scriuere auostra magna signoria,
raccomandomi a q̃lla a tucte lhore,
laqual cōserui ilfigluol di Maria
parato semꝕmai per uostro amore
amecter q̃sta breue uita mia
aquindici de febraio q̃sta sife
nel mille quattrocento nouāta tre.
Magnifici & discreti circūstanti
q̃sta e gran cosa certo da pensare,
ch’l nostro redēptor̃ cō tucti esancti
nō resta mai legratie sue mandare
douerebbon di q̃sto tucti quanti
ebaptizati a x̃po festa fare,
chi ue chi uimādo & chi ue andato
prepari dio alsuo regno beato.
Questa ha cōposto de dati Giuliano
apreghiera del magno caualiere
messer Giouanphilippo ciciliano,
che fu di Sixto quarto suo scudiere
& commessario suo & capitano,
a q̄lle cose che fur di mestiere
allaude del signor sicanta & dice
che ciconduca al suo regno felice.
¶ FINIS LAUS DEO.
¶ Finita lastoria della īuētione delle nuoue isole dicānaria
īdiane tracte duna pistola dixꝕofano colōbo, & ꝓmesser
Giuliano dati tradocta dilatino ī uersi uulgari allaude
della christiana religione & aꝕghiera delmagnifico
caualiere messer Giouāfilippo del ignamine
domestico familiare dello illustrissimo
Redispagna xꝕianissimo a
di. xxvi. doctobre.
14.93.
_Florentie._
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
In this bibliographical notice I do not propose to deal with any editions
of the first letter of Columbus beyond the “Incunabula,” which I arrange
in the order of their publication, as ascertained from an examination of
the documents themselves.
1. ¶ Epistola Christofori Colom: cui etas nostra multū
debet: de | Insulis Indie supra Gangem nuper inuētis. Ad
quas perqꝫren- | das octauo antea mense auspiciis & ere
invictissimor’ Fernādi & | Helisabet Hispaniar’ Regū missus
fuerat: ad magnificum dñm | Gabrielem Sanchis eorundē
serenissimor’ Regum Tesaurariū | missa: quā nobilis ac
litteratus vir Leander de Cosco ab Hispa | no ideomate in
latinum cōuertit tertio kal’s Maii m.cccc.xciii | Pontificatus
Alexandri Sexti Anno primo.
Small 4to. This edition, which, as I shall presently show, is the _editio
princeps_, was printed by Stephen Plannck at Rome in 1493. It consists
of four leaves, printed in gothic type, and has 33 lines in a full page.
Copies are in the Grenville and King’s Libraries in the British Museum.
2. ¶ Epistola Christofori Colom: cui etas nostra multum
debet: de | Insulis Indie supra Gangem nuper inuētis. Ad
quas perquiren | das octauo antea mense auspiciis & ere
inuictissimorum Fernandi | ac Helisabet Hispaniar’ Regū missus
fuerat: ad Magnificū dñm | Gabrielem Sanches: eorundem
serenissimorum Regum Tesau | rariū missa: Quā generosus
ac litteratus vir Leander de Cosco ab | Hispano idiomate
in latinū cōuertit: tertio Kalen’ Maij M.cccc. | xc.iij.
Pontificatus Alexandri Sexti Anno Primo. | 4to.
End:—¶ Impressit Rome Eucharius Argenteus [Silber] Anno dñi.
M.ccccxciij.
Three leaves, printed in gothic letter. 40 lines in a page. A copy is in
the Grenville Library.
3. ¶ Epistola Christofori Colom: cui etas nostra multū debet:
de | Insulis Indie supra Gangem nuper inuentis. Ad quas perqui
| rendas octauo antea mense auspicijs & ere invictissimi Fernan
| di Hispaniarum Regis missus fuerat: ad Magnificum dñum Ra |
phaelem Sanxis: eiusdem serenissimi Regis Tesaurariū missa: |
quam nobilis ac litteratus vir Aliander de Cosco ab Hispano |
ideomate in latinum conuertit: tertio kal’s Maij. M.cccc.xciij.
| Pontificatus Alexandri Sexti Anno Primo.
Small 4to. Gothic letter; four leaves, 34 lines in a full page. This
edition is supposed to have been printed by Stephen Plannck at Rome,
about 1493. 3 or 4 copies are known; two are in the General Library and
Grenville Library, British Museum.
4. De Insulis inuentis | Epistola Cristoferi Colom (cui etas
nostra | multū debet: de Insulis in mari Indico nup’ | inuētis.
