Andrea Bianco,[4] in the library of St. Mark, bearing the date of 1436,
is laid down a large extent of land, five or six hundred leagues west of
Gibraltar, above which is written the word “Antillia.” With reference to
this subject, Martin Behaim, on his globe of 1492, says, “In the year
734, after the conquest of Spain by the Mahometans, this island Antillia
was discovered and settled by an archbishop from Oporto, who fled to
it in ships with six other bishops and other Christian men and women.
They built there seven towns, from which circumstance it has also been
called Septem Citade, the island of the seven cities. In the year 1414 a
Spanish vessel came very near to it.” Of the island of S. Brandan also,
which is laid down on charts of the fourteenth century, Behaim says, “In
the year 565, Saint Brandan, an Irish bishop, arrived with his vessel on
this island, saw there most wonderful things, and returned afterwards
to his country.” Another of these fancied islands in the Atlantic was
the island of Brazil. So strong was the belief in the existence of these
islands, that we find it stated by Pedro de Ayala, a Spanish envoy in
England writing to the sovereigns in 1498, that the Bristol men had sent
out every year from 1491 (before Columbus’s first great discovery) to
1497, two, three, or four caravels every year in search of the islands of
Brazil and the seven cities, at the instigation of John Cabot.
The following passage occurs in Sir John Barrow’s _Chronological History
of Voyages in the Arctic Regions_, which, if it stated a defensible
truth, would present another claim, anterior to that of Columbus, to the
discovery of America. The passage is headed “Cortereals, 1500”;—
“The Portuguese, not content with having discovered a route to India, by
sailing round the tempestuous extremity to Africa, soon after engaged
in an equally dangerous enterprise: that of finding a route to India
and the Spice Islands, by sailing westward round the northern extremity
of America. This bold undertaking was reserved for the CORTEREALS, the
enlightened disciples of the school of Sagres. The first navigator of the
name of Cortereal, who engaged in this enterprise, was John Vaz Costa
Cortereal, a gentleman of the household of the infant Dom Fernando, who,
accompanied by Alvaro Martens Homem, explored the northern seas, by order
of king Affonso the Fifth, and discovered the _Terra de Baccalhaos_
(the land of cod fish), afterwards called Newfoundland. This voyage is
mentioned by Cordeiro,[5] but he does not state the exact date, which
however is ascertained to have been in 1463 or 1464; for, in their return
from the discovery of Newfoundland, or Terra Nova, they touched at the
island of Terceira, the captaincy of which island having become vacant by
the death of Jacomo Bruges, they solicited the appointment, and in reward
for their services the request was granted, their patent commission
being dated in Evora, 2nd April, 1464.”
It will be seen by the wording of this passage, that Sir John Barrow has
fallen into the inaccuracy of asserting that, in 1463 or 1464, Cortereal
was engaged in the enterprise of finding a route to India and the Spice
Islands by sailing westward round the northern extremities of America.
We must presume that the Portuguese were aware of the existence of the
American continent, before they could conceive the idea of sailing
westward round its northern extremity. The patent commission of the
appointment of Cortereal and Homem to the government of Terceira does
not specify that the service for which it was granted, was the discovery
of Newfoundland; and, moreover, at the end of Faria y Sousa’s _Asia
Portuguesa_, there is a list of all the armadas which sailed from Lisbon
on voyages of discovery between 1412 and 1640, and this expedition is
passed by in silence; so that the validity of the whole statement hangs
on the authority of Cordeiro: but the account is altogether so extremely
improbable, from the very silence of Portuguese writers of the time on
so important a subject, as to leave Cortereal but small chance of a
successful rivalry with Sebastian Cabot.[6]
The last on the list of those who have been said to precede Columbus in
the discovery of America is a Polish pilot, named John Szkolny, whose
name has been erroneously Latinized by Hornius, Zurla, Malte Brun,
Wytfliet, and Pontanus, “Scolvus,” or “Sciolvus.” He was in the service
of Christian II of Denmark in the year 1476. He is said to have landed
on the coast of Labrador, after having passed along Norway, Greenland,
and the Friseland of the Zeni. Upon this subject Von Humboldt thus
expresses himself: “I cannot hazard any opinion upon the statement made
to this effect by Wytfliet, Pontanus, and Horn. A country seen _after_
Greenland may, from the direction indicated, have been Labrador. I am,
however, surprised to find that Gomara, who published his _Historia de
las Indias_ at Saragossa, in 1553, was cognizant even at that time of
this Polish pilot. It is possible that when the codfishery began to bring
the seamen of southern Europe into more frequent connexion with those
of the north, a suspicion may have arisen that the land seen by Szkolny
must have been the same as that visited by John Sebastian Cabot in 1497,
and by Gaspar Cortereal in 1500. Gomara says what is in other respects
not quite correct, _that the English took much pleasure in frequenting
the coast of Labrador, for they found the latitude and climate the same
as that of their native land, and the men of Norway have been there with
the pilot, John Scolvo, as well as the English with Sebastian Cabot_.
