LIST OF THE MORE IMPORTANT WORKS REFERRED TO (continued 3)

[254] On this map the tongue of land in question is nameless, while on the map of Europe in the Medicean Atlas it is given the name of “alogia,” which shows it to have been regarded as a part of Norway (see the reproduction, p. 260).

[255] As there is considerable difference between the coast-lines of Europe on Ptolemy’s maps and those on the Medici maps, one’s scale of latitude will vary according to the points one may choose for determining it. The points here given were the first I tried, and as the resulting scale seems to agree remarkably well with Clavus’s later map I have kept to it, although of course Clavus may have proceeded in a somewhat different way in determining the scale on his map; in particular he seems on the older map to have arranged it so that the parallel for 63° passed through the southernmost part of Norway, corresponding to Ptolemy’s Thule. In order better to agree with this (cf. the left-hand scale of latitude of the Nancy map) the degrees of latitude on the map above ought therefore to be increased half a degree, and on the map, p. 236, nearly a degree.

[256] On the Nancy map the southern point of Greenland lies in 63° 30′; but as we do not know how accurately this copy reproduces Clavus’s original map, it is safer to confine ourselves to Clavus’s text.

[257] Gerard Mercator writes that according to a tradition an English monk and mathematician from Oxford [i.e., Nicholas of Lynn] had been in Norway and in the islands of the north, and had described all these places and determined their latitude by the astrolabe [cf. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1903, p. 301]. It is therefore possible that Clavus may have obtained the latitudes of some places, such as Stavanger and Bergen, from his work; but in any case he cannot have got the latitude of the southern point of Greenland from it. Moreover, if he had had such accurate information to depend on, it would be difficult to understand why he retained the incorrect latitudes which he obtained by introducing those of Ptolemy on the Medici map; in his later map, indeed, he has used nothing else.

[258] Cf. Sturlubók and Ivan Bárdsson’s description of Greenland. In Hauk’s Landnáma we read that it was from Hernum (that is, north of Bergen) that they sailed west to Hvarf. According to this, then, the southern point of Greenland would be brought even farther north than Bergen.

[259] Although Dr. Björnbo now admits that the Medici map must have been used for Clavus’s later map, he is still in doubt as to this being the case with the older one (the original of the Nancy map); he is inclined to think that this map may have been constructed from Northern sources, sailing directions, etc. But there appear to me to be too many striking agreements between the Medici map and the Nancy map for such an assumption to be probable; and the following may be given as instances: the number of bays between Skåne and the south coast of Norway, with the deepest bay on the west; the resemblance between the south coast of Norway with its three bays on the Nancy map and the south coast of the corresponding peninsula to the north of Scotland on the Medici map; the high latitude of this south coast on both maps; the agreement in latitude between the southern point of Greenland and that of “alogia” in the Medici map; the remarkable similarity in the relation between the longitudes of these two southern points and the west coast of Ireland on both maps; the mutual relation in latitude between the southern point of Greenland and the south coast of Norway (with Stavanger); the far too northerly latitude of all these places; the east coast of Greenland having the same main direction as the east coast of the corresponding peninsula on the Medici map, etc. To these may be added the similarity in the way the coast-lines are drawn, with round bays. Each of these points of agreement may no doubt be explained, as Björnbo suggests, as a coincidence and as having arisen in another way; but when there are so many of them it must be admitted that a connection is more natural.

[260] “Serica” on Ptolemy’s map of the world lies in the extreme north-east of Asia, and is most likely China.

[261] It seems possible, as Mr. O. Vangensten has suggested to me, that this name may here be due to a confusion of Vermeland with Bjarmeland. Peder Claussön Friis [Storm, 1881, p. 219] says that Greenland extends round the north of the “Norwegian Sea” “eastward to Biarmeland or Bermeland.”

[262] Cf. Mandeville, 1883, pp. 180, 182, 183, f. Mandeville also says that in the opinion of the old wise astronomers the circumference of the world was 20,425 English miles; but he himself maintains that it is 31,500 miles.

[263] That the delineation of this coast is not based upon personal examination, either by Clavus himself or by any possible informant, is also shown by the fact that the coast has not a single real name. Even if we suppose that Clavus, or his possible informant, during the voyage along this coast, had been so unfortunate as not to meet with a single one of the Norse inhabitants who might have communicated names, we cannot very well assume that the crew of the ship on which the voyage was made were totally unacquainted with Greenland; they must certainly have had plenty of names and sea-marks.

[264] It must be remembered that Clavus’s latitudes are throughout too high; his south point of Greenland lies about three degrees too far north, in 62° 40′ instead of 59° 46′. If we carry this reduction to the most northerly point he describes on the east coast, this will lie in about 62° 30′ instead of 65° 35′, and thus the coincidence with Cape Dan disappears. His description of the east coast of Greenland in the Nancy map is quite different.

