THE GIFT OF 
 
 ^....(^i-XcXaaXcv/v. 
 
 ,A.-i:i5iA:2. 13.^4^^ 
 
 5474 
 
TOSCANELLl AND COLUMBUS 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO 
 
 SIR CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, C.B., F.R.S. 
 
 President Royal Geographical Society, etc. 
 
 AND TO 
 
 C. RAYMOND BEAZLEY, M.A. 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 OF THIS CONTROVERSY 
 
 ^CTi'A '■' ■'\ Vi > , -. 
 
 LONDON 
 SANDS & CO. 
 
 12 BURLEIGH STREET, STRAND 
 1903 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924020411009 
 
A FOREWORD 
 
 I HAD resolved not to reply any further to those who had 
 so easily criticised my book by bandying from one to the 
 other the same arguments ; but I have felt compelled to 
 make exceptions for the two reviews in The Times and The 
 Guardian, firstly, because of their authors' high distinction, 
 and, secondly, because they brought forward weighty argu- 
 ments which! was bound to answer. 
 
 If, as Mr Beazley asserts, the Portuguese were seeking 
 the route to the East Indies, even earlier than 1474, the 
 fundamental proof of my proposition, the one that constitutes 
 the starting-point of all the others, would be annihilated. 
 Were it true, as Sir Clements Markham thinks, that 
 Columbus set sail from Palos with the great design of 
 seeking the Indies, the question of the authenticity of the 
 Toscanelli correspondence would be devoid of all interest. 
 
 Were these facts so, serious workers would have a severe 
 account to settle with me, for having disturbed their studies 
 and wasted their time, by intruding upon them a question 
 devoid of all foundation ; and, far from being, as Mr Beazley 
 amiably describes it, a " suggestive monograph " treated with 
 "great ingenuity," or, as Sir Clements Markham has 
 honoured me by caUing it, a " learned and interesting work " 
 — my book would deserve no better fate than to be committed 
 to the flames. But neither on the first nor the second of 
 these points do I fear the final judgment of my judges. 
 
As to the first point I shall add nothing to what I say 
 here : the subject is exhausted. 
 
 On the second point, my History of the presentation, the 
 discussion, and the acceptance of Columbus's scheme, a 
 work which will shortly appear, will say all that need be 
 said. 
 
 Henry Vignaud. 
 
 United States Embassy, 
 V AS.1S, January 1903. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE TOSCANELLI- 
 COLUMBUS CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 The question of the authenticity of the Toscanelli-Columbus 
 correspondence was first publicly raised in a paper read at 
 the Congress of the Americanists in 1900 by M. Vignaud, 
 who therein stated that it was to M. de La Rosa he was 
 first indebted for the idea, but with whom he disagreed 
 on essential particulars. 
 
 In the course of that Congress M. de La Rosa made 
 some remarks on the same subject, and also on some obscure 
 points in the life of Columbus : these remarks, subsequently 
 developed, constitute the paper numbered 21 in this list. 
 
 No. I. UziELLi (Gustavo). — La Scoperta dell' America al 
 Congresso degli Americanists del 1900. Florence, M. Ricci, 
 1901, 8vo, p. 7. (From the Rivista geografica Italiana^ Part 
 IIL, 1901.) 
 
 Remarks on the communications above mentioned 
 
 made by M. Vignaud and M. de La Rosa to the 
 
 Americanist Congress of 1900. 
 
 No. 2. Vignaud (Henry). — La Lettre et la Carte de Toscanelli 
 
 sur la route des Indes par I'ouest adress6es en 1474 au 
 
 Portugais Fernam Martins et transmises plus tard a 
 
 Christophe Colomb. Etude critique sur I'authenticite et 
 
 la valeur de ces documents et sur les sources des idees cosmo- 
 
 graphiques de Colomb, suivie des divers texles de la Lettre 
 
 de I474> avec traductions, annotations et fac-simile par 
 
Henry Vignaud, premier Secretaire de I'Ambassade des 
 Etats-Unis en France, Vice-President de la Societ6 des 
 Americanistes, etc. Paris, Leroux, 1901, large 8vo, pp. 
 xxiv.-sig. 
 
 This is an enlargement of the paper read before the 
 Congress of Americanists, held at Paris in September 1900, 
 with the addition of documentary evidence. 
 No. 3. Fitzmaurice-Kelly (James). — The Columbus Forgeries. 
 (From the Morning Post. London, October 17, 1901.) 
 
 The first critical review of M. V.'s book published in 
 
 England. A most brilliant, clever, and accurate account 
 
 of the work. 
 
 No. 4. Wagner (Hermann). — Henry Vignaud. La Lettre et la 
 
 Carte de Toscanelli, etc. Berlin, 1902, 8vo, pp. 107-121. 
 
 (From the Goettingiscken gelehrten Anzeigen!) 
 
 An able but adverse review of M. V.'s No. 2 by the 
 
 well-known Professor of Geography at the University 
 
 of Gottingen. Dwells mainly on the cartographical side 
 
 of the question. 
 
 No. 5. UziELLi (Gustavo). — Toscanelli, Colombo e la leggenda 
 
 del Pilota. Florence, M. Ricci, 1902, 8vo, p. 98. (From the 
 
 Rivista geografica Italiana of Rome, Part I., 1902.) 
 
 A bitter and unfair criticism of M. V.'s work. For a 
 scorching reply to this attack, see No. 10. 
 No. 6. Gallois (L.). — Toscanelli et Christophe Colomb. Paris, 
 Colin, 1902. (From the Annales de Geographte, March 
 1902.) 
 
 A fair, considerate, but adverse review of M. V.'s No. 2. 
 For a reply see No. 10. 
 No. 7. Uzielli (Gustavo). — Polemica Toscanelliana. {Rivista 
 geografica Italiana, Part IH., March. Rome, iq02.) 
 
 A letter from Professor Uzielli to Senor de La Rosa, 
 
 replying to a note he had received from de La Rosa 
 
 relative to the statements the latter had made at the 
 
 Congress of the Americanists. 
 
