Part 10

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.”

Thus, beyond all question, it is proved that Columbus addressed these two several letters to these two different persons, from one of which the Spanish text was printed, and from the other the Latin translation was made and subsequently printed. And having reached this point, we see clearly that my suggestion of Columbus having altered the date of 4th March to 14th _must_ have been correct; and, furthermore, that he copied the date of “14th,” on whichever of these two letters was written last, because, while it stands March 14th _in totidem verbis_ in one, it is rendered “pridie idus Martii” (which means the same thing) in the translation from the other. We see in this date “Ulisbone, pridie idus Martii,” a proof that the copy from which the Latin was made, consisted, like the original of the Ambrosian Spanish text, of a complete letter with the “nema” added, because the place Lisbon is derived from the language at the beginning of the nema, and the date from Columbus’s alteration at the end. Although the printer, Plannck, inserted nothing of the “nema” beyond the said place and date, which he placed at the end of the body of the letter in lieu of February 15th, we have a clear proof that De Cosco had really translated the letter and nema as they stand in the Spanish, for when we come to look into Dati’s poem, which he distinctly states to be translated from the Latin, we find _the date of February 15th retained, but no allusion to the contents of the nema, which, being detached, had evidently not reached his hands_. This fact, and others observable in his text, especially when examined in combination with the Italian, which also came from the Sanchez original, show that Dati worked from Cosco’s manuscript translation. As to whether of the two printed texts, the Ambrosian Spanish or Plannck’s Latin, can claim priority, we have no present means of deciding, but that the preference is due to the Spanish under critical correction is manifest, since it has been exposed to modifications from a compositor only, while the Latin has passed through the two ordeals of a translation and a compositor’s alterations. For this reason I have adopted the Spanish in my text, observing that it replaces the very worst Latin text which I could have adopted, viz., that taken by Navarrete from the _España Illustrada_. The faults in the Ambrosian text are many and great, and this has led Señor de Gayangos to suggest that it was printed, not in Spain, but in Portugal, probably Lisbon. An opinion from one so eminent has great weight, but while yielding to none in sincere respect for the judgment of my distinguished friend, I confess I think that the circumstances of the letter point, as Senhor de Varnhagen has stated, to Barcelona for the place of printing. Mr. Winter Jones, the Principal Librarian of the British Museum, and late Keeper of the Department of Printed Books, whose bibliographical knowledge is so well known, tells us that he recollects having seen the initial letter S, which commences the Ambrosian text, but, in spite of great research, I have failed to find it or the corresponding type in any work in our vast library. It is here well to remark that no kind of _fac-simile_ is so baulking to bibliographic comparison as the photographic. The respective sizes of the letters are altered, and the outline is rendered broken and rotten. A _fac-simile_ of this same letter, done by the hand, was published in Milan in 1863, in the sixteenth volume of the _Biblioteca Rara_ of G. Daelli, and gives the type a far firmer appearance than that in the photograph. It is obvious that an opportunity is afforded of correcting the mistakes in the Ambrosian text from the other texts which we possess. This has been done with great skill and judgment by Senhor de Varnhagen by collation with the Simancas, the Valencia, and the Latin texts; to these aids I have added the Italian poem of Giuliano Dati, and the Italian fragment, for which I have been indebted to the kindness of the Marquis d’Adda.

We possess no detailed description of the second voyage of Columbus from his own hand. That which is here printed is the translation of a letter addressed to the Chapter of Seville by Dr. Chanca, a native of that city, who was physician to the fleet in this voyage, and was an eye-witness of the events that he related. For this reason it is preferred to two other accounts in Latin which are in existence, but which have both been made up from hearsay. One of these occurs in the second book of the _Decades_ of Peter Martyr of Anghiera, published first at Seville (Hispali) in 1511, and afterwards at Alcala de Henares (Compluti) in 1516, and often subsequently printed. The other is a compilation by Nicolò Scillacio, of Messina, who, while studying philosophy at Pavia in 1494 (?), and living with Giovanni Antonio Biretta, received from Spain, from a certain nobleman named Guglielmo Coma, a description of the recent discoveries of Columbus. This, as Mr. Lenox tells us, he translated into Latin, and inserted such other accounts as were then universally current, but without changing or adding anything. Mr. James Lenox, of New York, who is the possessor of one of the only two copies of this work known (the other being in the possession of the Marquis Trivulzio of Milan), and who states that it was first published in 1494, or early in 1495, reprinted it in 1859, with a translation by the Rev. John Mulligan, giving as an appendix my translation of Doctor Chanca’s letter, as printed in the first edition of the present work in 1847. It is obvious that this work of Scillacio’s, which is a pedantic compilation, cannot compare for authenticity with the account of Dr. Chanca; while the latter contains more incidents, and is more agreeably written than the narrative of Peter Martyr.