[265] Such an inscription as this is quite in the style of Clavus’s great prototype, Ptolemy, in whom we often find: “this is the end of the coast of the known land.”

[266] It is worth remarking that Clavus puts his last point visible no less than 1° 50′ (that is, 110 nautical miles) to the north of the limit of the known land. If a statement like this was calculated to be taken as derived from local knowledge, it would not in any case disclose much nautical experience.

[267] On the influence of these men on the cartographical representation of the North, see in particular J. Fischer, 1902.

[268] As shown by Björnbo and Petersen, this is evidently Clavus’s name “Eyn Gronelandz aa” for a river on the east coast of Greenland, which was misunderstood on Clavus’s map and made the name of the country, assisted perhaps by the resemblance in sound with the name Engromelandi (for Ångermanland), which Clavus has on the north side of Scandinavia (p. 248). This resemblance of sound may also have had something to do with the removal of Greenland to the north of Norway.

[269] Cf. Grönl. hist. Mind., iii. p. 168. Björnbo [1910, p. 79] by a slip quotes the letter to Pope Nicholas V. of about the same date, instead of that given above.

[270] According to Lelewel [Epilogue, Pl. 6] this peninsula bears the name of “Grinland,” but this cannot be seen on the somewhat indistinct original [cf. Björnbo, 1910, p. 80; Ongania, Pl. X.].

[271] Storm [1893], and following him J. Fischer [1902, pp. 99, ff.], erroneously regard this island of Brazil as Markland (see above, p. 229).

[272] See J. Fischer, 1902, p. 99. Cf. also Björnbo, 1910, pp. 125, ff., who gives a drawing of the map.

[273] Two editions are reproduced in Nordenskiöld [1897, p. 61] and Ongania [Pl. XIV.].

[274] Reproduced by Nordenskiöld [1897, p. 5] and Lelewel [1851, Pl. XXXIII.]; Miller, 1895, iii. p. 138.

[275] Björnbo, by the way, only speaks of two islands, whereas in Lelewel’s reproduction there are four islands, which is no doubt correct. It seems, too, as though all four could be faintly distinguished in Björnbo’s photographic reproduction [1910, p. 74].

[276] As to Behaim, see in particular Ravenstein, 1908.

[277] Cf. Storm, 1899, p. 5.

[278] Cf. Harrisse, 1892, pp. 655, ff.

[279] As is well known, the possibility has been suggested that during his visit to Iceland in 1477 Columbus may have heard of the Norsemen’s voyages to Greenland, Markland and Wineland, and that this may have given him the idea of his plan. Storm has pointed out, convincingly it seems to me, the untenability of the latter supposition. But it appears to me that he has overlooked the possibility of Columbus having heard tales of these voyages in Bristol, or, still more probably, on a Bristol vessel. As, of course, he must have been able to make himself understood among the other sailors on board, it would be unlikely that he should not have heard such tales, if they were known to his ship-mates.

[280] Willelmus Botoner, alias de Worcester (1415-1484). MS. in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, No. 210; printed in “Itineraria Symonis Simeonis et Willelmi de Worcestre,” ed. J. Nasmyth, Cambridge, 1778, pp. 223, 267. Cf. H. Harrisse, 1892, p. 659; Kretschmer, 1892, p. 219.

[281] The Island of the Seven Cities was a fabulous island out in the Atlantic which is frequently alluded to in the latter part of the Middle Ages.

[282] As to John Cabot and his voyages, see in particular Henry Harrisse [1882, 1892, 1896, 1900], F. Tarducci [1892, 1894], Sir Clements R. Markham [1893, 1897], Samuel Edward Dawson [1894, 1896, 1897], C. R. Beazley [1898], G. Parker Winship [1899, 1900]. Harrisse amongst recent authors has the special merit of having collected and arranged all the authorities on John and Sebastian Cabot. Unfortunately I am unable to follow him in his conclusions from these authorities as to the voyages of John and Sebastian. It seems to me that, like most other writers, he pays too much attention to later statements, derived directly or indirectly from Sebastian Cabot, while he places too little reliance on what, in my opinion, may be concluded with tolerable certainty from contemporary sources. Sebastian Cabot’s statements on various occasions, so far as we know them, prove to be mutually conflicting, and it looks as if this wily man seldom expressed himself without some arrière-pensée or other, which was more to his own advantage than to that of the truth. My views of John Cabot’s voyage of 1497 on several points agree more nearly with those of S. E. Dawson, and for later voyages with those of G. Parker Winship.

[283] Cf. Harrisse, 1896, pp. 1, ff.

[284] Cf. Harrisse, 1882, p. 325.

