[1326] Plate vi. He describes it in vol. i. p. ci, and ii. p. 114. He says it was taken from Spain to Warsaw, and has disappeared.
[1327] It has two maps, varying somewhat, “Typus orbis terrarum” and “Americæ sive novi orbis nuova descriptio,”—the work of Hugo Favolius. Cf. Leclerc, no. 206; Muller (1877), no. 1,198. The text is in verse.
[1328] See p. 454.
[1329] Cf. the map, as given in Vol. III. p. 203. Bancroft (Northwest Coast, vol. i. p. 58) epitomizes Gilbert’s arguments for a passage. Willes gives reasons in Hakluyt, vol. iii. p. 24.
[1330] See fac-simile in Vol. III. p. 102.
[1331] Cf. the sketch of the California coast from this last in Vol. III. p. 80.
The question of the harbor in which Drake refitted his ship for his return voyage by Cape of Good Hope has been examined in another place (Vol. III. pp. 74, 80). Since that volume was printed, H. H. Bancroft has published vol. i. of his History of California; and after giving a variety of references on Drake’s voyage (p. 82) he proceeds to examine the question anew, expressing his own opinion decidedly against San Francisco, and believing it can never be settled whether Bodega or the harbor under Point Reyes (Drake’s Bay of the modern maps) was the harbor; though on another page (p. 158) he thinks the spot was Drake’s Bay, and in a volume previously issued (Central America, vol. ii. p. 419) he had given a decided opinion in favor of it. In his discussion of the question, he claims that Dr. Hale and most other investigators have not been aware that the harbor behind Point Reyes was discovered in 1595 by Cermeñon (p. 96), and then named San Francisco; and that it is this old San Francisco, visited by Viscaino in 1603, and sought by Portolá in 1769, when this latter navigator stumbled on the Golden Gate, which is the San Francisco of the old geographers and cartographers, and not the magnificent harbor now known by that name (p. 157). He adds that the tradition among the Spaniards of the coast has been more in favor of Bodega than of Drake’s Bay; while the modern San Francisco has never been thought of by them. Beyond emphasizing the distinction between the old and new San Francisco, Mr. Bancroft has brought no new influence upon the solution of the question. He makes a point of a Pacific sea-manual of Admiral Cabrera Bueno, published at Manilla in 1734 as Navegacion Especulation, being used to set this point clear for the first time in English, when one of his assistants wrote a paper in the Overland Monthly in 1874. The book is not very scarce; Quaritch advertised a copy in 1879 for £4. Bancroft (p. 106) seems to use an edition of 1792, though he puts the 1734 edition in his list of authorities. Various documents from the Spanish Archives relating to Drake’s exploits in the Pacific have been published (since Vol. III. was printed) in Peralta’s Costa Rica, Nicaragua y Panamá en el siglo XVI, Madrid, 1883, p. 569, etc.
[1332] See the sketch in Vol. IV. p. 98.
[1333] Cf. Sabin, vol. x. p. 75; Court, 185, 186; Carter-Brown, vol. i. p. 292; Huth, iv. 1,169; Stevens’s Historical Collections, vol. i. no. 135, and Vol. III. of the present History, p. 37, for other mention of Popellinière’s Les Trois Mondes. The third world is the great Antarctic continent so common in maps of this time.
[1334] Lok’s map from Hakluyt’s Divers Voyages is given in fac-simile in Vol. III. p. 40 and Vol. IV. p. 44. There is a sketch of it in Bancroft, North Mexican States, vol. i. p. 151, and in his Northwest Coast, vol. i. p. 65.