History of Central America, Volume 1, 1501-1530 / The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Volume 6

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

THE DISPUTED VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI.

Besides Vespucci's own statement, in a letter written in 1504, no contemporary document has been found which mentions such an expedition, though most diligent search for such documents has been made in the Spanish archives by partisans and opponents of the Florentine's claim. This absence of confirmatory documents is the more noticeable as the expedition was made under royal patronage. In another and previously written letter describing his second voyage in 1499, Vespucci not only makes no mention of this voyage, but even excuses his long silence by saying that nothing had occurred worth relating. True, a short letter of one Vianello, dated 1506, published by Humboldt, mentions a voyage to which no date is given, made by Vespucci in company with Juan de la Cosa. M. Varnhagen supposes this to have been the voyage in question, and a large river discovered at the time to have been the Mississippi; but, beside the fact that there is no reason for attributing the date of 1497 rather than any other to this voyage, Vianello's letter, with two others, published by Harrisse, indicates a much later date for the expedition with Juan de la Cosa.

Moreover, not only is there a want of original records, but contemporary historians are silent respecting this expedition; the first mention by later writers being a denial of its authenticity when it was thought to conflict with the admiral's claims as discoverer of the continent. Yet, on the supposition of a voyage to the North American coast, there are some passages in the historians Peter Martyr, Oviedo, Gomara, and Herrera, which point more or less definitely to an exploration of the gulf of Honduras before 1502. Peter Martyr, dec. i. cap. vi., writing before 1508, says that many claim to have sailed round Cuba; and later, dec. i. cap. x., he mentions a report that Pinzon and Solis had explored the coast of Honduras, giving, however, no dates. Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. ii. p. 140, says positively that the gulf of Honduras was discovered not by Columbus, but by Pinzon and Solis, and that before the former discovered the Amazon, or the latter the Rio de la Plata, that is to say before 1499. Gomara, Hist. de las Indias, fol. 63, states that Pinzon and Solis are said by some to have explored the coast of Honduras three years before Columbus, which would make it in 1499. Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iv. lib. viii. cap. iii., says that the gulf of Honduras was named Hibueras from the gourds found floating in its waters by the first Spaniards who sailed along the coast. To M. Varnhagen, this it may be random remark of Herrera is proof positive that as Columbus did not enter or name the gulf, he was not the first Spaniard who sailed along the coast. Whatever weight may be attached to these passages from the historians, in proving a voyage to North America previous to that of the admiral, such evidence is manifestly increased by the fact that the date of the voyage attributed to Pinzon and Solis seems to rest entirely on the statement of Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. i. lib. vi. cap. xvi., who describes the expedition with other events under the date of 1506. Yet in the testimony in the lawsuit hereinafter to be mentioned, it is implied, though not expressly stated, that the voyage was after that of Columbus, since special pains was taken by the king to prove the coast explored by Pinzon to be distinct from that discovered by the admiral. Another point is that in this same testimony the name 'Caria' is given to a place visited during Pinzon's voyage, and for this name Vespucci's 'Lariab' may possibly be a misprint.

Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. iv. pp. 59, 267, 272-4, repeatedly states it as an undeniable fact that Vespucci was employed in Spain in fitting out the vessels for the third voyage of Columbus, up to the date of the sailing of the expedition, May 30, 1498, and consequently could not himself have sailed in May or any other month of 1497. He makes this statement on the authority of documents collected by Muñoz. Harrisse, Bib. Am. Vet., p. 57, states, also on the authority of Muñoz, that from April, 1497, to May 30, 1498, Vespucci was "constantly travelling from Seville to San Lúcar." Vespucci is known to have succeeded Juanoto Berardi, who died in December, 1495, in a contract to fit out vessels for the Spanish government, and to have received money on account of that contract on the 12th of January, 1496. Irving, with access to the documents of Muñoz, says that four caravels fitted out by Vespucci sailed February 3, 1496, but were driven back; and he speaks of no evidence of his presence in Spain in 1497 or 1498. Navarrete, relying on the same Muñoz documents—which consist of extracts from the books of expenses of Indian armadas in the Casa de Contratacion in Seville—gives no date to the sailing and wreck of the four vessels mentioned by Irving, but implies that the event took place before Berardi's death. After speaking of the receipt of money on the 12th of January, 1496, he states that Vespucci "went on attending to everything until the armada was despatched from San Lúcar." Col. de Viages, tom. iii. p. 317. He does not state that the fleet thus fitted out was that in which Columbus sailed in 1498. Muñoz in the printed portion of his work is silent on the subject. Varnhagen, Vespuce et son Premier Voy., p. 18, argues that Humboldt had no authority whatever for applying Navarrete's statement respecting the armada despatched from San Lúcar to the admiral's fleet, that statement having probably been his authority, and not the original documents of Muñoz; and that the four vessels whose fitting-out Vespucci personally superintended were much more probably those in which he himself sailed and made the voyage in question. Varnhagen furthermore thinks that the death of Berardi furnished a reasonable motive for the resolution formed by Vespucci to visit the Indies, and a favorable opportunity for carrying out his resolution. If it can be proved that Vespucci was in Spain in 1497 and 1498, of course the question of his claimed voyage admits of no farther discussion; but if Humboldt's only authority be his interpretation of Navarrete's statement, even if the interpretation be not unnatural or improbable, the matter must still be considered doubtful until the original Muñoz documents are produced.