[285] The Minister Raimondo di Soncino says in his letter of December 18, 1497, to the Duke of Milan, that Cabot, “after having seen that the Kings of Spain and Portugal had acquired unknown islands, had proposed to obtain a similar acquisition for the King of England.” It cannot be concluded from this that it was not till then that Cabot formed his plans, though probably it was at that time that he first entered into negotiations with the King of England. It is in the same letter that Soncino tells of Cabot’s speculations on seeing caravans arriving at Mecca from the far east with spices, etc. His son, Sebastian Cabot, who evidently on several occasions made it appear as though he himself and not his father had discovered the American continent, is reported (according to the statement of the anonymous guest in Ramusio, see below) to have said that he [i.e., Sebastian] got the idea of his expedition after having heard of the discovery of Columbus, which was a common subject of conversation at the court of Henry VII. But even if Sebastian’s words are correctly reported, which is doubtful, he must demonstrably have been lying, and therefore no weight can be attached to his statement; if he could sacrifice his father to his personal advantage, then no doubt, if he profited by it, he could also sacrifice his birthright in the plan to the advantage of Spain, in the service of which country he then was. Furthermore, Ayala’s letter, quoted above, points to John Cabot having got expeditions sent out from Bristol as early as 1491 to look for land in the west, and besides this we know of such an expedition in 1480.

[286] They are dated March 5, in the eleventh year of the reign of Henry VII. The eleventh year of Henry VII. was from August 22, 1495, to August 21, 1496.

[287] Cf. Harrisse, 1882, p. 315.

[288] It has been suggested that Cabot set out in 1496 and did not return till August 1497 [cf. Church, 1897], but this cannot be reconciled with the statements in the letters of Soncino and Pasqualigo that the expedition had only lasted a few months.

[289] According to Soncino’s letter of December 18, 1497, Cabot was a poor man. In addition to this he was a foreigner, and as such was scarcely looked upon with favour; but on the other hand, the reputation of Italian sailors was great at that time, and he may therefore have been respected for his knowledge of seamanship and cartography, which was not possessed by the sailors of Bristol.

[290] The only ones of these named in the authorities (Soncino’s letter, December 18, 1497) are Cabot’s Italian barber (surgeon ?) from Castione, and a man from Burgundy.

[291] Between 1493 and 1500 at least thirty expeditions went in search of the coast of America. These were all certainly provided with charts, and some of them also produced maps of their discoveries, but not one of these has been preserved. [Cf. Harrisse, 1900, p. 14.]

[292] No importance can be attached in this connection to any of the statements derived at second or third hand from Sebastian Cabot and communicated by Contarini, Peter Martyr, Ramusio, and others. So far as they are worthy of credence, they must refer to one or more later voyages. The statement in the Cottonian Chronicle and in the Fabyan Chronicle refers to the voyage of 1498.

[293] Harrisse’s reproduction of the letter [1882, p. 322] reads: “Vene in nave per dubito ...”; while Tarducci [1892, p. 350] gives: “Vene in mare per dubito ...”, where “mare” is perhaps a misprint for “nave” (?) In any case the meaning must be that Cabot turned back and would not go farther into the country for fear of being attacked by the inhabitants, which might easily have been dangerous for him with his small crew.

[294] That is, the mystical “Island of the Seven Cities” out in the Atlantic.

[295] It is interesting that here we find attributed to the newly discovered country the two features, dye-wood and silk, which were the most costly treasures characteristic of the land that was sought, exactly in the same way as the Norsemen attributed to their Wineland the Good the two features, wine and cornfields (wheat), which were characteristic of the Fortunate Isles. Thus history repeats itself.

[296] Probably Castiglione, near Chivari, by Genoa.

[297] Cf. Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Edinburgh, 1875, iv. p. 350; and G. P. Winship, 1900, p. 99.

[298] It is by no means improbable that Cabot, who was an expert navigator, knew that great-circle sailing gave the shorter course. For instance, he might easily have seen this from a globe, and we are told that he himself made a globe to illustrate his voyage (cf. p. 304).

[299] It must also be remembered that on the Newfoundland Banks and off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia fogs are extremely prevalent (in places over 50 per cent. of the days) at the time of year here in question, so that their first sight of land might be accidental.

[300] Harrisse [1896, pp. 63, ff.] does not seem to have remarked that Cabot must necessarily have been longer on the westward voyage, when he had the prevailing winds against him, than on the homeward voyage, when the wind conditions were favourable.

[301] No particular weight, it is true, can be attached to the map of 1544 which is attributed to Sebastian Cabot, or which was at any rate influenced by him, as the statements of this man can never be depended upon. At the same time, the information given on this map to the effect that Cabot first reached land at Cape Breton agrees in a remarkable way with La Cosa’s map, as we shall see directly.

[302] The distance from Ireland to Newfoundland is fully 1600 geographical miles, and to Cape Breton about 1900; but reckoned from Bristol it will be about 280 miles more.

