The learned have disputed over the matter for a century, and no less than five islands of the Bahama group have had their advocates. This is not the fault of Columbus, albeit we only have an abstract of his journal. The island is there fully and clearly described, and courses and distances are given thence to Cuba, which furnish data for fixing the landfall with precision. Here it is not a case for the learning and erudition of Navarretes, Humboldts, and Varnhagens. It is a sailor's question. If the materials from the journal were placed in the hands of any midshipman in her Majesty's navy, he would put his finger on the true landfall within half an hour. When sailors took the matter in hand, such as Admiral Becher, of the Hydrographic Office, and Lieut. Murdoch, of the United States navy, they did so.
Our lamented associate, Mr. R. H. Major, read a paper on this interesting subject on May 8, 1871, in which he proved that Watling's Island was the Guanahani, or San Salvador, of Columbus. He did so by two lines of argument—the first being the exact agreement between the description of Guanahani, in the journal of Columbus, and Watling's Island, a description which can not be referred to any other island in the Bahama group; and the second being a comparison of the maps of Juan de la Cosa and of Herrera with modern charts. He showed that out of twenty-four islands on the Herrera map of 1600, ten retain the same names as they then had, thus affording stations for comparison; and the relative bearings of these ten islands lead us to the accurate identification of the rest. The shapes are not correct, but the relative bearings are, and the Guanahani of the Herrera map is thus identified with the present Watling's Island. Mr. Major, by careful and minute attention to the words of the journal of Columbus, also established the exact position of the first anchorage as having been a little to the west of the southeast point of Watling's Island.
I can not leave the subject of Mr. Major's admirable paper without expressing my sense of the loss sustained by comparative geography when his well-known face, so genial and sympathetic, disappeared from among us. The biographer of Prince Henry the Navigator, Major did more than any other Englishman of this century to bring the authentic history of Columbus within the reach of his countrymen. His translations of the letters of the illustrious Genoese, and the excellent critical essay which preceded them, are indispensable to every English student of the history of geographical discovery who is not familiar with the Spanish language, and most useful even to Spanish scholars. His knowledge of the history of cartography, his extensive and accurate scholarship, and his readiness to impart his knowledge to others, made him a most valuable member of the council of this society, and one whose place is not easy to fill; while there are not a few among the Fellows who, like myself, sincerely mourn the loss of a true and warmhearted friend.
When we warmly applauded the close reasoning and the unassailable conclusions of Major's paper, we supposed that the question was at length settled; but as time went on, arguments in favor of other islands continued to appear, and an American in a high official position even started a new island, contending that Samana was the landfall. But Fox's Samana and Varnhagen's Mayaguana must be ruled out of court without further discussion, for they both occur on the maps of Juan de la Cosa and Herrera, on which Guanahani also appears. It is obvious that they can not be Guanahani and themselves at the same time; and it is perhaps needless to add that they do not answer to the description of Guanahani by Columbus, and meet none of the other requirements.
On this occasion it may be well to identify the landfall by another method, and thus furnish some further strength to the arguments which ought to put an end to the controversy. Major established the landfall by showing the identity between the Guanahani of Columbus and Watling's Island, and by the evidence of early maps. There is still another method, which was adopted by Lieut. Murdoch, of the United States navy, in his very able paper. Columbus left Guanahani and sailed to his second island, which he called Santa Maria de la Concepcion; and he gives the bearing and distance. He gives the bearing and distance from this second island to the north end of a third, which he called Fernandina. He gives the length of Fernandina. He gives the bearing and distance from the south end of Fernandina to a fourth island named Isabella, from Isabella to some rocks called Islas de Arena, and from Islas de Arena to Cuba.
