Toscanelli 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

Front matter

TOBCmBLLl

AND COLUMBU

H. VIQNAUD

Preface

The English edition of this work, which I now give to the public, differs in many respects from the French edition. Several new chapters have been added, and important alterations and amplifications made. I have enlarged considerably on the personal role of Columbus in the fraud I seek to unveil, and the portion of the work bearing on the map has been both recast and extended. This part has been further completed by a new table for the understanding of the measurements attributed to Toscanelli in a form at once clearer and more detailed, and by a hypothetical restoration of the famous map which is supposed to have played so famous a part in the scheme which led to the discovery of America. The notes have also been increased and amended, while a great number of entirely new ones, including some of the most important, have been added. Finally, additional Appendices accompany the work. One gives, after the Raccolta Colombimia, a transcription of the facsimile of the Latin text of the letter to i Htm 1 viii PREFACE

Martins ; in others an attempt is made to elucidate and illustrate the geographical notion which the letter to Martins and its accompanying map are intended to convey.

In the Preface to the French edition, I have said what was due to my friend M. de la Rosa, to whom should be credited the first idea of this book, and to M. Sumien, who has favoured me with a valuable critical work on the Latin text of the famous letter, a work which I again reproduce in an English garb in the present edition. In the preparation of this English edition, I have contracted further obligations which it is a pleasure to me to acknowledge.

To Mr James Fitzmaurice- Kelly, the well-known writer and profound Spanish scholar, who was the first to make known my work in England, I am indebted for the translation of the Spanish version of the letter. No one could more ably acquit himself of that task than the learned Irishman to whom the world owes the most admirable Life of Cervantes, and the short History of Spanish Literature, which is considered by all scholars the standard work on that subject in the English tongue.

To the Rev. W. H. Kent, the scholarly son of a scholarly father, Mr Charles Kent, I owe the translation of the Latin text of the same letter. Mr John B. Shipley, who has long interested himself with Columbus, has given me many valuable sugges-

PREFACE ix

tions, which I was glad to put to good use. In one of the Appendices will be found a letter from him which is very suggestive.

In the last place I mention Mr Victor Collins, to whom I feel more obliged than I can express. He has revised my text, read my proofs, translated the Italian text of the letter, and taken charge of all the details connected with the printing and publishing of this book. Under these headings I have contracted towards him obligations which all my friendship can scarcely repay. To him, and to all those I have named, I offer my sincerest thanks and gratitude.

Henry Vignauu.

United States Embassy,

Paris, jfith March 1902.

Introduction

FAOB I

FIRST PART: THE LETTER

SOURCES OF INFORMATION : BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. — The Letter Itself

I. The Original Latin Text .

a. Facsimile Reproductions

b. Copies and Reproductions II. The Italian Text .

III. The Spanish Version of Las Casas

IV. Spanish Version in the City Archives of Seville V. Spanish Version of Barcia and of Navarrete

VI. EngHsh Translations VII. French Translations

II. — Other Sources of Information

III. — Bibliography ....

Chapter I

Advice attributed to Toscanelli as to the Route to the Indies by the West

I. Canon Martins' Request .....

II. Toscanelli's Reply ......

Notes. — 4. The Marco Polo of Dom Pedro. 5. The Great Khan. 6. Cathay. 7. Zaiton. 9. Quinsay. 10. Mangi. 11. Antilia. 12. Cipangu.

21 22 xii CONTENTS

FAOB

III. Importance of this Correspondence if Authentic . . 27

Note. — 14. Toscanelli, supposed inspirer of Columbus.

IV. Whence came the Correspondence .... 29 V. Supposed Relations between Columbus and Toscanelli . 31

Notes. — 20. Ha Dias. 21-22. Date of Columbus' supposed relations with Toscanelli.

Chapter II

Reasons for doubting the Genuineness of the alleged Correspondence of Toscanelli with Martins and Columbus.

I. The Texts have disappeared ..... 36

II. The Letter to Martins is unknown to the Portuguese . 36

III. Martins is an absolutely unknown Person . . 38

Notes. — 23. No Canon of that name. 24. Martins and Roriz.

