¹ Bancroft, Works, XVII (Arizona and New Mexico), 6–7.

² Bancroft, Works, X (History of Mexico, II), 94–126; Castañeda, Our Catholic Heritage in Texas, I, 6–30; Bolton and Marshall, Colonization of North America, 37.

³ Bancroft, Wks., X (Hist, of Mex., II), 364; XV (The North Mexican Slates, I), 37–38 and 38, n. 19, where most authorities concur that San Miguel was established on or near the San Lorenzo River; XVII (Arizona and New Mexico), 8. Cf.Kelly, , Excavations at Culiacán, Sinaloa (Ibero-Americana: 25), 223 Google Scholar: Map of the Culiacán Region from Ortelius’s Atlas, 1579, where the Villa S. Michaelis is located slightly south of the Ciguatan River, the next stream south of the Culiacán River. See also Mecham, J. Lloyd, Francisco de Ibarra and Nueva Vizcaya, map facing p. 30.Google Scholar

⁴ Kelly, ibid., 159–160, according to which the Indian town of Culiacán had at least three locations, all on or near the river of the same name. Bancroft’s exposition, Wks., XV (The N. Mex. States, I), 38 and n. 19, is a series of misstatement resulting from this same evident confusion of the two towns, the Villa of San Miguel de Culiacán and Culiacán, and from accepting with too much confidence and not enough criticism the information contained in the early chronicles. The main reference of Bancroft, quoted at length, is cited as Tello, Hist. N. Gal., 355, to wit: that the town of San Miguel was transferred to Culiacán the same year in which it was founded, and that he (Tello) erroneously gave the date of the year as 1532. This title stands for: Fragmentos de una Historia de la Nueva Galicia; the page reference, 355, is to Vol. II of Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, edited by Joaquín Gracia Icazbalceta, Mexico, 1866. According to the Introduction (p. xviii) to Tello, Crànica Miscelánea de la Sancta Provincia de Xalisco, Libro III, Guadalajara, 1942, written by José Cornejo Franco, in which he gives us his findings in collaboration with Fray Luis del Refugio de Palacio (died, July 1941), chapters 8 to 13, printed by Icazbalceta in the above Colección, Vol. II, 343–362, are not from Tello’s pen but from that of a certain Fray Francisco Mariano de Torres. The present writer has not been able at the present time to gain any information concerning this Fray F. M. de Torres, and since his statements are at variance with the known facts, they may be safely ignored. Speaking of the founding of the town of San Miguel in his Libro Segundo de la Crόnica Miscelánea … de la Santa Provincia de Xalisco, pp. 135–136 and 145–147, Tello nowhere refers to its being translated, and the date 1532 has absolutely no connection with San Miguel, but refers to the actual founding of the town of Espíritu Santo (Guadalajara). A mistranslation by Bancroft in this same passage from the Fragmentos might just as well be corrected here: the statement reads “para cura al Br. Álvaro Gutiérrez”; Bancroft renders it “Brother Álvaro Gutiérrez being the curate in charge.” “Br.” in Spanish stands for “Bachiller,” and means that Gutiérrez had a university degree, evidently in theology. A brother serving as a curate, chaplain, or pastor is an impossibility.

⁵ Road to Cibola (Ibero-Americana: 3), 8, n. 8, and map at end of study.

⁶ Ibid., 16, 19–20.

⁷ Pp. 227–241.

⁸ Hallenbeck, , Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 94–98.Google Scholar Reprinted by permission of the publishers, The Arthur H. Clark Company, from Hallenbeck: Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca. Compare pp. 234–241 and Sauer, Road to Cibola, 18–20.

⁹ The word “latter” in Núñez’s narrative must refer to the site on the Petatlán River, which is almost exactly twelve leagues or thirty-one miles from the seacoast, whereas Soyopa is at least three times that distance from the coast.

¹⁰ The distance travelled that morning, interpreting the words “going on” to mean that they went some distance before encountering the mounted Spaniards, was about four and a half leagues or close to twelve miles. This distance and the consequent location seem imperative from the statements that it was thirty leagues from San Miguel and that the journey from this point was away from the trail as well as from the fact that actually such a distance between the journey of the previous day and the meeting with Alcaraz must be accounted for. Positing San Miguel to be located on the San Lorenzo, at or near the site of Navito, it agrees perfectly with the narrative.

¹¹ Bancroft, Wks., XV (The N. Mex. States, I), 34: “The name Quilá used in the narratives is still applied to a town on that river [the San Lorenzo].” See ibid., 31; map. Quilá is exactly three leagues from San Miguel (Navito) on the San Lorenzo and about twenty-five, closer to twenty-seven or eight, leagues from the point south of Mocorito. This hypothesis certainly satisfies the statement in the narrative and removes Dr. Sauer’s doubtful suggestion: “(Pericos?) eight leagues north of the Culiacán valley,” in the The Road to Cibola, 20. Sauer here followed the Joint Report. Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 241, n. 300, preferring to follow Núñez’s own narrative here, accepts his statement of “three leagues.” Even positing San Miguel to be identical with Culiacán on the Culiacán River, Pericos would satisfy neither the demand of eight leagues nor of three leagues, because Pericos is almost twelve leagues north of Culiacán.

¹² San Miguel de Culiacán on the San Lorenzo.

¹³ Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 95–96, n. 173.

¹⁴ The Spanish Conquest of New Mexico, 108–109.

¹⁵ Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 98, states that Cabeza de Vaca arrived in Mexico City “on Sunday, the day before the Vespers of Saint James” and explains, ibid., n. 180, that this was July 24. However, the Vespers of Saint James means the eve of Saint James, on which the first Vespers of the feast is recited, hence July 24; if Cabeza arrived the day before the Vespers of Saint James, that would be July 23, which actually fell on a Sunday in 1536.

¹⁶ Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 21 and 101. Estevanico was an Arab from Azamor, Morocco; he was evidently not a Negro, but a “brown man.” Cf. ibid., 101, n. 183.