Ad quas perquirendas octauo antea | mense: auspicijs et ere
Invictissimi Fernandi | Hispaniarum Regis missus fuerat | ad
Magnificum dñm Raphaeleꝫ Sanxis: eiusdē sere | nissimi Regis
Thesaurariū missa. quam nobi | lis ac litterat’ vir Aliander đ
Cosco: ab His | pano ydeomate in latinū conuertit: tercio k’ls
| Maij. M.cccc.xciij. Pontificatus Alexandri | Sexti Anno Primo.
Small 8vo. Gothic character; ten leaves, 26 and 27 lines in a page. The
title above given is preceded by a leaf bearing on the recto the arms of
Spain, “Regnū hyspanie”—on the verso the cut of the “Oceanica Classis”.
There are 6 woodcuts—the “Oceanica Classis”, being repeated. A copy is
in the Grenville Library.
5. Epistola de insulis de | nouo repertis. Impressa | parisius
in cāpo gaillardi.
Small 4to. Gothic letter; four leaves, 39 lines in a full page. This
edition was printed by Guy Marchand about 1494. Brunet states that the
only copy known is that formerly belonging to M. Ternaux-Compans, now the
property of Mr. John Carter Brown.
This edition was reprinted in 1865, “Lettre de Christophe Colomb sur la
découverte du Nouveau-Monde, publiée d’après la rarissime version latine
conservée à la Bibliothèque Impériale. Traduite en Français, commentée
et enrichie de notes puisées aux sources originales par Lucien de Rosny.
8vo., Paris, 1865.”
6. Epistola de Insulis noui | ter repertis. Impressa parisius
In campo gaillardi.
Small 4to. Gothic letter; four leaves, 39 lines in a page. The above
title is in two lines, the first printed in a larger character.
Underneath is the device of the printer, “Guiot Marchant”—two cobblers at
work, one cutting the leather, the other making it up. This edition was
printed by Guy Marchand at Paris, about 1494.
A copy is in the Bodleian Library. A fac-simile made by Mr. John Harris,
sen., is in the British Museum; the impression was limited to five copies.
All the foregoing editions have at the end the Latin Epigram in eight
verses of R. L. de Corbatia, (a pseudonym for Leonardus de Carninis,
Bishop of Monte Peloso in Naples). In this edition, below the epigram,
on the same page, is a woodcut of the Angel appearing to the Shepherds.
Mr. Lenox has given a fac-simile of this in the Appendix to _Syllacius_.
The title on the recto of the following leaf (sig. a, ij) is the same
as in the Roman editions, having the name of Ferdinand without that of
Isabella. It ends with the words: “Vale. Ulisbone pridie Idus Marcij.”
A “pictorial” edition of the Latin letter, in 4to., was printed in 1494.
It is appended to a work by Carolus Verardus, “In laudem Serenissimi
Ferdinandi Hispaniar’ regis.... Et de Insulis in mari Indico nuper
inuentis.”
The work is printed on fifteen pages in Roman characters, and probably
at Basle, by B. de Olpe. The woodcuts are the same as those used in the
small 8vo. edition printed about 1493 (see No. 4).
No sooner did this letter make its appearance in print in the year 1493,
than the narrative it contained was put forth in Italian ottava rima
by Giuliano Dati, one of the most popular poets of the day; and there
is reason to believe that it was sung about the streets to announce to
the Italians the astounding news of the discovery of a new world. (See
_ante_, p. xc.)
The only copy of this curious and valuable poem known at the time of
the issue of the first edition of this work in 1847 is that which I now
reprint.
¶ La lettera dellisole che ha trouato nuovamente il Re dispagna.
End:
¶ Finita lastoria della iuētione del | le nuoue isole dicānaria
īdiane trac | te duna pistola dixp̃ofano colōbo & | ꝑmesser
Giuliano dati tradocta di la | tino ī uersi uulgari allaude
della ce | lestiale corte & aconsolatione della | christiana
religione & ap̃ghiera del magnifico caualiere messer Giouā |
filippo del ignamine domestico fa | mīliare dello illustrissimo
Re dispa | gna xp̃ianīssimo a di. xxvi. docto | bre. 14.93.
Florentie.
4to. Printed in Roman characters on four leaves, in double columns. The
poem consists of 68 stanzas in _ottava rima_. Beneath the single-line
title is a woodcut representing the landing of Columbus, and King
Ferdinand seated on his throne on the _opposite shore_. This is the only
copy known.