[303] To be perfectly accurate, the distance on La Cosa’s map between Ireland and Cauo de Ynglaterra is 1290 geographical miles; between Bristol and the same cape 1620 miles; while the distance between Cauo de Ynglaterra and the name of Cauo descubierto is 1080 miles. If we reckon 17½ leagues to a degree, these distances correspond respectively to 376, 472 and 315 leagues; while 20 leagues to a degree give 430, 540 and 360 leagues. As the name of Cauo descubierto stands out in the sea to the west of the cape it belongs to, the distance will be less, very nearly 300 leagues. Along the upper margin of the map a scale is provided, each division of which, according to the usual practice, corresponds to 50 miglia. This gives us the distance from Ireland to Cauo de Ynglaterra as 1425 miglia, and from the latter to the name of Cauo descubierto 1200. Reckoning 4 miglia to a legua, these distances will be 356 and 300 leagues.

[304] I here disregard altogether the common assertions that Cabot arrived on the east coast of Newfoundland (at Cape Bonavista, or to the north of it), or even on the coast of Labrador. This cannot possibly be reconciled with La Cosa’s map, nor does it agree with the accounts of Pasqualigo and Soncino, nor, again, with the information on the map of 1544 (by Sebastian Cabot ?), if we are to attach any weight to this. Other trustworthy documents are unknown. No importance can be attributed to the evidence of Cabot’s having arrived in Labrador in 1497 which Harrisse (1896, pp. 78, ff.) thinks may be seen in the circumstance that the English discoveries are placed in the northernmost part of the east coast of North America (between 56° and 60°) on the official Spanish maps of the first half of the sixteenth century; this does not by any means counterbalance La Cosa’s map, which speaks plainly enough. Even if Sebastian Cabot had the superintendence of these later maps, this proves little or nothing. If it was to his interest not to offend the Spaniards by emphasising his father’s discoveries, he would scarcely have hesitated to omit them, or allow them to be moved to the north. For on these very maps (e.g., Ribero’s of 1529) it is claimed that the whole coast to the south-west of Newfoundland (“Tiera nova de Cortereal”) was discovered by Spaniards (Gomez and Ayllon). But in addition to this, in so far as any importance can be attributed to the inscriptions attached to “Labrador” on the Spanish maps, they evidently, like others of the statements attributed to Sebastian Cabot, do not refer to Cabot’s discoveries of 1497, which are found on La Cosa’s map, but to discoveries made on later English voyages from Bristol, on which ice was met with. If the map of 1544 can be attributed to the collaboration of Sebastian Cabot, it further shows clearly enough that he had no knowledge of the northern part of the east coast of America, since he makes it extend to the east and north-east, which is due to Greenland (Labrador) being included in it. The map is a plagiarism of an earlier French one. Harrisse’s view results in complete embarrassment in the interpretation of La Cosa’s map [cf. 1900, p. 21], and he is obliged to abandon the attempt to make anything of it, since, of course, it contradicts all he thinks may be concluded from the much later Spanish maps. Moreover, since Harrisse insists so strongly on the importance of the northerly latitudes of the English discoveries on these maps (and on La Cosa’s) as a proof of their being on the coast of Labrador, it should be pointed out that the latitudes of Newfoundland, for instance, and Greenland, to say nothing of the West Indian islands, vary on the maps; this shows that no weight can be attached to evidence of this kind.

[305] It has been maintained that “Cauo descubierto” must denote the land he first sighted; but the name only means “discovered cape,” and says nothing as to its being discovered first or last. There may indeed have been more about it on Cabot’s original map, and it happens that on La Cosa’s map there is a hole in the parchment just after this name. That it should be the same cape that on “Sebastian Cabot’s” map of 1544 is called “Prima tierra vista” is not likely, as this lies at the extreme east of the promontory of Cape Breton.

[306] For determining this I have to some extent relied on later maps, chiefly the Cantino map, where the direction of the north-eastern coast of Newfoundland gives a magnetic error of between 31° and 38°, and the direction between Cape Farewell and Cape Race gives an error of 28°, which is certainly somewhat too high.

[307] To this it might be objected that he says “the tides are sluggish, and do not run” as in England (“le aque e stanche e non han corso come qui”). The tide is considerable inside the Bay of Fundy, but on the coast of Maine and in the outer waters of Nova Scotia it is slight in comparison with the tide Cabot was acquainted with in the Bristol Channel.

[308] It must always be remembered that La Cosa did not have Cabot’s original chart, on which the coast and the Bay of Fundy may have been represented more in accordance with reality.

[309] La Cosa’s map may point to his having made a cruise in the open sea westward from Cauo descubierto before turning, and having seen the coast extending on, until in the far west it turned southward towards a headland, perhaps Cape Cod, where La Cosa put his westernmost flag. But this seems doubtful, and is only guessing.