The silence of contemporary documents respecting Vespucci's voyage carries the greater weight from the fact that there are special reasons for the existence of such documents, if the voyage had been actually made. In 1508 a suit was begun by Diego Colon against the Spanish crown for the government of certain territory claimed by virtue of the discovery of Paria by his father, the admiral. The suit continued to 1513, and every effort was made by the crown to prove a previous discovery of the coast in question; hundreds of witnesses were examined, and their testimony has been preserved and published in Navarrete's collection. In this suit Vespucci was not summoned as a witness, although much of the time in royal employ, having held the office of piloto mayor from 1508 to his death in 1512. No claim was advanced for his discovery, although the voyage is stated to have been made under royal patronage, and by proving its authenticity the crown would have gained its object. Indeed, Vespucci's name is only mentioned once in all the testimony, and that as having accompanied Alonso de Ojeda in his voyage of 1499. That no one of the many witnesses examined knew of Vespucci's voyage in 1497, if it were a fact, is hardly possible. Not only were the witnesses silent on the Florentine's expedition, but many of them, including Ojeda, affirmed that Paria was first discovered by Columbus, and next afterward by Ojeda himself. Now as Vespucci accompanied Ojeda, the latter would surely have known of any previous discovery by Vespucci, and as Ojeda was not friendly to Columbus he certainly would have made the fact known. Moreover, the admiral's charts and sailing-directions were followed by Ojeda in his voyage, which would hardly have been done with a skilful pilot like Vespucci on board, and one who had visited the coast before. True, this last point would have little weight if the coast of Paria was not the region visited by Vespucci, while the other points would be little if at all affected by the theory that North America was the coast explored. No other Spanish voyage to the new region was neglected; indeed, to have so completely disregarded Vespucci's expedition, it must be supposed that the king not only knew exactly what region he explored, but had a positive conviction that said region was entirely distinct from Paria; and we have seen that no such definite opinion was held at the time, but on the contrary, special pains was taken to prove that the new regions were "all one coast." When it is considered that Vespucci's voyage, that is the voyage of Pinzon and Solis, was mentioned in the testimony, the failure to summon the piloto mayor appears all the more remarkable. What more efficient witness could have been brought forward? Thus the silence of the testimony in this suit on the question under discussion, must be deemed something more than mere negative proof, as it is termed by M. Varnhagen. This gentleman also notes that only one witness mentions that Vespucci accompanied Ojeda in 1499; but he does not note that the presence of Vespucci on Ojeda's ships was of no importance to either party in the suit, while a previous discovery by him was of the very greatest importance to the crown.

VESPUCCI'S VOYAGE FURTHER CONSIDERED.

