Part 11 (2/2)

It is said to have first appeared on a map ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci in 1514; but in a pamphlet accompanying ”the earliest known globe of Johann Schoner,” made in 1515, the new region is described as the ”fourth part of the globe named after its discoverer, Americus Vespucius, who found it in 1497.” Vespucci did not find it, and he never made the claim that he discovered more than is given in his letters; but this misstatement by another caused him to be accused of falsifying the dates of his voyages in order to rob Columbus of his deserts.

It will be perceived, however, that the name was not applied at first to the entire land ma.s.ses of America, but merely to that portion now known as Brazil, called by Cabral ”_Terra Sanctae Crucis_,” or ”Land of the Holy Cross,” and by Vespucci, who continued his explorations, ”_Mundus Novus_.” Further than this Vespucci never went, and, moreover, he pa.s.sed away ”before his name was applied to the new discoveries on any published map.” He was living, of course, when the _Cosmographie_ appeared, and may have seen a copy of the book; but the argument advanced by some that he dedicated this work to Duke Rene of Lorraine, and hence must have written it, falls to the ground when that dedication is examined. The worthy canon who translated Vespucci's letter to Soderini into Latin, copied the dedication in the original, which was addressed to ”His Magnificence, Piero Soderini, etc.,” but subst.i.tuted for the last-named his patron, Duke Rene. This is proved by the t.i.tle ”His Magnificence,” which was used in addressing the Gonfaloniere of Florence, and never in connection with Duke Rene of Lorraine.

It was not until near the middle of the sixteenth century that ”America” was recognized ”as the established continental name,” when, after Mexico had been conquered by Cortes, Peru by Pizarro, and the Pacific revealed by Balboa and Magellan, it first appears on the great Mercator map of 1541. The appellation ”America” had superseded _Mundus Novus_ on several maps previous to this, but only as a term applied to restricted regions. ”The stage of development,” says the learned author of the _Discovery of America_, ”consisted of five distinct steps.... 1. Americus called the regions visited by him _beyond the equator_ a 'New World,' because they were unknown to the ancients; 2.

Giocondo made this striking phrase, _Mundus Novus_, into a t.i.tle for his translation of the letter, which he published at Paris (1504) while the author was absent from Europe, and probably without his knowledge; 3. The name _Mundus Novus_ got placed upon several maps as an equivalent for _Terra Sanctae Crucis_, or what we call Brazil; 4.

The suggestion was made that _Mundus Novus_ was the Fourth Part of the Earth, and might properly be named America, after its discoverer; 5.

The name America thus got placed upon several maps as an equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to stand alone for what we call South America, but still signified _only a part of the dry land beyond the Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way_.”

That there was no evil intention on Vespucci's part is amply proved by the fact that, while he himself lived four years after the _Introductio_ was published, a certain contemporary of his, one Ferdinand Columbus, who was most acutely interested in seeing justice done the name and deeds of his father, survived Vespucci twenty-seven years. He not only saw this book, but owned a copy, which, according to an autograph note on the flyleaf, he had bought in Venice in July, 1521, ”for five _sueldos_.” This book is still contained in the library he founded at Seville, and as it was copiously annotated by him, it must have been carefully read; yet, though he has the credit of having written a life of his father, Christopher Columbus, he makes no mention whatever of the ”usurpation” by Vespucci.

Ferdinand Columbus knew the Florentine, and was an intimate friend of his nephew, Juan Vespucci; yet the question seems never to have arisen between them as to the great discoverers' respective shares of glory.

The explanation lies in this fact: that Vespucci's name had been bestowed upon a region far remote from that explored by his father, who had never sailed south of the equator. Notwithstanding the good feeling that prevailed between them, however, long after Ferdinand's death, when the name America had become of almost universal application, the veteran Las Casas, in writing his great history, marvels that the son of the old Admiral could overlook the ”theft and usurpation” of Vespucci. The old man's indignation was great, for he was a stanch friend of Columbus, and revered his memory. He made out a very strong case against Vespucci--being in ignorance of the manner in which his name came to be given to the lands discovered by Columbus--and when, in 1601, the historian Herrera, who made use of the Las Casas ma.n.u.scripts, repeated his statements as those of a contemporary, all the world gave him credence.

Vespucci's name rested under suspicion during more than three centuries, and was not even partially cleared until 1837, when Alexander von Humboldt undertook the gigantic task of vindication. It was not so much to vindicate Vespucci, however, as to ascertain the truth, that Humboldt made the critical and exhaustive examination which appeared in his Examen _Critique de l'Histoire de la Geographie de Nouveau Continent_.

Even Humboldt, however, did not secure all the evidence available, but by the discovery of valuable doc.u.ments the missing links in the chain were supplied: by Varnhagen, Vespucci's ardent eulogist, by Harrisse, and finally by Fiske. The last-named truthfully says: ”No competent scholar anywhere will now be found to dissent from the emphatic statement of M. Harrisse--'After a diligent study of all the original doc.u.ments, we feel constrained to say that there is not a particle of evidence, direct or indirect, implicating Amerigo Vespucci in an attempt to foist his name on this continent.'” And moreover, ”no shade of doubt is left upon the integrity of Vespucci. So truth is strong, and prevails at last.”

This is the conclusion arrived at by the impartial historian, who, without disparaging the deeds of Columbus, without detracting in any manner from his great discoveries, has restored Amerigo Vespucci to the niche in which he was placed by the German geographers four hundred years ago, and from which he was torn by injudicious iconoclasts, fearful for the fame of Spain's great Admiral.

It is enough for Columbus to have discovered America; it was far more than Amerigo Vespucci deserved to have this discovery given his name, by which it will be known forever; but this honor, though unmerited, was at the same time unsought.

FOOTNOTES:

[15] For an excellent article on Saint-Die and the naming of America, see _Harper's Magazine_, vol. lx.x.xiv., p. 909 (1892).

THE END

<script>