[310] That the distance between these islands and Cauo de Ynglaterra is less than half what it ought to be on La Cosa’s map cannot be considered of decisive importance, since, as we have seen, the distances on this map are in general not to be relied on. The name “S. Grigor” must certainly be due to the Englishmen, while “Y. verde” may be due to Cabot or to La Cosa, and may be the same name as is found on compass-charts of the fifteenth century (cf. above, p. 279). La Cosa or Cabot may have taken these two islands to be the same as “Illa verde” and “Illa brazil” on these older charts, and while one of the islands has been given a new name perhaps because there were other islands with the name of Brazil (?), or because this island was nameless on some of the compass-charts; see above, p. 281, the other has been allowed to retain the old name, which was originally a translation of Greenland. This old land of the Norsemen is here brought far to the south, and reduced to a very modest size, being confused with peninsulas of Newfoundland.

[311] As evidence that a homeward voyage of twenty-three days would not be unusually fast sailing for that time, it may be mentioned for comparison that Cartier, in June and July 1536, took nineteen days from Cape Race to St. Malo. Champlain made the same voyage in 1603 in eighteen days, and in 1607 he took twenty-seven days from Canso, near Cape Breton, to St. Malo.

[312] Cf. Dawson, 1897, pp. 209, ff.

[313] Hakluyt [Principal Navigations, London, 1589] gives a corresponding inscription from the copy of this map which at that time was in the queen’s private gallery at Westminster; it was engraved in London in 1549 by the well-known Clement Adams. As in 1549 Sebastian Cabot held a high position with the King of England as adviser on all maritime matters, and especially as cartographer, we must suppose that he was consulted in the publication of so important a map, especially as it was attributed to himself. We may therefore assume that the inscription was revised by Sebastian Cabot. Hakluyt mentions this legend on Clement Adams’s map for the first time in 1584 [cf. Winship, 1900, p. 56] and then says, as in the first edition of Principal Navigations, that the date of the discovery was 1494; but in the 1600 edition of Principal Navigations he corrected it to 1497, for what reason is uncertain [cf. Taducci, 1892, p. 47; Harrisse, 1892, 1896; Winship, 1900, pp. 20, f.]. How the certainly erroneous date 1494 got on to the map of 1544 is unknown; it may be supposed that MCCCCXCIIII is an error of reading or writing for MCCCCXCVII, the two strokes of V being taken to be divided: II [cf. Harrisse, 1896, p. 61].

[314] Another possible explanation is that Cauo de Ynglaterra, Cabot’s most eastern point of the country, was Cape Race in Newfoundland, in spite of Sebastian Cabot’s having placed it at Cape Breton. As has been said, it is very doubtful whether Sebastian Cabot was with his father in 1497, though on the other hand he probably knew his father’s map, and in 1544 had a copy of it, or at any rate of La Cosa’s. Then he saw the French maps representing Cartier’s discoveries, e.g., Deslien’s map of 1541; and it was a question of identifying his father’s discoveries with this map. It would then be perfectly natural to assume that C. de Ynglaterra answered to Cape Breton, which looked like the easternmost point of the mainland in that region, while farther east there was a group of islands which might well answer to S. Grigor and Y. Verde on La Cosa’s map. Perhaps he also had a note to the effect that it was on St. John’s day that the first land was sighted. On his father’s map he found an island of St. John off this promontory, or he knew it from the tradition of Reinel’s and later maps, and so placed his “Prima tierra vista” at Cape Breton. If the view that C. de Ynglaterra is Cape Race be regarded as correct, it might be assumed that Cauo descubierto was really the place where Cabot first made the land, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Cape Breton, and that from thence he sailed eastward, the supposed 300 leagues, along the south coast of Newfoundland. The two islands he discovered to starboard might then be Grand Miquelon and St. Pierre, though this is not very probable, and he would then have sailed between them and the land. But in that case we have a difficulty with the two islands, S. Grigor and Y. Verde, which must then lie east of Cape Race, where no islands exist. That they were icebergs taken for islands is not very likely. It is more probable that, as already suggested, they are the ghosts of the “Illa Verde” and “Illa de Brasil” of earlier compass-charts (of the fifteenth century; see above, pp. 279, 318). But the whole of this explanation seems rather artificial, and the even coast of La Cosa’s map is difficult to reconcile with the extremely uneven coast-line we should get between Cape Breton Island and Cape Race. There is the further difficulty, if La Cosa’s coast was the south coast of Newfoundland, that we should have to assume that John Cabot was aware of the variation of the compass, and allowed for it on his chart.

[315] This would be, according to the reckoning of that time, February 3, 1497, since the civil year began on March 25; in New Style it will therefore be February 12, 1498.

[316] The MS. is preserved in the British Museum. Cf. G. P. Winship, 1900, p. 47.

