No proof that the letter ascribed to Verrazzano, was written by him,
has ever been produced. The letter itself has never been exhibited,
or referred to in any authentic document, or mentioned by any
contemporary or later historian as being in existence, and although
it falls within the era, of modern history, not a single fact which
it professes to describe relating to the fitting out of the
expedition, the voyage, or the discovery, is corroborated by other
testimony, whereby its genuineness might even be inferred. The only
evidence in regard to it, relates to two copies, as they purport to
be, both in the Italian language, one of them coming to us printed
and the other in manuscript, but neither of them traceable to the
alleged original. They are both of them of uncertain date. The
printed copy appears in the work of Ramusio, first published in
1556; when Verrazzano and Francis I, the parties to it, were both
dead, and a generation of men had almost passed away since the
events which it announced had, according to its authority, taken
place, and probably no one connected with the government of France
at that time could have survived to gainsay, the story, were it
untrue.[Footnote: Verrazzano died in 1527; Louise, the mother of
Francis I in September, 1582, and Francis himself in March, 1547.]
Ramusio does not state when or how he obtained what he published. In
the preface to the volume in which it is printed, dated three years
before, he merely speaks of the narrative incidentally, but in a
discourse preceding it, he obscurely alludes to the place where he
found it, remarking that it was the only letter of Verrazzano that
he had "been able to have, because the others had got astray in the
troubles of the unfortunate city of Florence." The origin of the
manuscript version is equally involved in mystery. It forms part of
a codex which contains also a copy of a letter purporting to have
been written by Fernando Carli, from Lyons to his father in
Florence, on the 4th of August, 1524, giving an account of the
arrival of Verrazzano at Dieppe, and inclosing a copy of his letter
to the King. The epistles of Carli and Verrazzano are thus connected
together in the manuscript in fact, and by reference in that of
Carli, making the copy of the Verrazzano letter a part of Carli's,
and so to relate to the same date. But as the Carli letter in the
manuscript is itself only a copy, there is nothing to show when that
was really written; nor is it stated when the manuscript itself was
made. All that is positively known in regard to the latter is, that
it was mentioned in 1768, as being then in existence in the Strozzi
library in Florence. When it came into that collection does not
appear, but as that library was not founded until 1627, its history
cannot be traced before that year, [Footnote: Der Italicum von D.
Friedrich Blume. Band II, 81. Halle, 1827.] Its chirography,
however, in the opinion of some competent persons who have examined
it, indicates that it was written in the middle of the sixteenth
century. There is, therefore, nothing in the history or character of
the publication in Ramusio or the manuscript, to show that the
letter emanated from Verrazzano. Neither of them is traceable to
him; neither of them was printed at a time when its publication,
without contradiction, might be regarded as an admission or
acknowledgment by the world of a genuine original; and neither of
them is found to have existed early enough to authorize an inference
in favor of such an original by reason of their giving the earliest
account of the coasts and country claimed to have been discovered.
On the contrary, these two documents of themselves, when their
nature and origin are rightly understood, serve to prove that the
Verrazzano letter is not a genuine production. For this purpose it
will be necessary to state more fully their history and character.
The existence of the copy which, in consequence of its connection in
the same manuscript with that of the Carli letter, may be designated
as the Carli version, is first mentioned in an eulogy or life of
Verrazzano in the series of portraits of illustrious Tuscans,
printed in Florence in 1767-8, as existing in the Strozzi library.
