Chapter IV: Part 4

Text size

Et messe dua desua huomini armati
a cercar ꝑle terre che han trouate,
seforce siscoprissin qualche aguati,
ma caminaron ben per tre giornate
che nōsi furon mai indrieto uolti,
& nō trouaron mai uille o brigate,
si che simarauiglia che camina
& piu chi e restato alla marina.

Ma niēte di manco quella terra
era di uari fructi molto ornata,
se chi ha scripto i qua neldir nōerra,
mōtagne e ue daltura ismisurata,
& molti fiumi lacircūda & serra,
doue trouorun poi molta brigata,
sēza pāni, uestite, o arme, o scudi
ma tucti emēbri loro si erano nudi.

Saluo chalcuna donna che coperte
tiene leparte genitale immonde,
cō bambagia tessuta, & di po certe
lhauen coperte con diuerse frōde,
& come uidon questi lediserte
forte fuggendo ciascun fina scōde,
& questi dua in drieto si tornauano,
& axꝕofano lo facto racontauano.

Et xꝕofano & glialtri dismontati
armati tucti il paese cercando
isole molte & huomini trouati
come tu intenderai qui ascoltando
& glistendardi del Re ha rizati,
& a ciascuno il suo nome mutando,
come dira questa pistola magna,
da xꝕofano scripta al Re di spagna.

Perchio so, signor mio, ch’ grā piacer̃
hara la uostra magna signoria
quando potra intendere o sapere,
delle cose che io presi in mia balia,
ꝑ uirtu del signore & suo potere,
& simil della madre sua maria,
dal partir mio a trētatre giornate,
molte isole & grā gēte iho trouate.

Lisola prima chio trouai, signore,
io lho ꝑ nome facta nominare
isola magna di san Saluadore,
& la seconda poi feci chiamare
conceptio Marie a suo honore,
di poi laterza feci baptezare
per uostra signoria ch’ tāto ornata
isola ferrandina lho nominata,

Et la quarta Isabella fo chiamare,
ꝑ la Regina che tānto honorata,
& alla quinta il nome uolsi dare
che lisola Giouanna fia chiamata,
& la festa dun nome uolsi ornare
che cōgruo miparse a q̃lla fiata,
che Laspagnuola qlla sichiamasse,
per che mipar che cosi meritasse.

Enomi son dellisole trouate
nel india, signor mio, como uiscriuo,
& questa & laltre sopra nominate
notitia auoi nedo signor mio diuo
trecēto uc̄tun miglio ho caminate,
& peruenuto alfin colsancto uliuo
dalla giouāna alla spagnuola elmar̃
cīquātaquattro miglia largo apare.

Et per septentrione lanauicai
cinquantaquattro miglia dimarina,
doue che alla spagna io arriuai,
inuerso loriente sauicina,
& per lalinea recta io caminai
da onde la spagnuola li confina
son c̄iquecēsessantaquattro miglia,
e lalargheza che q̄sta isola piglia.

Et q̄sta & tucte laltre e molto forte,
ma q̄sta sopra laltre par fortissima,
potresi inanzi dare a tucte morte
ch’ una parte sacquisti piccolissima,
certo questo eildestino qsto e lesorte,
ch’ uostra signoria fan felicissima,
e dotata di fructi molte & uarie,
& liti, & porti, & cose necessarie,

Et molti fiumi, & maxime mōtagne,
che son dalteza molto smisurate,
arbori, fonte, uccegli, & cose magne,
chauostri tempi no san mai trouate,
certo lamente mia signor ne piagne,
per lalegreza delle cose ornate,
di tucte cose cie se io non erro,
saluo ch’ nōsi truoua acciaio o ferro.

Sonci di septe o uer docto ragioni
di palme che mifan marauigliare,
& se alzando gliocchi poni
pini uison che laria par toccare,
passere lusignuoli & altri doni,
che nonsi potre mai tucto narrare,
della bambagia un pondo ce infinito
& daltre cose assai ce inquesto lito.