[317] The text has “vicinidades,” but Desimoni [1881, Pref. p. 15] supposes it to be a misreading for “septe citades,” i.e., “the Seven Cities.”

[318] “Spero” is obviously a slip of the pen for “spera.”

[319] Harrisse’s contention [1896, pp. 129, ff.], that this expression, “surmysed to be grete commodities,” points to the chronicler here having introduced statements about the first voyage, in 1497, is hardly well founded. For Cabot discovered, according to the statements, no commodities (except fish) in 1497; on the other hand, he supposed that by penetrating farther to the west along the coast he would reach these treasures.

[320] Cf. G. P. Winship, 1900, p. 47. In the Cottonian Chronicle this account is given under the thirteenth year of Henry VII.’s reign, which lasted from August 22, 1497, to August 21, 1498. This has led some to think it referred to the voyage of 1497, but that is impossible, as, of course, Cabot had returned before the thirteenth year of Henry’s reign began.

[321] In the note preceding this statement taken from Fabyan, Hakluyt has made Sebastian Cabot leader of the expedition; but there is nothing to this effect in the text.

[322] It was suggested above that the Burgundian who took part in Cabot’s voyage in 1497 may have been from the Azores. It might be supposed that he also accompanied João Fernandez or Corte-Real in 1500, and now took part with Fernandez in the English undertaking, and in this way we should get a connection; but all this is mere guessing.

[323] Possibly the first-named Portuguese was the origin of the name of “Labrador.” On a Portuguese map of the sixteenth century, preserved at Wolfenbüttel, it is stated that the country of Labrador was “discovered by Englishmen from the town of Bristol, and as he who first gave the information was a ‘labrador’ [i.e., labourer] from the Azores, they gave it that name” [cf. Harrisse, 1892, p. 580; 1900, p. 40]. Ernesto do Canto [Archivo dos Açores, xii. 1894] points out that in documents of as early as 1492 there is mention of a João Fernandez who is described as “llavorador,” and who was engaged with another (Pero de Barcellos) in making discoveries at sea. “Llavorador” did not mean merely a common labourer, but one who tilled the ground, an agriculturist, landowner. We are then tempted to suppose that, as Do Canto assumes, this João Fernandez llavorador is John Fernandus, who is mentioned in the letters patent of 1501. The name of Labrador first appears on Portuguese maps (cf. the King map of about 1502), and is there used of Greenland. It may there be due to this João Fernandez (llavorador), who, perhaps, returned to Portugal in 1502, as he is no longer mentioned in the letters patent of December 1502 [cf. Harrisse, 1900, p. 40, ff.; Björnbo, 1910, p. 174]. Possibly he may have accompanied Corte-Real in 1500, or himself made a voyage in that year (see next chapter), before he came to Bristol; of that we know nothing, but in that case the name refers to some such Portuguese voyage, on which we know that Greenland was sighted in 1500, though the voyagers were unable to reach the coast (see next chapter). It may then be supposed that the English expedition from Bristol in 1501, in which João Fernandez took part, did reach the coast of Greenland, and therefore on later maps the discovery was attributed to the English, who not only saw the coast, but also landed on it. The Spanish cosmographer Alonso de Santa Cruz (born 1506) says: “It was called the land of Labrador because it was mentioned and indicated by a ‘labrador’ from the Azores to the King of England, when he sent on a voyage of discovery Antonio [sic] Gabot, the English pilot and father of Sebastian Gabot, who is now Pilot Major (piloto mayor) to Your Majesty” [cf. Harrisse, 1896, p. 80]. As this was written so long after, and in Spain, it is not surprising that Cabot’s voyage of 1497 has been confused with the voyage of 1501, especially as it was not to the interest of Sebastian, who was still in Spain at that time, to correct this. The statement agrees, moreover, with the legend on the Portuguese map at Wolfenbüttel.

[324] Cf. Harrisse, 1896, p. 147.

[325] In the repetition of the same statement (from Fabyan) in Stow’s Chronicle the eighteenth year is given as the date, i.e., August 22, 1502, to August 21, 1503; but it is doubtful which is correct; it appears to me that the text itself must be more original in Hakluyt; but the date occurs in the heading added by himself.

[326] The most natural explanation of this seems to me to be that Fabyan, whom Hakluyt quotes, thought that these savages were taken on the same island [i.e., North America] that John Cabot had discovered [in 1497]; of whose expedition in 1498 he had said that it had not returned during the mayoralty of William Purchas, see above, p. 326. That Hakluyt also interpreted Fabyan’s words thus seems to result from the fact that in his later repetition of this, in “Principal Navigations,” in 1589 and 1599-1600, he has altered the heading, making it the fourteenth (instead of the seventeenth) year of Henry VII. [i.e., August 22, 1498-August 21, 1499] when the three savages were brought to him. Hakluyt must then have misunderstood it to mean that they were taken on the voyage of 1498.

