Part 9

Chapter 93,748 wordsPublic domain

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.

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