Let us not forget that Gomara makes no mention of the Polish pilot with
reference to the question of the predecessors of Columbus, though he is
malignant enough to assert that it is in fact impossible to say to whom
the discovery of the New Indies is due.”[7]
In the American Philosophical Transactions for 1786, is a letter
addressed to Dr. Franklin by Mr. Otto of New York, in which he not only
asserts that the illustrious cosmographer Martin Behaim discovered
the Azores, but quotes a passage, from what he calls an authentic
record, preserved in the archives of Nuremberg, the tenor of which is
as follows:—“Martin Behem, traversing the Atlantic Ocean for several
years, examined the American Islands, and discovered the strait which
bears the name of Magellan, before either Christopher Columbus or
Magellan navigated those seas; and even mathematically delineated on
a geographical chart for the king of Lusitania, the situation of the
coast around every part of that famous and renowned strait.” He also
quotes passages from the _Nuremberg Chronicle_, and from Cellarius,
in confirmation of this statement. Don Cristóbal Cladera, in his
_Investigaciones Historicas_, says that, in order to refute these
statements, he procured from Nuremberg a description of Behaim’s globe,
together with historical notes on the life and family of that geographer,
and upon examining these and the unpublished works of the Academia de
las Ciencias de Lisboa, he became convinced that the observations of
Mr. Otto were totally unfounded; and De Murr, who has well investigated
the question, assures us that the passage quoted by Mr. Otto from the
_Nuremberg Chronicle_ was not to be found in the German translation of
that work by George Alt in 1493. Moreover, the real globe of Behaim,
made in 1492, does not contain any of the islands or shores of the New
World; a fact which sets at rest the two questions of Behaim’s earlier
discovery, or of Columbus gaining his information from Behaim.[8]
From the series of evidences contained in the preceding accounts, the
fact that America had been visited by European adventurers before the
time of Columbus is rendered too certain to admit of contradiction even
from the most sanguine advocate of the glory of the great discoverer.
But, on the other side, it cannot be denied that the discovery of
Columbus, however much later in date, deserves the meed of highest
honour, as being the result of sagacity, judgment and indomitable
perseverance, and as having been carried on with an energetic endeavour
to bring into active operation the incalculable advantages which it
opened up to the world at large. To vindicate the correctness of this
statement, it will be well to give a brief sketch of his eventful life,
and to pourtray as briefly as we may the high qualities to which, far
more than to accidental circumstances, the glory of this great discovery
is due. The retrospect of his history will at the same time shew, that
while every previous discovery was attributable to accident, the greater
portion of the accidental or uncontrollable circumstances in the life of
Columbus were such as, instead of assisting him, tended to thwart him at
every step of his painful career.
It is generally agreed that his father was a wool weaver or carder. There
is reason, however, to presume that though his parentage was humble, he
was descended from a family of consideration. On this subject his son,
Don Ferdinand, denies[9] with great indignation an assertion which occurs
in a curious life of the admiral, inserted in the “_Psaltertium Octuplex
Augustin Justiniani_,” Genoa, 1516, folio, under the comments on the
nineteenth psalm, that he was “vilibus ortus parentibus,” and complains
that he is falsely called a mechanic.