 No. 8. Gravier (Gabriel). — La Lettre et la Carte de Toscanelli 
 
k Fernam Martins et k Christophe Colomb d'aprfes Henry 
 Vignaud, par M. Gabriel Gravier, President honoraire de la 
 Sod^te Normande de G6ographie. Rouen, Cagniard 
 1902, small 4to, p. 23. (From the Bulletin de la SocieU 
 Normande de Geographie, January to March 1902). 
 
 A careful analysis of the views and arguments of M. V., 
 
 whose conclusions the venerable author of Cavelier de 
 
 Lassalle, of Champlain, and of many other standard works 
 
 on the discovery and colonisation of America, readily 
 
 accepts. 
 
 No. 9. Marcel (Gabriel). — ToscanelH et Christophe Colomb 
 
 d'aprfes un ouvrage recent. {La Geographie. Paris, April 
 
 IS, IC02, p. 6.) 
 
 The learned keeper of the map department of the 
 
 National Library of Paris discusses the principal argu- 
 
 mer.ts presented by M. V. in support of his views, and 
 
 agrees with him on the main points. He believes there 
 
 was forgery, but, with M. de La Rosa, he ascribes it to 
 
 Columbus himself. 
 
 No. 10. Vignaud (Henry). — Memoire sur I'authenticite de la 
 
 Lettre de Toscanelli du 25 Juin 1474, adresse d'abord au 
 
 Portugais Fernam Martins et plus tard a Christophe Colomb. 
 
 Extrait du compte rendu du Congres international des Am6- 
 
 ricanistes tenu en Septembre 1900. Precede d'une reponse 
 
 a mes critiques : Lettres k Messieurs G. Uzielli, Hermann 
 
 Wagner, et L. Gallois. Paris, Leroux, 1902, 8vo, pp. 
 
 X1.-33- 
 
 As shown by the title, this is a separate issue of the 
 
 paper read by M. V. to the Americanist Congress of 1900 ; 
 
 to it are added : — 
 
 1. A letter to Professor Uzielli (March 1902) in reply 
 to his paper : Toscanelli, Colombo, etc. (No. 5). 
 
 2. A letter to Professor Hermann Wagner of the 
 University of Gottingen (April 1902) in reply to his 
 Review of M. V.'s Book (No. 4). 
 
 3. A letter to Professor L. Gallois of the Ecole Nor- 
 
8 
 
 male Sup6rieure of Paris (April 1902) in reply to hiy paper 
 (No. 6). 
 No. II. UziELLi (Gustavo). — Polemica Toscanelliana. [Rivista 
 geografica Italiana, Part VI., June 1902. Rome.) 
 
 A letter to M. V. in acknowledgment of a cq)y of his 
 Mimoire (No. 10). 
 No. 12. Beazley (C. Raymond). — The Toscanelli Msip. {Geo- 
 graphical Journal^ June 1902.) 
 
 A short review of M. V.'s French edition!; compli- 
 mentary to the author, but decidedly adverse to his 
 conclusions. 
 No. 13. RuGE (Dr Sophus). — Die Echtheit des Toscanelli-Briefes 
 (the authorship of the Toscanelli Letter). {Zeiischrift der 
 Gesellsehaft fiir Erdkunde zu Berlin^ No. 6. Berlin, 1902, 
 8vo, pp. 390-511.) 
 
 An unfavourable review of M. V.'s French book (No. 
 2). Repeats the objections made by several other critics. 
 No. 14. Marcel (A.). — Revue de G^ographie. Paris, June 
 
 1902. 
 No. 15. Lyle (E. P.). — Did Columbus discover America? {Every 
 bodfs Magazine. New York, June.) 
 
 Review of the book for the general reader. Illustrations. 
 No. 16. ViGNAUD (Henry).— Toscanelli and Columbus, Letters 
 to Professor Hermann Wagner (July 18, 1902). {New York 
 Herald. Paris, June 27, 1902,) 
 
 This second letter of M. V. to Professor Wagner is in 
 reply to various letters received from him with regard to 
 some of the points raised. 
 No. 17. The Aberdeen Free Press, August 28. 
 
 An elaborate and competent review of the book. Most 
 favourable. 
 No. 18. The Tablet. London, August 22. 
 
 Another careful, competent, and favourable review of 
 the book. 
 No. 19. UziELLi (Gustavo). — Antonio di Tuccio Manetti, Paolo 
 Toscanelli e la lunghezza delle miglia nel secolo delle Scoperte. 
 
(From the Rivista geografica Italiana, Part VIII., August 
 1902. Rome, 8vo, p. 26.) 
 
 An interesting monograph on Manetti, with occasional 
 remarks on M. de La Rosa's and M. V.'s sophisms and 
 quibbles. 
 No. 20. Hazeltine (M. W.). — Columbus and Toscanelli. {The 
 Sun. New York, August 23, 1902.) 
 
 A careful analysis of M. V.'s book, but rather sceptical. 
 No. 21. UziELLi (Gustavo). — Toscanelli, Colombo e Vespucci. 
 (From the Atti del IV. Congresso Geografico Itab'ano. 
 Milan, 1902, 8vo, p. 33.) 
 
 A learned paper adorned with numerous amusing notes 
 in reply to M. V.'s letter to him (No. 10), and in refuta- 
 tion of M. de La Rosa's position. 
 No. 22. HuGUES (Luigi). — La Lettera di Paolo dal Pozzo Tosca- 
 nelli a Fernam Martins a proposito di un libro recente del 
 Sig. Enrico Vignaud, Nota di Luigi Hugues. Casale, 
 Monferrato Tip. Casalesce Fr. LLi. Tarditi, 1902, 8vo, p. 32. 
 An able and fair review of M. Vignaud's book. M. 
 Hugues, who is the author of various valuable papers on 
 Columbus and Vespucci, has carefully studied M. V.'s 
 work, and is the first Italian of high scientific standing to 
 do him justice. 
 No. 23. Vignaud (Henry). — ToscanelH and Columbus. The 
 Letter and Chart of Toscanelli on the route to the Indies 
 by way of the West sent, in 1474, to the Portuguese, 
 Fernam Martins, and later on to Christopher Columbus. 
 A critical study on the authenticity and value of these 
 documents, and the sources of the cosmographical ideas of 
 Columbus, followed by the various texts of the Letter, with 
 translations and annotations, and also several facsimiles and 
 a map. By Henry Vignaud, First Secretary of the United 
 States Embassy at Paris ; Vice-President of the Society of 
 Americanists of Paris, etc. London, Sands & Co., Svo, 
 pp. xix.-i-36s. 
 