¹⁷ Due to the rapid growth of the Franciscans in the New World and their wide diffusion with the consequent formation eventually of distinct provinces under separate provincials, each of whom had full jurisdiction in his own province but no power over the sister provinces, it was soon recognized that some sort of superior prelate with jurisdiction over all the provinces and houses was necessary to handle all matters of a general nature pertaining to the Order. It was accordingly provided to elect such a prelate in the General Chapter; he was to have ordinary jurisdiction—this is a translation of the technical term iurisdictio ordinaria, which means jurisdiction inherent or attached to the office or authority exercised by the incumbent in virtue of his office—to act in the New World with the same powers as the Minister General himself; and he was to be called the Commissary General, that is, he was commissioned to take the General’s place; in other words, he was the Deputy General. The jurisdiction of this Commissary General of New Spain extended to all the Spanish possessions in the New World. The first of these Commissary Generals, according to our knowledge, was Fray Alonso de Rozas, who was elected in 1531; in 1533 Fray Juan de Granada was elected to this office; the third incumbent, elected in 1535, was Fray Francisco de Osuna, but since he could not come to the New World on account of other pressing duties, Fray Juan de Granada, the former incumbent, was surrogated in his stead and he served until 1541. Since the first Commissary General came to New Spain in 1531, and Fray Marcos also came in the same year, it is quite possible that they crossed the ocean together. When, therefore, Fray Marcos desired to go to Peru from Hispaniola shortly after his arrival from Spain, it is not at all difficult to conceive of his having been sub-delegated by the Commissary General himself to act in his name in Peru. That Fray Marcos’s sub-delegated powers did not expire with his activities in Peru is evident from the manner in which he signed his Relación. From the foregoing indisputable evidence it is clear that Fray Marcos was the second highest superior of the Franciscans in the New World. For a complete list of the Commissary Generals in the sixteenth century see Mendieta, , Historia Eclesiástica Indiana (1945 Reprint, Mexico), III, 205–207 Google Scholar; Torquemada, , Monarquía Indiana (3 ed., Mexico, 1944), III, 374–376 Google Scholar; Ocaranza, Capítulos de la Historia Franciscana, Primera Serie, 56 and 169–173; Bancroft, Wks., X (Hist, of Mex., II); 716, n. 42.

¹⁸ Soldiers of the Cross (Banning, Cal., 1898), 28.

¹⁹ The Franciscans in Arizona (Harbor Springs, Mich., 1899), 2.

²⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 59; Doc. “B”, p. 75d; Baldwin, New Mexico Historical Review, henceforth quoted as NMHR, I (1926), 221–222, or N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 31–32 and 57–58; Hammond and Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition (Coronado Hist. Series, II), 61–62. The incorrect date of August 27 was evidently borrowed by Salpointe and Engelhardt from Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, Relations, et Mémoires Originaux pour Servir a l’Histoire de la Découverte de l’Amérique, IX (Relation du Voyage de Cibola), 255, though Ternaux-Compans has the correct year, 1539.

²¹ Bancroft, Wks., X, 466; XV, 72; XVII, 28; Castañeda, Our Catholic Heritage in Texas, I, 86; Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the U. S., I, 114–115.

²² Bancroft, Wks., X, 465; Winship, The Coronado Expedition, 1540–1542 (14th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology), 341 and 351.

²³ Doc. “A”, p. 59; Doc. “B”, p, 75d. The word ocho (eight) in the date of the year is missing in Document “B” due to the worn or damaged condition of the upper left hand corner of the pages, but it can be supplied from Document “A”. Most authors, writing on the subject, who give the date give it correctly; however, Davis, The Span. Conquest of N. Mex., 114, n. 1, quoting Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, IX, Appendice, p. 249 (should be p. 253), says Fray Marcos received these instructions on November 28, 1538, but Ternaux-Compans has November 25, not the 28. Coues, On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, II, 481, n. 29 cont. from p. 479, likewise asserts that Fray Marcos received these instructions on November 25, 1538. Needless to say, these authors are wrong.

²⁴ Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 42–44.

²⁵ NMHR, XVI (1941), 244–245.

²⁶ Hammond and Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 50–53; Bandelier, Contributions to the History of the Southwestern Portion of the U. S. (“Papers of the Archaeological Institute of America,” V), 80–83. Towards the end of this letter, in the passage concerning Topira, Ternaux-Compans’s translation and Bandelier’s translation of him do not agree with Hammond and Key’s translation: “Considérant que c’était une affaire importante, je résolus … J’avais arrêté avec le religieux…” The first person here would refer to Mendoza, whereas Hammond and Rey have the third person, which would refer to Coronado. This latter makes more sense and is obviously the correct form. See Bandelier, ibid., 84, for his attempt to date Mendoza’s letter.

²⁷ Hammond and Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 156–161; Winship, The Coronado Expedition, 547–551.

²⁸ Hammond and Rey, ibid., 103.

²⁹ See Hammond and Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 42 and 163–164, for the corresponding descriptions.

³⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 60; Doc. “B”, p. 75d; Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926), 201–202, or N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 11–12 and 39–40; Father Oblasser, Translation of Fray Marcos’s Own Personal Narrative, 3; Hammond and Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 63. There is a slight confusion concerning this Fray Honoratus as to whether he was a priest or a lay brother; Fray Marcos here calls him “Padre Fray Onorato” while the Provincial in his attestation says “Fray Marcos went with another companion, a lay brother (fraile lego).” It is just possible, however, that Fray Honoratus was still a lay brother when he was designated in 1538 to accompany Fray Marcos and that, after having fallen ill at Petatlán and returned to Mexico City, he was in the meantime ordained to the priesthood so that he was given his proper title by the scribes who committed Fray Marcos’s report to writing in 1539. Cf. G. W. James, In and Out of the Old Missions of California, xviii-xix, on the use of Padre and Fray.

³¹ Doc. “A”, p. 60; Doc. “B”, p. 75d; Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926), 202 or N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 12 and 40; Oblasser, Fr. Marcos’s Own Per. Narr., 4; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Cor. Exped., 63.

³² NMHR, XVI (1941), 246.

³³ The Road to Cibola, 28.

³⁴ Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 95 and 97.

³⁵ NMHR, IV (1929), 100.

³⁶ Sauer, The Road to Cibola, II, n. 13.

³⁷ Wks., XVII, 28, n. 4. It must be noted that both Doc. “A”, p. 60 and Doc. “B”, pp. 75d and 75e have Petatlán; the editor or editors of Vol. III of the Colección de Documentos inéditos were responsible for the misreading: Petatean.