It is obvious that if we trace these bearings and distances backward from Cuba, they will bring us to an island which must necessarily be the Guanahani, or San Salvador, of Columbus. This is the sailor's method: On October 27th, when Columbus sighted Cuba at a distance of 20 miles, the bearing of his anchorage at sunrise of the same day, off the Islas de Arena, was N. E. 58 miles, and from the point reached in Cuba it was N. E. 75 miles. The Ragged Islands are 75 miles from Cuba, therefore the Islas de Arena of Columbus are identified with the Ragged Islands of modern charts. The Islas de Arena were sighted when Columbus was 56 miles from the south end of Fernandina, and E.N.E. from Isabella. These bearings show that Fernandina was Long Island, and that Isabella was Crooked Island, of modern charts. Fernandina was 20 leagues long N. N. W. and S. S. E.; Long Island is 20 leagues long N. N. W. and S. S. E. Santa Maria de la Concepcion was several miles east of the north end of Fernandina, but in sight. Rum Cay is several miles east of the north end of Long Island, but in sight. Rum Cay is, therefore, the Santa Maria of Columbus. San Salvador, or Guanahani, was 21 miles N. W. from Santa Maria de la Concepcion. Watling's Island is 21 miles N. W. from Rum Cay; Watling's Island is, therefore, proved to be the San Salvador, or Guanahani, of Columbus.
The spot where Columbus first landed in the New World is the eastern end of the south side of Watling's Island. This has been established by the arguments of Major, and by the calculations of Murdoch, beyond all controversy. The evidence is overwhelming. Watling's Island answers to every requirement and every test, whether based on the Admiral's description of the island itself, on the courses and distances thence to Cuba, or on the evidence of early maps. We have thus reached a final and satisfactory conclusion, and we can look back on that momentous event in the world's history with the certainty that we know the exact spot on which it occurred—on which Columbus touched the land when he sprang from his boat with the standard waving over his head.[48]
The discoveries of Columbus during his first voyage, as recorded in his journal, included part of the north coast of Cuba, and the whole of the north coast of Española. The journal shows the care with which the navigation was conducted, how observations for latitude were taken, how the coasts were laid down—every promontory and bay receiving a name—and with what diligence each new feature of the land and its inhabitants was examined and recorded. The genius of Columbus would not have been of the same service to mankind if it had not been combined with great capacity for taking trouble, and with habits of order and accuracy. In considering the qualities of the great Genoese as a seaman and an explorer, we can not fail to be impressed with this accuracy, the result of incessant watchfulness and of orderly habits. Yet it is his accuracy which has been called in question by some modern writers, on the ground of passages in his letters which they have misinterpreted, or failed to understand. In every instance the blunder has not been committed by Columbus, but by his critics.
The Admiral's letters do not show him to be either careless or inaccurate. On the contrary, they bear witness to his watchfulness, to his methodical habits, and to his attention to details; although at the same time they are full of speculations, and of the thoughts which followed each other so rapidly in his imaginative brain. It was, indeed, the combination of these two qualities, of practical and methodical habits of thought with a vivid imagination, which constituted his genius—a combination as rare as it is valuable. It created the thoughts which conceived the great discovery, as well as the skill and ability which achieved it.
Unfortunately, the journals and charts of Columbus are lost. But we have the full abstract of the journal of his first voyage, made by Las Casas, we have his letters and dispatches, and we have the map of his discoveries, except those made during his last voyage, drawn by his own pilot and draughtsman, Juan de la Cosa. We are thus able to obtain a sufficient insight into the system on which his exploring voyages were conducted, and into the sequence in which his discoveries followed each other. This is the point of view from which the labors of the Admiral are most interesting to geographers. The deficient means at the disposal of a navigator in the end of the fifteenth century increase the necessity for a long apprenticeship. It is much easier to become a navigator with the aid of modern instruments constructed with extreme accuracy, and with tables of logarithms, nautical almanacs, and admiralty charts. With ruder appliances Columbus and his contemporaries had to trust far more to their own personal skill and watchfulness, and to ways of handling and using such instruments as they possessed, which could only be acquired by constant practice and the experience of a lifetime. Even then, an insight and ability which few men possess were required to make such a navigator as Columbus.