 This work differs in many respects from the French 
 
 B 
 
lO 
 
 version. It contains several new chapters, a number of 
 additional notes, including some of the most important 
 character, fresh appendices, and a curious map. 
 No. 24. CoRTissoz (Royal). — Columbus : a Criticism of his 
 Scientific Pretensions, and a charge of Fraud. {The Tri- 
 bune. New York, September 27, 1902.) 
 
 A competent review of the American edition of M. V.'s 
 work, it takes exception to certain points, but in the main 
 agrees with him. 
 No. 25. La Rosa (Gonzalez de). — La Solution de tous les Pro- 
 blames relatifs ^ Christophe Colomb et, en particulier, de celui 
 des Origines ou des pretendus inspirateurs de la decouverte 
 du Nouveau Monde, par M. Gonzalez de La Rosa, Membre de 
 la Societe des Americanistes, ancien professeur a I'Universit^ 
 de Lima, etc. (From the Proceedings of the International 
 Congress of Americanists, held in September 1900. Paris, 
 Leroux, 1902, 8vo, p. 22.) 
 
 A very learned paper in which M. de La Rosa, from 
 whom originated the idea that the Colombo-Toscanelli 
 correspondence was a forgery, gives a summary of his 
 studies on the early part of Columbus's life. M. de L. R. 
 proposes to publish an important work on the subject. 
 In its present shape this paper was written after the print- 
 ing of M. V.'s French and English works on the subject. 
 
 No. 26. Mori (A.). — Discussioni Colombiane e Toscanelliane. 
 {Rivista geografica Italiana, November 1902.) 
 A review of M. de La Rosa's paper. 
 No. 27. Gallois (L.). — La Lettre de Toscanelli a Christophe 
 Colomb. (Annales de Geograpkie, November 1902. Paris, 
 8vo, pp. 448-511.) 
 
 Critical remarks on M. V.'s letter to him (No. 10), on 
 his English work (No. 23), and on M. de La Rosa's paper. 
 Adverse. 
 No. 28. Markham (Sir Clements R.). — New Theories on 
 Columbus. (Times, Literary Supplement. London, Novem- 
 ber 7, 1902.) 
 
II 
 
 A considerate and careful examination of M. V.'s pro- 
 positions which are not found tenable. 
 No. 29. Beazley (C. Raymond). — Toscanelli and Columbus. 
 {The Guardian. London, November 19, 1902.) 
 A learned but adverse review of M. V.'s work. 
 No. 30. ViGNAUD (Enrique). — La Carta y el Mappa de Tosca- 
 nelli sobre la ruta de las Indias por el Oeste enviados 
 en 1474 al Portugues Fernan Martins y trasladados mas 
 tarde 4 Cristobal Colon . . . obra traducida del Frances 
 y anotada por Juan B. Ensenat, individuo correspon- 
 diente de la Real Academia Espanola de la Historia, 
 etc., etc. (Madrid, Biblioteca de la Irradiadon, 1902, 
 i8mo, p. 247.) 
 
 A faithful translation of M. V.'s French work, but with 
 very few of the notes and without some of the appendix. 
 The translator has added a few interesting notes. 
 
 MINOR NOTICES 
 
 {FA VOURABLE) 
 19OI. 
 
 1. Brooklyn Eagle. July 7. 
 
 2. The Sun. New York, July 23. 
 
 3. Daily Messenger. Paris, September 20. 
 
 4. Brooklyn Eagle. October i. 
 
 5. Daily Mail. London, October i. 
 
 6. U Independance Beige. Brussels, October i. "Christophe 
 
 Colomb h. la Lumifere des nouvelles Recherches his- 
 toriques " : Ange Morre. 
 
 7. Figaro. Paris, October i. 
 
 8. La Politique Coloniale. Paris, October 2. 
 
12 
 
 9- Le Voltaire. Paris, October 2. "La Fin d'une L6gende" : J. 
 de Bonal. 
 
 10. The Standard, London, October 4. 
 
 11. Morning Post. London, October 4. 
 
 12. St James's Gazette. London, October 4. 
 
 13. Le Frangais. Paris, October 4. 
 
 14. The Westminster Gazette. London, October 5. "Poor 
 
 Columbus " : Montague Crackanthorpe. 
 
 15. South American Journal. London, October 5. 
 
 16. L'Univers et le Monde. Paris, October 5. 
 
 17. The Sun. New York, October 6. " M. Vignaud and Colum- 
 
 bus " : Victor Collins. 
 
 18. La Gironde. Bordeaux, October 8. 
 
 19. Evening Post. New York, October 8. "The Discovery of 
 
 America " : S. Dewey. 
 
 20. VAheille de la Nouvelle Orleans. October 10. 
 
 21. Brooklyn Eagle. October 11. 
 
 22. Courrier des Etats-Unis. New York, October 11. 
 
 23. The Times. London, October 11. 
 
 24. South American Journal. London, October 12. " Columbus 
 
 and the Discovery of America " : Victor S. Frank. 
 
 25. The Tablet. London, October 12. 
 
 26. The Picayune. New Orleans, October 27. 
 
 27. The Herald. New York, October 26. " Startling Discoveries 
 
 about Columbus." 
 
 28. The Open Court. Chicago, October. " Columbus and Tos- 
 
 canelli " : Theod. Stanton. 
 
 29. The World. New York, November 3. 
 
 30. The International Cotirier. London, November 9. 
 
 31. Kolnische Zeitung. Cologne, November 11. 
 
 32. Journal des Debats. Paris, November 17. " Un Ouvrage sur » 
 
 Colomb." 
 
 33. Berliner Neusten Nachrichten. Berlin, November 27. 
 
 34. Wiener Zeitung. Vienna, November 28. 
 
 35. Neues Wiener Journal. Vienna, November 28. 
 
13 
 
 36. Le Matin. Paris, November 28. " Colomb deboulonne " : 
 
 Gaston Stiegler. 
 