Arbori cison duna ragion fioriti
del mese di novembre chenoi siano
come ī ispagna, & ne suo degno liti,
liarberi sō elmagio, elmōte, elpiano,
si che no altri stiano tucti stupiti
ꝑ labōdantia che trouata habbiano,
sonci gli arberi uerdi & and lelor foglie,
chi credo che nō pdā mai lespoglie.

Di reubarbaro ce tanta abōdantia,
& dicenamo daltra spetieria,
loro & largento, el metallo ciauāza,
maxime un fiume che per q̃sta uia,
che nō puo questa terra farne senza,
doue ho trouato cō mia fantasia,
che dimoltoro e piena quella rena,
sicome lacqua di quel fiume mena.

Simil, signore, io uiuoglio auisare,
che inq̄stisola ce molta pianura,
doue difizi molti sipuon fare,
& castelle cipta cō magne mura,
che nō bisogna poi di dubitare,
ne dhauer chi cista nulla paura,
molte terre cison da feminare,
& depascer lebestie & nutricare.

Ho po trouati certi fiumicelli,
ch’ tucti menano oro & nō gia poco,
& molti porti grādi & da far belli,
che abōdanza ce dacqua diloco,
lherbe & leselue facte co pennelli
nō son si belle & nō cisusa foco,
glhuomini sono affabile formati,
timidi semꝕ & alfuggir parati.

Sonci assai uille ma son picoolecte,
dhuomini & dōne son tucte calcate,
glihabitacoli qui son capānecte
semplici sono & credule brigate,
& ben che sieno nudi stāno necte,
si che signor dibuona uoglia state,
& credon che no siā di cielo ī terra,
mādati per cāpargli dogni guerra.

Portano alcun certe cāne appuntate,
socto lebraccia come noi lespade,
archi cō frecce dicanne tagliate,
& uāno īsieme assai come lesquadr̃
di capegli & di barbe molto ornate,
nō son micidial persone o ladre,
ma tucto q̃l ch’ glhiāno ī lor potere
celodarebbon ꝓ farci piacere.

Et parmi che cifia grā diferenza
da questa isola a q̃lla di Giouāna
darbori, fructi, and dherbe & diꝕsēza,
nōci manca senon la sancta māna,
doro ce tanto cha uostra potenza
chi guerra far sipensa ī uan safāna
oltre alla roba acquistate lhonore,
tucti son prōti acreder al signore.

Questi popoli grādi & infiniti,
come ꝑ segni ciāno dimōstrato,
ledōne & lor figluoli & lor mariti
ciascuno spera desser baptezato,
priego il signor iesu che puo glīuiti
apossedere el suo regno beato
di quāto ben cagion signor sarete
coluostro auxilio che dato mhauete.

Iho menati qui certi indiani
ch’ cōprēdā di q̃sta alcun līguaggio
tal che parlando con cēni dimani
q̃lcū diq̃sti ch’e piu sperto & saggio
dicon di farsi a noi tucti xꝕiani
tal chiho ꝕso signor mio uātaggio
& di legname una bastia fo fare
& lagente uimecto per guardare.

Et forniti glilascio per uno anno
darme diuectouaglia ben chi spero
che nō haranno molestia ne dāno
ꝑ che gli lascio cō un buon pensiero,
humili mansueti tucti stanno,
sich’ auxilio iluostro signor chiero,
mandimi uostra signoria piacente
allaude del signore omnipotente.

Chi nō uede signor lisole degne,
& lericheze o nobil creatura,
& lauarieta darbori & legne,
& deglhuomini & dōne lor figura,
nō sa ch’ sia delmōdo lesue ī segne,
chi nō esce delcerchio di sua mura,
nō puo perfectamente idio laudare
chi nō gusta lecose che sa fare.