IV. Toscanelli's Plan is unknown in Italy • • • 39

Notes.— 2^. Duke Hercules. 26-38. Contemporaries of Toscanelli.

V. The Publication in the Historie of Toscanelli's Letters

(1571) 43

VI. Forged Statement of Egnatio Danti (i 571-1572) . . 44

Notes. — 39. La sfera of Sacrobosco. 40-41. Extracts from the same. 43. Remark on the subject. 44. Signor Peragallo's conclusions.

VII. Toscanelli's Correspondence unknown to Columbus . . 47

Notes. — 45-49. Quotations from Las Casas and the Historie. 50. Alleged reminiscence of Toscanelli's letter.

CHAPTER III Reasons for doubting that the Letter to Martins was written in 1474

I. The Question of the Route to the Indies was not yet

CONTENTS xiii

PAGE

II. Before Joao II the Portuguese only sought the India of

Prester John ...... 53

Notes. — 52. MM. Harrisse, Fiske, Ravenstein, Beazley. 56. The India of Africa.

III. Proof from Prince Henry's Acts .... 56

Note. — 57. Prester John.

IV. Proofby theBullof 1454 ..... 58

Note. — 61. True meaning of the concessions granted by the Bull.

V. Proof by the Treaty of 1479 ..... 61

Notes.— 62-6T). The Treaty of 1479.

VI. Error respecting the Spice Trade .... 65

VII. Alfonso's Political Combinations .... 66

VIII. Curious Geographical Error ..... 67

Note. — 65. Mongol denominations.

IX. Origin of the Hypothesis as to the possibility of a

Passage to India by the West .... 70

Notes. — 66. Aristotle's opinion. 67-69. Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Seneca. 70-71. Strabo on Eratosthenes' measurements. 74-75. Posidonius' and Seneca's calculations.

X. The Letter to Martins is based on the System of

Marinus of Tyre ..... 74

Notes. — 76-77. Marinus of Tyre. 80. The Portuguese and the Italian Cartographers.

Chapter IV

Columbus' Cosmographical Ideas are identical with those expressed in the letter attributed to toscanelli.

I. Columbus' Measurement of the Earth : Alfragan. . , 80

Notes. — 83-86. Ptolemy's degree. 87. Alfragan. 88. Joseph. 89. Observations made by Columbus. 91. Alfragan's Mile and Measurement of the Globe. 92- 93. Smallness of the Earth.

II. The Unknown Maritime Space ; Esdras ... 86

Notes. — 94. The verses of Esdras. 95. Opinions of Esdras, d'Ailly, and Columbus on the small extent of the Sea.

xiv CONTENTS

PAGE

III. Extension of Asia Eastward : Marinus of Tyre . . 88

Notes. — 98-99. Limits of the known World according to Marinus of Tyre and Columbus.

IV. Origin of the Cosmographical Ideas of Columbus :

Toscanelli's Correspondence had nothing to do with it. 92

Notes. — 102-104. Columbus' Cosmographical Ideas come from the Imago Mundi. 105. His Geographical Notions come from Marco Polo.

V. The Cosmography of the Letter to Martins is borrowed

from Columbus . . . . . .98

VI. Columbus' Cosmographical System is Posterior to his

Discovery . . . . . . .99

Notes. — 107-108. The Imago Mundi.

VII. A Resum^ : The Letter to Martins, which reproduces the Ideas of Columbus, is subsequent to the discovery) of the New World, since, at that period, Columbus had no scientific theory ...... 103

CHAPTER V Possible Motives for the Fraud

I. Necessity of a Motive for the Suspected Fraud

II. The Pilot who may have informed Columbus

III. The Story of the Pilot, so far as we know it

Notes. — III. Oviedo. 112. Las Casas. 113 Gomara. 114. Gascilaso. 115. Other authorities. 116, Date. 117. The Pilot's name.