 37. Salzhurger Zeitung. Salzburg, November 30. 
 
 38. Posener Taghlatt. Posen, December i. 
 
 39. Petit Parisien. Paris, December 4. 
 
 40. Le Soleil. Paris, December 8. 
 
 41. Oesterreichische Volkszeitung. Vienna, December 8. 
 
 42. Le Voltaire. Paris, December 10. 
 
 43. Reichenberger Zeitung. Reichenberger, December 12. 
 
 44. Le Populaire. Paris, December 12. 
 
 45- VAbeille de la Nouvelle Orleans. December 14. 
 
 46. Le Steele. Paris, December 18. 
 
 47. Le Soir. Paris, December 19. 
 
 48. Le National. Paris, December 19. 
 
 49. La Nation. Paris, December 19. 
 
 50. La Presse. Montreal, December 28. 
 
 51. La Revue Universelle. Paris, December. (Henri Froidevaux.) 
 
 1902. 
 
 52. La Patrie. Montreal, January 7. 
 
 53. La Patrie. Montreal, January 18. 
 
 54. L'Abeille. New Orleans, February 2. 
 
 55. The New Paynesville Press. February 6. 
 
 56. Correio da Manha, Rio de Janeiro. March 16. 
 
 57. The Times- Democrat. New Orleans, March 16. 
 
 58. Ze Temps. Paris, April i. (G. Deschamps). 
 
 59. The Dial. Chicago, April 2. "Columbus and Toscanelli": 
 J. G. Rosengarten. 
 
 60. Le Figaro. Paris, June 27. (M. Beaunier.) 
 
 61. Brooklyn Eagle. July 6. 
 
 62. Morning Post. London, July 24. 
 
 63. The Scotsman. Edinburgh, July 23. 
 
 64. The Daily News. London, July 24. 
 
 65. The Daily Chronicle. London, July 29. 
 
 66. Philadelphia Enquirer. July 28. 
 
14 
 
 67. Commercial Advertiser. New York, August 23. 
 
 68. The Chicago Tribune. August 24. 
 
 ()<). Journal des Debats. Paris, August 9. (Maurice Muret.) 
 
 70. Indipendance Beige. Brussels, August 30. 
 
 7 1 . Ze Matin. Antwerp, August 30. 
 
 72. Dundee Advertiser. August 8. 
 
 73. Pittsburg Post. September 3. 
 
 74. Baltimore Sun. September 25. 
 
 75. Dawson Weekly News. Yukon Territory, September 19. 
 
 76. DAbeille. New Orleans, September 14. 
 
 77. Times-Democrat. New Orleans, September 23 
 
 78. Sydney Mail. October i. 
 
 ( UNFA VO URA BLE ) 
 
 1901. 
 
 1. Plain Dealer. Cleveland, October 2. 
 
 2. La Reforme. Alexandrie, December 7. 
 
 3. Petit Parisien. Paris, December 4. 
 
 1902. 
 
 4. Revue Historique. (H. Hauser), January. 
 
 5. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society. New York 
 
 April. (Strongly adverse). 
 
 6. The Times. New York, July i. 
 
 7. Globus. Brunswick, July 24. 
 
 8. Glasgow Herald. July 26. 
 
 9. Westminster Gazette. London, July 26. 
 
 10. Truth. London, July 21. 
 
 11. Manchester Guardian. September 23. 
 
 12. Eventing Standard. London, September i. 
 
 13. L'ltalie. Rome, September 2. 
 
 14. Birmingham Free Post. November 25. 
 
 The Compiler of this Bibliography has not had access to the 
 Spanish and Italian papers, and to only a few of the German. 
 
To Sir Clements R. Markham, C.B., F.R.S., London. 
 
 My dear Sir, — You will, I am sure, permit me to add 
 a few remarks to the correspondence we have already 
 exchanged on the subject of the article you were good 
 enough to contribute to the London Times (Literary Supple- 
 ment of November 7, 1902) on my book, Toscanelli and 
 Columbus. 
 
 I. 
 
 Your article and the letters you have subsequently sent 
 me, most kindly to me personally though sufficiently 
 severe on my deductions, called from me the remark that 
 my arguments had been shelved but not answered. 
 
 You protest against that remark which I now propose 
 to justify. 
 
 You say, "that those who have adopted a theory, 
 and eagerly search for evidence to support it, insensibly 
 become more and more prejudiced in favour of their own 
 views, and less able to weigh the counter-evidence with 
 an equal balance." Your remark is judicious and sound ; 
 but I do not think it is applicable to my case, as I did 
 not set out on my work with a preconceived theory. Quite 
 the contrary, in fact ; for at first, like every one else, I 
 was a firm believer in the letters attributed to Toscanelli : 
 it was only after long and laborious research, and a close 
 study of the question from all points of view and in its 
 minutest details, that I yielded to La Rosa's opinion, and 
 satisfied myself that such a letter as the one to Canon 
 
i6 
 
 Martins could neither have been written at the date it 
 bears nor by such a man as Toscanelli. 
 
 I always yield to argument when it is justified : that 
 has been seen in my controversy with Wagner. 
 
 But when those, who have for long identified them- 
 selves with one view of the question, entrench them- 
 selves in their old position and ignore the new arguments 
 with which they are assailed, then I say it is they and 
 not I who close their eyes to the real situation. 
 
 II. 
 
 I am afraid I must claim your own article furnishes a 
 proof in point. As many others have done, and as though 
 I had not already fully answered them, you confront me 
 with the following two objections : — 
 
 1. In 1494 the Duke of Ferrara made inquiries about 
 Toscanelli's correspondence with Columbus ; therefore this 
 correspondence was known in Italy, and consequently M. 
 Vignaud is wrong when he states that none of the celebrated 
 Florentine's countrymen knew of his taking an interest in 
 the route to the Indies, and that he had written to Columbus 
 on the subject. 
 
 2. Conti and others used the expressions " Great Khan " 
 and " Cathay " long after they had ceased to be current in 
 China ; therefore M. Vignaud is again wrong when he 
 states that a man of learning like Toscanelli would not 
 have used those expressions, and that they constitute a 
 proof that the letter in which they occur is apocryphal. 
 
