Peter Martyr, whose hand falls willingly on all whom he suspects of intrigue, whether correctly or incorrectly, has only words of praise for Vespucius, à propos of his knowledge of nautical astronomy and of the art of navigation.
Ramusio, who employed thirty-four years of his life (1523-1557) in preparing and publishing his great collection of travels, and knew how to wither with his indignation all who enviously cavilled at Columbus, [Footnote 229] speaks five times in terms of high esteem, "of that high intelligence, of the excellent Florentine endowed with such fair genius, il signor Amerigo Vespucio."
[Footnote 229: Those who maintained that Columbus had stolen the knowledge of the New World from a pilot who died in his house. Oviedo echoed this calumnious report. (History of the West-Indies, 1535.)]
But a discordant voice arose. Michel Servet, in re-editing the geography of Ptolemaeus at Lyons (1535, 1541,) says severe things of Americus, but not without making mistakes. "Columbus," he says, "discovered during a new voyage the continent and many more islands, of which the Spaniards are now completely masters. They then are totally misled who would call this continent America, since Americus never touched it until long after Columbus, and since he went there not with the Spaniards, but with the Portuguese, and to make trade."
Without pausing to notice details, we will confine ourselves to the morality of Vespucius which the author does not attack. He only blames those who invented the name of America. [Footnote 230]
[Footnote 230: M. Von Humboldt, vol. iv. p. 137, note, corrects Servet's inaccuracies. Vespucius made a voyage for Spain with Hojeda in 1499. It was assuredly not in the character of a merchant, but probably of an astronomer. A striking circumstance! this edition of 1535 contains after all the map of 1522, bearing the name of Americus.]
To this accusation, such as it is, the History of India, by Gomara, (1551,) answered contemptuously: "There are persons who enjoy blackening Alberico Vespucio's reputation, as may be seen by some editions of Ptolemaeus in Lyons."
Now, having seen the proofs drawn from those who have spoken, let us look at the counter-proofs of those who have not spoken—a testimony not without significance.
Witness, for example, Oviedo, who systematically cries down Christopher Columbus. He is silent as to the supposed pretension of Vespucius to priority in the discovery of the mainland. Is it to be supposed that, if the Florentine had actually claimed this honor, Oviedo would not have taken him under his protection, and used his claim to make a breach in a reputation that annoyed him?