CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI.
In addition to the leading arguments for and against the voyage in question, the following minor points are urged:
It is claimed that the command of such an expedition would not have been given to a foreigner, and Vespucci did not become a naturalized citizen of Spain until 1505. But on the other hand, if Vespucci had rendered no other service to Spain than to have accompanied Ojeda, he would hardly have received so many favors from the government, especially after having served four years under the king of Portugal.
Señor Navarrete finds a difficulty in Vespucci's claim to have brought back to Spain 222 slaves in the few small vessels under his command. Vespucci also speaks of Ferdinand as king of Castile, which it was not customary to do until after Isabella's death.
The high opinion held of Vespucci during his life by Columbus and his zealous friends is of little weight, because the admiral's claim to have discovered the supposed Asiatic continent or islands adjacent thereto was undoubted; but the favorable opinions expressed by later writers, especially by Fernando Colon, writing after America was known to be distinct from Asia, tend to prove that the Florentine made in his lifetime no claim to a voyage in 1497. Yet the publication and circulation of his letter in several languages, uncontradicted for years, would indicate its authenticity, unless it be taken as a sign of carelessness for dates and details so long as they were not supposed to conflict with the admiral's claims. It must also be remembered that the same voyager's second, third, and fourth expeditions have all been disputed and have at last proved authentic.
M. Varnhagen applies to Vespucci and his men the well-known tradition related by Sahagun and others of white men who appeared at Pánuco from the east before the coming of the Spaniards. He also supposes Guerrero, the soldier found by Cortés at Cozumel, and believed by other authors to have been a survivor with Aguilar of Valdivia's shipwreck in 1512, to have been left in Yucatan by Vespucci; but he gives no reason for this belief, except that Guerrero had married among the natives, and had adopted many of their customs. By the same writer it is thought much more likely that Cape Gracias á Dios was named by Vespucci after a long voyage in search of land, than by Columbus after following the coast a few days and taking possession; especially as Columbus in his own letter simply mentions his arrival at the cape, the fact of his having given the name coming from other sources.
The events of the voyage, and the description of the coast visited by Vespucci as given in his letter, furnish no evidence whatever for or against the authenticity of the expedition; but if it be admitted from outside evidence that the voyage was actually made, and was distinct from that of Ojeda, while the narrative has nothing except the occurrence of the name Paria in favor of a South American destination, from it may be gathered the following points in support of the theory that a more northern coast was the one explored. The course sailed from the Canaries, W. ¼ SW.; the time thirty-seven days; the distance 1,000 leagues, taking the distance from Lisbon to the Canaries, 280 leagues, as a scale of measurement; the latitude of the landing 16°, and longitude 75° west of the Canaries; and the arrival by sailing up the coast at a province situated in about 23°, and near the tropic of Cancer, are worthy of consideration, since a series of blunders such as these is hardly probable. The natives of Lariab were of different language from and hostile to the nations passed further south, as the Huastecs of the Pánuco region are known to have been with respect to the Mexicans. Moreover, Lariab has a slight claim to being a Huastec word, since Orozco y Berra gives three names of places in that language containing an l and ending in ab; but of course this would interfere sadly with the theory that Lariab is a misprint of Caria. Vespucci's description of the natives, criticised by Navarrete as incorrect when applied to the people of Paria, agrees better, as M. Varnhagen thinks, with the aborigines of Honduras. Other parts of Vespucci's vague and rambling descriptions apply well enough to the North American coasts, or in fact to any part of tropical America, north or south.
The application of the narrative to North America is not, however, without its difficulties. Vespucci makes no mention of the Antilles, through which his course must have led him; perhaps not seeing them by reason of fog; or he had instructions not to concern himself with what the admiral had already discovered. He also refers to a larger work, never published, in which details were to be given. Neither does he mention the prominent peninsulas of Yucatan and Florida, nor the lofty mountain peaks which he would naturally have seen in following the Mexican coast. He claims to have sailed north-west from Pánuco 870 leagues (over dry land?) to the best harbor in the world. M. Varnhagen's explanation of this difficulty is that Vespucci simply states incidentally that he left Pánuco "tuttavia verso il Maestrale" still toward the north-west, not intending to include in this course the whole voyage of 870 leagues. All the windings of the coast and the entering and leaving of many ports or rivers must be taken into account to make up a distance of 870 leagues between Pánuco and Cape Cañaveral; and the latter port would hardly be considered the 'best harbor in the world' except by a great stretch of the imagination, or by a navigator little acquainted with good harbors. The archipelago of Ity has generally been supposed to be Hayti, but there is probably no reason for the identity beyond the resemblance of names. The Bermudas when discovered in 1522 were uninhabited, but this does not prove that they were always so; the Spaniards may have returned and captured the people for slaves. Indeed the Bermudas may have been the archipelago of San Bernardo, famous for its fierce Carib population, but generally located off the gulf of Urabá. It may even have been named by Vespucci, for on San Bernardo's day, the 20th of August, he was probably there.
Thus have I given, and let me hope without prejudice, the arguments for and against this disputed voyage; and from the evidence the reader may draw his own conclusions. To me the proofs seem conclusive that Vespucci made no voyage to South America prior to 1499, when he accompanied Alonso de Ojeda. Against a North American expedition the evidence, if less conclusive, is still very strong; since the most that can be claimed in its favor is a probability that the Central American coast was visited by some navigator before 1502, and a possibility, though certainly a very slim one, that Vespucci accompanied such navigation.
On this voyage see Navigationum Alberici Vesputii Epitome, in Grynæus, Novus Orbis, pp. 122, 155; Varnhagen, Le Premier Voyage de Vespucci; Id., Vespuce et son Prem. Voy.; also in Société Géog., Bulletin, Jan. and Feb., 1853; Harrisse, Bib. Am. Vet., pp. 58-68, and Additions, pp. xxvii-viii.; Lester and Foster's Life of Vespucius, pp. 93-139; Leben der See-Helden, p. 24; Navarrete, Col. de Viages, tom. iii. pp. 183-241, 291-3, 309-34; Irving's Columbus, vol. iii. pp. 395-418; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. iv. v.; Major's Prince Henry, pp. 370-5; Kerr's Col. Voy., vol. iii. p. 342; Eerste Zee-Togt van Alonso D'Ojeda, en Amerikus Vesputius, in Gottfried, Reysen, tom. iii. p. 38; Cancellieri, Notizie di Colombo, pp. 41-7, 257.