 I have already and repeatedly shown that these two 
 arguments will not hold water. Yet such eminent critics 
 as Uzielli, Wagner, Gallois, Beazley, and (I must now 
 add) you, continue imperturbably to urge them against me. 
 
 Well ! I can only demonstrate once more their utter 
 lack of bottom, convinced that it is well worth the trouble, 
 
17 
 
 as I am sure you are not, as I fear many of my critics 
 are, a slave to old opinions. 
 
 III. 
 
 To begin then. The argument drawn from the fact 
 that the Duke of Ferrara made inquiries respecting this 
 alleged correspondence has importance only if it can be 
 shown he heard of it from an Italian source ; for, if he 
 got his information from Spain, nothing is proved, as it 
 was in Spain the forgeries are supposed to have been 
 committed. 
 
 Now the very form of the Duke's inquiry proves that 
 he got his information from Spain. He asks, in fact, 
 whether among Toscanelli's papers any document has been 
 found bearing on the new islands just discovered by Spain. 
 But in the letter attributed to Toscanelli there is no question 
 of islands or lands to be discovered ; it only refers to a 
 new route to proceed to the Indies. It is not therefore 
 some communication made to him by a Florentine or some 
 other Italian, conversant with Toscanelli's ideas and aware 
 of his correspondence with Martins or Columbus, that led 
 the Duke to make his inquiry. It is the rumour coming 
 from Spain that it was said there Columbus had been in 
 communication with Toscanelli that arouses the Duke's 
 interest and curiosity. Were it otherwise, if some one in 
 Italy had known of the existence of this correspondence, 
 the Duke's researches and the excitement created by the 
 discovery of Columbus would have brought the fact to 
 light. Florentines would at once have claimed for their 
 illustrious fellow-citizen the full credit due to him for his 
 share in the great event. But not a word was heard. 
 Neither before nor after the discovery did a single man 
 of that group of thinkers and writers, among whom Tosca- 
 nelli had lived to the age of eighty-five, raise his voice to 
 
i8 
 
 proclaim that their great townsman and friend had occu- 
 pied himself with the subject of reaching the Indies by 
 way of the West, and had thus led to the great discovery 
 made by Columbus. 
 
 It will not serve to reply that I take the view that the 
 letters were not written until after the time when they 
 were mentioned by the Duke ; for, although such in fact is 
 my opinion, I have very clearly explained in my book 
 that the existence of such a correspondence was bruited as 
 early as 1494, in order to destroy the annoying effect of 
 the rumours then already afloat, that Columbus had received 
 precise information from a pilot. 
 
 I think after this explanation I am entitled to ask. Is 
 it justifiable to allege, as you have done, that the request 
 for information made by Duke /Hercules "is most con- 
 clusive evidence, and M. Vignaud is unable to explain it 
 away by any plausible hypothesis"? 
 
 IV. 
 
 I now come to the second objection. 
 
 Poggio Bracciolini, who edited Conti's Travels, and 
 many other Italian writers, even of a much later date, may 
 well have used the expressions " Great Khan," " Cathay," 
 "Mangi," etc., which were in use in China in the time of 
 Marco Polo, for the very simple reason that they and all 
 Europeans of their epoch knew no other. But Toscanelli 
 is on a different footing, provided we agree that the letter 
 to Martins is genuine. In that case he has had conversa- 
 tions with the Ambassador of the Chinese Emperor ; he 
 has cross-examined him on the affairs of his country ; he 
 has indeed learnt so much from him that he feels qualified 
 to give special information about China to the Portuguese. 
 Consequently Toscanelli could not be any longer ignorant 
 of the fact that the names of the places mentioned by 
 
19 
 
 Marco Polo were changed ; surely a not unimportant piece 
 of information to give to people who proposed visiting 
 that country. I maintain that this passage alone of the 
 letter suffices to damn its authenticity ; for it is known 
 that no such Chinese Ambassador came to Europe at that 
 time, and if one had come he would not have left 
 Toscanelli in ignorance of the fact that his master was no 
 longer styled " Great Khan " nor his country " Cathay." ^ 
 
 I think you will see, Sir, that this objection to my 
 argument carries you no further than the previous one. I 
 shall now currente calamo touch upon a few of the other 
 objections you have raised. 
 
 V. 
 
 " M. Vignaud would put off the date (of the Toscanelli 
 letter to Columbus) until after the war (of Castille) ended 
 in 1479." '" 
 
 I have done so because the words of the letter, "before 
 the wars of Castille," lead to the belief that they were 
 written after that war, which ended only in 1479. I could 
 not, moreover, date the letter, as you have done, in July 
 1474, inasmuch as Columbus only arrived in Portugal in 
 1476, a fact now universally admitted. 
 
 VI. 
 
 " The story (of the pilot) has been unhesitatingly re- 
 
 * In my first letter to Hermann Wagner I have more fully developed 
 this point. Since then, however, La Rosa has pointed out the very source 
 whence the author of the letter to Canon Martins drew his information 
 about Toscanelli interviewing the Ambassador of the Great Khan. It is 
 a passage from Landino's commentary on the Georgics of Virgil, wherein 
 reference is made to some persons who had come to Italy from the 
 sources of the Tanais, and with whom Toscanelli had conversed. (See 
 Solution de tous les Problimes, XII^ Congr^s des Americanistes. Paris, 
 1902, p. 50). Landino's commentary was first published in 1487, and the 
 passage cited had already caught Humboldt's attention. 
 
20 
 
 jected as a fable . . . the tale bears fabrication on every 
 line." 
 
 To say this is merely to repeat what others have said 
 before ; it is no reply to my critical analysis of the sources 
 of information of the story of the pilot. The fact that 
 Columbus never dwelt at Madeira or Porto Santo proves 
 nothing. The contradictory details in the story of the pilot's 
 adventure lack importance, and they need not detain us. 
 What is important is that there was such a pilot, whose very 
 name remains doubtful, but who gave Columbus informa- 
 tion which the latter turned to good use. I have never gone 
 beyond that statement. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Las Casas "dismisses it (the story of the pilot) with 
 contempt." 
 