Since 1847 another edition has been acquired by the British Museum,
bearing the following title:—
¶ Questa e la hystoria della inuentiōe delle diese Isole di
Cannaria In | diane extracte duna Epistola di Christofano
Colombo & per messer Giu | liano Dati traducta de latino in
uersi uulgari a laude e gloria della cele | stiale corte & a
consolatione della christiana religiōe & apreghiera del ma |
gnifico Caualier miser Giouanfilippo Delignamine domestico
familia | re dello Sacratissimo Re di spagna Christianissimo a
di. xxv. doctobre. | M.cccclxxxxiii. |
End: FINIS
Joannes dictus Florentinus.
4to. Printed in gothic characters, in double columns, and, without doubt,
at Florence. A complete copy should contain four leaves. The copy in the
British Museum, the only one of this edition hitherto discovered, is,
unfortunately, deficient in two leaves—viz., the second and the third.
It is printed in a very rude type on coarse paper, and was evidently a
popular edition, sold at a very small price. This edition presents many
variations from the other, both in the orthography and language; _e.g._,
the opening stanza, which may be compared with that given in the present
edition.
LOīpotente idio ch’l tulto regge
mi presti gr̃a chi possa cantare
allaude sua e di sua sancta legge
cosa che piaza achi stara ascoltare
maxime alpopul suo & a sua gregge
elqual non cessa mai magnificare
come al presente afacto nela spagna
delle isole trouate cosa magna.
This edition omits the final stanza, which is little else than the
colophon of the other versified:—
Questa ha cōposta de’ dati Giuliano
etc. etc. etc.
Eyn schön hübsch lesen von etlichen insslen | dīe do in kurtzen
zyten funden synd durch dē | künig von hispania. vnd sagt vō
grossen wun | derlichen dingen die in dē selbē insslen synd.
End:
Getruckt zŭ strassburg vff gruneck vō meīster Bartlomess |
küstler ym iar. M.cccc.xcvij. vff sant Jeronymus tag.—
Small 4to. Seven leaves, 30 lines in a page. Beneath the title is a
woodcut representing the apprehension of Christ in the garden; this is
repeated on the verso of the last leaf. This edition is very rare. A copy
is in the Grenville Library.
Besides the foregoing we are in possession of a photo-zincographic
fac-simile published at Milan in 1866, by the Marquis Gerolamo d’Adda,
of an early printed edition of the Spanish original, in the Ambrosian
Library in that city. It bears no printer’s name or place or date of
publication, but it is unquestionably of the fifteenth century, and is
considered by bibliographers to be of the date of 1493. Señor Pascual
de Gayangos (in a valuable paper, entitled “La Carta de Cristóbal Colon
al Escribano Luis de Santangel”, printed in the Madrid Journal, _La
America_, under date of 13th April, 1867) suggests that it was printed in
Lisbon.
We have also in Navarrete’s _Coleccion de Viages_, printed at Madrid
1825, vol. i, pp. 167-175, what professes to be an attested literal
rendering of a copy of Columbus’s letter in Spanish to the Escribano de
Racion (whom we know from Argensola’s _Anales de Aragon_ to be Luis de
Santangel), in the Archives at Simancas.
And, further, we have a printed version of a copy of the first letter
in Spanish MS., discovered by His Excellency Senhor de Varnhagen in
Valencia, and published by him in that city in 1858, under the title of
_Primera Epistola del Almirante Don Christobal Colon ... a D. Gabriel
Sanchez Tesorero de Aragon_. As editor, Senhor de Varnhagen assumed
the pseudonym of D. Genaro H. de Volafan; and last year His Excellency
published at Vienna a little work, the nature and contents of which are
explained by its title, which is as follows:—“Carta de Cristóbal Colon
enviada de Lisboa a Barcelona en Marzo de 1493. Nueva Edicion Critica:
Conteniendo las variantes de los diferentes textos, juicio sobre estos,
reflexiones tendentes a mostrar a quien la Carta fue escrita, y varias
otras noticias, por el Seudónimo de Valencia.”
Be it observed that in all these the _titles_ are supplied by the
respective editors, and consequently have no authority beyond the weight
of each editor’s individual opinion. I have carefully collated the three
documents, and the result is a certain conclusion that neither one nor
the other is a correct transcript of the original letter. The grounds
for this conclusion are, that while no two of them entirely agree _inter
se_, every one of them exhibits certain special errors which, as I
shall presently demonstrate, _could_ not have been in the original. The
apparent rashness of this assertion will disappear if the reader will
accompany me in my effort to detect which of the printed Latin editions
which we possess is to receive the distinction of _editio princeps_.
