But before I leave this subject I must call attention to a n_Select letters of Christopher Columbus

which opens up the question whether the real _editio princeps_ has

perished, or not as yet come to our knowledge. It happens that the length

of the north coast of Hispaniola is _twice_ stated by Columbus in this

letter. The _first_ mention of it is given correctly in Plannck’s edition

as “milliaria dlxiiii,” which I have already shown to be a right number,

while in Silber the “d” is lost, and the number stands “lxiiii.” The

_second_ mention of the length of the coast is given _alike incorrectly

by both_ as dxl. This fact, brought into combination with those

evolved by our comparison of the two texts, not only corroborates the

non-originality and secondary position of Silber’s edition, but it raises

a question as to whether Plannck’s was not preceded by another which has

never come to our knowledge, in which both numbers were correctly given.

It might be conjectured that Columbus himself wrote the second number

incorrectly, but here the different Spanish texts come valuably to our

aid, and the curious circumstance that the translator Cosco converted the

leagues of the Spanish into miles in the Latin, supplies a most welcome

means of solving the riddle. Another document, the contemporaneous

rhythmical version of the letter by Giuliano Dati, will also be of great

service in the examination of the subject. For the sake of clearness

I will tabulate them, and distinguish the correct numbers, where they

occur, by italics.

+--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

+--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

| | | | |

+--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

+--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

| | | | |

+--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

From this table it will be seen that the erroneous one hundred and

thirty-eight leagues do not tally with the erroneous five hundred and

forty miles; but the most striking fact that this table presents to

our notice is that the _Dati poem_ is the only one of these documents

that has the number right in both places; and it might at first sight

appear a very simple and easy thing for Dati to see that what was right

measurement in the one case must be the right measurement in the other,

even although the other copyists had failed to realise this fact. But not

so. Dati composed his poem from the Latin translation, and if the edition

from which he worked had been as faulty as that of Plannck, now under

notice, he could have had no means of deciding which number was right,

the dlxiiii of the first mention, or the dxl of the second. We have the

means of knowing, but only because we possess the various copies of the

Spanish, which state the distance in leagues. The necessary conclusion

then is that Dati worked from a copy either MS. or printed, in which the

number was right in both places; and this conclusion is corroborated

by the fact that, of the Spanish documents, the Valencia MS. shows the

number right in the first mention, and the Ambrosian text shows it right

in the second. Furthermore, I observe that Dati, who distinctly states

that his poem was “tradocta di latino,” gives the letter the date of Feb.

15th, a date which occurs in the Spanish, but not in the Latin texts

which we possess. It follows, therefore, that if he worked from a printed

text, that edition is lost to us.

But there remains the alternative that he worked from the MS. Latin

translation, and that the latter had been fully rendered from the

original Spanish, but was afterwards modified by the compositor in

setting it up in type. That such was in reality the case the reader

will find proved beyond all dispute at the close of this disquisition.

It therefore remains that, while there is no reason to suppose that an

edition is lost, the edition by Plannck, consisting of four leaves, with

thirty-three lines to the page, must take the lead among those which are

known to us.

But now we come to the very interesting subject of the original Spanish.

Columbus’s manuscript letter is lost, and the only representatives of it

with which we are acquainted are the manuscript copies already mentioned

at Simancas and Valencia, published respectively by Navarrete and Senhor

de Varnhagen, and the valuable printed text in the Ambrosian Library, for

the reproduction of which by photo-zincography all who are interested

in the subject are so deeply indebted to the enlightened liberality of

the Marquis d’Adda. The two former transcripts are confessedly made at

a much later date, while to the latter bibliographers give the credit

of the date of 1493. At the end of the Simancas copy is the expression:

“Esta carta envio Colon al Escribano de Racion de las islas halladas en

las Indias e otra de sus altezas.” This office of Escribano de Racion

was held by Luis de Santangel. The Valencia copy had no such sentence at

the end, but simply bore the title: “Carta del Almirante á D. Gabriel

Sanches.” The Ambrosian text photo-zincographed by the Marquis d’Adda

bore a similar expression at the end to that of the Simancas copy,

but with a difference; thus: “Esta carta embio Colon al Escrivano de

Racion de las Islas halladas en las Indias. Contenida a otra de sus

altezas.” Under these circumstances the Marquis d’Adda, accepting the

pre-supposed fact that Columbus had addressed two similar letters to the

two above-named officials, very naturally regarded the Ambrosian text as

derived from the Simancas MS. A collation of the three texts, _inter se_,

and with the Latin translation of Cosco, exhibits, however, the following

results:—the Valencia MS. addressed to Gabriel Sanchez is almost a

verbatim repetition of the Simancas text addressed to the Escribano

de Racion, while the Ambrosian text also addressed to the Escribano de

Racion agrees with the Latin text addressed to Gabriel Sanchez in certain

forms of expression, which are entirely different from those used in

common in the Valencia and Simancas MSS. to describe the same thing.