³⁸ The Road to Cibola, map at end.

³⁹ See Mendoza’s instructions to Fray Marcos: Doc. “A”, p. 58; Doc. “B”, p. 75c; Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926), 200 or N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 10 and 38; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Cor. Exped., 60.

⁴⁰ “The Franciscans in the Spanish Southwest,” Franciscan Educational Conferencé Report, hereafter quoted as FECR, XVIII (1936), 99.

⁴¹ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Narr., 4.

⁴² Salpointe, Soldiers of the Cross, 28 and 30, Engelhardt, The Franciscans in Arizona, 3, n. 4, quoting Salpointe’s variant statement, and Pedro Castañeda de Nagera—evidently Salpointe’s source of information—“Relación de la Jornada de Cibola” in Winship, The Coronado Expedition, 418 and 474, erroneously give Fray Marcos two additional companions on this trip, namely, Fray Daniel, a lay brother, and Fray Antonio de Santa Maria. Shea, Hist, of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S., I, 115, n.2, quoting Castañeda in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, IX, 10, indicates the contradictory character of Castañeda’s statement. Castañeda’s error is evidently due to a confusion of the second trip of Fray Marcos under Coronado in 1540 with his first trip, undertaken in 1539, for in the second expedition we do actually find a Brother Daniel and a priest, Fray Antonio de Victoria—very probably his full name was Antonio de Santa Maria de Victoria. Cf. Engelhardt, op. cit., 20, n. 1; Castañeda, Our Cath. Heritage in Texas, I, 94 and n. 33. A typographical error in this last note must be indicated: the letter of Coronado to the King, August 3, 1570, should read 1540. Baldin, NMHR, I (1926), 195 and N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 5, erroneously has Fray Marcos leave Fray Honoratus behind at Vacapa.

⁴³ Doc. “A”, p. 60; Doc, “B”, p. 75e; Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926), 202 or N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 12 and 40; Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 4; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 64; Bancroft, Wks., XV, 29, 34–35, 38, 56–57, 59, 68–69; Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 93–94, 238, 240; Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 20, n. 18.

⁴⁴ FECR, XVIII (1936), 99.

⁴⁵ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 4.

⁴⁶ Bancroft, Wks., XVII, 28–30, held this opinion in 1889; Engelhardt, The Franciscans in Arizona, 3; the most recent scholar to attach this error to Fray Marcos is Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 24, who, after imputing his own mistake to the friar, tries to identify the object of the friar’s reference as modern Topolobampo, missing the location by more than fifty miles. Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 64, n. 3, follow Sauer’s unfortunate suggestion relative to Topolobampo and the nearby islands. Shea, Hist, of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S., I, 115, varied the idea a little; he has Fray Marcos hearing about California.

⁴⁷ Bancroft, Wks., XV, 37–38, n. 18; 51, n. 41; Herrera, Descripción de las Indias Occidentales, cap. xx, ii. (ed. 1730) and Dec. V. lib. viii. cap. ix. as quoted by Bancroft. Commenting on Herrera’s description and location of this island, Bancroft, Wks., XV, 3 8, n. 18, says: “This is remarkable, as no such island exists.” Strangely enough Bancroft, Wks., XVII, 29, map, has a Guayabal on the Mexican coast in 24° latitude. Cf. Wagner, Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America to the year 1800, I, 16, and Spanish Voyages to the Northwest Coast of America, 17 and 305, n. 25. Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Expedi., 125, n. 3, strange to say, imply the non-existence of the said island also, and on top of that show that they have completely misread the last of the above quoted passages of Wagner, who does not try to identify Guayabal off the coast of Mexico as the island of Espiritu Santo, but is clearly speaking of the Isla de las Perlas off the southeastern coast of Lower California.

⁴⁸ Bancroft, Wks., XV, 74–75. The “imagination theory” advanced here in 1884 was supplanted in 1889 by the “California vision theory”. Cf. note 46 above. Regarding Mr. Oak see Engelhardt, Missions and Missionaries of California, I, 622–623, who quotes from The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, VIII (July, 1904), 87–88 and from The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, IV, No. 4, 287–364. See also Dictionary of American Biography, I, 570, “Hubert Howe Bancroft.” Mr. Oak served as librarian of Bancroft’s immense collection from 1868 to 1887. See also Wagner, Cartography of the N. W. Coast of Amer., I, 13.

⁴⁹ Mota Padilla, Historia de la Conquista del Reino de la Nueva Galicia (Guadalajara, 1920/1924 ed.), 427: “… : son las islas nombradas San Antonio Tiburón, San Esteban, Bocalinas, Salsipuedes, la Tortuga y la Ensenada de la Concepción, habitadas de indios de la nación seris….”

⁵⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 60–61; Doc. “B”, p. 75e. The writer will henceforth refrain from indicating the corresponding passages in Baldwin, Oblasser, Hammond and Rey except when necessary to make a correction, because the said passages follow each other in regular order.

⁵¹ Wks., I, 574 and 576.

⁵² Wks., XV, 75. Cf. Encyclopedia Britannica (11 ed.), “California,” p. 21: “The coast is bordered by numerous islands, especially on the eastern side… La Paz is the headquarters of the pearl fisheries.” Encyclopedia Americana, “California, Gulf of, or Sea of Cortez,” p. 216: “… containing many islands in the upper part; ibid., “California, Lower or Old”: The coast… is fringed by numerous islands.” See also Clavigero, The History of Lower California (trs. by Sara E. Lake and A. A. Gray), 19 and 252. Vásquez, Geografía de Sonora, 19, lists ten islands besides Tiburón appertaining to Sonora and deserving of mention, excepting of course other insignificant ones. It is useless to cite other authorities, for the mere inspection of a good map of the Gulf of California will reveal the absurdity of the denial of the existence of the said islands.

⁵³ Doc. “A”, p. 61; Doc. “B”, p. 75e. Father Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 5, claims these Indians were the Piatos, but the Piatos belong to the Upper Pimas, whom Fray Marcos was to meet only later. See Sauer’s studies, The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in Northwestern Mexico (Ibero-Americana: 5), 38, 53, and map, and Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico (Ibero-Americana: 10), map.