 This is scarcely accurate. Las Casas has indeed said 
 what you report him as saying ; but he has said other things 
 which demonstrate it was not the story of the pilot he 
 refused to believe but the deductions drawn from it. To 
 him the story was a matter of no importance ; one might 
 believe or disbelieve it at will, so far as he was concerned. 
 What he holds to be absolutely false is that Columbus could 
 have learnt anything from this pilot which determined him to 
 undertake his expedition ; he had no need of any such 
 information seeing that he was guided by the Hand of God, 
 which, to the good Bishop, was naturally all-sufficient. But 
 how can we say Las Casas dismisses the story with contempt 
 when we find he devotes a whole chapter to its relation, that 
 he does not contradict it, that he states he heard it from 
 Columbus's own companions, and that he admits it may have 
 come from the very mouth of Columbus himself 
 
 As a matter of fact, my thesis does not require the 
 support of the story of this particular pilot. All that I main- 
 
21 
 
 tain is that Columbus had, or thought he had, positive 
 information as to unknown islands or lands, and it was this 
 and not any cosmographical or scientific theory which induced 
 him to set out on his expedition. Whether this information 
 came to him from the pilot in question or from some other 
 source matters little. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 "The sole justification for bringing such an accusation 
 (forgery) against that individual (Bartholomew Columbus) 
 is that he is said to have been a good cosmographer, and 
 it is assumed that he was a bad Latin scholar." 
 
 I do not think these are, by any means, the only reasons 
 for suspecting that Bartholomew had a hand in the fraud. 
 
 Another, and an important one, is that in this same volume 
 of Pius II., now in the Columbina, containing the copy of the 
 so-called Toscanelli letter and immediately following it, one 
 finds an autograph note relating to the Commission appointed 
 to draw up Tables of Declension, and that this note is in 
 the same handwriting as the copy of the letter, as any one 
 may see for himself by the facsimiles published in the 
 Raccolta Colombiana, Autograft di Colombo, Serie B., Nos. 854 
 and 860. 
 
 This note. No. 860 of the Raccolta, is undoubtedly from 
 the hand of Bartholomew Columbus, as is proved by the 
 most competent authority on this subject, viz., M. Simon de 
 La Rosa y L6pez, (see Catdlogo, p. xxxiii.,) and is still 
 further borne out by the fact chronicled by the note, which 
 fact relates to the year 1485, a date when Columbus himself 
 was no longer in Portugal. But an even more important, 
 not to say capital, reason for imputing the forgery to Bar- 
 tholomew is that one of the sheets of Bartholomew's Map, 
 which was discovered by Wieser, is on all fours with the 
 information given in the letter of 1474, and bears this highly 
 
22 
 
 typical inscription : " according to Marinus and Columbus, from 
 Cape St Vincent to Cattigara there are 225 degrees, or 15 
 hours ; according to Ptolemy there are to Cattigara 180 degrees, 
 or 12 hours." 
 
 If to this you add the statement made by Gallo, who 
 had every means to be well informed on the matter, that 
 Bartholomew was supposed to be the originator of his 
 brother's project ; that he arrived at Seville in the begin- 
 ning of 1494, just after Columbus had started on his second 
 voyage and when stories of the Pilot were being set afloat 
 against him ; if you recall it would naturally fall to him to 
 defend his absent brother, to whom he was passionately 
 devoted, and, furthermore, bearing in mind that Las Casas 
 himself states that he was both bolder and less scrupulous 
 than his elder brother, I think you will admit that the 
 reasons for supposing it was he who concocted the corre- 
 spondence attributed to Columbus and Toscanelli are less 
 frail than you have hitherto supposed. 
 
 I admit that these arguments are only presumptions. 
 Such problems as the one under discussion are not suscep- 
 tible of complete demonstration ; all that can be done is 
 to point out what appears to have been the most likely 
 course pursued. If fraud there were, and I think there was, 
 it must have been committed by some one, and, under the 
 given circumstances, I hold that the culprit can only have 
 been Bartholomew — unless indeed it were Christopher 
 Columbus himself All the facts I have alleged point rather 
 to Bartholomew than to his brother, against whom can only 
 be charged the copying of the famous letter, if that copy be 
 indeed by him, a fact that may very freely be doubted in 
 spite of all that has been stated to the conitrary. 
 
23 
 
 IX. 
 
 "Such negative arguments . . ." (viz., those I gave for 
 believing in the fraud) "can have no weight . . . against 
 the direct proofs of the authenticity of the letters." 
 
 I should much like to learn from you, Sir, where I may 
 find those direct proofs. The following are the facts : I give 
 them without any commentary : — 
 
 No trace of the letter to Martins is to be found among 
 Toscanelli's papers or the State Archives of Portugal. The 
 Italians are as ignorant of its existence as are the Portuguese. 
 No one, outside those who produced it, ever heard speak of 
 it. The very man to whom it purports to be addressed is 
 completely unknown. The original Latin text has vanished ; 
 not a soul has ever claimed to have seen it. The only 
 solitary copy of the text of this letter we possess is in the 
 handwriting of one of the persons who is suspected of forg- 
 ing it. 
 
 Las Casas and Ferdinand Columbus are absolutely the 
 sole individuals who knew of the existence of the letter in 
 the form of a translation ; this they held from Columbian 
 sources, i.e., tainted sources ; therefore they had an interest 
 in producing it, although the original producers had failed 
 to justify their possession of it. The three existing texts 
 of the document, the Columbine copy, and the translations 
 by Las Casas and Ferdinand Columbus, which ought all to 
 be identical, inasrriuch as one claims to be a verbatim copy 
 of the original, and the other two translations from a single 
 original text, differ considerably from one another. 
 
 Take notice that I pass over contested points, although 
 to me they do not appear contestable, as, for example, 
 the assertion made by the author of the letter that the 
 Portuguese sought the route to the East Indies at a time 
 when they were doing nothing of the kind ; the mention 
 
24 
 
 of a Chinese Embassy which never existed ; the use of 
 geographical expressions which the Ambassador in question, 
 had he existed, would never have used ; the information given 
 to the King of Portugal that a course should be laid from 
 the Canaries to proceed to the Indies when the Canaries 
 belonged to Spain ; and, finally, the adoption of the 
 erroneous measurement of Marinus of Tyre by so accom- 
 plished a mathematician and astronomer as Toscanelli. 
 