This letter by Dr. Chanca was copied by Navarrete (as he himself says at the end of the letter in his work) from a manuscript in the possession of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid, written in the middle of the sixteenth century, and was amongst the collection of papers referring to the West Indies, collected by Father Antonio de Aspa, a monk of the order of St. Jerome, of the monastery of the Mejorada, near Olmedo.—This document was unpublished previous to Navarrete’s compilation. A copy was taken from the original by Don Manuel Avella, and deposited in the collection of Don Juan Bautista Muñoz, and from that copy, after collation with the original manuscript, the transfer was made by Navarrete into his valuable work. This letter is followed by a Memorial respecting the second voyage, addressed to the sovereigns by Columbus, through the intervention of Antonio de Torres, governor of the city of Isabella. At the close of each chapter or item is affixed their highness’s reply. The document was taken by Navarrete from the Archives of Seville.

The two letters next in order in the present translation, are from the hand of Columbus himself, and are descriptive of the events of the third voyage. The first, addressed to the Sovereigns, was taken by Navarrete, under careful collation by himself and Muñoz, from a manuscript in the handwriting of the bishop Bartolomé de la Casas, found in the archives of the duke del Infantado. The second, addressed to the nurse of Prince John, is taken from a collection of manuscripts, relating to the West Indies, made by Muñoz, and deposited in the Real Academia de la Historia at Madrid. The text was collated by Navarrete with a copy inserted in the Codice Colombo-Americano, said to have been written in the monastery of Santa Maria de las Cuevas in Seville.

The letter by Columbus, descriptive of his fourth voyage, was taken by Navarrete from a manuscript in the king’s private library at Madrid, written in the handwriting of the middle of the sixteenth century, and probably the same copy as that which Pinelo, at page 61 of his _Biblioteca Occidental_, 4to., 1629, describes as having been made by Don Lorenzo Ramirez de Prado, from an edition in 4to., which does not appear to be now in existence. It was translated into Italian by Constanzo Bayuera of Brescia, and published at Venice in 1505, and, on account of its extreme scarcity, was republished, with some learned comments, by Morelli, the librarian of St. Mark’s at Venice, in 1810.

That it had been printed in Spanish is asserted both by Pinelo and by Fernando Columbus.

It is presumed that the manuscript from which Navarrete made his copy was that made by Ramirez de Prado, because it had been removed to the king’s library, from the Colegio Mayor de Cuenca, in Salamanca, where the papers of Ramirez had been deposited.

I must not close this bibliographical notice without tendering my warmest thanks to my friends, William Brenchley Rye, Esq., the learned Keeper of the Printed Books in the British Museum; and Robert Edmund Graves, Esq., one of the most accomplished of his Assistant-Librarians;—to the former for most kindly making out the foregoing list of incunabula of the first letter, and the latter for very valuable help in my search for collateral texts by which to fortify my conclusions in the toilsome examination which I have here brought to a termination.

FOOTNOTES:

[24] It should be 29th. The mistake is copied from Navarrete.

[25] In pursuance of his idea that not two, but only one letter, was despatched to head-quarters, Senhor de Varnhagen has translated the words of the endorsement “Contenida a otra de Sus Altezas.”—“Contenida _en_ otra, etc.” and then, reasoning from the impossibility of Columbus showing such familiarity with the Sovereigns, argues, that the letter was in fact addressed to them only. With all respect I submit that the natural rendering is “Contenida la otra de Sus Altezas”; Angl. “Contained the other of their Highnesses”; or, as it would be clearer in French, “Y contenue l’autre de Leurs Altesses;” and Santangel appropriately appears as bearer of the missive to the Sovereigns.

SELECT LETTERS OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. ETC.