The date of his birth is a “vexata quæstio,” which it would be well
that we should here examine. For settling a disputed question of the
kind no process seems so sure as the comparing of statements made by
the same individual, if he be a good authority, at different times and
under different circumstances. The following are two statements made
by Columbus himself at entirely different periods and in an entirely
different shape, and yet both having the same result. They are recorded
by his son, Fernando, in the Biography of his father, and are as follows:
“In his book of his first voyage [1492] he says, ‘I was upon the sea
twenty-three years without being off it any time worth the speaking
of, and I saw all the East and all the West, and may say towards the
North or England, and have been at Guinea. Yet I never saw harbours for
goodness like those of the West Indies,’ and a little further he says,
‘That he took to the sea at fourteen years of age and ever after followed
it.’” Now we know for certain that he escaped from Lisbon and came to
Andalusia at the close of 1484; that during his stay in Portugal he had
made many voyages to Guinea, but that from 1484 until his first great
voyage in 1492 he was engaged, not at sea, but in endeavouring to secure
the interest of the Spanish sovereigns in his important project. If then
we add his twenty-three years of almost constant sea-going to fourteen,
his age when he first went to sea, we have thirty-seven years to deduct
from 1484, and we find 1447 to be the date of his birth. Again in 1501,
many years later, he writes to the Spanish sovereigns as follows: “I
went to sea very young and have continued it to this day; ... it is
now forty years that I have been sailing to all those parts at present
frequented.” What “very young” meant he had already told us; viz., 14,
which added to 40 makes 54; and this total deducted from 1501, the date
at which he writes, leaves the same date for his birth as that resulting
from his former statement, viz., 1447. But for the sake of attaining as
near to accuracy as possible, we must not overlook another statement made
in 1503 by Columbus himself in his letter to Ferdinand and Isabella,
describing his fourth voyage. He there says “I was twenty-eight years
old when I came into Your Highnesses service, and now I have not a hair
upon me that is not grey.” It was in 1484 that he went to Spain, and
then, as we have seen, terminated those three-and-twenty years of almost
uninterrupted sea-faring life of which he speaks. Now, if he were then
only eight-and-twenty, he must have first gone to sea at the age of
five instead of fourteen, as he himself informs us. Moreover, by that
reckoning he would have been only fifty when he died, in 1506, an age
entirely incompatible with the statement of Bernaldez, the Cura de los
Palacios, who knew Columbus so well, that he died _in senectute bonâ_, at
the age of seventy, more or less. It is intelligible that such a remark
should be made of a man of sixty, who had passed through hardships so
exhausting to the mind and body as those which had marked the life of
Columbus, but scarcely even of him at the age of fifty. It is clear,
then, that a mistake has been made in this number 28, but if for it we
write 38, it will make the date of Columbus’s birth to be 1446. We have,
however, to bear in mind that the two statements previously made by him
were of a very general character, in which no month or part of a year was
specified. It would therefore seem that, on his own showing, we shall
be safe in placing the date of his birth 1446-47, which agrees with the
inference of the learned and judicious Muñoz, who places it “por los años
1446,” although he does not show the process by which he arrives at his
conclusion.
With respect to the birthplace of our illustrious navigator, were we
to enter into the complex discussions of those who, with different
arguments of more or less plausibility, place it in Genoa, Nervi, Savona,
Pradello, Cogoleto, Quinto, Bogliasco, Albisola, Chiavara, Oneglia, or
the castle of Cuccaro in Monferrato,—we should but launch upon a sea of
difficulties, with little hope of a successful voyage. It is difficult to
withhold credence from the strong assertion made twice by Columbus in his
will, dated 22nd February 1498, that he was born in the city of Genoa;
namely,—“I, being a native of Genoa”; and “I desire my said son Diego,
or the person who may succeed to the said inheritance, always to keep
and maintain one person of our lineage in the city of Genoa ... because
from thence I came, and there I was born.”[10] But in like manner we know
that Leonardo, who was born at Vinci, persisted in calling himself a
Florentine.
Having early evinced a strong inclination for the study of geography,
geometry, and astronomy, Columbus found at the college of Pavia an
excellent opportunity of gaining a more than superficial acquaintance
with the principles of those sciences, and at the same time acquired
considerable proficiency in the Latin language. The maritime position
and commercial engagements of his native city doubtless suggested and
fostered much of that propensity for a nautical life, that he exhibited
at so early an age; and although it appears from several historians
that for a short time he worked at his father’s trade, yet this must
have been simply during his earliest boyhood, for by his own account he
commenced the life of a mariner at fourteen years of age. The piratical
character of the sea-faring life of those days necessarily exposed its
followers to unceasing hardships and dangers, and the severity of this
early discipline must have most materially tended to render available and
permanent those distinguished qualities which have subsequently gained
for him the admiration of the world: indeed, no career could have been
better calculated to develope his peculiar genius, or add fuel to those
enthusiastic aspirations which characterised him to the close of his life.
From the period of his going to sea, which was about the year 1460 until
the year 1472, we meet with no distinct mention of his name; although
in a letter written by him to their Majesties, in 1495, he says: “_It
happened to me that king Réné (whom God has taken to himself) sent me to
Tunis to capture the galley Fernandina, and on arriving at the island
of San Pedro, in Sardinia, I learned that there were two ships and a
caracca with the galley, which so alarmed the crew that they resolved
to proceed no further, but to return to Marseilles for another vessel
and more people; upon which, being unable to force their inclination,
I yielded to their wish, and having first changed the points of the
compass, spread all sail, for it was evening, and at daybreak we were
within the cape of Carthagena, while all believed for a certainty that
they were going to Marseilles._” The date of this occurrence is unknown,
but the expedient of Columbus to alter the point of the needle, reminds
us of his subsequent stratagem, of altering his reckoning, to appease his
discontented crew during his first great voyage of discovery.
In the year 1472, however, we have evidence of his having been in Savona,
from the fact of his signature having been found appended to the will
of one Nicolò Monleone, under date of the 20th March of that year. The
document is preserved in Savona, among the notarial archives.
