and solemn amazement, wondering whether it was a spook or apparition, and whether it came from heaven or from hell. Others of them supposed that it might be a strange fish or sea monster. They supposed these on board to be rather devils than human beings. Thus they differed among each other in opinion. A strange report soon spread through their country about our visit, and created great talk and comment among all the Indians. This we have heard several Indians testify; which we hold to be a certain proof that the Dutch were the first discoverers and settlers of New Netherland. For there are Indians in the country who remember over one hundred years; and so, if there had been any other people there before us, they would have known something of them; and if they had not seen them themselves, they would at least have heard of them from their forefathers."-Van der Donck's Description of New Netherland, page 3, the first edition of which was published at Amsterdam in 1655; ante, p. 561, note. An imperfect translation is in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., i., 137.

NOTE C, CHAPTER II., PAGE 44.

Heckewelder, in continuing his traditionary account, as given in note A, says: "The vessel arrived the season following [1610], and they were much rejoiced at seeing each other. But the whites laughed at them (the natives), seeing they knew not the use of the axes, hoes, &c., they had given them, they having had these hanging to their breasts as ornaments, and the stockings they had made use of as tobacco pouches. The whites now put handles or helves in the former, and cut trees down before their eyes, and dug the ground, and showed them the use of the stockings. Here, they say, a general laughter ensued among the Indians, that they had remained for so long a time ignorant of the use of so valuable implements, and had borne with the weight of such heavy metal hanging to their necks for such a length of time. They took every white man they saw for a Manitto, yet inferior and attendant to the supreme Manitto, to wit, to the one which wore the red and laced clothes."

"Familiarity daily increasing between them and the whites, the latter now proposed to stay with them, asking them only for so much land as the hide of a bullock would cover or encompass, which hide was brought forward and spread on the ground before them. That they readily granted this request; whereupon the whites took a knife, and, beginning at one place on this hide, cut it up into a rope not thicker than the finger of a little child, so that by the time this hide was cut up, there was a great heap. That this rope was drawn out to a great distance, and then brought round again, so that both ends might meet. That they carefully avoided its breaking, and that upon the whole it encompassed a large piece of ground. That they (the Indians) were surprised at the superior wit of the whites, but did not wish to contend with them about a little land, as they had enough. That they and the whites lived for a long time contentedly together; although these asked, from time to time, more land of them; and, proceeding higher up the Mahicanittuk [the place of the Mahicans, or the Hudson River], they believed they would soon want all their country."-Heckewelder, in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., i., 73, 74; Moulton, 254, 255. Mr. Heckewelder adds, with reference to this part of the tradition, that the Dutch turned their classical knowledge of Queen Dido to a profitable account; and the legend of the Delawares has furnished material for much mirthful remark. It appears, however, from the Holland Documents, i., 155, that, in the summer of 1626, Director Peter Minuit purchased the whole of Manhattan Island from its aboriginal owners for sixty guilders, or about twenty-four dollars of our present currency.-See ante, page 164.

NOTE D, CHAPTER II., PAGE 51; CHAPTER VIII., PAGE 227.

Almost every writer on American history that I have met with appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotype error that "Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage to Virginia in 1610." The earliest authority who seems to affirm this theory is Sir John Harvey, the governor of Virginia, who told De Vries, in 1633, that Lord Delawarr, "several years before," had been driven in there by foul weather, and had found it innavigable by reason of its being "full of banks."—Ante, page 227. But Harvey does not mention the particular year; and very probably he confounded Delawarr with Hudson, whose mate's journal, printed by Purchas in 1625, states it to be "full of shoals." On the other hand, Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the American coast on "the 6th of June, at what time we made land to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay."-Mus. Brit. Har. MSS., 7009, p. 58; also recently published in the Introduction to Strachey's Virginia Britannia, p. xxiv. The first European who is really known to have entered the bay, after Hudson, was Captain Samuel Argall, who, after losing Sir George Somers in a fog, on the 28th of July, 1610, while on his way to Bermuda, ran