IV. Examination of the Sources of the Story

Notes. — 124-125. Authors who believe in the story, 126-128. Authors who reject it. 129. Spanish and Portuguese Writers.

V. Oviedo . . . . . . . .118

VI. Las Casas ....... I20

Notes. — 135-140. Extracts from Las Casas.

Notes. — 141. Extract from Gomara. 144. Perez and Marchena.

CONTENTS

VIII. Garcilaso .......

IX. Ferdinand Columbus ......

X. The Story of the Pilot is probably true XI. The Council of the Indies knew the Story of the Pilot ........

PAOE

CHAPTER VI Possible Authors and Probable Author of the Fraud

I. The Letters of Toscanelli come from Las Casas alone ;

the Historie give them from him . . . '139

II. Papers and Documents in Las Casas' Possession . . 141

III. The Source of Las Casas' Documents . . . 142

Note. — 155. The Papers of Columbus.

IV. The Forger was not Columbus .... 147

Note. — 157. Did Columbus copy the Letter to Martins ?

V. It was not Ferdinand Columbus . . . .152

VI. The Forger is probably Bartholomew Columbus . . 153

VII. Probable Complicity of Las Casas .... 156

VIII. Probable Date of the Fraud . . . . .158

IX. The Giving of the Documents to Las Casas . . 161

X. Maria de Toledo ...... 162

XI. Don Luis Colon probably gave the Documents to Las

Notes. — 168. Don Luis and the Columbus Manuscripts. 169. His share in the pubhcation of the Historie.

SECOND PART: THE MAP

SOURCES OF INFORMATION : BIBLIOGRAPHY

I.— Sources ......

II. — Attempts at Reconstruction III. — Various References ....

175 176

XX. Attempt to Reconstruct Toscanelli's Map

PAGE

Cartographic Sources of the Map . . . .179

Behaim's Globe . . . . . .180

Note. — 172. The Globe of Behaim.

The Map of Fra Mauro ..... 183

The Catalan Map . . . . . .187

The Projection of the Map. . . . .188

The Division into Spaces ..... 189

Toscanelli's Degree ..... 193

The Standard of 67! miles to the Degree . . . 193

The Standard of 663 miles to the Degree . . .196

The Standard of 62^ miles to the Degree . . . 197

The Standard of 56! miles to the Degree . . . 198

Toscanelli's Mile ...... 199

Toscanelli's Globe . ... . . . 202

The Geographical Conception represented by the so-called Toscanelli Map belonged to Marinus of Tyre ....... 203

Toscanelli's Islands : Antilia . , . . 205

Note. — 198. Position of Antilia.

Cipangu ....... 207

Notes. — 205. Position of Cipangu. 206. Cipangu identified with Cuba and Hayti.

Other Islands ...... 212

The Asiatic Coast ...... 213

Notes. — 209. The search for Asia. 210. The map of Bartholomew Columbus.

The Western Coast ...... 216

Resume : The so-called Toscanelli Map could teach

nothing to the Portuguese . . . .217

CHAPTER II Columbus' Road -Map

I. A Map existed which Las Casas thought was Toscanelli's .......

CONTENTS xvii

PAGE

II. Was the so-called Toscanelli Map the Road-Map of

III. Columbus does not say his Road-Map was Tosca-

Note. — 218. Columbus' words on the Map.

IV. The Road- Map of Columbus denoted Islands which

could not be known to Toscanelli . . . 225

Note. — 224. Columbus' hesitation as to his course. V. The Road- Map of Columbus was based on information

he had received from a Pilot .... 229

VI. Pinz6n appears to have possessed the same information

as Columbus ...... 232

VII. The so-called ToscaneUi Map was not the Road- Map of

VIII. The so-called Toscanelli Map was, like the Letter to

Martins, Apocryphal ..... 237

IX. The Road-Map of Columbus showed the Discoveries of the Anonymous Pilot and represented the Cosmographical Ideas of Columbus . . ' . 239

