VOYAGES OF THE t'ABOTS IN U97 AND 1498. 105 



sailed to the west. Gilbert speakw in the plural of "charts," but he couM not have referred to thi.s 

 mappemonde of 1544 for this contains no such indications as he describes. There is no trace of Hud- 

 son's bay or any such northwest passage to Asia as Sir Humphrey was writing about. It contains 

 no argument for his thesis. 



I come now to the DeLaot map. The author gives in his work (published in Loyilun in 1640) a 

 fair map of the gulf based on Champlaiii's early map. He does not give any name to Prince Kdwai-il 

 island. He speaks of Cabot's maps as existing in England and gives a French translation of the 

 same legend as Ilakluyt; indeed, probably, he merely translated from IlakUiyt, only that, by a mis- 

 print, the date of the landfall is July 24th instead of June 24. It must be a misprint, for the legend he 

 gives identifies the day as St. John the Baptist's daj'. The same mistake occurs in the Latin version of 

 the Paris map, but the form of the quotation proves that DoLaet had the Ilakluyt legend before him. 

 Not much can be inferred from this reference. 



Purchas is a more important witness. The map he saw was in the Queen's gallery, and was 

 engraved by Clement Adams, and it bore date 1549. He speaks of it as a "great map," of which 

 Sebastian Cabot " is often called the author," and adds, "this map some say was taken out of Sir 

 " Sebastian Cabot's map by Clem. Adams 1549." The landfall on this map was 1497 not 1494, so hero 

 we have ground for concluding that Ilakluyt's map was dated 1549, and was not the same as the 

 Paris map of 1544. A difficulty must, however, be noted here that Hakluyt, in his " Discourse on 

 Western Planting,'' written in 1584, in warm advocacy of the claims of the English crown to the con- 

 tinent of America from the Arctic circle to Florida, gives 1496 m the date of the discovery, and a few 

 pages farther on he quotes Clement Adams as giving 1494 as the date. This " Discourse" is not in 

 Hakluyt's collection of voyages, but is a MS. published for the first time in 1877 by the Maine Histor- 

 ical Society. It was in fact a letter written to advocate the plans of Sir Walter Ealeigh. Hakluyt 

 was beginning then to collect materials for his gi'eat work and, as in the case of his " Divers Voyages," 

 the later and completed work must be taken to contain the matured results of his deliberate researches. 

 The real date of the landfall is settled now by the contemporary documents recently discovered and 

 unknown to him. 



The Chytrreus map presents some difficulty. It was seen in England and was dated 1549 like the 

 Purchas majj, but the Latin inscription (No. 8) is that of the Paris map of 1544, excepting that he 

 corrects the date to June 24. He puts the year of the discovery as 1494, as in the Paris map, but gives 

 it as 1594 by an evident misprint. Chytrreus in his b.ook does not reproduce the map but gives all the 

 Latin legends of the Paris map and makes no mention of the Spanish ones. He gives also headings 

 to the legends ; differing in that respect from the Paris map which has only three headings. He also 

 quotes from Pliny direct, and does not follow the erroneous citation of the Paris map. The conclusion 

 would follow that the map Chytrœus saw was an edition of the Paris map printed in 1549 on which 

 some minor changes had been made. 



Thei-o remain now to be compared the Paris map of 1544 and the map cited by Hakluyt in the 

 Queen's gallery and cut by Clement Adams. These two maps ditfer radically. Hakluyt has pre- 

 served the te.xt of legend No. 8. While the main tenor of the information is the same as that of the 

 map of 1544 the wording differs. Before citing the legends it should be observed that the Latin ver- 

 sions must be taken as the originals of which the Spanish and English are translations; for Latin, 

 in that day, was the general international language of cultivated people, and moreover where the 

 legends on the 1544 map were set up there could have been no Spanish type, for the printer had not 

 " n" with a tiliJe over it such as was, and is still, used in Spain, and he has doubled the letter and prints 

 mannana and not maKana. The Spanish tongue was therefore not the vernacular of the printer. On 

 Clement Adams's map, as indeed Hakluyt e.'iprQssly states, the inscription was in Latin, and the con- 

 text implies that no other language was used. Hakluyt translates it but glosses it throughout not, 

 as Biddle suggests, of set purpose to distort his original but to elucidate it, as was the frequent practice 

 among the early writers. Then the island was ex adverso, over which phrase many battles have 



Sec. II., 1894. 14. 