[Footnote: Serie di Ritratti d'Uomini Illustri Toscani con gli elogi
istorici dei medesimi. Vol. secondo Firenze, 1768.] The author calls
attention to the fact, that it contains a part of the letter which
is omitted by Ramusio. In another eulogy of the navigator, by a
different hand, G. P. (Pelli), put forth by the same printer in the
following year, the writer, referring to the publication of the
letter of Ramusio, states that an addition to it, describing the
distances to the places where Verrazzano had been, was inserted in
writing in a copy of the work of Ramusio, in the possession at that
time of the Verrazzano family in Florence. These references were
intended to show the existence of the cosmography, which Tiraboschi
afterwards mentions, giving, however, the first named eulogy as his
authority. No portion of the Carli copy appeared in print until
1841, when through the instrumentality of Mr. Greene, the American
consul at Rome, it was printed in the collections of the New York
Historical Society, accompanied by a translation into English by the
late Dr. Cogswell. It was subsequently printed in the Archivio
Storico Italiano at Florence, in 1853, with some immaterial
corrections, and a preliminary discourse on Verrazzano, by M.
Arcangeli. From an inspection of the codex in the library, where it
then existed in Florence, M. Arcangeli supposes the manuscript was
written in the middle of the sixteenth century. This identical copy
was, therefore, probably in existence when Ramusio published his
work. Upon comparing the letter as given by Ramusio with the
manuscript, the former, besides wanting the cosmography, is found to
differ from the latter almost entirely in language, and very
materially in substance, though agreeing with it in its elementary
character and purpose. The two, therefore, cannot be copies of the
same original. Either they are different versions from some other
language, or one of them must be a recomposition of the other in the
language in which they now are found. In regard to their being both
translated from the French, the only other language in which the
letter can be supposed to have been written besides the native
tongue of Verrazzano, although it is indeed most reasonable to
suppose that such a letter, addressed to the king of France, on the
results of an expedition of the crown, by an officer in his service,
would have been written in that language, it is, nevertheless,
highly improbable that any letter could, in this instance, have been
so addressed to the King, and two different translations made from
it into Italian, one by Carli in Lyons in 1524, and the other by
Ramusio in Venice twenty-nine years afterwards, and yet no copy of
it in French, or any memorial of its existence in that language be
known. This explanation must therefore be abandoned. If on the other
hand, one of these copies was so rendered from the French, or from
an original in either form in which it appears in Italian, whether
by Verrazzano or not, the other must have been rewritten from it. It
is evident, however, that the Carli version could not have been
derived from that contained in Ramusio, because it contains an
entire part consisting of several pages, embracing the
cosmographical explanations of the voyage, not found in the latter.
As we are restricted to these two copies as the sole authority for
the letter, and are, therefore, governed in any conclusion on this
subject by what they teach, it must be determined that the letter in
Ramusio is a version of that contained in the Carli manuscript. This
suggestion is not new. It was made by Mr. Greene in his monograph on
Verrazzano, without his following it to the conclusion to which it
inevitably leads. If the version in Ramusio be a recomposition of
the Carli copy, an important step is gained towards determining the
origin of the Verrazzano letter, as in that case the inquiry is
brought down to the consideration of the authenticity of the Carli
letter, of which it forms a part. But before proceeding to that
question, the reasons assigned by Mr. Greene, and some incidental
facts stated by him in connection with them, should be given. He
says:
"The Strozzi Library is no longer in existence; but the manuscripts
of that collection passed into the hands of the Tuscan government,
and were divided between the Magliabechian and Laurentian libraries
of Florence. The historical documents were deposited in the former.
Among them was the cosmographical narration of Verrazzano mentioned
by Tiraboschi, and which Mr. Bancroft expresses a desire to see
copied for the Historical Society of New York. It is contained in a
volume of Miscellanies, marked "Class XIII. Cod. 89. Verraz;" and
forms the concluding portion of the letter to Francis the First,
which is copied at length in the same volume. It is written in the
common running hand of the sixteenth century (carrattere corsivo),
tolerably distinct, but badly pointed. The whole volume, which is
composed of miscellaneous pieces, chiefly relating to contemporary
history, is evidently the WORK OF THE SAME HAND.