Various have been the opinions on this subject. Mr. Lenox, following
Brunet, has given the lead to the edition which I have ventured to place
_fourth_. Mr. Harrisse, in his elaborate _Notes on Columbus_, gives the
first place to that which stands _third_ in my series, and His Excellency
Senhor de Varnhagen assigns priority to the edition which I make to
be the _second_. That to which I assign the distinction of taking the
lead has the _second_ place given to it by Senhor de Varnhagen, and the
_third_ by Brunet, Mr. Lenox, and Mr. Harrisse. In offering a conclusion
so much at variance with my predecessors, my only means of escaping the
charge of presumption (but that I hope is an effectual one), is neither
to adopt the opinion of any one else nor to offer any opinion of my own,
but to reduce the matter to demonstration by facts either within or
connected with the documents themselves.
On examination of the titles it will be seen that the six editions
resolve themselves by several very strongly marked features into two
distinct groups. One of these groups, embracing four of the editions,
is characterized by remarkable inaccuracy in three separate points—all
four exhibiting all these inaccuracies in common; while the remaining
two, being free from them, stand clearly defined into a distinct group by
themselves.
Thus; the titles of the editions numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, all speak of
Columbus being sent out under the auspices and at the expense of
Ferdinand, King of Spain, without reference to the name of Queen
Isabella. They all describe the letter as addressed to the Treasurer
“Sanxis,” instead of “Sanchez,” whose Christian name they pervert from
“Gabriel” to “Raphael.” Furthermore, they all convert the Christian name
of the translator from “Leander” to “Aliander.”
The titles of the editions numbered 1 and 2, on the contrary, give the
names of both the sovereigns, call the Treasurer in No. 2 Sanches, in No.
1 “Sanchis,” but not Sanxis, and rightly name the translator “Leander de
Cosco.”
Now there is no difficulty in showing which of these groups has the merit
of correctness, or which the demerit of incorrectness.
It is perfectly well known that in 1493 Ferdinand and Isabella held the
common title of _Reyes de España_. Whether “Sanches” or “Sanxis” should
be the correct form of spelling the name of a Spaniard who was treasurer
to the Spanish sovereigns, it would be waste of time to question, and
that his Christian name was Gabriel and not Raphael, we have clear
evidence from an independent document in the Archives of Simancas, dated
December 1495, for which the reader is referred to Navarrete’s _Coleccion
de Viages_, vol. iii, p. 76, line 16, where he is called “El tesorero
Gabriel Sanchez”. His name is also mentioned more than once by Zurita in
his _Anales de Aragon_.
The question then arises whether the palm of priority is to be conceded
to the correct or to the incorrect form. Now all these six titles agree
in stating that the original Spanish letter of Columbus was _sent_ to
the Treasurer Royal. But for a letter to be sent, it must carry an
address, and if Columbus inserted in such address the Treasurer’s name,
he, who knew Spanish so well, would not have insulted that dignitary by
converting his surname of Sanchez into Sanxis, or his Christian name of
Gabriel into Raphael. But even if we suppose that he omitted the name
altogether, as is probable, and simply superscribed his letter with
the title of the Treasurer, the fact still remains that the translator
or editor of the first edition derived the information that the letter
was so sent, directly from the Treasurer himself, who at least knew his
own name and would not allow it to be transmitted for publication (if
Columbus had been guilty of the blunder) under the form of “Raphael
Sanxis.” Nor would he, holding a high official post, have been guilty of
the _maladresse_ of omitting the name of the queen in the description
of his own title. Now of our two groups of printed letters it is
indisputable that that one must take precedence which comes immediately
in connection with the original source, and as that source is at the same
time the head-quarters of correctness, it follows that correctness must
be the criterion of priority.
We thus find our six candidates for the glory of “editio princeps”
reduced to two. Now these two issued from two different printing presses.
One of them is printed by Argenteus, _i.e._, Silber, and bears his name
with the imprint, “Rome, 1493.” The other is without printer’s name or
place or date of publication, but is indisputably from the printing
press of Stephanus Plannck, as may be seen by comparing it with a work
of Benedictus de Nursia of the same date, entitled _“Incipit libellus de
conservatione sanitatis secundum ordinem alphabeti distinctus per eximium
doctorem magistrum Benedictum compositus.” Impressum Rome per magistrum
Stephanum Planck, Anno Domini mccccxciii, quarto nōn Maii._ In this and
other works from the same press the form and type precisely correspond
with those of our letter.
Now these two editions of Plannck and Silber were either printed
simultaneously or not. Instances of the same work being printed by two
different printers on the same day do occur. One example is before me of
this happening in this very year 1493. The work is entitled, “_Illustris
et Reverendi Domini Nicolai Mariæ Estensis Episcopi Hadriensis oratio
pro consanguineo suo inclyto Hercule Estensi Ferrariæ duce secundo_.”