⁵⁴ Bancroft, Wks., XV, 36 and 55; Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 11.

⁵⁵ Bancroft, Ibid., 57–58; Sauer, Ibid., 12; Villa, Compendio de Historia del Estado de Sonora, 80–83.

⁵⁶ Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 238; Sauer, ibid., 18–19.

⁵⁷ Doc. “A”, p. 61; Doc. “B”, p. 75e.

⁵⁸ FECR, XVIII (1936), 100.

⁵⁹ Suggested by Lt. A. W. Whipple, Pacific R. R. Reports, III, 104, and accepted by Engelhardt, Fran, in Ariz., 4; cf. also Bancroft, Wks., XV, 75, n. 8. It must be noted, however, that Whipple, who recapitulates Hakluyt, in his interpretation placed the route of Fray Marcos farther east, whereby the distance to the Casas Grandes was lessened.

⁶⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 61; Doc. “B”, p. 75e and 75f. Baldwin’s Spanish text (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 42) and consequently his English translation (ibid., 14 and NMHR, I (1926), 204) erroneously have “intention” for instruction; Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 6, likewise seems to have misread the original, for he paraphrases this passage with “I wanted to follow the shore line”; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 65, mistranslate this passage in such a way as to convey just the opposite meaning: “As this valley draws away from the coast—and my instructions were not to go away from it—I decided to leave the coast until my return,…” The last phrase should have been rendered: “I decided to leave it,” i. e., the plain; the translators mistakenly referred dejalla to la costa instead of to esta abra.

⁶¹ Doc. “A”, p. 61; Doc. “B”, p. 75 f.

⁶² Father Eusebio Kino (Historical Memoir of Pimería Alta, ed. by Dr. H. E. Bolton, I, 188) seems to have been the first to make this mal-identification in 1698 though (ibid., II, 203) he claims that Torquemada already made this identification—the present writer, however, has failed to find even a mention of Vacapa either in the passage in Torquemada, Monarquía Indiana, III, 358–359, indicated by Bolton in this latter reference, p. 203, n. 172, or in any other passage in Torquemada connected with Fray Marcos. Cf. Bandelier, Contributions to the History of the S. W. Portion of the U. S. (“Papers of the Archaeological Institute of America,” Amer. Ser., V), 123. Coues, On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, II, 481, n. 29 cont. from p. 479, claims this mistake goes back at least to Mange, who was with Kino at San Luis de Bacapa on March 12, 1702—this date should be 1701; cf.Mange, , Luz de Tierra Incógnita, ed. by del Castillo, F. F. (Mexico, 1926), 285.Google Scholar This passage of Mange, also quoted by Coues (ibid., II, 481, n. 1), however, mentions Coronado’s army having passed through this place of San Luis de Bacapa, but says nothing of Fray Marcos’s presence there. The inference with regard to Fray Marcos can only be indirect, based on the assumption that Coronado’s army followed the same route that Fray Marcos had taken the year before. A priori such a premise is fallible, and a posteriori we know it is false because Coronado and his army during this part of their journey to Cibola took a route much further inland than did Fray Marcos. Bandelier, Contrib., 123, n. 2, believes Mange followed Kino in this error, though it is possible that Mange committed it independently. In 1883, Bandelier, Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary Indians of N. Mex. (“Papers of the Arch. Inst. of Amer.,” Amer. Ser., I), 2 ed., 1883, p. 8, was inclined to locate Fray Marcos’s Vacapa, in the light of Mange’s description, in southern Arizona, west of Tucson, but in 1890 (Contrib., 123), while rejecting the identification of Vacape with San Luis de Bacapa, he still persisted in locating the latter in southwestern Arizona, about thirty-five miles too far north. Shea, Hist, of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S., I, 115, also accepted San Luis de Bacapa as the site of Vacapa. Engelhardt, The Fran, in Ariz., 4, n. 6, falsely lists Winship, whom he calls Mr. Parker up to p. 17, as holding the same opinion. Haynes, H. W., “Early Explorations of New Mexico” in Winsor’s, Justin Narrative and Critical History of America, II, 477, n. 1, quotes Bandelier’s earlier opinion with apparent approval.Google Scholar Padre Francisco Garcés, Diary and Itinerary, tr. and ed. by Coues under the title On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, II, 486–487, also identifies the Vacapa mentioned in the relation of the Coronado journey, which very probably ought to be the Relación of Fray Marcos’s journey, for Vacapa does not occur in the former, with San Luis de Bacapa. Incidentally it might be noted here also that Sauer, The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in N. W. Mexico, map, locates Quitovac on the International Boundary Line. This is evidently a confusion with the border-line town of Quitovaquita, which is ten miles west of Sonóita; cf. Bolton, Rim of Christendom, 281, 285, n. 3, 401, and map at p. 594. Mr. Hodge seems to have labored under a similar confusion when he wrote a note on Bacapa for Coues; cf. Coues, ibid., 487, n. 33. Bancroft, Wks., XVII, 30–31, n. 5, is not quite sure, in 1889, whether to abandon his former opinion that Vacapa coincided with Magdalena on the Magdalena River in favor of the view that Vacapa was identical with San Luis de Bacapa. He admits that if Fray Marcos traveled so far west, he must have turned eastward from Vacapa; in truth, Fray Marcos did go east and north from his Vacapa as we shall presently see.

⁶³ Rim of Christendom, 285, n. 3.

⁶⁴ The Spanish Borderlands, 81.

⁶⁵ Bandelier, Contrib., 123–125; Winship, The Coro. Exped., 355 and Castañeda, Our Cath. Heritage in Texas, I, 88, n. 19, accept Bandelier’s view; Coues, On the Trail of a Span. Pioneer, II, 481, n. 29 cont. from p. 479; Lockwood, Pioneer Days in Arizona, 11.

⁶⁶ Whipple, Pacific R. R. Rep., III, 105; Engelhardt, The Fran, in Ariz., 4; Bancroft, Wks., XV, is inclined to accept Whipple’s conjecture as accurate a one as possible, but later, ibid., XVII, 30–31, n. 5, while he would fain cling to this opinion, he seems to be taken in by the identification of San Luis de Bacapa as Vacapa, declaring withal that the identity is uncertain. Whipple records Magdalena as located on the Rio de San Miguel. This must be a slip, for the San Miguel, a tributary of the Sonora River to the south, is further east than Magdalena.

