[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.