This perplexing result has been stated by Senhor de Varnhagen in the

little work published last year already referred to, and I can confirm

it by actual careful collation of all the four documents. The _prima

facie_ inference from this fact would, I think, be that the Escribano de

Racion and Gabriel Sanchez, either really were, or by some mistake had

been taken to be, identical. A very high authority on such a subject,

Senor de Gayangos, in the learned article already referred to, distinctly

maintains the dispatch of two letters to the said two officials, whereas

Senhor de Varnhagen not only limits the dispatch to one single address,

but goes so far as to conclude that the Spanish printed text, from which

he believes the Latin to be translated, is in fact the letter addressed

to the sovereigns, with the change only of “vuestras” into “sus.” But as

his Excellency has given much careful thought to this matter, and has,

under the guidance of a most judicious criticism, supplied an amended

text, derived from a collation of the different texts, it is but justice

to him and to the subject itself to give a literal translation of his

remarks. This is the more requisite as I shall have to submit some facts

which seem to me to lead to conclusions differing from some of those

arrived at by my learned friend.

His Excellency says: “We hold it for certain that the said _primitive_

edition (the Ambrosian) which we have had the opportunity of seeing in

Milan, _must have given origin_ to the text published in Rome the 25th

April[24] of that same year (1493) by Cozco, who perhaps from not being

able to transfer easily to the Latin the last part of it, cut it off.

The said fact is principally _shown_ by the mistake of the date of 14th

(instead of 4th) of March, which could not be in the letter of Columbus,

as he had left Lisbon before that day; nor would it be reasonable to

suppose that the error would be repeated in the same manner, if said

original had been kept in sight. Still less could the repetition of such

a mistake be conceived, if the original manuscript were different.”

Now, before we proceed to an examination of this matter, the first thing

requisite is to lay before the reader a specific difference which exists

between the Spanish and the Latin texts. In the Spanish (I quote from

the Ambrosian text) the letter closes thus: “Esto segun el fecho asi en

breve. Fecha en la calavera sobre las Yslas de Canaria a xv de Febrero

mil et quatrocientos et noventa y tres años.”

Then comes a

“Nyma que venia dentro en la carta.”

“Despues desta escripto y estando en mar de Castilla salyo tanto viento

conmigo sul y sueste que me ha fecho descargar la navios por cosi

(correr?) aqui en este puerto de Lysbona oy, que fue la mayor maravilla

del mundo. Adonde acordé escrivir a sus altezas. En todas las Yndias he

siempre hallado los tenporales como en Mayo, adonde yo fuy en xxxiii dias

et volvi en xxviii, salvo questas tormentas me han detenido xiiii dias

corriendo por esta mar. Dizen aqua todos los honbres de la mar que jamas

ovo tan mal yvierno no ni tantas perdidas de naves, fecha a xiiii dias de

marco.

“Esta carta embio Colon al Escrivano de racion de las Islas halladas en

las Indias. Contenida a otra de sus altezas.”

For those who need it, the translation will be found in our printed text

at page 18.

The Latin translation ends very differently; thus: “Hæc ut gesta sunt sic

breviter enarrata. Vale. Ulisbone, pridie Idus Martii.”

Now the reader will observe that in the above “nyma” or postscript,

Columbus states that on the day of his reaching Lisbon he resolved to

write to their Highnesses, and we know from his diaries that that day was

the 4th of March, and yet at the end the postscript is dated the 14th of

March, a day on which we know, from the said diaries, that he was off

Cape St. Vincent on his way from Lisbon to Spain, which he was then on

the point of reaching at the harbour of Palos.

The Latin, it will be perceived, repeats this discrepancy in a more

distinct shape, by bringing the name of Lisbon immediately into

connection with the 14th of March, of which the words: “pridie Idus

Martii” are the equivalent.