⁶⁷ These two hypotheses have been proposed by Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 25–26, the second of which has been accepted by Hallenbeck, Journey and Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 239. The gratuitous assumption that Fray Marcos’s Relación is not only burdened with gross exaggerations but that it is a masterpiece of falsification has misled Or. Saeur into the unfortunate position of trying to compress the friar’s long journey to within sight of the present state of New Mexico between the limits of Culiacán and a point at the most a short distance across the International Boundary Line of Arizona. The result is that Sauer’s identifications are out of line all along the route. It is like trying to put together the two hemispheres of the terrestrial globe, but instead of matching them properly they are joined so that meridian 10° meets meridian 20°. The result will be that none of the corresponding points of the hemispheres so placed will agree with each other.

⁶⁸ The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in N. W. Mexico, 33. In this same statement Sauer says Fray Marcos picked up at Vacapa a strange story about a people, rich and civilized, inhabiting a mountain valley. This information, not quite so fanciful, was obtained, not at Vacapa, but at a point three days’ journey before he reached Vacapa. The people referred to here were the Eudeves and Opatas, about whom Fray Marcos learned while at or near Hermosillo, as above related. Sauer, attempting to explain the reference, remarks that the information gleaned by the friar might be a garbled report concerning the Chinipas. The Chinipas, however, were only twenty miles removed from Vaca on the Fuerte (Sauer’s favored opinion at this point) and forty miles from Vacapa on the Mayo, whereas Fray Marcos declares the plain in question extended over four or five days’ travel between the place where he then found himself, namely, Hermosillo, and the western slope of the sierras, i. e., the Sierra Madre. This plain corresponds to the entire Opata country. Cf. Sauer, The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in N. W. Mexico, map and Bolton, Rim of Christendom, map at p. 594. Sauer himself, however, in The Road to Cibola, 25, correctly recorded this same incident in its proper place and sequence.

⁶⁹ NMHR, XII (1937), 280–282. This position of Vacapa, between the Mayo and Fuerte Rivers, is the one also adopted by Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 65, n. 8.

⁷⁰ NMHR, XVI (1941), 237.

⁷¹ Cf. Sauer, The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in N. W. Mexico, map.

⁷² Cf. Sauer’s own map in Aboriginal Population of N. W. Mexico.

⁷³ The former of these two solutions was proposed by Oblasser, FECR, XVIII (1936), 100, n. 11, while the second has been accepted by him in his translation of Fray Marcos’s Relación, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 6 and Inside Back Cover. Father Oblasser there acknowledges his indebtedness to Mr. Ed. Holt of Nogales for his correction.

⁷⁴ Sauer’s map in Aboriginal Population of N. W. Mexico again bears this out, while it disproves his own theories.

⁷⁵ Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 6, estimates the distance at only sixty-five miles, while in FECR, XVIII (1936), 100, he judged the distance at more than one hundred miles, which was, roughly speaking, a rather correct estimate since he then supposed Vacapa to lie a little farther north at the juncture of the Altar and Magdalena (San Ignacio) Rivers; actually this distance would be closer to 120 miles.

⁷⁶ Bancroft, Wks., XV, 75; XVII, 30; Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 6.

⁷⁷ Engelhardt, The Fran, in Ariz., 4; Winship, The Coro. Exped., 355; Oblasser, FECR, XVIII (1936), 100, but he corrected this mistake in his translation of Fray Marcos’s Relación—see preceding note; Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 25; Hodge, History of Hawikub, 11. Castañeda, Our Cath. Heritage in Texas, I, 88, has “two days before Passion Sunday, March 29, 1539,” evidently a misprint for “March 23.” Bolton, Spanish Borderlands, 81, simply speaks of Passion Sunday, apparently in the traditional sense as the second Sunday before Easter. Davis, The Spanish Conquest of N. Mex., 118, has “two days before Passion Week.” Bandelier, “The Discovery of New Mexico by Fray Marcos de Nizza,” Magazine of Western History (Sept., 1886) reprinted in NMHR, IV (1929), 33, n. 15, says: “Easter fell that year on the nineteenth of April, therefore Passion-Sunday on the fifth.” He must have misread the tables he consulted, for Easter fell on April 19 in the year 1579, but not in 1539; in this latter year Easter fell on April 6. Four years later, in 1890, in his Contrib., 122, Bandelier, commenting on Fray Marcos’s statement of “two days before the Sunday of the Passion,” says this was “about the middle of April.” This was an impossible conjecture because it would have put Easter at the end of April, which is impossible; the latest possible date for Easter is April 25. Coutes, On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, II, 481, n. 26 cont. from p. 479, and Lockwood, Pioneer Days in Arizona, 11, either took this error over from Bandelier without even suspecting its incorrectness and without giving him credit for the mistake, or they both independently committed the same error.

⁷⁸ FECR, XVIII (1936), 100.

⁷⁹ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 10.

⁸⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 62; Doc. “B”, p. 75g.

⁸¹ Jaramillo, Relación: Spanish text in Buckingham Smith, Colección de Varios Documentos para la Historia de la Florida, 155; Translation in Winship, The Coro. Exped., 584; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 296, neither of which translations is altogether free from errors. Cf. also Bancroft, Wks., XVII, 40, n. 19.

⁸² The Road to Cibola, 25–26. Frankly admitting (p. 24) his inability to figure out Fray Marcos’s itinerary as it has been pieced together by the numerous scholars who have occupied themselves with it, Sauer here finds himself at a complete loss to solve the location of Vacapa and to explain the concomitant events of the journey up to this point, and finally he gives up, asserting that the account is somewhere at fault regardless of how it is taken. The fault lies not so much in the account as in the critic’s own preconceived notions concerning Fray Marcos’s journey and Relación.

⁸³ Ibid., 25.

⁸⁴ Gelasian Sacramentary (Codex Vaticanus MS. Reginae 316), ed. by H. A. Wilson, 60, The writer is indebted to his colleague, the Rev. Dr. Leo F. Miller, for the information covered by this note as well as by the two following notes.

