dinand and Isabella, many years previously, when the great navigator was about to make a voyage in the same direction as that followed by Grixalva, in which he informed his sovereigns that "he shall be sailing towards the Terrestrial Paradise."

It may be stated, in explanation, that long after the discovery made by Grixalva, California was considered an island. The peninsula was subsequently called the Island of Santa Cruz, and, more than a century afterwards, it was renamed the "Islas Carolinas," in honor of Charles II of Spain.

Some authorities insist that the name is derived from calidus fornus, two Latin words signifying "hot oven," giving as a reason for such an hypothesis, that it is a custom of immemorial antiquity, among the aborigines of this section of the coast, to use "hot ovens" called temescal, as a remedy for most of the diseases to which they are subject. Every tribe had one or more of these "hot ovens" near their villages. These "sweat houses" were quite familiar to the missionaries and early settlers, and may be found in many parts of the State at the present time. It is very probable that the earliest explorers may have seen some of them; and, because the natives used "hot ovens" to heal their bodies, may have called the country "a land of hot ovens, or calidus fornus.

Clavigero, who wrote a history of California many years ago, quotes the opinion of D. Guiseppo Compoi, a learned Jesuit, on this subject, who states that the name is derived from the Spanish word cala, which means "a little cove of the sea," and the Latin word fornix, "the vault, or concave roof of a building"-giving, as a reason for this extraordinary interpretation, that within Cape St. Lucas (near where Grixalva is supposed to have landed) there is "a little cove of the sea," near which there was a rock so worn by the waves, that its upper part was hollow, like "a vaulted roof," and from these circumstances its discoverers called the place cala fornix, which has since been softened down to California, and applied to the whole country.

A learned Greek scholar suggests that the name may have been compounded from the Greek words kala-phora-nea, signifying a beautiful young woman, or new country. Another Greek scholar suggests that it may be derived from kala-phorneia, signifying beautiful adultery. The application of such an interpretation is not very clear, though Powers' statue of California represents a beautiful, nude female, holding a bundle of thorns behind her, which is claimed to be an embodiment of this interpretation; but it may be quite as appropriate to explain such a figure by the seductive beauty of the country, and

the disappointments so many of its earlier visitors encountered. It is quite clear that the Spanish explorers, who are credited with giving the name, had no acquaintance with the seductions that lured so many here in after years, because that portion of the country they applied this name to, is the most barren and uninviting on the coast.

Venegas, the most learned of all the early historians of the coast, in his "Natural and Civil History of California," published in 1758, states that the name was first used by Bernal Diaz, an officer who had served under Cortez, during the conquest of Mexico, and applied by him to a bay which he discovered during one of the earliest voyages. This learned historian objects to the proposition that the name is derived from calida fornax, alleged to have been given to it by the early navigators, on the very probable ground that these persons did not possess sufficient knowledge of the Latin to make such a combination.

There is still another alleged origin for the name, mentioned by Captain Beechey, in his account of his voyage to this coast in 1826, wherein he relates a conversation on this subject, between himself and Father Felipe Arroyo, who was at that time in charge of the Mission of San Juan Bautista. The worthy father is stated to have expressed his belief that the name originated from colofonia, the Spanish word for rosin; giving his reason for such belief that the great number of resinous trees the discoverers of the country saw, when they landed, impelled them to exclaim: colofonia!--or rosin.

This story is so absurd, as to be almost unworthy of notice; but having been quoted by a gentleman who has obtained some reputation as an authority on California archæology, it deserves consideration. The fact that the portion of the peninsula where these discoverers landed, and to which it is admitted they gave the name, is one of the most barren, treeless sections of the coast, demolishes the whole story.

The records of the Jesuit Missions, on the peninsula, say the "extreme barrenness of the soil prevented the growth of trees of any magnitude." Father Ugarte, who built the first vessel constructed in California-The Triumph of the Cross-in 1772, had to haul the timber used in its construction "full thirty leagues from the river Mulege, where she was built," because there was none growing any nearer.

According to these records, the first discoverers had but little cause to exclaim "colofonia !"

It may be mentioned as a curious fact, although one not having any particular reference to this subject, that in Bavaria, and other portions of the south of Germany, rosin is called "Kalifornea," the

word being pronounced precisely as we pronounce California. The origin of the German word it is out of our province to discuss. It is merely mentioned as a curious fact.

Webster thinks that the root of the name is probably the Spanish Califa, from the Arabic Khalifah, successor or to succeed, the Caliphs being the acknowledged successors of Mahommed.

The explanation of the origin of the natives of the country, under the head of aborigines, may throw some light on this subject..

Numerous other attempts have been made by writers in Mexico, the United States, and Europe, to explain the origin of this name; but the above are the best and most reasonable of such efforts.

BY WHOM DISCOVERED, AND WHEN.

The territory which at present comprises the great State of California, was first discovered, and partially described, in the year 1542, by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, a Portuguese by birth, but at the time serving as pilot, or navigator, in the Spanish service. He also discovered and named the Farralones islands. Equipped for a voyage of discovery along the then unknown shores of the Pacific, under the auspices of Mendoza, the Viceroy of Mexico, Cabrillo sailed from the port of Navidad, Mexico, on the 27th of June, 1542. Keeping within sight of the shore, the greater portion of the distance, he reached as far as latitude 40° 30', and longitude 124° 35', when he encountered the great western headland, which he called Cape Mendoza, in honor of his friend and patron, the viceroy-but now called Cape Mendocino. This fact is almost all that remains on record to prove that Cabrillo was the discoverer of the country. He appears to have returned from the voyage on the 14th of the following April, without making any further discoveries.

