There is no official record of the voyage he claimed to have made in 1497-1498, and historians are silent as to his actions, in fact, during the period between 1496 and 1504. This signifies little, according to the historian Gomara, who says: "Learning that the territories which Columbus had discovered were very extensive, many persons proceeded to continue the exploration of them. Some went at their own expense, others at that of the king, all thinking to enrich themselves, to acquire honor, and to gain the royal approbation. But, as most of these persons did nothing but discover, memorials of them all have not come to my knowledge, especially of those who went in the direction of Paria, from the year 1495 to the year 1500."
Some writers have sought to "establish an alibi" by showing that Vespucci was in Spain throughout the period which, he says, was passed by him at sea, on this "first" voyage; but they have not been successful in doing so. Some, again, have declared that the narrative of the "four" voyages, beginning in May, 1497, was made up of that on which Vespucci certainly sailed with Ojeda, in May, 1499. "The points of resemblance"—as the reader may see for himself—"are so many and so striking as to seem not only conclusive, but to preclude any other theory," says Alexander Humboldt, who, in his Examen Critique, made an exhaustive research into the Vespucci letters. Humboldt completely vindicated the character of Vespucci, leaving no shade of doubt upon his integrity, but he did not unravel the mystery.
How happens it that Vespucci could make a voyage of which no record exists or was ever known to exist? Why did he not mention the names of the fleet's commander? Why do his descriptions of scenery and people so closely resemble those of scenery and people seen on the second voyage? He alludes several times to his forthcoming book, The Four Voyages (Quattro Giornate); but no trace has ever been found of that book, while the fragmentary letters to his "patrons," Soderini and Francesco de Medici, have survived to the present day.
Men of the keenest acumen and perfectly equipped for historical research, such as Humboldt, Irving, and Navarrete, have devoted themselves to the solution of this problem, but without complete success. The first and the last named have cleared his name from the aspersions of centuries; the second and third, in their endeavors to magnify Columbus by belittling Vespucci, have not convinced posterity that the Florentine was a liar and a villain. He was neither one nor the other; and that he was far more humane than his friend Columbus has been amply shown in his treatment of the Indians. He and his companions made a few slaves; they attacked the cannibals in behalf of rival natives; but they did not, in their lust for gold, put Indians to the torture, enslave whole tribes and communities, and commit massacres.
Vespucci's character is comparatively free from the stain of blood-guiltiness; from his dealings with men at all times, we infer him upright and honorable; yet he rests under a cloud of suspicion, because that so-called first voyage, which he says he took in 1497-1498, cannot be explained. Suspicion also attaches to his name because it was chosen as an appellation for the New World, which Columbus was the means of revealing to Europe; but for this (as will be shown in a succeeding chapter) he was not accountable.
Professor Fiske, following Vespucci's ardent defender, the Viscount Varnhagen, deduces from the vague generalizations in this letter that the voyage was made chiefly along the Honduras, Yucatan, Mexican, and Florida coasts, as far north, perhaps, as Chesapeake Bay. The cannibals attacked by the Spaniards were found, he says, in the Bermudas—where no Indians were ever seen, so far as known, and no cannibals inhabit, save, perhaps, the great Shakespeare's "Caliban." He accounts for the lost voyage by declaring that it may have been taken with Pinzon and Solis, who were said to have been on the coast of Honduras in 1506. There is no certainty as to that date, and the voyage may as well have been made in 1497-1498, as indirectly shown by a passage in Oviedo's history, as follows: "Some persons have attributed the discovery of the bay of Honduras to Don Christopher Columbus, the first admiral; but this is not true, for it was discovered by the pilots Vicente Yañez Pinzon, Juan Diaz de Solis, and Pedro de Ledesma, with three caravels; and that was before Vicente Yañez had discovered the river Amazon."
The Amazon and a portion of the Brazil coast were discovered by Pinzon in January, 1500; and as the historian has proved to his own satisfaction that the gallant Vicente Yañez was in Spain during the years 1505 and 1506, it is probable that Oviedo is right. It is also probable, or at least possible, that Vespucci was with Pinzon on that Honduras voyage as consulting navigator, having been sent by the king, as he says, to "assist," in his capacity of astronomer and cosmographer. In this capacity, in fact, he went on all his voyages, for he rarely, if ever, held command. Captains, commanders, chief mates, and admirals there might be in plenty, but such a pilot and navigator as Vespucci was hard to find.
It is not unreasonable to presume that they were together, for the one was a skilful sailor, the other a great navigator, and both renowned for their hardihood and daring. King Ferdinand had no more loyal servants than these two, and as they had served him faithfully in their respective professions, the one on land, the other at sea, and inasmuch as both were intimately acquainted with Columbus and his plans, it was like the crafty old king to send them off to scour the seas his exacting "Admiral" claimed to control. Thereafter—whether Pinzon and Vespucci sailed together or not—their voyages alternated along the coast of South America, first one and then the other, and in 1505-1506 an expedition was actually projected, in which the king intended both should share. It did not sail, because the Portuguese objected, as its object was the exploration of the Brazilian coast south of the Tropic of Capricorn, to all which the great rivals of the Spaniards then made claim.
A seeming confirmation of this voyage is found in the map Juan de la Cosa made, in the year 1500, after he had been in company with Ojeda and Vespucci to the coast of pearls. He was with Columbus, in 1494, when the Admiral forced all his men to swear that Cuba was, to the best of their belief, part of the Asian continent. Yet, within six years, La Cosa depicts it on his map as an island—and that was before Ocampo had proved it one, by sailing around it, in 1508. It is thought that La Cosa obtained his information as to the insular character of Cuba from Vespucci, when they voyaged together on the coast of Terra Firma, which we now know as the northern shores of South America.
Admitting, still, the critics say, that Vespucci made the voyage he claimed, with Pinzon or with some one else, in 1497-1498, how does that affect the claim of Columbus? It does not affect it at all, for, though Vespucci may have discovered the continent a few months previous to his rival—and he never put forth the claim that he did so—Columbus, by his voyages of 1492 and 1493, led the way thither. If Vespucci, as some have asserted, claimed to have sailed in 1497, in order to establish a priority of discovery, he did it in a very bungling manner, and at a time when it might easily have been refuted, so many of his companions were then living. Besides, though his name was bestowed upon the newly discovered continent—perhaps as a consequence of the writing of this very letter—it was done without his knowledge and without the remotest suggestion of such a thing from him. This should be made clear: that Amerigo Vespucci had no thought of depriving his friend, Christopher Columbus, of a single leaf of his laurels, hard-won and well-deserved as he knew them to be.