Slike strani
PDF
ePub

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 carly 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 Farallones 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 1578, 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, 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.

[ocr errors]

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. 1595, Sebastian Cermenon, while on a voyage from Manilla to Aca

In

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »