tional policy, letters to and from the fathers of the republic, intermingled with affectionate epistles to near relatives and wife. Probably the most interesting contents are the official notes of Jay's ingenuous and naïve conference with the Spanish minister, Count Florida Blanca, and the famous letter from Washington to Jay in regard to the Gates cabal, with Jay's reply. The Washington letter is now for the first time published just as its writer penned it, for Mr. Ford's volumes have not yet reached that date. We could wish that Professor Johnston had given us certain important letters not here published, such as the one in reference to the scene in Congress over the Deane imbroglio, which brought Jay to the presiding chair of that body, and those of March 5 and 17, 1779, so charming as revelations of the tender relations of his home life. But the editor had the difficult task of selection from a treasure-house before him, and has managed to give us a rich collection.

Mr. Pellew writes for us an appreciative sketch of his great ancestor. Apparently he is "to the manner born," for he writes himself down a "mugwump," and undertakes to show that his worthy grandsire was an olden type to this nineteenth century antitype. We are glad to have so good a memoir of Jay, for the book sets forth in convenient and acceptable form his characteristics as a conservative Whig leader, a Revolutionary leader, a constructive statesman, as presiding officer of Congress, governor, diplomatist, and jurist. Nearly a third of the pages is wisely given to the important peace negotiations after the war, and Mr. Pellew vindicates against Sparks and Cabot Lodge Jay's conduct in these negotiations. He clearly shows him, not as an obstructionist and meddler coming in at a late hour to upset the negotiations so nearly completed by Franklin, but rather as a leader of his venerable colleague in independence and assertion, and as solely responsible for the conclusion which was so favorable to the United States that De Vergennes wrote to Rayneval that the English had rather bought a peace than made one, and that their concessions exceeded anything he had believed possible; and Rayneval replied that the treaty seemed to him like a dream."

66

Some matters remain for criticism. The author has written Zwengler for Zenger on page 18, and Rhode for Long Island on page 83; on page 310 we find pavillon is misspelled papillon, with a very funny effect; and on page 289, 1783 should be 1793. We think the

writer would be puzzled to find the passes "between the Hudson and Albany" spoken of on page 62. To speak of Count Florida Blanca in 1780 as "the clever young diplomat" is hardly fair to the fifty-two years of worldly experience of that wily courtier. Nor is it fair to Jay, in discussing his financial letter to the States in 1779, to say: "It stated simply the causes of depreciation, which was held in this case to be artificial, or due to lack of confidence in the government, and not natural [or] due to excessive issue." (It has been necessary to amend Mr. Pellew's English to make it clear.) What Jay said in his letter was: "The depreciation of bills of credit is always either natural, or artificial, or both. The latter is our case." Here, evidently, latter refers back to both. Jay goes on to discuss the rationale of a natural depreciation from an inflated circulation, and then adds: "The artificial depreciation is a more serious subject, and merits minute investigation." This depreciation he lays to the charge of loss of confidence. We do not defend his distinction. We only ask for correct citation. JOHN J. HALSEY.

THE PROBLEM OF THE NORTHMEN AND THE SITE OF NORUMBEGA.*

In 1888, Mr. Horsford published a work entitled, "Discovery of America by Northmen : Address at the Unveiling of the Statue of Leif Erikson, Delivered in Faneuil Hall October 29, 1887." Against this work Justin Winsor quotes Bancroft's opinion that "though Scandinavians may have reached the shores of Labrador, the soil of the United States has not one vestige of their presence." This, Mr. Winsor adds, "is as true now as when first written." Concerning this same work, Mr. Winsor says in his "Narrative and Critical History of America":

It is to these words of Mr. Winsor, together with the opinion of a committee of the Massachusetts Historical Society, adverse to the plan of erecting a monument to Leif Erikson, that Mr. Horsford replies in his brochure entitled, "The Problem of the Northmen." Mr. Horsford believes, and thinks he can prove, that the Northmen were as far south as Massachusetts.