⁸⁵ Gregorian Sacramentary (Codex Vaticanus MS. Reginae 337 and Codex Vaticanus MS. Ottobonianus 313), ed. by H. A. Wilson, 249 and 307 respectively.

⁸⁶ Le Sacramentaire Gélasien d’Angoulême (Paris, B. N. MS. Lat. 816), ed. by Paul Cagin, 32 r.

⁸⁷ Doc. “A”, p. 62; Doc. “B”, p. 75f. Regarding the charge of credulity, cf. Bancroft, Wks., XV, 76–77; XVII, 30.

⁸⁸ Wks., XVII, 30.

⁸⁹ See notes 49 and 52 above.

⁹⁰ Doc. “A”, pp. 62–63; Doc. “B”, p. 75g. Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Narr., 8, has evidently misread the last clause of this passage, for he translates it as follows: “They are so swift afoot that I think a shot from a crossbow could not overtake them,” referring the statement to the Indians instead of to the shields. Both documents clearly read: “son tan recias que creo que no las pasara una vallesta (i. e., ballesta).”

⁹¹ See Sauer’s map in The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in N. W. Mexico.

⁹² Doc. “A”, p. 63; Doc. “B”, p. 75g. Hodge, History of Hawikuh, 13 and the pertinent and illuminating note 22 on p. 110; on p. 109, n. 17, Hodge confuses Sauer’s two identifications: Vacapa on the Mayo River and Vaca on the Fuerte River.

⁹³ The Fran, in Ariz., 7.

⁹⁴ Doc. “A”, p. 63; Doc. “B”, p. 75g. Castañeda, Our Cath. Herit. in Texas, I, 8 intimates Fray Marcos left Vacapa on April 6. This incorrect date is also favored by Bancroift Wks., XV, 75 and XVII, 30. Equally incorrect is the acceptation of Davis, The Span. Conque of N. Mex., 122, Bandelier, NMHR, IV (1929), 34 and Contributions, 133, Shea, Hist, of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S., I, 115, Engelhardt, The Fran, in Ariz., 7, Bolton, The Span, Borderland 82, Hodge, History of Hawikuh, 13, and Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 67, wl posit Easter Tuesday, or the second day after Easter, April 8, as the date of the departure fro Vacapa. Fray Marcos does not say in his Relación “segundo dia despues de Pascua Florida.”

⁹⁵ See Davis, The Span. Conquest of N. Mex., 115, n. 2 cont. from p. 114.

⁹⁶ Doc. “A”, p. 63; Doc. “B”, p. 75g.

⁹⁷ Contributions, 134–135, n. 1.

⁹⁸ The Coronado Exped., 357.

⁹⁹ History of Hawikuh, 15.

¹⁰⁰ Hodge, ibid., 110, n. 24.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 14 and 110, n. 23. Attention must be called again to the fact that Hodge, misled by the false location of Vacapa, here believes Fray Marcos to be among the Opata Indians in the Sonora Valley instead of among the Pimas in the San Ignacio Valley. It must be remembered that Fray Marcos never entered the domain of the Opatas on his way to Cibola.

¹⁰² Doc. “A”, pp. 63–64; Doc. “B”, p. 75h.

¹⁰³ The word always is missing in Doc. “B”, p. 75h.

¹⁰⁴ Hist. of Hawikuh, 13.

¹⁰⁵ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 12.

¹⁰⁶ See Bolton, Rim of Christendom, 269–270 and 359.

¹⁰⁷ Bolton, Rim of Christendom, 362–367; Kino, Historical Memoirs (ed. by Bolton), I, 168–171, specifically note 193. These two works, together with the excellent map of Pima Land at p. 594 in the former and at p. 233 of the second volume of the latter, have been very useful in supplying the names of these Indian villages. Cf. also Mange, Luz de Tierra Incógnita, 248–251.

¹⁰⁸ Doc. “A”, p. 64 Doc. “B”, pp. 75h and 75i.

¹⁰⁹ FECR, XVIII (1936), 100, n. 13.

¹¹⁰ Jaramillo, Relación: Span, text in Buckingham Smith, Colección de Varios Documento: para la Historia de la florida, 156; tr. in Winship, The Coro. Exped., 585, and Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 297.

¹¹¹ Oblasser, FECR, XVIII (1936), 100, n. 13, and Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 13; Winship, The Coro. Exped., 387; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 297, n. 7; Bolton, Introduction to Kino’s Hist. Memoirs, I, 53.

¹¹² Final Report of Investigations among the Indians of the S. Western U. S., II (Papers of the Arch. Inst, of Amer., Amer. Ser., IV), 469.

¹¹³ Doc. “A”, p. 65; Doc. “B”, p. 75i. Cf. Oblasser’s translation of this last passage (Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 15) and his translation of the earlier one—see note 108 above for reference—(ibid., 14), which was incorrect. The Spanish text used by Baldwin (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 47), which reads: “y así lo tuve cuatro dias que me duró el despoblado,” must be corrected by the original document, both copies of which clearly read: “y así lo tuve cuatro dias que me tuvo el despoblado.”

¹¹⁴ Wagner, , Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America, I, 16–18.Google Scholar Dr. Wagner, though he allows Fray Marcos to have gotten farther north than Dr. Sauer does, is even more vehement than Sauer in his criticism of Fray Marcos and is equally ready to condemn him as a liar, deeming it better form, however, to attribute his statements to an “overheated imagination” (NMHR, IX (1936), 216), to “imagination” (p. 222), to “perfervid imagination” (p. 224), to “boiling imagination” (p. 224), to “visions” (p. 224), and to “hallucinations” (p. 227). The good Doctor would have done well to have at least read the friar’s entire Relación before attempting a judgment. Yet he (Cartography, I, 18) glibly and unwarrantedly speaks of the “numerous fairy tales” told by the friar. Prof. Bloom (NMHR, XV (1940), 126, n. 60) also refers to Wagner’s failure to read through the Relación, basing his remark upon Wagner’s misstatements, which could not have otherwise been made. One such misstatement in point is Wagner’s assertion (Cartography, I, 18) that “we find Niza’s Pueblo de los Corrazones” on Michael Tramezini’s map of the world (Venice, 1554). Fray Marcos never mentioned the town of Corazones, which fact has rightly led Sauer (The Road to Cibola, 27) to conclude that Fray Marcos did not enter it. This is correct, because it lies too far east of the route Fray Marcos trod. Tramezini’s indication of the Corazones must be traced to some knowledge of Cabeza de Vaca’s report, published in his Naufragios (Valladolid, 1542), for up to this time Cabeza de Vaca is the sole authority for the name of this town.