In 1474 we find his name mentioned in a letter addressed by Ferdinand
king of Sicily to Louis king of France, the title of which runs thus:
“_Literæ à Ferdinando Rege Siciliæ ad Ludovicum XI, Galliæ Regem, per
Fæcialem missæ, quibus quæritur, quod Christophorus Columbus triremes
suas deprædatus sit, postulatque sibi ablata restitui. Datum in Terra
Fogiæ die 8 Decembr. 1474._” Then follows a letter in five lengthy
clauses, in which it is stated that the said vessels were attacked and
taken:—“_A Columbo, qui quibusdam navibus præest, Majestatis vestræ
subdito._”
The title of Louis’s reply runs thus: “_Responsio Ludovici XI quibus
promittit restitutionem, excusat tamen Columbum, quod jus sit in Oceano
capere naves ab hostilibus terris venientes et saltem bona hostium
inde auferre._” These letters are given by Leibnitz, in his _Codex
Juris Gentium Diplomaticus, Prodromus_, art. 16 and 17; but on the
correction of Nicolas Toinard, he acknowledges, in the preface to his
_Mantissa Codicis_, that he had erroneously inserted the Christian name
“Christophorus.”
Toinard’s correction went to shew that Leibnitz had confounded the name
of Guillaume de Caseneuve, surnamed Coulomp, Coulon, or Colon, as the
Spaniards called him, with that of the illustrious discoverer. This
acknowledgment by Leibnitz of his error might seem to render useless any
reference to the letters in question; but as Christopher Columbus is
stated by his son, Don Ferdinand, to have been of the same family as the
pirate here mentioned, and also to have been engaged at sea with him and
his nephew, it becomes interesting to examine what record exists of these
illustrious pirates, and to see how far the assertion of Don Ferdinand
bears the semblance of correctness. This Caseneuve, or Colon, is called
by Duclos, in speaking of the very circumstance which occasioned these
letters, in his _Histoire de Louis XI_, “_Vice-Amiral de France, et le
plus grand homme de mer de son temps._” And Zurita, in his _Libro 19 de
los Anales de Aragon_, calls him, “_Colon, capitan de la Armada del Rey
de Francia_.” Garnier, in his _Histoire de France_, thus relates the
circumstance: “_Guillaume de Casenove, Vice-Amiral de Normandie, connu
dans notre histoire sous le nom d’Amiral Coulon, s’était rendu formidable
sur toutes les mers de l’Europe, où il exerçait le métier d’armateur:
dans une de ses courses il s’empara de deux riches frégates chargées
pour le compte des plus riches négocians de Naples, de Florence, et de
plusieurs autres villes d’Italie, qui tout sollicitèrent vivement la
restitution de cette importante prise._”
Another exploit, in which this Colon was successfully engaged, was the
taking of eighty Dutch ships returning from the herring fishery, in
the Baltic, in 1479. Again, another sea-fight related by Marc Antonio
Sabelico, in the eighth book of his tenth Decade, is quoted by Don
Fernando, where Columbus the younger (described by Sabelico as the
nephew, but by Zurita as Francis, the son of the famous corsair),
intercepted, between Lisbon and Cape St. Vincent, four richly laden
Venetian galleys, on their return from Flanders. Fernando further asserts
that his father (Christopher) was present in this engagement, and that
after a desperate contest, which lasted from morning till evening,
the hand-grenades and other fiery missiles used in the battle, caused
a general conflagration among the vessels, which having been lashed
together with iron grapplings, could not be separated, and the crews
were compelled to leap into the water to escape the fire. He then goes
on to say that “his father, who was a good swimmer, finding himself at
the distance of two leagues from the land, seized an oar, and by its aid
succeeded in reaching the shore. Whereupon, learning that he was not
far from Lisbon, where he knew he should find many natives of Genoa,
he went thither, and meeting with a gratifying reception, took up his
abode in that city.” The engagement here described is shown by various
French historians to have taken place in 1485, and as it is certain
that Columbus was in Lisbon prior to 1474 (for in that year he has a
letter addressed to him in that city by Paolo Toscanelli, in reply to one
written by himself from the same place), this relation by Don Ferdinand
assumes a very apocryphal aspect.
With respect to his other statement, that his father was of the same name
and family as these two renowned corsairs, it is to be remarked that
neither he nor any of the subsequent historians who have claimed this
needless honour for the great discoverer, appears to have been acquainted
with the real name of the pirates; and as Caseneuve was the strict family
name of the latter, and Coulon merely a superadded surname, we may fairly
conclude that the claim to consanguinity has no other foundation than
the identity in the Spanish language of Columbus’s patronymic with the
distinguishing surname of the French vice-admiral.