New England historical writers on this subject are still groping in the dark, for as a matter of fact Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Winsor, the committee of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and Mr. Horsford, are all wrong. Mr. Bancroft is not an authority on this question. He is not familiar with the Vinland sagas, or he would not have set them aside as "mythological" a most inappropriate word. Mr. Winsor is incomparably better equipped to render an opinion, and ought not to have given his readers an opportunity for thinking that he too believed with Mr. Bancroft that the Northmen reached no further south than Labrador. Here Mr. Horsford scores a point against Mr. Winsor. It is to be regretted that Mr. Winsor has not obtained for his monumental work on American history the latest results of Scandinavian scholarship on the question of the Norse discoveries. Unfortunately, none of the New England scholars who have treated the subject have a knowledge of Old Norse, the language of the sagas. He who would speak with authority on this matter must have a comprehensive knowledge of Icelandic, or Old Norse, literature, and furthermore, he must, in his investigations, apply the comparative and critical methods of modern historical research.

Rafn, the Danish antiquarian, in his "Antiquitates Americanæ," published in 1837, was the first to collect the sagas and fragments relating to the Vinland voyages, and, although unfortunate, it is not very strange that he did not thoroughly understand his materials. If he had understood them, the question of the

Norse discoveries in America would have been settled, and there would have been no provocation for Mr. Winsor to say:

"The more these details are scanned in the different sagas, the more they confuse the investigator; and the more successive relators try to enlighten us, the more our doubts are strengthened, till we end with the conviction that all attempts at consistent enravelment leave nothing but a vague sense of something somewhere done."

Mr. Winsor would have been wise had he given more prominence to Rev. Edmund F. Slafter's opinion as found in his introduction to Voy

"

ages of the Northmen to America," which, though brief, is the most scholarly presentation of this subject in the English language. He says that an investigation of the question makes it "easy to believe that the narratives contained in the sagas are true in their general outlines and important features." Higginson's "Larger History of the United States" also has a very excellent chapter on the Norse discoveries.

Before completing his "Antiquitates Americanæ " Rafn had considerable correspondence with American scholars, and hence the result of his labors was awaited with great interest. Higginson says:

"I can well remember, as a boy, the excitement produced among Harvard College professors when the ponderous volume called Antiquitates Americana, containing the Norse legends of 'Vinland,' with the translations of Professor Rafn, made its appearance on the library table."

This is sufficient to show that the work received

Hence,

attention. The subject was not treated with indifference among scholars except by a few who "shrank from the innovation." The American mind was in a mood to be convinced. the fact that considerable doubt still prevails is not so much the fault of American as of Northern scholars, especially Rafn. He claimed too much, not only in regard to the Newport tower and the Dighton Writing Rock, but also for the Old Norse records. He took for granted that all the sagas and fragments which refer to the Vinland voyages are reliable except in some minor points, a view which modern historical scholarship has shown to be untenable. There is a saga that gives a simple and trustworthy account of these expeditions, but it took careful study to determine which saga contained the original story. A rolling stone gathers no moss, but a rolling story (if I may use the expression) gathers details and gains embellishments. This is what the Vinland story did. Unfortunately, Rafn gave the first place in

his work to the variants instead of to the simple unadorned tale. And even of this he did not print what is now considered far the best

ple unadorned tale.

text.

Space forbids my attempting to give in this review the result of the latest researches in this field. This much, however, may be stated: In the year 1000, Leif Erikson, on a voyage from Norway to Greenland, was driven out of his course and discovered the American continent. That part of the continent which he called Vinland there are excellent reasons for believing

was the peninsula of Nova Scotia. He collected various specimens of the products of the country and proceeded to Greenland, where his story of the new land induced others to visit it. Those who made the first attempt were unsuccessful; but in 1003, Thorfinn Karlsevne, with three ships and one hundred and forty men, found the land and remained there about three years. On account of troublesome natives and internal discord, he left the country in the summer of 1007. This is the barest outline of a saga which is not only of historic interest, but "a very charming story in itself, abounding in beautiful scenes and well-told incidents," with a charm of style and beauty of diction which its variants and the various fragmentary accounts do not possess.