¹¹⁵ The Spanish text (Doc. “A”, p. 66, Doc. “B”, p. 75j, and N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 48) reads: “y así fui en demanda della.” Translated, it simply means: “and so I went in search of it.” The same expression occurred just a short space before (Doc. “A”, p. 64, Doc. “B”, p. 75g, and N. Mex. Pub. in Hist, I, 46) : “como gente que sabía que iba en demanda della.” Dr. Baldwin’s note 5 on page 21 of the last mentioned work, which is somewhat labored, becomes wholly unnecessary, and from what is to follow it will become clear that this statement is not puzzling at all.

¹¹⁶ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar.; 15–16 and map on p. 13.

¹¹⁷ History of Hawikuh, 16.

¹¹⁸ Ibid., 13–16; 109, n. 17.

¹¹⁹ Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 27, n. 32. The whole foregoing presentation will also answer Sauer’s rhetorical question: “To what else can this refer than to the Sonora Valley?” Once again it must be stressed that Fray Marcos did not enter Opata territory.

¹²⁰ The Maricopa and Gila Bend Mountains, though perhaps not visible from the friar’s point of vantage, are here inserted for the sake of completeness, for they objectively contribute to the formation of the contour.

¹²¹ Bolton, Rim of Christendom, 271, 274; Kino, Historical Memoir, I, 125–126; Mange, Luz de Tierra Incógnita, 218. Kino misjudged the distance to be only 15; or 18 leagues or 45 or 54 miles.

¹²² Winship, The Coro. Exped., 359; Bandelier, Contributions, 144.

¹²³ The Road to Cibola, 26–27 and n. 32.

¹²⁴ Hist. of Hawikuh, 17–18.

¹²⁵ Winship, The Coro. Exped., 554–555; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 165.

¹²⁶ The Coro. Exped., 554, n. 2.

¹²⁷ All authorities, except Lowery, Spanish Settlement Within the present Limits of the United States, 1513–1561, 289, who alone has March 9 as the date of Alarcón’s departure, which may be a typographical error, agree that Hernando de Alarcón set sail on May 9, 1540, either from Acapulco or Natividad, with the former enjoying the greater probability. Accepting “Wagner’s date of August 17 or 18 for the arrival of Alarcón at the mouth of the Colorado River (Cartography of the N. W. Coast of Amer., I, 30), we get the total of 101 days for the length of this voyage of approximately 1556 miles, and the average distance traveled a day as 15.4 miles. If we apply this schedule rigidly along their course, we find that they would have passed the coast opposite Corazones (in line with Ures) about the 83rd day of their voyage, which would have been July 30. But this computation does not take into account Alarcón’s call at Santiago and at the port of San Miguel de Culiacán; hence the date of passing any point north of San Miguel would be a little later.

¹²⁸ Patrick, H. R., The Ancient Canal Systems and Pueblos of the Salt River Valley, Arizona (Phoenix Free Museum, Bulletin No. 1, Phoenix, 1903), 8.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Bandelier, , Final Report, II, 419–420, 435–436 Google Scholar; cf.Cushing, , Preliminary Notes on the Origin, Working Hypothesis and Primary Researches of the Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition (Congrès International des Américanistes, Compte-rendu de la Septième Session, Berlin, 1890), 154–194.Google Scholar For further reading on the ruins in the Salt River Valley consult Haury, Emil W., The Excavation of Los Muertos and the Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, Cambridge, Mass., 1945), and the bibliography there indicated, pp. 217–223.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 66, has they, evidently a slip on the part of the scribe.

¹³¹ Doc. “A”, p. 66; Doc. “B”, p. 75j; both have west. Baldwin’s Spanish text (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 49) has southeast and is so translated by him (p. 22), though he indicates in note 6 that west, as given in Ternaux-Compans and Hakluyt, seems more reasonable. Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 18, misread his text here and translates: southeast; so do also Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 72.

¹³² This is an exact translation of the original, and the writer must admit that he did not find any of the confusion alluded to by Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 73, n. 11; cf. N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 49.

¹³³ Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926), 213, and N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 23, mistranslates “numbers”.

¹³⁴ The Spanish text (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 50): la mucha veria desta gente should read: la mucha verdad desta gente; cf. Doc. “A”, p. 68, Doc. “B”, p. 75k.

¹³⁵ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 20.

¹³⁶ Ibid., inside back cover.

¹³⁷ “A Note on the Marcos de Niza Inscription Near Phoenix, Arizona,” Plateau, Vol. 12, No. 4 (April, 1940), 53–59. Cf. also Bloom, NMHR, XV (1940), 108, who, according to a letter received by the present writer from Dr. Colton, did not know this little article was being published, when he made reference to it. It may be noted here in passing that Dr. Colton subscribes without reservation to the opinions of Sauer and Wagner.

¹³⁸ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 16–20 and map on p. 17.

¹³⁹ Baldwin’s Spanish text (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 50) and consequently his translation (ibid., 23, and NMHR, I (1926), 213) have “town”; Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 20, and Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 74, have “village,” though both documents, “A”, p. 68, and “B”, p. 75k, have valle, and this despite the fact that they profess to be translating from the original. It seems these authors allowed themselves to be unduly influenced here as elsewhere in their departures from the original by the printed text which seems to have served them as a guide in reading the original.

¹⁴⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 68, and Doc. “B”, p. 75k; Baldwin’s Spanish text (N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 50) and consequently his translation (ibid., 24 and NMHR, I (1926), 213) erroneously have “four leagues.” Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 20, again follows the printed text instead of the original.

¹⁴¹ Oblasser, Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 21, has “By referring to my notes,” mistranslating jornadas.

¹⁴² Baldwin, NMHR, I (1926). 218, and N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 28, mistranslated puse with “could.”