I. Summing up ...... .

I. Facts on which rests the belief in the authenticity of the Documents .....

243 244

II. Facts which tend to show that the Correspondence

attributed to Toscanelli is apocryphal . , 245

III. Facts which may explain the Fraud . . . 249

IV. Unlikelihood of the Correspondence attributed to

Toscanelli ...... 250

V. Various objections ..... 252

II. Columbus' Share in the Deceit .... 254

I. Columbus could not be ignorant of the Fraud, yet he

never mentioned the Spurious Documents . 254

CONTENTS

II. Possible Explanation of his Attitude

III. Unexplained Points

IV. Columbus is not blameless in the matter V. Columbus' Tergiversations

VI. The True Beginnings of Columbus VII. The Real Origin and Object of Columbus' Scheme ....

VIII. Pretended Scientific Preparation of Columbus IX. The Documents attributed to Toscanelli

III. Conclusions Suggested

Great

PAGE 256

257 259 260 262.

265 267

APPENDICES APPENDIX A

TOSCANELLI'S LETTER TO FeRNAM MaRTINS, 25TH JUNE 1474 275

Notes. — 3. Phisicus — physician. 6. The land of spices. 7. By Guinea. 13. Westward. 18. The straight lines marked lengthwise and transversely. 22. Zaiton. 23. Great Kaan. 28. The Ambassador who is alleged to have informed Toscanelli. 30. The Postscriptutn. 31. Per occidentem in directo. 33, 34, 35. Quinsay. 37. A third part of the whole sphere. 38. Mangi. 40. Antilia. 41. Sypangu.

The Same Letter. Latin Text from the Colombina, with a

corrected Text and Notes ..... 293

APPENDIX C

The Same Letter. Spanish Version of Las Casas, with an

English Translation ...... 305

Same Letter. Italian Version, with English Translation . .311

Toscanelli's Letters to Columbus, Texts and Translations. First Letter ......

Second Letter. . . . . .

CONTENTS xix

PAQB

Some Primary Considerations on the Nature, Origin, and Meaning of the So-called Second Letter of Toscanelli. Letter from Mr John B. Shipley ..... 327

APPENDIX G

Enlarged Facsimile of the Latin Text of the Letter of 1474. Transcription of this Letter as Deciphered by M. de LoUis . 337

APPENDIX H

Enlarged Facsimile of Specimens of Writing of Christopher

and Bartholomew Columbus ..... 339

APPENDIX I Table for Understanding the Hypotheses on the Measurement

of the Earth attributed to Toscanelli . . . .341

APPENDIX J

Attempt to Explain, after the Letter to Martins, and the Notions

of Columbus, the Map attributed to Toscanelli . . 345

Facsimile of the Letter (Appendix G).

Transcription of the Letter (Appendix G).

Facsimile of Writing of Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus (Appendix H).

Table for the Understanding of Measurements (Appendix I).

Map.

INTRODUCTION

The question of the authenticity of the famous letter a learned Florentine is supposed to have sent to Columbus, some fifteen or eighteen years before the latter made his wonderful discovery, giving him advice and some information to aid him in his undertaking, has a far wider scope than the mere determination of the historical value of a document which has hitherto remained unchallenged.

It means, in truth, no less than to ascertain if the greatest event in the world's history — the sudden revelation of the existence of one half of the globe hitherto unknown — was in reality due to researches based on scientific data, the truth of which has been proved by the result.

This question, to which a negative reply cannot be given without our placing ourselves in opposition to long established opinion, upon which have been formed all our mental conceptions of the subject, compels us, in fact, to investigate whether the history of Columbus, such as it has been told by Las Casas and Ferdinand Columbus, and such as it has been accepted for four centuries, does not rest, in at least one essential particular, upon an error, which, if it were demonstrated, would radically change our belief in the causes which led to the discovery of America.

There is nothing harder to overturn than an opinion which has in its favour time and numbers. The belief that Columbus was a man who had, as the result of his own unaided studies and investigations, arrived at the conclusion he should find Asia to the west has become so embedded in history, and is supported by evidence at once so ancient and respectable, that it seems something little short of sacreligious to cast a doubt thereon, and as though a storm threatened to overwhelm the bold innovator.