[327] In Hakluyt’s heading to this statement we are told that it was Sebastian Cabot who brought these savages; but his name is not mentioned in the text itself, which appears to be more genuine than the heading, and there is no ground for supposing that Sebastian took part in either of these expeditions of 1501 or 1502; in any case he was not the leader. In Stow’s version [Winship, 1900, p. 95] Sebastian Gabato is introduced into the text as he who had taken the three men; but, as suggested above, Stow’s text seems less original than Hakluyt’s. It is probable that both Stow and Hakluyt may have started from the assumption that it was Sebastian Cabot who made the voyage, and, therefore, that they thoughtlessly introduced his name [cf. Harrisse, 1896, pp. 142, ff.]; on the other hand it appears to me doubtful that his name should already have occurred in Fabyan in this connection.

[328] Greenland is represented on the map conformably to the type that was introduced on some mappemundi after Clavus’s map (cf. p. 278).

[329] As to the works of these authors, see Winship [1900]. Markham [1893] reproduces them (except Contarini’s report of 1536) in translations, which, however, must be used with some caution.

[330] These two ships and the three hundred men occur in Peter Martyr and Contarini, as well as in Gomara and Galvano; while Ramusio only has two ships and says nothing about the crews.

[331] In Peter Martyr’s original account no latitude is given.

[332] The meaning must be that these islands of ice were aground, but that nevertheless a line of one hundred fathoms did not reach the bottom. The ice must consequently have been over one hundred fathoms thick, which, of course, was a remarkable discovery at that time.

[333] This was the name at that time (1550) for the whole south-eastern part of the present United States.

[334] Cf. Winship, 1900, p. 89. Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1576 repeats the same statement almost word for word, saying that he has taken it from maps, on which Sebastian Cabot had described “from personal experience” the north-west passage to China [cf. Winship, 1900, pp. 17, 52; Kohl, 1869, p. 217].

[335] Cf. Harrisse, 1896, pp. 159, ff.; Winship, 1900, p. 44.

[336] We must then suppose that “Henry VII.” in Ramusio is an error for “Henry VIII.”

[337] Cf. Harrisse, 1883, p. 44.

[338] Cf. Harrisse, 1883, Supplement post scriptum, pp. 6, ff.

[339] As remarked above (p. 328), it is possible that these objects belonged to John Cabot’s unfortunate expedition of 1498.

[340] The document, as reproduced, has 1502. As the civil year at that time began on March 25, the date given would correspond to January 24, 1503, according to our calendar. But, according to the tradition given in later accounts, Miguel Corte-Real sailed in 1502, the year after his brother (cf. the legend on the Portuguese chart of about 1520, p. 354). Either we must suppose that the year or month in the document is an error, or the tradition is incorrect.

[341] These five months are a little difficult to understand. Either they must be reckoned from his departure—if we put that in May 1501, five months will take us to October 1501, but then the other ship had returned (see pp. 347, ff.)—or they must be reckoned from the return of the “two ships” (in October), but that takes us to March 1502. Thus neither gives good sense. Most likely, as in the case of the three ships instead of two, it is an error in the document.

[342] Cf. Harrisse, 1883, p. 214.

[343] Cf. Kohl, 1869, p. 179, Pl. X.; Kretschmer, 1892, Pl. XII.; Björnbo, 1910, p. 212.

[344] It might be objected that Gaspar Corte-Real’s name is not mentioned in the whole letter, and that he might thus have also been in command of these “other caravels”; but in Pasqualigo’s letter to his brothers Gaspar’s name is mentioned, and there too the meaning does not seem to be that he was connected with the discovery in the previous year of the country which could not be approached because of ice; but nothing definite can be concluded on this point from the two letters.

[345] The connection with the latter is evidently brought about by the south coast of the insular Greenland (Terra Laboratoris)—which we meet with first on the King map (p. 373), and which was given a broad form like that of the Greenland coast on the Oliveriana map (p. 375), but even broader—being transferred westward towards America, to the north of the coast of Corte-Real or Newfoundland, as we find it on the anonymous Portuguese chart of about 1520 (p. 354) and on Reinel’s map (p. 321). Maggiolo’s map (see above) forms a transitional type between these maps and the Oliveriana. Greenland (Labrador) was later made continuous with Newfoundland (cf. Ribero’s map of 1529, p. 357), and remained so on maps for a long time (see the map of 1544, p. 320).

[346] The expedition attributed to João Vaz Corte-Real, on which he is said to have discovered Newfoundland as early as 1464 or 1474, is unhistorical, and is a comparatively late invention which is first found in the Portuguese author, Dr. Gaspar Fructuoso, in his “Saudades da Terra” [vi. c. 9], written about 1590 [cf. Harrisse, 1883, pp. 26, ff.]. Father Antonio Cordeyro (Historia Insulana, Lisbon, 1717) says that the discovery was made in company with Alvaro Martins Homen.