 These are the facts. Do they authorise the conclusion 
 that there are direct proofs of the genuineness of the letter ? 
 To ask that question is to answer it. 
 
 X. 
 
 I must maintain, Sir, that not one of my critics has 
 succeeded in shaking my position. All they have done is 
 to try and turn it. They have declined to examine with 
 the necessary judgment and impartiality the many and 
 weighty reasons I have adduced to show that fraud has 
 been somewhere committed. They have even been short- 
 sighted enough to miss the real and only valid objection 
 that could be urged against my propositions. You alone, 
 Sir, and not in your article have pointed it out. 
 
 Yes. If Columbus sailed from Palos with the design 
 of going to the Indies my theory is shaken to its very founda- 
 tions, and the question of the authenticity of Toscanelli's 
 letters, as well as the truth of the story of the nameless pilot, 
 lose all their importance. What matter to us whether 
 Toscanelli's letters be authentic or forged, what matter whether 
 the pilot story be true or false, if Columbus's scheme really 
 consisted in going to the Indies ? This is the only question 
 that interests the historian and the critic, and it is settled 
 if the expedition of 1492 really had the shores of Eastern 
 Asia as its objective. If that was the point aimed at by 
 Columbus it is clear he had obtained the knowledge, no 
 
25 
 
 matter how, that the Indies could be more easily reached 
 by the West than the East, and it follows, as has been 
 said, that the discovery of America was the result of a 
 scientific conception. In that case Columbus had in fact 
 a great design, and the lofty place he occupies in the fane 
 of History is legitimately his due. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Here is in all its force the judicious and very formid- 
 able objection you, and you alone, oppose to me. It 
 cannot be avoided by any fencing, and I shall meet it fair 
 and square. I shall show in my next work that the reasons 
 we have for crediting Columbus with his great design cannot 
 stand against a severe critical examination, and that the 
 story of his seeking to reach the Indies by way of the West 
 is a legend that first arose after he had made his discovery. 
 
 But I am under no illusion. However clear my demon- 
 stration may be it will not convince those whose opinion 
 is already formed, and who will only consider me as an 
 intruder on their intellectual repose. I do not expect justice 
 from them. This great historical error will never be corrected 
 by those who have had the bad fortune to become, uncon- 
 sciously enough, the accomplices of its originators by support- 
 ing it with the weight of their high authority. It is to those 
 who have never written on Toscanelli and Columbus that 
 I must appeal. It is to our readers I submit the case when 
 they have before their eyes all the documents that can be 
 produced. They are our real judges, and I shall await their 
 verdict with patience and serenity. — Believe me, very faith- 
 fully yours, 
 
 Henry Vignaud. 
 Paris, November 1902. 
 
26 
 
 To M. C. Raymond Beazley, M.A. 
 
 Dear Sir, — In the verji learned and courteous article 
 you have devoted to my book in The Guardian of November 
 19, you have in particular directed your attention to the 
 examination of the fundamental proposition on which rests 
 my thesis that the letter of 1474, ascribed to Toscanelli, 
 is apocryphal ; namely, that the letter in question attributes 
 to the Portuguese the intention of seeking a route to the 
 East Indies at a period when as yet they had formed no 
 such design. With excellent critical judgment you have 
 seized the full importance of that proposition, and it is 
 against it you urge your chief objections. 
 
 No one was more qualified to deal with this point, and 
 I find it is a pleasure to discuss it with so competent an 
 antagonist as the learned translator and annotator of 
 Azurara, and the distinguished author of two works which 
 take high rank among those dealing with the geographical 
 history of the Middle Ages. 
 
 I. 
 
 I have said, and I repeat, that up to the end of the reign 
 of Alfonso V. (1481) it is impossible to cite a fact, or to 
 quote a single assertion of any author of the period, which 
 sanctions the statement that the Portuguese were then 
 thinking of establishing iritercourse with the East Indies. 
 
 You place in relief against me certain passages of 
 Azurara which show that Prince Henry really desired to 
 know all that could be learned respecting the countries 
 in Africa stretching away beyond Cape Bojador, and that 
 he wished his expeditions ever to push further and further 
 onward. 
 
27 
 
 That this is so I willingly admit ; but in what way 
 does this prove that the East Indies were the Prince's 
 objective? The very passages you quote prove just the 
 contrary. Let us take an instance. You recall that during 
 one of these expeditions a captain of the Prince urged his 
 companions to push on to the Nile ; that another expressed 
 his willingness to press on " even to the Terrestrial Paradise 
 — i.e., the farthest East." The expedition to which you 
 refer, viz., the one of La^arote, was on the West Coast of 
 Africa, this side of Cape Verde. It was in search of the 
 river Senegal. Its leaders, like other Portuguese of that 
 time, took that river to be a branch of the Nile, and 
 believed that the Nile was one of the three Biblical streams 
 which flowed through the Earthly Paradise. Hence arose 
 the two expressions you have quoted ; the words " the 
 farthest East," which you have added to the text of 
 Azurara, as a commentary, distort its meaning ; these 
 hardy explorers were thinking and speaking only of 
 Africa. 
 
 II. 
 
 I will take another instance. You mention that in 
 1458, or rather 145S, the expedition of Gomez was accom- 
 panied by an Indian named Jacob "whom the Prince had 
 sent with us in order that he might be able to speak with 
 the natives in the event of our reaching India," and you 
 exclaim : " Where is the ground for insisting that this 
 must be the India of Prester John?" 
 
 I answer that it is because Gomez was about to explore 
 the Gambia, and it was expected that by ascending that 
 river India might be reached. Can it be, by chance, you 
 maintain that the India they searched for in the heart of 
 Africa was the India of far distant Asia? No; surely not. 
 Then it was, as I have said, the India of Prester John 
 
28 
 
 the object of the constant thoughts of Prince Henry and 
 his captains. 
 
 Why, Sir, the very name of that Indian interpreter, 
 Jacob, should have suggested to you that he could not be 
 an Indian of the Far East — where no such name exists — 
 but an Indian of the realm of Prester John : an Abyssinian 
 of Shemitic origin. It was therefore quite natural for the 
 Portuguese who were in search of Prester John, and who 
 expected to reach his dominion by ascending the river 
 Gambia, to take with them this Jacob as interpreter. 
 