Mr. Horsford has undertaken to make a final settlement of this much-disputed question. He insists that he has found the exact spot where Leif and his successors landed. It is vain to be dogmatic in discussing the landfalls of early explorers. Mr. Horsford disregards the principal canons of criticism in this field of research, and asserts that Leif's booths were on

the Charles River near Boston. His writings, in their "wealth of cartographical adornment and sumptuousness of page," at first throw one off his guard, but it is not necessary to read far before it becomes evident that on points where there is occasion for deep shadings of doubt Mr. Horsford is dogmatic, and that his acquaintance with the literature of the subject is superficial. A careful perusal of his three published works will scarcely leave any doubt in the mind of anyone conversant with this question that the author's conclusions are thoroughly unreliable. It is necessary to this, eager though one may be to find legitimate

say

fruits of such commendable enthusiasm as Mr. Horsford displays in his studies.

"The Problem of the Northmen" is, in the main, a defense of the author's methods of studying geographical problems. He speaks of having found Leif's landing-place, and couples this claim with the solution of another disputed question in American history: the site of Fort Norumbega. He says:

"The site of Norumbega was first found in the literature of the subject, and when I had eliminated every doubt of the locality that I could find, I drove with a friend through a region I had never before visited, of the topography of which I knew nothing, nine miles away, directly to the remains of the Fort.

In a certain sense there was in this discovery the fulfilment of a prophecy. On the basis of the literature of the subject, I had predicted the finding of Fort Nor

umbega at a particular spot. I went to the spot and found it."

The memorials that the author claims to have found are the remains of two long loghouses and some huts, together with the remains of some fish-pits and dams. It is Mr. Winsor's opinion that a trading-post and fort were erected there by the French in the early part of the sixteenth century. The subject of these remains, alluded to in the "Problem of the Northmen," Mr. Horsford treats in detail in his last work, "The Discovery of the Ancient City of Norumbega." The author says that there have always been before the world certain grand geographical problems; among them these: Where were Vinland and Norumbega? He solves both problems with one deft stroke: Vinland and Norumbega are identical! To commemorate the alleged discovery, Mr. Horsford has erected, at his own expense, at Watertown, near the mouth of Stony Brook (a tributary of the Charles), an antique stone excite interest in that field of archæological tower. This, he thinks, will invite criticism, investigation, and finally allay that skepticism which would deprive Massachusetts of the glory of holding the landfall of Leif Erikson, and of being the seat of the earliest colony of Europeans in America.

Mr. Horsford locates Vinland from the terms in the sagas, which, he says, are as descriptive as a chart. He contends that Norumbega is a corruption of Norbega or Norvega. The Indians, among whom the Norwegians came, could not, he says, utter the sound of b without putting the sound of m before it. Hence Norbega became Nor❜mbega.

To show that this theory is utterly untenable, it is simply necessary to call attention to the fact that the name of the country we call Norway nowhere occurs in Scandinavian literature, ancient or modern, in the form Norbega. It has neither a b nor an a. The form Norvegr is found, but is not common. In all the sagas, including all variants and fragments, that make mention of the Vinland voyages, the word for Norway invariably appears in the form of Noregr, without even a v.

Here is another argument which Mr. Horsford adduces to support his theory:

"The people of Norway settling in a newly discovered country claimed the sovereignty of that country. Vinland belonged to Norway, that is, Norbega."

Such statements as these sorely try one's patience. Leif Erikson and Thorfinn Karlsevne were natives of Iceland, independent inhabit

ants of an independent country which did not become subject to Norway till 1263. No Norwegian king ever claimed the sovereignty of Vinland.