With these specialities in his mind, the reader will be able with

greater clearness to follow the following disquisition:—

The perfectly sound piece of criticism by Senhor de Varnhagen, which we

have just read, is based upon the accepted premiss that it was on the

4th of March that Columbus dispatched to the King and Queen the letter

describing his voyage, with the nema attached. The words of the “nema”

itself make such an inference highly reasonable. It states that “el

viento me ha fecho descargar los navios por correr aqui en este puerto

de Lisbona _hoy_ ... adonde acordé de escribir a sus altezas.”—“The wind

made me unload the ships to run into this port of Lisbon to-day ... where

I resolved to write to their Highnesses.” The diary shows that this

day was the 4th of March, and hence, _prima facie_, the date of “14th

of March” in the nema would appear to be not written by Columbus, but

a blunder of the printer of the Ambrosian text. This natural inference

_appears_ confirmed, I find, by the distinct statement of Ferdinand

Columbus that on his father’s arrival in Lisbon on the 4th—“Subito espedì

un corriero a’ Re Catolici con la nuova della sua venuta”—“he immediately

dispatched a courier to the Catholic Sovereigns with the news of his

arrival.”

Now, supposing, for I do not take it for granted, that this statement of

Fernando’s, written many years after, was correct, and that his father

carried out his intention of writing to the Sovereigns from Lisbon, that

statement does not tell us that he then _sent on the account of his

voyage_; and if we inquire a little further, we have good reason to

suppose that he did _not_ forward it on that day. There is no mention

in his Diary of his so doing, although the act would be of sufficient

importance to call for mention. He was in a country where his success in

the cause of Spain was regarded with intense animosity. He was ignorant

of the whereabouts of the Sovereigns, and in prospect of an early arrival

in Spain, when he both would gain the necessary information, and could

send on his precious missive in perfect safety. In harmony with these

suggestions of mine, I find that Herrera, the historiographer, who had

in his charge all the Columbian documents, states that on Wednesday, the

13th March, Columbus left Lisbon for Seville in his caravel. On Thursday,

the 14th, before daybreak, he was off Cape St. Vincent. On Friday, the

15th, at mid-day, he entered the port of Palos, whence he had sailed on

the 3rd of August of the previous year. _And having learned that the

Catholic Sovereigns were at Barcelona_, he at first thought of going

there in his caravel; but subsequently resolving not to go to Barcelona

by sea, he _announced his arrival to the Catholic Sovereigns, and sent

a summary of what had happened to him, reserving the more complete

narrative for their immediate presence_. The _reply_ reached him in

Seville, and contained expressions of joy at his safe arrival and at the

success of his voyage, offered him rewards and honours, and commanded

him to make haste to go to Barcelona. Now, it will be remembered that

Columbus’s narrative was already written, and dated February 15th or

18th, and only waiting to be despatched, and had attached to it the

nema, which Mr. Gayangos tells us was a piece of paper placed on the

outside of a letter like a padlock, and over which the seal was put. On

this nema, beyond all question, was the date of March 4th; and if, as I

gather from Herrera’s statement, Columbus dispatched this narrative of

his voyage, not from Lisbon on the 4th March, but from Palos on the 15th,

or the 16th, it is not unlikely that on the 14th, when he was nearing the

Spanish harbour from which he was looking forward to be able to dispatch

it in safety, he should have altered the remote date of the 4th, which

agreed with the wording of the nema at the time of writing it, into the

later date of the 14th, which was more in accordance with the date of

dispatch. We know that the letter to the Sovereigns was enclosed in the

letter to the Escribano de Racion; and the sentence printed at the end

of the Ambrosian text bears the aspect of an endorsement of the letter

by that officer’s secretary. The date of the Sovereigns’ reply from

Barcelona, March 30th, is in entire harmony, as regards lapse of time,

with the dispatch of Columbus’ letter from Palos on the 15th or 16th of

the month. The Latin translation was completed on the 29th April, a full

month after the arrival of the letter in Barcelona. There was plenty

of time, therefore, it is true, for the letter to have been printed in

Spanish, and for that Spanish to have served for the translation into

Latin; but if my suggestion, as derived from the above data, be correct,

that the alteration of 4 to 14 on the nema was made by Columbus himself,

my friend Senhor de Varnhagen’s conclusion that the Spanish printed text

_must_ have served for that translation becomes a _non sequitur_. Such

alteration by Columbus would naturally lead to the erroneous “ulisbone,

pridie idus Martii” in the Latin text, without the intervention of the

Spanish printed text, in which that alteration would of course also be

copied.

I have stated these facts to show that the occurrence of March 14th both

in the Ambrosian text and the Latin translation, does not, as Senhor de

Varnhagen concluded, prove of necessity that the latter was derived from

the former, but from a common origin, to wit, in all probability the

original MS. of Columbus. But now that I have shown that the Latin _need

not_ have been derived from the Ambrosian, I proceed to show that it

_could not_ have been so.

