corresponding with our Rhode Island, and following the same as far as New York, which is comparatively exact in the Weimar charts (1527, 1529), in Verrazzano's (1529), in the planisphere of the Laurentiana (before 1530), in Wolfenbuttel B (about 1530), etc., etc., is extremely incorrect in Cabot's map, although he must have had in his hands the geographical data brought by Estevam Gomez in 1526.

"If now we examine the regions which he claimed to have discovered (Newfoundland), and those which he has certainly visited (La Plata), we notice with surprise how the shapes and positions are inaccurately and incompletely rendered.

"Breaking up Newfoundland into such a multitude of fragments is certainly more erroneous than representing that vast island as still forming part of the continent, such as we see it depicted in the early charts. Because, in reality, Newfoundland is separated from the mainland by a channel only a few miles wide. . On examining the longitudinal inscriptions of the planisphere of 1554, in the belief that they were at least based upon data furnished by Cabot himself, the astonishment is still greater. As Kohl has justly noticed, they are full of legends about sea monsters, people with one foot, or one eye; in short, all the old fables related by Adam of Bremen and other authors of the Middle Ages. In the inscription 'No. VII.' where the La Plata River and Cabot's expedition are described, mention is made of a report, to the effect that in the mountains there are men with faces like dogs, and the lower limbs like those of an ostrich. In No. IX., where the waters of Iceland are described, it is related that there had been seen a fish of the

species called 'Moræna,' Moræna,' a veritable sea-serpent, and so colossal that it would attack a vessel and devour the sailors. Spectres or ghosts speaking in the air, are also mentioned in the inscription on Ireland. The inscription 'No. XII' treats of a nation of monsters with ears so large that they cover the whole body, etc. etc." Mr. Harrisse has devoted many pages in endeavouring to afford information as to the several editions of this map, and all interested in the details should consult his valuable work for further information.

In a pamphlet published last year by Dr. Justin Winsor, the well-known American historian, "The Cabot Controversies and the Right of England to North America," by Justin Winsor, Cambridge,1 [John Wilson and Son, University Press, 1896], the writer says: "The controversy over the date of the voyage of discovery yields more easily to demonstration. Hakluyt, in his preliminary single volume, published in 1589, had cited one of the legends of the Cabot mappemonde (1544), which gave the date in 1494. On the strength of this, before the map itself had been brought to the notice of modern scholars, and notwithstanding Hakluyt later adopted the date 1497, other writers, like Harris and Pinkerton, had accepted the date of 1494, and it has been agreed to in our day by D'Avezac and Tarducci. When Hakluyt, in 1600, made the change to 1497, some years after Lok in his map2 had given that date, he set a fashion which became more prevalent; and it was adopted by Biddle as

1 Cambridge, America.

2 Dr. Winsor is here referring to Michael Lok's map of 1582, upon which an inscription, "J. Cabot, 1497," is placed upon Cape Breton.

the only possible date, in view of the fact that the royal licence for the voyage was issued in March,

1495-96.

"In 1843 the discovery of the only copy of the Cabot map which has been found, and which is now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, showed that Hakluyt, in copying the legend in 1589, had done it correctly; for the date 1494 was plainly given upon the map. R. H. Major, of the British Museum map department, endeavoured to account for the date 1494 by supposing that in the printer's copy of the legend, the Roman figures VII had been read IIII, because the inclining strokes of the v were not brought together at the bottom. Cumulative evidence, as well as that of the patent, has made it certain to the large majority of investigators that 1497 is the exact date. A conclusive document in support of this date, as well as in proof of the unquestionable agency of the elder Cabot, as against his son's, in the discovery of that year (1497), was found some years ago in the archives at Milan. It is a letter of Raimondo de Soncino, which was originally published in 1865, reprinted by Desimoni in 1881, and was first given in English by Deane in 1883, and later, in another version, by Prowse in 1895."1 All the important questions which have been raised with regard to the map, its authenticity, etc. etc., are summarised in the following remarks:

1. It may or may not be Sebastian Cabot's map; at present there is no alternative but to say that there exists no authentic evidence to prove

1 Ante, pp. 143-151.

affirmatively that it was ever issued with his authority; he never said he was its author; and it seems almost certain that he never had a hand in its revision. There is no certainty that he ever saw the planisphere of 1544.

2. There is a probability,1 but no actual proof, that some portion of the contents of the map may have been originally derived, either from a map made by Sebastian, or from information supplied by him.

3. Until it is proved beyond doubt that Sebastian Cabot was with his father in the voyage of discovery in the year 1497, the map appears to have no bearing on the question at issue, that is, as to the comparative agency of John and Sebastian Cabot.

4. Having regard to the many admitted errors and absurdities which appear upon the map, coupled with the absence of any reliable evidence to prove the agency of Sebastian therewith, it is suggested that it would be unjust to connect him with the map, so far as it purports to be a publication by him, or one issued with his authority.

1 Dr. Justin Winsor remarks, with reference to the legends on the map, "These inscriptions are further enigmas; for while Sebastian Cabot must necessarily have been the source from which some of the statements are drawn, there are parts of the legends which it is impossible to believe represent such knowledge as he must be supposed to have had. These legends [in Latin and Spanish] are not all a part of the map itself, but most of them are printed on separate sheets of paper and pasted on its margin. A manuscript copy of them in the hand of a learned Spaniard, Dr. Grajales, was found by Harrisse in the Royal Library at Madrid, there does not seem to be evidence that Grajales may not have copied them from another copy or from the printed sheets." (The Cabot Controversies, etc., pp. 12, 13,)

CHAPTER VIII

ON what part of the continent of North America did John Cabot land in 1497? To what extent I did he view the coast in the course of his first voyage? It is certain that Cabot, who was a skilful cosmographer as well as an intrepid navigator, set out the result of his voyage upon a map, and also on a globe.1 globe. Unfortunately, both the map and the globe, so far as we know at present, have perished. But it is now conceded on all hands that the beautiful planisphere of Juan de la Cosa, constructed by him in 1500, the genuineness of which has never been impeached, includes the result of the voyage of 1497. Inasmuch as the Spanish Ambassadors were in possession of the information afforded by John Cabot's own map, it is more than probable that La Cosa had at his disposal the very best evidence obtainable. The map is drawn on an ox hide, 5 feet 9 inches long by 3 feet wide, on a scale of 15 Spanish leagues to a degree, and is now preserved in a glass case in the naval museum at Madrid. It is an exquisite production in colours, and is richly decorated in gold. It is probably the best designed map of the period. Its testimony is all the greater because it was a map made by a skilful cosmographer, from 1 Ante, p. 148.