 III. 
 
 You contest my proposition that before 1481 the Portu- 
 guese sought only for the India of Prester John, and you 
 reproach me for having said that at this period it was 
 thought the Empire of this mysterious monarch extended 
 to the Atlantic. I maintain the first point ; as to the 
 second, I plead guilty to omitting the word " almost " after 
 the word "bounded." In my French edition I use the 
 right expression " confine," and it was obviously by a slip 
 I omitted the word " almost " ; for this is clear from the 
 clauses which follow in the very same sentence : — " And 
 that it might be possible to discover on the Western 
 Coast of Africa some country that was dependent upon 
 it, through which it would be possible to reach the 
 mysterious potentate with whom they were desirous to 
 establish relations." Furthermore, the note on this very 
 passage at the foot of the page makes my meaning 
 perfectly unmistakable. 
 
 If this were not the idea constantly in the minds of the 
 Portuguese explorers, they would scarcely have made it their 
 first care to inquire anxiously after this potentate each time 
 they reached a new point along the coast. Nor were they 
 alone in thus thinking ; for in the above-mentioned note I 
 
29 
 
 quote a passage from the chaplains of B^thancourt wherein it 
 is said that his expedition may obtain news of Prester John 
 at Cape Bojador. If on this point I have also quoted the 
 Borgia Map, the value, or rather lack of value, of which 
 I well know, I have done so only to show the existence of this 
 belief in the wide extension of the dominions of Prester John 
 towards the West. It matters little that this map is worth- 
 less ; it is, however, scarcely fair to say that persons in the 
 habit of consulting the Italian portolani would have paid no 
 attention to it. The portolani were sea-charts, the Borgia 
 was a continental map, and the seamen of Prince Henry had 
 no call to use it. 
 
 IV. 
 
 In support of the opinion that the Portuguese had for long 
 entertained transatlantic projects, you allege the discovery of 
 the Azores and the voyages of discovery made in 1452, 1462, 
 and in subsequent years. 
 
 But I must ask what is the exact bearing of this argu- 
 ment ? The question in discussion between us is the route to 
 the Indies, the route to the Land of Spices. Do you claim 
 that these discoveries and expeditions of the Portuguese 
 towards the West are evidence of an intention on their part to 
 reach the Indies by that route, an intention dating from 1452 
 or 1462 ? If so — then what becomes of the famous letter 
 which constitutes Toscanelli the originator of the discovery of 
 America ? What becomes of the great scheme of Columbus, 
 that vast scheme which assures to him, in the minds of those 
 whose opinions I combat, a loftier and more special niche in 
 the Temple of Fame than is accorded to all other discoverers, 
 because, forsooth, he had no other guide than a scientific 
 conception ? 
 
 If as early as 1452 and 1462 the Portuguese had already 
 their eyes fixed on the Indies, and proposed going there 
 
30 
 
 by crossing the Atlantic, Toscanelli had nothing to teach 
 them, and he has originated nothing at all. So, too, is it 
 with Columbus : his great scheme vanishes, and with it goes 
 also the scientific conception which was its basis ; for he has 
 but taken up afresh projects which, times and again, other 
 men have sought to carry out before him. I, Sir, have no 
 objection to these conclusions ; but I shall be very much 
 surprised indeed if you find them as satisfactory as they are 
 to me. 
 
 V. 
 
 To my assertion that in 1474 the Portuguese were think- 
 ing as little of the spice trade as they were of the route to the 
 East Indies, you object that as early as 1428 Don Pedro 
 brought back from Venice a copy of Marco Polo, wherein he 
 could have learned the importance of that trade. I do not 
 realise the bearing of this objection. In the first place it is 
 by no means certain that Don Pedro did bring back from 
 Venice or elsewhere a copy of Marco Polo — I give reasons for 
 doubting this in Note 4 to my book — and if he did I do not 
 see that it shows the Portuguese desired to proceed to the 
 Indies in 1474 or earlier in order to engage in the spice 
 trade. 
 
 VI. 
 
 I shall not linger on the other objections you make, as 
 they are only of minor importance ; but I think I ought to 
 call attention to the standpoint taken by those who with you 
 maintain against me that the questions of the route to the 
 Indies and of the spice trade were raised in Portugal before 
 the reign of Joao II. 
 
 They assume that I put forward an extraordinary proposal 
 in flat contradiction to all historical tradition, and that conse- 
 quently it is encumbent on me to establish my case ; whereas 
 
31 
 
 the facts are all the other way ; it is they who are in open 
 revolt against the most authentic data we possess on the 
 subject, and against the teaching of history as known and 
 accepted for centuries. 
 
 The notion that Prince Henry and the Portuguese of his 
 time thought of circumnavigating Africa in order to reach the 
 East Indies and establish the spice trade is a modern idea. 
 Contemporary Portuguese writers do not breathe a word on 
 the subject, but affirm, on the contrary, that the initiative of 
 this conception is due to King Joao II. 
 
 In alleging that a letter, which states that in 1474 the 
 Portuguese were seriously engaged in trying to iind a route 
 to the Indies by way of Guinea, and affects to teach them it 
 will be more to their advantage to reach the spice-producing 
 countries by way of the West, was on that account alone 
 apocryphal, I have only had to rely on accepted data, on well 
 known and admitted facts, of which therefore I was not 
 called upon to produce the proofs although I did so. 
 
 It is for those to whom these facts are inconvenient to 
 prove that they are false. It lay with me to show that the 
 letter of 1474, in which every one placed faith, was apocryphal ; 
 it lies with them now to show that the initiative attributed 
 to King Joao II by all Portuguese authors is not really his. 
 
 Better versed in the history of Portuguese discoveries than 
 most of my adversaries, you have said all that could be said on 
 the subject ; but, while in no way undervaluing your learned 
 criticisms, I do not think they have attained the end you had 
 in view. What you. Sir, have failed to do I am sure no one 
 will succeed in doing : the task is simply impossible. Believe 
 me, very faithfully yours, 
 
 Henry Vignaud. 
 
 Paris, December 1902. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 OLIVBR AND BOYD 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 
Cornell University Library 
 110.V68T7 
 
 oscanelli and Columbus'.letters to Sir C 
 
 3 1924 020 411 009