B B B

toward Cape Cod, whence he sailed southerly, until, on the evening of the 26th of August, he found himself twelve leagues from the Jersey coast. "The seven-and-twentieth by day, in the morning," says Argall in his journal, "I was faire aboard the shore, and by nine of the clocke I came to an anchor in nine fathoms, in a very great bay, where I found great store of people, which were very kind, and promised me that the next day in the morning they would bring me great store of corne. But, about nine of the clocke that night, the wind shifted from southwest to east northeast. So I weighed presently, and shaped my course to Cape Charles. This bay lyeth in westerly thirty leagues. And the southern cape of it lyeth S.S.E. and N.N.W., and in thirtie-eight degrees twentie minutes of northerly latitude. The eight-and-twentieth day, about four of the clocke in the afternoon, I fell among a great many of shoals about twelve leagues to the southward of Cape La Warr. The one-and-thirtieth, about seven of the clocke at night, I came to an anchor under Cape Charles."Argall's Journal, in Purchas, iv., p. 1762. Strachey, in his "Virginia Britannia," p. 43, states that Argall, "in the latitude of thirty-nine, discovered another goodly bay, into which fell many tayles of faire and large rivers, and which might make promise of some westerly passage; the Cape whereof, in thirty-eight and a half, he called Cape La Warr." This is nearly the latitude of Cape Hinlopen. As Argall remained at anchor during the single day he was at the Cape, he probably derived his information about the large rivers which emptied into the bay from the Indians who visited him. If Lord Delawarr had been there two months before, Argall would no doubt have so stated it.

The name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to the bay soon afterward by the Virginians. Argall, in his letter to Nicholas Hawes, of June, 1613, in Purchas, iv., 1764, speaks of hoping to find "a cut out of the bottom of our bay [the Chesapeake] into the Delawarre Bay." Lord Delawarr then certainly did not himself enter the bay "on his passage to Virginia, in 1610;" and it would seem that he never did, either on his return to England in 1611, or on his second voyage in 1618. In "Royal and Noble Authors," ii., 180, quoted by Bancroft, i., 152, Lord Delawarr is said to have died at Wherwell, in Hampshire, June 7th, 1618. On the other hand, he is stated to have sailed a second time from England in April, 1618, in a ship of two hundred and fifty tons, for Virginia. At Saint Michael's he was "honorably feasted." "Departing from thence, they were long troubled with contrary winds, in which time many fell sick, thirtie died, one of which was that honorable lord of noble memory. The rest refreshed themselves on that coast of New England with fish, fowl, wood, and water; and, after sixteen weeks spent at sea, arrived in Virginia."—Purchas, iv., 1774; Smith, ii., 34.

NOTE E, CHAPTER II., PAGE 54; CHAPTER V., PAGE 140; CHAPTER XIV., PAGE 485. Plantagenet's New Albion, Heylin's Cosmography, and Stith's History of Virginia, are the authorities for this story of Argall's visit to Manhattan. Plantagenet, after stating Argall's expedition against the French at Nova Scotia, adds that, on their return, they "landed at Manhatas Isle, in Hudson's River, where they found four houses built, and a pretended Dutch governor under the West India Company of Amsterdam, share or part, who kept trading boats, and trucking with the Indians; but the said knights told him their commission was to expel him and all alien intruders on his majesty's dominions and territories-this being part of Virginia, and this river an English discovery of Hudson, an Englishman. The Dutchman contented them for their charge and voyage, and, by his letter sent to Virginia and recorded, submitted himself, company, and plantation, to his majesty and to the governor and government of Virginia."-In ii., N. Y. H. S. Collect., i., 334, Mr. Folsom seems satisfied of the truth of the story; while, in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., ii., 326, Mr. Murphy asserts that it is "a pure fiction, unsustained by any good authority-though some writers have heaped up citations on the subject-and is as fully susceptible of disproof as any statement of that character at that early period can be.”