Signor mio dolce, lapiaceuoleza
di q̃sta gente io non saprei narrare,
per una stringa che poco sipreza
uolson tanto oro aun diquesti dare
ch’ tre ducati & mezo o che richeza
hare potuto inqueste parte fare,
ma io ho comādato alla mia gente
che ciascun doni & nō pigli niēte.

Per far lor grata uostra signoria
dimolta roba io ho facto donare
di quella dimie gente & della mia,
come scodelle & piacti damāgiare,
& uetri & pauni chera in mia balia,
senza riserbo alcuno per me fare
ꝓ chio glho conosciuti tante grati,
iglho come fedeli & buō tractati.

Vero e ch’ sono assai prōti alfugire
per che non sono usati di uedere
gente che usin panni da uestire,
ma per che uegan noi tucto sapere,
ciascun diloro ciadora come sire,
& lalor roba da mangiare o bere,
nō ho ueduto fare ne tuo ne mio,
ma lauita comune alparer mio.

Volsano ancora ꝓ una bocte trista,
& per un pezo darco che nō uale,
tre once doro darmi & similmista,
tanta bambagia che mezo quintale,
ma poi chi hebbi questa cosa uista
parsemi dipigliar niente male,
& ho cōmesso aciaschedun de mia
chedipigliare niente ardito sia.

Nō e fra loro alcuna briga o secta,
ma pacifici tucti insieme stanno,
di parole & ni facti mai saspecta,
di far uēdecta alcūa īgiuria o dāno,
beato a q̃llo che seguir sidilecta,
acompagnati abraccio semꝕ uāno,
io glho uisti si buoni recti & grati,
che abuō fine idio glhara chiamati.

Nō e fra loro idolatria nessuna,
tucti lemani al ciel tengono alzate,
nō adoran pianeti, o sole, o luna,
ma lelor mente al ciel tucte leuate.
dicon la gloria ī ciel esser sol una,
dellaqual patria credon ch’ mādate
lenostre barche siano & noi ī terra,
a far pace colciel dogni lor guerra.

Io nho cō meco semꝕ alcū menato
equali feci per forza pigliare,
q̃ndo alprīcipio ī terra fui smōtato,
non potendo inaltra forma fare
pelueloce fuggir mai ascoltato
nō era lemie uoci olmio parlare,
& q̃sti che per forza allhor pigliai,
son per amor uenuti sempre mai.

Semꝕ mangiare, o bere, & adormire,
acanto a me io glho si ben tractati,
ch’ gliaferman ꝑ certo & usan dire
ch’ dalregno del ciel no siā mādati,
uanocci inanzi gridando uenire,
debba ciascuno auedere ebeati,
si chalpresente ognū corre auedere
& portan tucti damāgîare & bere.

Da luna isola allaltra q̃sti uāno
cō certe barche che inquesta isola e,
lequal dun legno solo facte stanno,
& son chiamate queste canoe,
sō lūghe strecte & par quasi uolādo
andare achiunche messo dētro ce,
bench’ sien grossamente lauorate
cō sassi & legni & ossi son cauate.

Et hōne uista alcuna tāto grāde
che octanta persone cista dentro,
& ciascūo hal suo remo & leumāde
nauica q̃sti & con buon sētimeto
la roba luno allaltro li sispande
q̃l chio uscriuo signor nulla mēto
& uanno baractando tucti quāti
come sefussin quasi mercatanti.

Inqueste isole tucte nominate
nō ho ueduta nulla differenza
dincarnati diuisi o dibrigate,
ma tucti quasi son duna presenza
& dun cōstume tucti cōstumate
huomini & dōne sō pie dicremēza,
tucti hāno una loquela & un parlar̃
che uifarē, signor, marauigliare.

Che par che util cosa questa sia
acōuerrirgli a nostra sancta fede.
che come scriuo auostra signoria
ciascun disposto ce, & gia lacrede
dique che han uista lapresenza mia
no glho tucti ueduti de siuede
ch’glie margior giouāna senza sotia
che nōe linghilterra con lascotia.