In the Ambrosian we find Guanahani spelt Guanaham; the island of Matinino

called Matremonio, etc., while in the Latin text we find the first name

correctly written Guanahani, Matinino is more nearly correctly written

Mateunin; and we have the name of an island, Charis, which is left out in

the Spanish altogether. But as the Latin translator possessed no special

knowledge by which he could make such corrections, it is clear that the

Ambrosian text could not have served as the basis for the Latin; whereas

if the two were derived from a common source, the errors of the Ambrosian

text would be those of its copyist, while the accurate rendering of

the corresponding passages in the Latin would be the result, not of

correction, as Senhor de Varnhagen suggests, but of attention to the

original.

Upon this head Senhor de Varnhagen writes as follows:—

“The Latin texts contain a correction of the words Guanahanin, Charis

(Caribes or Caraibes), and Mateunin (Matinino); but these corrections,

if perchance it should be proved that they were made at the time of the

first edition, and not afterwards (which we cannot here examine, not

having the different editions at hand), may have been pointed out by the

editor himself in sight of the original after the publication of the

printed text; or by Columbus himself, on receiving it on his road to

Barcelona, in order that some correct copies might be sent to Rome, by

way of communicating the news of the discovery that had been made, with

the view of obtaining the famous Bull from Alexander VI.”

Now it is pretty clear that the Latin translation had nothing in the

world to do with the Papal bull. The name of _De_ Cosco indicates that

the translator was a Spaniard—and it is reasonable to assume that a

Spaniard would be selected to translate from Spanish into Latin—;

therefore we may fairly suppose that the translation was made in Spain.

It was not completed till the 29th of April—tertio kalendas maii—(not the

25th, an error of Navarrete’s, which Senhor de Varnhagen has adopted),

and the first bull was issued on the 3rd of May. The interval of four

days is scarcely sufficient to allow of the formal dispatch of the

document to Rome, its presentation and the drawing up of the bull, much

less if it had to undergo revision by Columbus, still less if it be a

question of correction of printed proofs set up in type at Rome in that

short interval. It is tolerably evident, then, that the Latin was sent to

Rome, not to the Pope, but only for printing. If, therefore, the missive

to the Pope was in Spanish, and included this letter, the corrections

by Columbus or by Sanchez, suggested by Senhor de Varnhagen, would have

been far better applied to the Spanish than to the Latin, instead of the

reverse, as suggested.

It should, however, be borne in mind that in those days proofs were not

sent out for revision: but as a doubt may reasonably be entertained on

this point, on the score of the many imaginable possibilities that may

not have been foreseen or taken into consideration in this criticism, I

will now proceed to demonstrate that the Spanish and the Latin printed

texts certainly are derived from different, though similar, documents.

That they should be similar is natural, the one being written by Columbus

from the other, with such trivial changes as may have dropped from his

pen in transcribing.

First: we have a Spanish text, the endorsement of which shows it to

have been sent to the Escribano de Racion. That this officer was Luis

de Santangel we know for certainty from Argensola’s _Anales de Aragon_,

lib. 1, cap. 10, p. 99, _et seq._, where he tells us that when the King

looked coldly on Columbus’s proposals, because the royal finances had

been drained by war, Isabella offered her jewels for the enterprise; but

this was rendered needless, as “Luis de Santangel, Escrivano de Racion

de Aragon, advanced seventeen thousand florins for the expenses of the

Armada.” This leaves no room for doubt that Columbus should immediately

send a copy of his letter to Santangel. In it was enclosed the copy

addressed to the Sovereigns.[25] This text sent to Santangel consisted of

a letter dated February 15th, and a postscript, announcing the arrival

off Lisbon on the 4th, subsequently altered to the 14th March.

Secondly: we have a Latin text, distinctly stated to have been translated

from a letter addressed to the Royal Treasurer, Gabriel Sanchez. We have

thus clearly two letters addressed to two persons, but to annihilate

this duality Senhor de Varnhagen suggests “Why not suppose that this

last name, Gabriel Sanxis, which Cosco thought it necessary to announce,

was the result of his own verifications? He would inquire in Rome of the

Catholic delegates the name of the Escribano de Racion, and they would

give him that of the Treasurer General.” But this is inventing _one

surmise_ to fortify _another_, whereas Senhor de Varnhagen’s own zealous

research had provided evidence to prove a contrary _fact_. The Marquis

d’Adda has kindly sent me a photo-lithograph of a fragment of an Italian

version of this letter, of which His Excellency Senhor de Varnhagen had

found the title in the catalogue of the Ambrosian Library. This fragment

distinctly states it to have been a copy of one “sent by the Grand

Treasurer to his brother, Joane Sanxis.”

But before I leave this subject I must call attention to a notable fact,