Singularly enough, the only authorities which affirm the fact of Argall's visit to Manhattan are printed English works. The earliest of these from which the extract given above is taken—is the "New Albion" of "Beauchamp Plantagenet, Esqr.," published in 1648. This imposing pseudonym was assumed-probably by Sir Edmund Plowden, who, as grantee of the Irish patent for "New Albion” in 1634, had an obvious interest adverse to the Dutch title to New Netherland; ante, p. 381. Almost the whole of Plantagenet's work, in fact, is now generally held to be a mass of absurd and inconsistent errors. Heylin, in his "Cosmography," which was published in 1652, seems only to have adopted and embellished Plantagenet's fanciful account. Stith's History of Virginia was originally published at Williamsburg, in 1747. This author is said by Mr. Jefferson to have had access to the early records of Virginia, which were burned at Williamsburg. Stith also derived assistance from the MSS. of Sir John Randolph, and from the papers of the London Company, which were put into his hands by Colonel William Byrd, the president of the council. These papers, however, as Stith mentions in his preface, commence with 1619. If, instead of copying Heylin, as he does almost

word for word, Stith had published the submission of the Dutch at Manhattan, said to have been "sent to Virginia and recorded," he would have settled the question.

It is extraordinary that no English or Dutch State Paper corroborates the story. Smith, who speaks of Argall's foray against the French in Acadia, does not allude to his entering our harbor. Dermer, who came directly from Virginia to Manhattan in 1620 (ante, p. 93), does not allude to any previous visit of Argall, who, moreover, was not knighted until 1622. In the application made to King James I., in 1621, the Dutch are stated to have entered there "the year past," that is, in 1620 (ante, p. 140). As Argall was one of the parties to this application, had he found the Dutch seated at Manhattan in 1613, and had he enforced their submission, he would no doubt have stated those facts in it. Captain John Mason, in his letter to Sir John Coke, of the 12th of April, 1632 (ante, p. 215), states that Argall was "preparing to go and sit down in his lot of land upon the said Manahatta River at the same time when the Dutch intruded, which caused a demur in their proceeding," and induced the Privy Council's instructions to Carleton in 1621; but Mason seems to avoid stating that Argall was ever actually at Manhattan. N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 17. Bradford, in his correspondence in 1627, though he alludes to Argall's surprise of the French settlements in 1613, says nothing about his alleged visit to Manhattan (ante, p. 176). Neither does Harvey refer to the subject, in his conversations in 1633 with De Vries at Jamestown, where the submission of the Dutch is said to have been "recorded" (ante, p. 227). The silence of all these authorities upon this point is very significant, and, to me, conclusive against the truth of the story.

In fact, Dermer appears to have been the first Englishman that ever visited Manhattan (ante, p. 94); and it would seem that Plantagenet manufactured his statement of Argall's visit out of Dermer's authentic accounts. The original authority, which other writers have followed, is thus very suspicious; and the absence of official documentary evidence increases distrust to such a degree, that I can not help rejecting the whole story of Argall's proceedings at Manhattan as fabulous.

NOTE F, CHAPTER II., PAGE 55.