It was supposed, for many years, that Sir Francis Drake, the famous English navigator, was the discoverer of California, as well as of the Bay of San Francisco. But, before the light of history, he is stripped of both honors, on the clearest possible testimony. Sir Francis, it is known, reached the Pacific Ocean through the straits of Magellan, on board the Golden Hind, in 1558, thirty-six years after Cabrillo had named Cape Mendocino. He was not aware of this fact; but, thinking he had discovered a new country, took possession of it for "Good Queen Bess," as was the custom in those days. It is clearly settled, that the place where he landed is near Point de los Reyes, latitude 37° 59′ 5′′. Sir Francis marked it on his chart as in latitude 38°. The locality will probably be ever known hereafter as

Drake's Bay. The most conclusive argument that could be advanced, to prove that he did not discover the Bay of San Francisco, is found in the name he gave the country-New Albion. There is nothing about the entrance of this bay, to call up images of the "white cliffs of old England," so dear to the hearts of the mariners of that country. Its beetling rocks, which must have been additionally dark and dreary at the season of the year when the great navigator saw them-neither green with the verdure of spring, nor russet by the summer's heat; while, near Point de los Reyes, there is sufficient whiteness about the cliffs which skirt the shore to attract attention, and "as it is out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh," the "bold Briton, longing for home, may have pictured to his "mind's eye" some resemblance to "Old Albion." Besides, Drake lay thirty-six days at anchor, which it would have been impossible for so experienced a sailor to have done, had it been in our glorious bay, without being impressed with its great importance as a harbor, on a coast so destitute of such advantages as this; but he makes no allusion to any feature traceable in our bay. He never had the honor of seeing it.

In 1602, General Sebastian Viscayno, under orders from Philip III. of Spain, made an exploration of the coast of Upper California, in the course of which he discovered the harbors of San Diego, on the 10th of November. After remaining a few days, he proceeded to the north, and, on December 16th, discovered the bay of Monterey, which he named in honor of Gaspar de Zunniga, Count de Monte Rey, the then Viceroy of Mexico. It was at first called Port of Pines. Viscayno remained eighteen days at Monterey, and was much impressed with the beauty of its surroundings. He also discovered the islands which form the Santa Barbara Channel.

Forbes, in his "History of California," states that Viscayno, on this voyage, discovered the bay of San Francisco a statement which is not supported by any other authority. It is possible that Forbes may have misinterpreted a passage from the diary of the voyage, which states that "in twelve days after leaving Monterey, a favorable wind carried the ship past the port of San Francisco, but she afterwards put back into the port of Francisco." As the diary further states that "she anchored, January 7th, 1603, behind a point of land called Punta de los Reyes, (which was named by Viscayno), where there was a wreck." There is no room to doubt that it was not inside the bay of San Francisco, which there is no proof that Viscayno ever saw. In 1595, Sebastian Cermenon, while on a voyage from Manilla to Aca

pulco, was wrecked near Punta de los Reyes. This was the wreck alluded to.

There is a work extant, written by Cabrera Bueno and published in Spain, in 1734, which contains instructions to navigators for reaching the "Punta los Reyes, and entering the port of San Francisco," which some authors consider the present bay; but the wreck of Cermenon's vessel near that point, and Viscayno's putting into that port, is tolerable evidence that it was not the harbor of San Francisco which is here alluded to. There was also a map published in Europe, in 1545, three years after Cabrillo's voyage, in which a San Francisco bay is named, as well as the Farralones, which some authors consider a proof that it was "the Bay." As it was Cabrillo who named those islands, after Farralo, his pilot, and it is known that he did not enter "the Bay," it is clear that there must have been another San Francisco harbor, which is not that known by that name at present.

It may be stated, as a proof that there was another port of San Francisco, besides the present bay, that, in 1812, Baranof, chief agent of the Russian-American Company, asked permission from the Governor of California, to erect a few houses and leave a few men at Bodega Bay, a "little north of the port of San Francisco." San Francisco Bay had been visited before that time, by the Russians, and was known to be nearly sixty miles south-east from Bodega, which place is only "a little north" of Punta de los Reyes, where the Spanish port of San Francisco is located, and where Viscayno anchored.

As further proof that there was such a harbor, we refer to the fact that Governor Portala, when his party first discovered the great bay, called it San Francisco, under the impression that it was the harbor of that name, north of Punta de los Reyes, which had long been known to the Spanish navigators on the coast, as is proven by the above extracts.

From 1610 to 1660, upwards of twenty attempts were made to explore and take possession of the country, under a vague, irresistible impression that it contained not alone large deposits of gold, silver, and pearls, but diamonds and other precious stones.

But little, however, is known of the country from the date of Viscayno's discoveries, till 1767, or one hundred and sixty-four years afterwards; when the Jesuit missionaries, being expelled from Lower California by order of Charles III of Spain, their missions and property were granted to the Fathers of the Order of St. Francis. These enthusiastic propagandists, acting under instructions from the Marquis de Croix, then Viceroy of Mexico, made arrangements for extending their