"Upon collating this manuscript with that part of the letter which
was published by Ramusio, we were struck with the differences in
language which run through every paragraph of the two texts. In
substance there is no important difference [Footnote: In this
statement Mr. Greene was mistaken, as will be manifested in a
comparison of the two texts hereafter given, in which the difference
of language will also appear.] except in one instance, where by an
evident blunder of the transcriber, bianchissimo is put for
branzino. There is something so peculiar in the style of this
letter, as it reads, in the manuscript of the Magliabechian, that it
is impossible to account for its variations from Ramusio, except by
supposing that this editor worked the whole piece over anew,
correcting the errors of language upon his own authority. [Footnote:
Mr. Greene adds in a note to this passage: "He did so also with the
translation of Marco Polo. See Apostolo Zeno, Annot. alla Bib. Ital.
del Fontanini, tom. II, p. 300; ed. di Parma. 1804." There is
another instance mentioned by Amoretti in the preface to his
translation of Pigafetta's journal of Magellan's voyage, and that
was with Fabre's translation of the copy of the journal given by
Pigafetta to the mother of Francis I. Premier voyage autour du
monde. xxxii. (Jansen, Paris l'an ix.)] These errors indeed are
numerous, and the whole exhibits a strange mixture of Latinisms
[Footnote: An instance of these Latinisms is the signature "Janus
Verrazzanus," affixed to the letter.] and absolute barbarisms with
pure Tuscan words and phrases. The general cast of it, however, is
simple and not unpleasing. The obscurity of many of the sentences
is, in a great measure, owing to false pointing.
"The cosmographical description forms the last three pages of the
letter. It was doubtless intentionally omitted by Ramusio, though it
would be difficult to say why. Some of the readings are apparently
corrupt; nor, ignorant as we are of nautical science, was it in our
power to correct them. There are also some slight mistakes, which
must be attributed to the transcriber.
"A letter which follows that of Verrazzano, gives, as it seems to
us, a sufficient explanation of the origin of this manuscript. It
was written by a young Florentine, named Fernando Carli, and is
addressed from Lyons to his father in Florence. It mentions the
arrival of Verrazzano at Dieppe, and contains several circumstances
about him, which throw a new though still a feeble light upon parts
of his history, hitherto wholly unknown. It is by the discovery of
this letter, that we have been enabled to form a sketch of him,
somewhat more complete than any which has ever yet been given.
"The history of both manuscripts is probably as follows: Carli wrote
to his father, thinking, as he himself tells it, that the news of
Verrazzano's return would give great satisfaction to many of their
friends in Florence. He added at the same time, and this also we
learn from his own words, a copy of Verrazzano's letter to the king.
Both his letter and his copy of Verrazzano's were intended to be
shown to his Florentine acquaintances. Copies, as is usual in such
cases, were taken of them; and to us it seems evident that from some
one of these the copy in the Magliabechian manuscript was derived.
The appearance of this last, which was prepared for some individual
fond of collecting miscellaneous documents, if not by him, is a
sufficient corroboration of our statement." [Footnote: Historical
Studies: by George Washington Greene, New York, 1850; p. 323. Life
and Voyages of Verrazzano (by the same), in the North American
Review for October, 1837. (Vol. 45, p. 306).]
Adopting the Carli copy as the primitive form of the Verrazzano
letter, and the Carli letter as the original means by which it has
been communicated to the world, the inquiry is resolved into the
authenticity of the Carli letter. There are sufficient reasons to
denounce this letter as a pure invention; and in order to present
those reasons more clearly, we here give a translation of it in
full:
Letter of Fernando Carli to his Father. [Footnote: The letter of
Carli was first published in 1844, with the discourse of Mr. Greene
on Verrazzano, in the Saggiatore (I, 257), a Roman journal of
history, the fine arts and philology. (M. Arcangeli, Discorso sopra
Giovanni da Verrazzano, p. 35, in Archivio Storico Italiano.
Appendice tom. IX.) It will be found in our appendix, according to
the reprint in the latter work.]
In the name of God.