Heylin's Cosmography, book iv., part ii., is the authority upon which Moulton, 344, and O'Callaghan, i., 77, make this statement. Heylin, however, seems merely to have taken and embellished his account from the fabulous "Beauchamp Plantagenet," whose worth as an authority has been considered in note E. Bancroft, ii., 272, is very cautious in his text, but is less guarded in his note, that "the records prove there was no fort at Albany till 1615." Father Isaac Jogues, who was at Manhattan in 1643 (ante, p. 374), says, in his letter of the 3d of August, 1646, that "the fort was begun in the year 1615."-Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv., 23. It would seem, however, that there was no fort or redoubt on Manhattan Island until after Dermer's visit in 1620, or, perhaps, until after Director Minuit's arrival in 1626. If there had been, Dermer would no doubt have stated the fact, which he does not. Neither De Laet nor Wassenaar, who speak of a fort up the river, say any thing about a fort or redoubt on Manhattan until 1626.-Doc. Hist. N. Y., iii., 27, 35, 42. There is no fort marked there upon the "Figurative Map" of 1614, which gives the dimensions of Fort Nassau on Castle Island; nor upon the paper map of 1616.-See notes G and I. Stuyvesant, in his letter to the government of Massachusetts, of the 20th of April, 1660 (Alb. Rec., xxiv., 167; ante, p. 673), while speaking of the building of the fort (Nassau) on Castle Island in 1614 (erroneously stated to have been in 1615), says nothing of any other fortification until after the West India Company took possession of New Netherland in 1623. In his letter to Colonel Nicolls, of the 2d of September, 1664 (Smith's New York, i., 22; ante, p. 740), he speaks only of" a little fort," which the Dutch built "up the North River, near Fort Orange."

On the other hand, in a memorial of the West India Company to the States General, on the 25th of October, 1634 (Hol. Doc., ii., 138), it is affirmed that, "before the year 1614, one or two small forts were built" on the North or Mauritius River. In another official report of the company, on the 15th of December, 1644 (Hol. Doc., ii., 368), it is stated that, before the 11th of October, 1614, two small forts were thrown up there, on the South and North Rivers, against the roaming Indians." Both of these statements are careless, vague, and contradictory. The first does not mention that either of the "one or two" forts on the North River was at Manhattan ; the second refers the position of one of them to the South River. That river, however, was not explored by the Dutch until 1616; and there does not appear to have been any fort there until 1623.

NOTE G, CHAPTER II., PAGES 59, 60; CHAPTER III., PAGE 73.

A fac-simile of this parchment map, which I found in the archives at the Hague in 1841, is in the Secretary of State's office at Albany. It is the most ancient map extant of the State of New York,

and the neighboring territory to the north and east, and is probably the one to which De Laet (iii., cap. viii.) refers as the "chart of this quarter, made some years since." The sea-coasts between Sandy Hook and Penobscot are exhibited with great care and detail; and the portion north and east of Cape Cod will compare very favorably, in point of accuracy, with Smith's Map of New England, first published in 1616. Plymouth harbor is described by Block as "Crane Bay," and Boston harbor as "Fox Haven." Salem Bay, north of Marblehead, is laid down as "Count Hendrick's Bay." Westward of the "Vlacke Hoeck" or Cape Malebarre, the coast is delineated as explored by Block, and afterward described by De Laet. Nantucket is called "Vlieland," and Martha's Vineyard "Texel," between which and the main-land lies the "Zuyder Zee." South of the Texel is "Hendrick Christiaensen's Island," now called "No Man's Land." The western entrance to Narragansett Bay is marked as "Sloup Bay," and Point Judith as the "Wapanoos Point." To the southward are "Adriaen Block's Island" and the "Visscher's Hook," or Montauk Point, the eastern extremity of Long Island. The coasts and rivers of Connecticut are delineated with comparative accuracy. Manhattan is represented as an island without any fort; but at the upper part of the "River of the Prince Maurice" Fort Nassau is described and marked as upon an island. According to the reports of the Maquaas or Mohawks, the French are represented as coming with shallops to the upper part of their country "to trade with them." With regard to the parts south of" Sand Point" or Sandy Hook, and the "Round Hills" or Highlands of Nevesinck, the map is very imperfect. The Delaware is represented as a small river running due west into the land, at latitude 39° 30'; and neither Cape May nor Cape Hinlopen are named. That river was, in fact, first explored in 1616, by Cornelis Hendricksen, who seems to have presented to the States General, the same year, another map, which is considered in note I. At latitude 370, " Cape Charles" and "Cape Henry" are laid down on the parchment map as defining "the Inlet of Chesapeake ;" and "New Netherland" is represented as extending from Virginia to the Penobscot, east of which lies "a part of New France.",

