbarism ; nor is it likely John Cabot, an Italian, would have used such an unmusical and ineuphonious compound. It is far more natural to suppose hiin to have cried out with joy in his own dolce favella, his sweet Italian : " Oh, Buona Vista!'' " happy sight!" And while there is not at the present day, and never has been, any vestige of such a barbarous name as first seen or prima vista, WQ have, as early as 1527, on Majollo's map, the beautiful name Btioiiavista, which is found on all the earliest maps, and survives to-day in Newfoundland as the bay, cape, and settlement of Bonavista. If Cabot did not give this name, who did ? and from whom did those early cosmog- graphcrs learn it ? Again, M. Beaudouin supposes Cabot to have translated the words '* first seen " or " land first seen," into Spanish ; but such is not the case. On some copies of the map I have seen terra prima vista ; on others, tierra prima vista. But neither of these forms is correct Spanish or Italian. They are an awkward and ungrammatical attempt to translate into Italian or Spanish the English phrase "land first seen." In the phrase " land first seen " the word first is used as an adverb, but the word prima, by which it is supposed to be translated, is an adjective only both in Spanish and Italian. \iQx\cQ t\\Q ioxva terra ox tierra prima vista is nonsense. It is equivalent to saying in English " land first sight." The true translation of the English "land first seen" would be, in Italian, terra primieramente vista, and in Spanish tierra primeramente vista. I therefore reverse entirely the supposition of M. I'Abb^. I think 288 CAMOT S LANDFALL that the first indic.ition of tliis prima vista was the Latin inscription on Clement Adams's map of 1549, in whicli he says: " I believe Cabot called the land terrain primhm visaui." Then some person who had a copy of the map, and reading the inscription about the isle of St. ]ohn, took the liberty of inserting the words terra prima tu'sta near Cape North, Whoever did this had, as we have seen, but a very i)oor knowledjje of S[)anish or Italian. I presume it to have been a Frenchman, from the fact that he translates another word of the inscription, Hacalios, by the well-known French word Moruc. Some other person, ecjually audacious, marked on the map near the same spot (at least on some copies I have seen) an anchor with the figure " 1st " in Eni^lish, the only English word on the map. This supposed Cabot map has on it, then, English, Spanish, Italian, French, and Latin. And this garbled map, lately (1854) discovered somewhere in Germany, is brought forward as the authentic map of Cabot. In conclusion I still emphasize the proposition that Cabot's first land- fall was somewhere on the east coast of Newfoundland, about latitude 49° or 50^. There exist at the present day on ihe east coast of Newfound- land a great number of names occurring in the exact order that is given on the earliest maps; as, for example, Labrador, Fortune, Cortereal (Cot- terel's island), Fuego (Fogo island), Avcs, or Bird island {/sola dcgli iicclli\ Bonavista, Bonaventure, Baccalaos (Baccalieu), Bay of Conception, St. Francis, Cape Spear, Fermeuse, Renouse, Cape Race (or De Rasso), St. Mary's, Cape Pine, liciy Ddspoir ; and after these, com.ing to the island of Cape Breton, we have St. Paul's, Cape Smoky ( Fiimoso), Cape Breton, etc. As these names occur on those early maps shortly after Cabot's discovery, so do they exist to-day. There is no vestige of Prima Vista, no suspicion of a knowledge of the gulf of St. Lawrence, or the island of St. John (Prince Edward island), so that until stronger proof be forthcoming it would be unreasonable, on such a doubtful one as this supposed map of Cabot, to upset the traditions which have been held unbroken for so many centuries, and which are founded on the most authentic records in our possession. %x:^^^z^<. St. Georgf.s. West Newkounoi.and