¹⁴³ Letter of Coronado to Mendoza, August 3, 1540, in Winship, The Coro. Exped., 558, Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 170–171, and Hodge, History of Hawikuh, 50.

¹⁴⁴ History of Hawikuh, 115, n. 89.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., 117, n. 114 cont.

¹⁴⁶ Bandelier, Contributions, 172, n. 1; Winship. The Coro. Exped., 363, n. 1.

¹⁴⁷ Winship, “Why Coronado Went to New Mexico in 1540,” Annual Rep. of the Amer. Hist. Assn. (1894), 87; Bandelier, NMHR, IV (1929). 42

¹⁴⁸ The Coronado Exted., 363.

¹⁴⁹ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 30 and map on p. 13.

¹⁵⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 72; Doc. “B”, p. 75n; N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 56.

¹⁵¹ FECR, XVIII (1936), 101, n. 16.

¹⁵² Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 30.

¹⁵³ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., inside back cover.

¹⁵⁴ Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 31–32; cf. p. 6 and map on p. 9.

¹⁵⁵ NMHR, IX (1934), 214.

¹⁵⁶ Sauer, The Road to Cibola, 28, says that we are told that Fray Marcos’s arrival at Compostela occurred at the end of June; by whom we are told, he does not say. The implications seems to be that Fray Marcos himself tells us so, which is false. Dr. Wagner, NMHR, IX (1934), 213, correctly admits that we have no contemporary statement concerning the date of the friar’s arrival on his return trip either at Culiacán or at Compostela, but he posits, ibid., 214, July 1 as the tentative date for the arrival at Compostela. The same date was favored already in 1929 by Wagner, Spanish Voyages, 8; see also p. 10. In 1937, however, Wagner extended the time for two weeks, allowing Fray Marcos to arrive at Compostela “before July 15” and “by the middle of July,” Cartography of the N. W. Coast of America, 16 and 20 respectively.

¹⁵⁷ Hammond, and Rey, , Narr. of the Coronado Exped., 45–49.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Lansing Bloom, NMHR, XV (1940), 130 and XVI (1941), 244, already pointed this out. Wagner’s suggestion, NMHR, IX (1934), 337, that Coronado’s reference to a great country discovered by Fray Marcos was to some country more than six days’ journey from Culiacán and probably even to the Seven Cities themselves, is therefore unwarranted; it is made to uphold his previous assertion, ibid., IX (1934), 214, which would posit Fray Marcos’s arrival in Compostela by July 1, or by July 15 as Wagner has now revised his opinion. This reference of Coronado was evidently based on some advance report from Fray Marcos, sent from Vacapa or perhaps from the Salt River Valley.

¹⁵⁹ NMHR, IX (1934), 214–215.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid., 215.

¹⁶¹ lbid., 213.

¹⁶² Fray Marcos’s Own Per. Nar., 32.

¹⁶³ Doc. “A”, p. 58; Doc. “B”, p. 75c; N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 38; Baldwin, ibid., 10–11 and NMHR, I (1926), 200–201; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coronado Exped., 60.

¹⁶⁴ NMHR, IX (1934), 223.

¹⁶⁵ NMHR, XVI (1941), 246.

¹⁶⁶ NMHR, XV (1940), 126, n. 60.

¹⁶⁷ 1924 ed., 43; 1937 ed., 90.

¹⁶⁸ NMHR, IX (1934), 203–211.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid., 184–227.

¹⁷⁰ Doc. “A”, p. 72; Doc. “B”, p. 750; Wagner, The Spanish Southwest, 1924 ed., 20 of the 100 copies of which were extra illustrated with photostat reproductions: cf. extra-illustration, No. 2, between pp. 42 and 43, on which the legend is most legible, for in Doc. “B” only the OC of the abbreviation is visible while in Doc. “A” the seal is very badly damaged. Shea, Hist, of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S., I, 116, reproduces the seal with the fuller reading of the legend as in Wagner’s photostat. Shea’s reproduction measures 55 mm. while Wagner’s measures 58 mm. Wagner’s whole photostat is slightly enlarged. Cf. Baldwin, N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 57, note 4 is the same as note 1 on p. 350 of Vol. III, of Pacheco y Cárdenas, Colección de Documentos Inéditos Relativos al Descubrimiento, Conquista y Colonización de las Posesiones Españolas en América y Occeanía (Madrid, 1865); these editors already misread commissariatus for comisarius, and, being unable to read maris ocal., suggested sigillum as the missing word. Before consulting Shea and the 1924 edition of Wagner’s The Spanish Southwest in the N. Y. Public Library for purposes of comparison with the 1937 edition and before lighting upon the better reproduction of the seal the present writer was inclined to read the last word and the abbreviation OC as MARIS OCEANI: of the Ocean Sea.

¹⁷¹ Doc. “A”, p. 59; Doc. “B”, p. 75d; in N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 57–58, however, it follows the Relación.

¹⁷² Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, IX, 255;, incorrectly has August 27.

¹⁷³ Doc. “B”, 75d; Doc. “A”, p. 59, has: a priest, friar, presbyter, and religious, which makes less sense; presbyter and religious is simply a repetition of priest and friar, whereas professed friar and religious tells us something more about Fray Marcos.

¹⁷⁴ Doc. “A”, p. 73; Doc. “B”, pp. 750–75p; N. Mex. Pub. in Hist., I, 58–59; Baldwin, ibid., 32–33 and NMHR, I (1926), 222–223; Hammond and Rey, Narr. of the Coro. Exped., 81–82.

¹⁷⁵ Torquemada, Monarquía Indiana, III, 374 and 517, speaks of him as Fray Martín Sarmiento, a native of Hojocastro; Cuevas, Historia de la Iglesia en México, II, 76, lists him as Fray MartÍn de Sarmiento y Hoja Castro, a native of Calahorra. He was the fifth Commissary General in New Spain, 1543–1547, and the second bishop of Tlascala-Puebla, 1546–1558. According to Ugarte, José Bravo S.J., Diócesis y Obispos de la Iglesia Mexicana, 1519–1939 (Mexico, 1941), 47, he was bishop from 1548 to 1557, when he died.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ NMHR, XV (1940), 131–132.

¹⁷⁷ Bloom-Donnelly, New Mexico History and Civics, 31.