The date of sailing from Cádiz is given by different editions of Vespucci's letter as May 10, and May 20, 1497; and of his return as October 1, 15, and 18, 1499. From these dates two difficulties arise; first, the duration of the voyage is stated in the letter to have been eighteen months, while the period between the dates of sailing and return is twenty-nine months; and again, Vespucci is known to have sailed with Ojeda in May, 1499, that is, five months before he returned from the voyage in question. One way of reconciling the first difficulty is to suppose that the author reckoned time by the Florentine method, then common in familiar correspondence, according to which the year began the 25th of March. Then in case of a very natural misprint in the original of May for March, the voyage really began in 1498, its duration being thus reduced to nineteen months. A more simple method of removing both difficulties is to suppose a misprint of 1499 for 1498 as the date of the return; this would reduce the time to seventeen months. Several later editions have made this change. The edition claimed as original by M. Varnhagen has the date 1499 according to his translation, and strangely enough the editor makes no allusion to it in his notes, although in a former pamphlet he speaks of 1498 as the date of the return. I attach very little weight to discrepancies in dates in this relation except as evidence against any intentional deception on the part of Vespucci. Confusion in dates is common in all relations of the period; and Vespucci's letters were written hastily, not for publication, and merely to interest his correspondents by a description of the marvels he had seen in his New World adventures. It may here be stated that the long and bitterly argued question of the rival claims of Vespucci and Columbus in the matter of naming America has no bearing on the present discussion. There is no evidence that the voyage in question had any influence in fixing the name America; and to pronounce this expedition not authentic has no tendency to weaken Vespucci's reputation for honesty, which may now be considered fully established; nor do the arguments against intentional falsification on Vespucci's part tend to prove the voyage authentic.

Several coincidences between the narratives of this voyage and that of Ojeda have led many writers to conclude that both describe the same expedition, the dates having been accidentally or intentionally changed. Humboldt, after a careful examination, was convinced that the two voyages were identical. But when we consider that Humboldt, Navarrete, and Irving formed their conclusions without a suspicion of a voyage to North America, and before that question had ever once arisen; that Navarrete severely criticises Vespucci's narrative as applied to Ojeda's voyage; that two of the strongest coincidences—the mention of Paria as the coast visited, and the discovery of a town built over the water like Venice—have no weight in view of the new theory, since the province is called Lariab in the original edition, and that method of building was not uncommon in all the tropical regions of America, it must be admitted that this argument has by itself little force against the authenticity of Vespucci's voyage.

The right granted to private individuals by the Spanish government in April, 1495, to make voyages of discovery at their own expense, subject to certain regulations, was partially revoked in June, 1497, after Vespucci's claimed departure. All authorities agree that during this time such private voyages, or even clandestine expeditions, may have been and probably were made, of which no records have been preserved. It is argued that Vespucci's voyage may have been of this number, although claimed to have been made under royal patronage, and by no means clandestine. It is even suggested that the revocation of the right of private navigation, brought about by the influence of Columbus, was purposely delayed until after Vespucci's departure—all of which proves, if it proves anything, simply that there was nothing to prevent Vespucci from making the voyage.

We have seen how certain statements of the old chroniclers may be taken as indicative of a voyage along the Central American coast previous to that of Columbus. There are also similar indications in some of the early maps. Thus Juan de la Cosa's map representing Cuba as an island in 1500 (see [page 115] this volume) might be accounted for by such a voyage as Vespucci claims to have made. It will be seen hereafter that early maps show some slight traces of a knowledge of Florida before its discovery in 1512 ([pp. 128-9] this vol.) In the Ruysch map of 1508 ([p. 126] this vol.) the eastern coast of what seems to be Cuba is identified by M. Varnhagen with the main-land; in his opinion the inscription at the north point of that coast refers directly to Vespucci's expedition, and 'Cape S. Marci' at the southern point may indicate Vespucci's arrival on Saint Mark's day, especially as his uncle was a priest of the order of St Mark. If this appears somewhat far-fetched, perhaps more weight should be attached to the name 'Cape Doffin de Abril' on the southern point of what may be Florida on the Ptolemy map of 1513 ([p. 130] this vol.), for at the end of April Vespucci may, according to his narrative, have been at that point. On this matter of an early voyage it may be noted that Columbus, striking the coast at Guanaja Island in 1502 in search of a passage westward, instead of following westward, as he naturally would have done, at least to the head of the gulf of Honduras, turned directly east. A knowledge on his part that Vespucci had already explored westward and northward without finding a passage, would account for his actions. But they have already been satisfactorily accounted for by the fact that he simply proposed to sail along the sinuosities of the supposed southern coasts of Asia to India, rather than to penetrate any intervening continent, whose existence he did not suspect.