The original parchment map, which is executed in a very beautiful style of art, was found in the archives at the Hague, annexed to a memorial to the States General by the "Directors of New Netherland," on the 18th of August, 1616. I think, however, that it was actually prepared two years before, from the data furnished by Block immediately after his return to Holland, and that it was exhibited to their High Mightinesses for the first time on the 11th of October, 1614. The charter granted on that day to the directors of New Netherland expressly refers to a "Figurative map prepared (getransfigeert) by them," which described the sea-coasts between the fortieth and the forty-fifth degrees of latitude. This the parchment map clearly does. It, moreover, defines New Netherland as lying between New France and Virginia, according to the description in the charter. The map was probably presented a second time on the 18th of August, 1616, when the directors of New Netherland exhibited their memorial for a further charter, to which it was found attached; see note I.

NOTE H, CHAPTER III., PAGE 76; CHAPTER XX., PAGE 710.

According to Holland Document, xi., 86, the States General, on the 7th of February, 1665, declared that, "for more than fifty years," the Dutch had "had possession of Forts Orange and Esopus." From this it would seem that there was a Dutch fort at Esopus as early as 1614. Moulton, p. 347, remarks that, about 1617, some Hollanders are said to have "settled among the Esopus Indians."· De Vries, however, who sailed up the river in 1640, was at Esopus twice, but he does not speak of any Dutch settlers, or of any Dutch fort having been there, which he would scarcely have omitted to state if the fact had been so (ante, p. 302, 306). No fort or settlement is represented there in Visscher's map of 1655, or Van der Donck's of 1656. In fact, no Europeans seem to have been settled at “Atkarkarton," or Esopus, until 1652; and it was not until 1658 that a village was palisaded and a bridge thrown over the Esopus Creek, at what is now Kingston (ante, p. 536, 649). The village was incorporated and named "Wiltwyck" or Wildwyck in 1661; and soon afterward a "Ronduit" or Redoubt was built upon the bank of another creek a few miles off, near its confluence with the river (ante, p. 690, 710; Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv., 41, 45, 60, 74, 87). This creek, which is now known as the "Rondout," was originally called the "Esopus Kill." Upon Visscher's and Van der Donck's maps it is represented as the "Great Esopus River," communicating with the upper waters of the Delaware, and emptying into the North River by two mouths, the southernmost at Rondout, and the northernmost at Saugerties. This error would scarcely have occurred had that part of the country been then occupied by Dutch inhabitants. What is now called the "Esopus Creek" was formerly known as the "Sager's Kill" (ante, p. 714; Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv., 48, 77, 81). It runs southeasterly from near Pine Hill, on the border of Delaware county, toward Marbletown in Ulster county, where it bends to the north, and, flowing past Kingston (at which point it approaches the Rondout within about three miles) through a picturesque valley, empties into the river at Saugerties. One of the branches of the Ron

dout (which, above where it receives the Wallkill, is sometimes called the Rosendale) rises near the border of Sullivan county, whence it runs northeasterly, through Ulster county, to the North River. The Bashes' Kill, one of the tributaries of the Nevesinck River, rises near the same point, and flows southwesterly toward Port Jervis. The ancient Indian trail from the Minnisincks followed the course of these two streams; and, in selecting the route of the Delaware and Hudson Canal, the white man's science but availed itself of the red man's sagacity.

NOTE I, CHAPTER III., PAGES 73, 78, AND 80.