[347] It may also be supposed that from the ice off the south-west of Greenland Corte-Real steered north-west and west, and met with the ice in the Labrador Current, and was then obliged to turn southwards along the edge of the ice until he sighted land.

[348] These times given by Cantino for the voyage are, of course, improbable; if we might suppose that he meant weeks instead of months, it would agree with the time naturally occupied on such a voyage. If we add his one month for the homeward voyage to the seven months given above, and if another month be reckoned for the stay in the country, we shall have his nine months for the whole voyage.

[349] That the Eskimo lived in caves in the mountains or underground was a not uncommon idea even in later times; see, for instance, Wilhelmi: Island, Hvitramannaland, Grönland und Finland, 1842, p. 172.

[350] We do not know that the Indians of Newfoundland had hide-boats; but it is not impossible.

[351] This land connection is found on the Canerio map of 1502-1507, which is of the same type as the Cantino map and is an Italian copy, either of the Cantino map itself or of a similar Portuguese map of 1501 or 1502 [cf. Björnbo, 1910, p. 167].

[352] Since I contended, in a preliminary sketch of this chapter, which Dr. A. A. Björnbo read, that the representation of Greenland on the Cantino map was most probably based on a voyage along the west coast as well as the east, Dr. Björnbo [1910a, pp. 313, ff.; 1910, pp. 176, ff.] has examined the delineation of Greenland on the Oliveriana map, and found that it represents discoveries made during a cruise, not only along the east coast, but also along a part of the south-west coast, and he sees in this a partial confirmation of my contention. He thinks it was during Corte-Real’s voyage of 1500 that this cruise was made, and even supposes that the prototype of the Oliveriana map was Corte-Real’s admiral’s chart itself; but this I regard as very doubtful, as will appear from what I have said above regarding the discoveries of 1500. Björnbo thinks that an original map like the Oliveriana map is sufficient to explain the form of the west coast of Greenland on the Cantino map, while the more northern portion has been given a direction in accordance with the Clavus maps. I have admitted to Björnbo the possibility of such an explanation. But the more I look at it, the more doubtful it seems; for the form of the west coast on the Cantino map has, in fact, not the least resemblance to that of the Clavus maps; indeed, the very direction is different, more northerly and more like the real direction, when allowance is made for the probable variation. It appears to me, therefore, that we cannot assume offhand that the Clavus maps could lead to a representation like that of the Cantino map.

[353] Owing to the compass error varying in the course of the voyage, the courses sailed will be more nearly parts of a great circle.

[354] According to the scale of the Cantino map this distance is about 2250 miglia, but according to Pasqualigo’s letters it should be 1800 or 2000, and according to Cantino’s letter 2800 miglia.

[355] This is not the place to discuss what is represented by the coast of the mainland to the west of Cuba on the Cantino map, whether the east coast of Asia, taken from Toscanelli’s mappamundi (or a source like Behaim’s globe), or real discoveries on the coast of North America made by unknown expeditions (?). In any case this coast has nothing to do with Gaspar Corte-Real, and Sir Clements Markham [1893, pp. xlix, ff.] is evidently wrong in thinking that this discoverer on his last voyage (in 1501) may have sailed along this coast.

[356] Yet a third type of representation of Greenland may be said to be found on the so-called Pilestrina map (p. 377), perhaps of 1511 [cf. Björnbo, 1910, p. 210], where Greenland forms a peninsula (from a mass of land on the north) as on the Cantino map, but much broader still. On the south-eastern promontory of Greenland is here written: “C[auo] de mirame et lexame” (i.e., Cape “look at me but don’t touch me”), which may be connected with the Portuguese voyage of 1500, when the explorers saw the coast but could not approach it on account of ice. Finally, I may mention the type of the Reinel map (see p. 321), where Greenland in the form of a broad land has been transferred to the coast of America. On all these maps with their changing representation of Greenland, Newfoundland has approximately the same form and position.

[357] Cf. Harrisse, 1900, pp. 54, f.

[358] That Miguel Corte-Real really reached Newfoundland seems also to result from the legend quoted above from the chart of about 1520, since he would hardly be named on this coast unless there were grounds for supposing that he arrived there; but this again must point to some of the expedition having returned.

[359] If Miguel Corte-Real set out in 1503, and not in 1502 (cf. p. 353, note 1), it must have been in 1504 that the King despatched these fresh ships.

[360] It is reported that in 1574 Vasqueanes Corte-Real IV., father of this Manuel, undertook an expedition to Labrador to find the North-West Passage.

Transcriber’s Notes:

Footnote 18 appears on page 22 of the text, but there is no corresponding marker on the page.

Footnote 182 appears on page 200 of the text, but there is no corresponding marker on the page.