One edition in Roman character bears the colophon, _Romæ impressa per
mgrm Plannck: Julio Campello Spoletino procurante. Anno Salvatoris
mcccclxxxxiii. Nonis Januariis._ The other, in Gothic character, bears
precisely the same title and the same colophon, with the difference
of the words, _impressa per magistrum Andream Fritag_. Both are small
quarto, of the size of our two editions of the letter of Columbus.
But here it must be observed that there was apparently a special object
in resorting to this exceptional procedure, viz., the production
simultaneously of one edition in Roman and another in Gothic types,
to suit the tastes of purchasers. In the case before us, however, the
question of this motive does not arise, for both Plannck’s and Silber’s
editions are in Gothic type; and any way it is clear that, in a case of
the kind, the same text would be handed to each printer to set up, as any
patent discrepancies between the two would be to the self-stultification
of the editor. Now, in the case of the Columbus letter, such patent
discrepancies do occur; by which I mean no mere printer’s blunders, but
deliberate alterations of Latin expressions, as for example “ambularunt”
in Plannck is “ambulaverunt” in Silber; “serenissimos Reges nostros,”
correct Latin in Plannck, is “serenissimorum regum nostrorum,” making bad
grammar, in Silber. This fact of itself I contend disproves simultaneity
of production. But side by side with these discrepancies we observe the
repetition in the one, of eccentricities or inaccuracies occurring in
the other, as in the words “quom,” “benivolentia,” and “nanque.” The
former, though not incorrect, is quaint and unusual, but the two latter
are faulty peculiarities, and their occurrence, in both editions, side
by side with deliberate alterations, proves the one to be copied from
the other either by the hand of the transcriber or of the compositor.
This fact once established, I have to call attention to the following
remarkable difference between the two editions. In the Plannck edition
the distance sailed by Columbus along the north coast of Hispaniola is
stated as DLXIIII miles. In Silber’s the same figures occur minus the D,
and with no space left for the letter to have fallen out. Now it being
understood that one of these is a copy from the other, whether through
a transcriber’s or a compositor’s hand, if we suppose that the Silber
edition, which was minus the D, appeared first, we must perceive that
the error is one which no special knowledge could enable the editor or
printer of the other to suspect, much less to rectify, and yet in the
Plannck edition we should find it so rectified. Whereas if the Plannck
edition be supposed to be the first, we have no such difficulty to
encounter, but simply meet (in the Silber edition) with a negligent
omission of a letter, which may so easily happen. The next enquiry, of
course, is, which number is right, 564 or 64 miles? Fortunately we have
the means of answering this question with certainty, for as we possess
two copies, or copies of copies, of the original Spanish letter, we find
that the translator, Leander de Cosco, converted the leagues of the
Spanish original into miles by multiplying them, though ignorantly, by
three; and in one of these two copies, which can in other respects be
shown to be far more correct than its fellow, these leagues are stated
as 188, which correspond exactly with 564 miles. It must be clear, then,
that the edition containing the number 564 was derived from the original
accounts, while that which contained the number 64 had allowed the D to
be lost. The result I submit to be that Plannck’s edition must claim the
palm to priority.
To this conclusion it has been objected by a friend that the argument
is not complete, inasmuch as Cosco the translator, may have sent his
translation to Rome, with instructions that a copy thereof should be
made, and that, as the work was of importance, two printers should at
once be employed in printing from the two copies; that the copyist
may have thought fit to make the alterations which appear between the
two, or, failing him, that these alterations may have been made by the
compositor of one of them. To which I reply that the deviations in the
Silber edition are all on the side of ignorance, and not such as could
have been made by an original translator. To take the most notable
example: in Plannck’s edition occurs this passage, already slightly
referred to, “quæ res perutilis est ad id quod Serenissimos Reges nostros
exoptare præcipue reor.” “Which thing is very useful for the object which
I think that our most serene Sovereigns principally desire.” Here we
find the right grammatical construction of the accusative before the
infinitive mood, just as the translator would write it. In Silber’s
edition the sentence stands thus: “quæ res perutilis est ad id quod
Serenissimorum regum nostrorum exoptare præcipue reor,” a change showing
such ignorance of grammatical construction that it could not have been
the work of the translator. I contend that, under such circumstances,
even if it should be assumed (though there is no warranty for such
assumption) that the two editions were printed simultaneously, Plannck’s
edition would justly take the lead on account of its more immediate
derivation from the original translation.