Son duo ꝓuincie chio nō ho certate,
secondo che q̄sti altri decto hāno,
una cene la qual queste brigate.
dican che quelle gente che uistāno
son con le code tucte quante nate
& Anaan elnome posto lehanno,
poi caminai ꝓ la spagnuola ciglia
ꝑ cinquecēsessantoquattro miglia.

Doue e lauilla laqual io pigliai,
doue io feci larocca o uer bastia
che la piu bella che io uedessi mai,
come iho scripto a uostra signoria
non miricorda se adir uimandai
inquesta brieue epistolecta mia
elnōe ch’ io lho posto & forse auisto
natiuita del nostro Iesus Xꝕo.

In queste isole tucti questi stāno
contenti duna dōna ciascheduno,
ma q̄sti principali tucti mhanno
uēti lequal son date lor per uno.
& luno allaltro mai torto nō fanno,
che a cio far nō ce pronto nessuno,
& nelle cose tucte da mangiare
nulla diuision uiueggo fare.

Et ben che i q̄ste parti caldo sia,
lastate eluerno ce digran freddura,
ma ꝑ che mangiā molta spetieria
lacarne loro alfreddo molto dura
inquesta parte nulla cosa ria,
sitruoua diche questi habbin paura,
saluo che ce unisola allentrare
dellindia per uoler qui arriuare.

In nella quale sta gente uillana
da q̄sti nō mipar che siano amati,
ꝑ ch’ dice māgiā carne humana,
pero nō son da questi qui prezati,
hanno assai legni q̄sta gente strana,
da nauicare & hanno gia rubati,
aquesti di scorrendo dogni banna
cō archi ī mano & cō frecce dicāna.

Non e da q̄sti a quegli differenza,
senō innecapegli che q̄gli hanno
lunghi come ledōne & dipresenza
son come q̄sti & fāno molto dāno,
aq̄ste ch’ son ꝑpro essa clemenza,
si che ingelosia sempre nestanno,
ma spero che lauosira signoria
sapra purgare una tal maltaia.

Una isola cie decta mactanino,
nella qual le donne sole stanno,
& questo iniquo popol glie uicino,
& ausar con q̄ste spesso uanno,
ma q̄sto popol tucto feminino
exercitio di dōne mai nō fanno,
ma cō gliarchi trahēdo tuctauia,
che par per cerbo una grā fantasia.

Et uanno queste ben tucte coperte,
nō gia di pāni lini, o lani, o ueli,
ma derbe & giūchi, & q̄ste cose certe
son che di qua nq̃e lēzuoli o teli
unaltra isola poi legente offerte,
femine & maschi nascō senza peli,
manzi uoglia cōfuso esser nel dire
chi uoglia alcuna cosa preterire.

Et dove q̄sti senza peli sono,
piu oro cie chihabbia ācor trouata
di q̄l chi scriuo o parlando ragiono,
signore, io ne son ben giustificato
auostra signoria un magno dono
iho per portar meco preparato
di tucti q̄sti luoghi iuo menare
gente che possin cio testificare.

Pero, giusto signor, di Spagna degno,
stia uostra signoria dibuona uoglia
chīho cresciuto tāto iluostro regno,
ch’ chi ua īuida po crepar didoglia
doro & dargento passarete el segno
tel ch’ trarra elnimico di sua soglia,
ma q̃l chi so ch’ molto piu prezate
son queste gēte a xꝕo preparate.

Reubarbero assai & aloe,
Mastice, cinamono, & spetierie,
tanta richeza, signor mio, qui e
che discaccia da me leuoglie rie,
piu allegreza, signor mio, fare,
si fussi certo che per tucte uie
q̃sta scripta uenissi asaluamento
nel mōdo no sare huom piu-cōtēto.

Nō miacascaltro degno mio signore
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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Previous Next

Comments

Select letters of Christopher ColumbusChapter IV: Part 4

0%35 min left in chapter