Besides the map on parchment, mentioned in note G, I found in the archives at the Hague a map on paper, a fac simile of which is also deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. For various reasons, some of which are given in N. Y. H. S. Proceedings for 1845, 182-192, I think that this paper map was first presented to the States General when Captain Hendricksen appeared before them, on the 18th and 19th of August, 1616, to solicit a new grant of trading privileges for his employers, the "directors of New Netherland." The map is about three feet long and one foot wide. It comprehends the sea-coast from the southern point of the Delaware Bay (neither of the capes of which are named), at latitude thirty-eight degrees, to the coast of Long Island, in latitude 40° 35′. “Eyer Haven," or Egg Harbor, is distinctly marked, and "Sand Hoeck" is laid down as in 40° 30'; its actual latitude being now ascertained to be 40° 28'. Within Sandy Hook the shores of New Jersey are represented as inhabited by the " Aquamachukes." North of these, about Newark Bay, are the "Sangicans," east of which, about Bergen Point and Jersey City, are the "Mechkentiwoom." Above the "Manhattes" (where there is no indication of a fort) are the "Wikagyl" tribe, opposite to which, on the west side, are the "Tappans." The country inland, to the northwest, is represented as "een effen velt," or a level field. Then comes a "rack" or reach in the river, marked "Haverstro," or Oat Straw, north of which is the "Seyl-maker's Rack." The bend at Caldwell's is marked as the “Cock's Rack," and that at West Point as the "Hoogh Rack." Next above is the "Vosse Rack," which extends to "Klinkersberg," or Butter Hill, the northernmost of the Highlands, on the west side of the river, opposite Pollepel's Island. Then follows the "Visscher's Rack," and on the east side of the river, about Fishkill, is marked the tribe of "Pachami." Above what is now Hyde Park, an island is laid down in the middle of the river, answering to the present "Esopus Island." On the west side of the river, about the present counties of Ulster and Orange, is the tribe of "Waronawanka," and on the opposite shore of Dutchess, which is marked "Esopus," that of the "Woranecks." Beyond Upper Red Hook is the "Backer Rack," and near Catskill "Jan Plesier's Rack." The flats and shallows in the river are distinctly marked. About Hudson is the "Klaver Rack" or Clover Reach, north of which is the "Ooster Hook." Then follow the "Hinne Hook," the "Herten Rack,” and "Kinder Hook," or Children's Hook. The river above appears full of small islands as far as the "Steur Hook,” or Sturgeon Hook, about Van Wies' Point. North of this is an island, marked "Nassou," meaning Fort Nassau, on Castle Island. The names of these reaches and points on the river seem to have been given after the building of Fort Nassau in 1614, as none of them are marked upon the parchment map. On the east side of the river are the "Mahicans;” inland on the west side, and on the banks of the Mohawk River, are the wigwams of the "Maquaas." South of the Maquaas are the "Canoomakers," represented as inhabiting the shores of a "Versch Water" or lake, from which a river appears to flow southerly, until it empties into the Delaware Bay, near its southern cape. Along the banks of this river are represented the several tribes of Senecas, Gachoos, Capitannasses, Jottecas, and Minquas. Upon the map is a memorandum to the following effect: "Of what Kleynties and his comrades have communicated to me respecting the locality of the rivers and the places of the tribes which they found in their expedition from the Maquaas into the interior, and along the New River downward to the Ogehage (to wit, the enemies of the aforesaid Northern tribes), I can not at present find any thing at hand, except two rough drafts of maps relating thereto, accurately drawn in parts. And in deliberating how I can best reconcile this one with the rough drafts of the informations, I find that the places of the tribes of Senecas, Gachoos, Capitinasses, and Jottecas should be marked down considerably further west into the country." The Delaware River appears to have been explored as far north as the Schuylkill, which is represented as flowing in from the west. On the Jersey shore, above the mouth of the river, is the "Sauwanew" tribe; above, and on both sides of the river, are the "Stankekans ;" and inland, north of the Schuylkill, are the "Minquas." Upon a comparison of this map with De Laet's description of the reaches of the North River, in chapter ix., there appears to be a remarkable harmony between them. De Laet's is a little more detailed respecting the upper part of the river; but I think that-besides the parchment map-he must have had this or one taken from it before him when he wrote, as he follows its error in representing Esopus on the east side, among the Waoranacks. The portion inland from Fort Nassau is of course

1