In Winsor's "Narrative and Critical History of America," the question of Norumbega is treated by Rev. Benjamin F. De Costa, who has also written the story of "The Lost City of New England," the very title of which would seem to show that his search for it has been confined to New England. He thinks that Norumbega was on the Penobscot, concerning which theory there are the gravest doubts, but he confesses his inability to offer any clue as to the origin of the term. In his own words:

"Perhaps the explanation of the word does not lie so far away as some suppose, though the study of the subject must be attended with great care." Following this suggestion, one would naturally suppose the name to be French, for it was used by French writers before the English settled in America (1607). The earliest reference, according to De Costa, is on a map of 1529.

Neither De Costa nor Horsford seem to have heard of the explanation offered by Weise in his "Discoveries of America to 1525," published in 1884. He thinks that Norumbega is a corruption of the French words Anormée Berge, and that they were applied to the Palisades on the Hudson. The country of the Palisades would then have been La Terre D'Anormée Berge. Anormé is an obsolete form of the adjective énorme, and signifies that which is vast or grand; the noun berge means an elevated border of a river, a scarp of a fortification, rocks elevated perpendicularly above the water. There are various forms of the word Norumbega. On a terrestrial globe made by Mercator in 1541 he has Anorumbega; on a map made about the year 1548 for King Henry II. of France we find Anorobagra; and the French explorer Laudonniere (1564) uses the words Terre de Norumberge, which looks suspiciously like Terre D'Anormée Berge. Mr. Weise thinks that the writings of the earlier French explorers uphold him, and he gives many interesting quotations from them in support of his theory. I notice that Mr. Horsford also quotes some of the same French authorities, very recklessly, however. Thevet as saying: "To the north of Virginia is Norumbega, which is well known as a beautiful city and a great river." He does not give the original French. The sentence condemns itself, however, as Thevet, who was in America

He quotes

in 1556 (which date Horsford also gives), could not have spoken of Virginia, a name that was applied much later than 1556. The date of the First Charter is 1606, and Elizabeth, the virgin queen, in whose honor the country was named, did not begin her reign untill 1558. Thevet did not speak of a beautiful city, but a beautiful river. "A river presents itself, one of the beautiful rivers that are in the world, which we named Norombegue, and the Indians Aggoncy, and which is marked on some marine charts as Grande river."

It would seem that Mr. Weise's explanation is worthy of consideration. We commend his book to the careful perusal of Mr. Horsford. JULIUS E. OLSON.

NEW VIEWS OF RUSSIA.*

No two books could fall into the reviewer's hands better calculated to supplement each other than Morfill's "Story of Russia" and Emilia Pardo Bazán's "Russia: Its People and Its Literature." The first-named volume gives an outline of Russian history from "the development of the little Grand Duchy of Muscovy, in the fifteenth century, to the present mighty empire with its hundred million inhabitants." While not attempting to conceal the darker shades of the picture, the writer has endeavored to avoid drawing his sketch from a purely English standpoint. He says in his Preface:

"There is nothing political about my book. I have I have simply told the truth as it appeared to me. treated Russia as an important element in the nationalities of the world, a country of great solidarity and strength, whatever may have been said to the contrary.”

Mr. Morfill bears the title of "Reader in the Russian and Slavonic Languages" in the University of Oxford. He is the author of a work

on

"Slavonic Literature," of "A Simplified Grammar of the Serbian Language," and of "A Grammar of the Russian Language." His philological labors have trained him well in the art of condensation, and his attempt to condense the leading facts in the public records of a country embracing one-sixth of the habitable globe, and a period of more than one thousand years, within the limits of a duodecimo story-book, is most gracefully accomplished.

*THE STORY OF RUSSIA. By W. R. Morfill, M.A. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

RUSSIA: Its People and Its Literature. By Emilia Pardo Bazán. Translated from the Spanish, by Fanny Hale Gardiner. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.