Nevertheless it must be said that the more the early doings of Columbus are studied the less justified appears to be this belief. As a result of reading and re-reading the documents, of comparing facts with one another, of studying dates, of weighing the assertions of Columbus himself, and of those of his contemporaries referring to him, one ends by suspecting that perhaps things did not happen as he states, and by asking ourselves whether all the theoretical reasoning we are informed was the mainspring of his undertaking, and consequently the cause of his great discovery, was not invented after the event.

INTRODUCTION 3

Were we blindly to accept the evidence of Columbus' contemporaries and that of the succeeding generation, we should not be justified in raising these doubts. All, with the solitary exception of G6mara, whose authority is, however, unfortunately very questionable, seek to show that the inception of the original ideas of the discoverer of the New World had a scientific character. But true criticism is sometimes justly mistrustful of the evidence of contemporaries, for too frequently it is both insincere and partial. If from them comes all our true information, it is no less a fact that from them also come all those errors it is most difficult to correct afterwards. The chronicler who, in the silence of his study, records the events of his day seldom resists the temptation to give them a certain bias. He clothes history and embellishes it for posterity. He arranges affairs as he would have had them happen. History, as it is given by contemporaries, especially when they think their statements are safe from all investigation, is nearly always thus arranged, and it is not the least hard task of the critic to pick out the truth lying hid beneath these errors or deliberate misstatements.

Las Casas, who was an honest man, and who wrote a book without which we should but imperfectly know the history of the discovery of America, has himself nevertheless arranged matters,

SO far as Columbus is concerned, as he considered they should have occurred. Most of the legends and tales from which have been fabricated the story of the youth of the Great Navigator come from him rather than, as has been generally supposed, from Ferdinand Columbus. Thanks to recent critical works, more particularly to those of Mr Harrisse, many of these legends are now destroyed and no longer find a place in any serious work. But, if, by good fortune, there had not been discovered buried deep amid the private records of Italian notaries the proofs of their falsehood, they would still disfigure the pages of not a few books of history. No one any longer believes that Columbus was born in 1436, as was formerly supposed ; that he was of noble descent ; that he reckoned admirals in his family ; that he studied at the University of Pavia, and that he fought under King Rend. It is now possible to go further and show that he was not born any time between 1446 and 145 1 as late investigations seem to have established, but actually in 145 1 itself; that he only arrived in Portugal towards the end of 1476 or the beginning of 1477 ; that he had but little travelled, and that he never made proposals to Genoa, Venice, Encfland and France.

These corrections, important though they may be, change in nothing, it is true, the essential history of the causes which led to the discovery of the New

INTRODUCTION 5

World as it is related to us. But it would be different were it demonstrated that the letter to Martins is apocryphal ; that Columbus never corresponded with Toscanelli ; and that, consequently, he could not have borrowed from that scholar any of the cosmographical and geographical notions which are supposed to have led him to his great discovery. In that case we should have to dismiss as false all that we have hitherto believed as to the circumstances which determined Columbus to undertake the discovery of the Indies ; and these new corrections, added to those already made, might well leave standing very little of the history of the early days of the lucky Genoese, such at least as tradition has made it, and as it has been everywhere accepted.

The examination of the question, whose solution may have from an historical point of view the grave consequences just indicated, is the object of the present work.

It would be presumptuous to assert that we give that solution here ; but the important questions raised by this point of history are now stated in such a manner as renders it impossible any longer to ignore or withdraw them. The inquiry begun by us will be continued and brought to a successful issue by others. We must learn if for four centuries we have not been the dupes of a fraud which has hidden from us the real causes that led to the greatest event in the history of the world. We must ascertain whether the place we have assigned to Toscanelli and Columbus is the one they really ought to occupy. What can be at once affirmed is that the history of the immediate causes leading to the discovery of America, as it was understood by Humboldt and Washington Irving, and as it is still believed by the greater part of the authors of our time, has to be entirely re-written.

This great undertaking falls not to us to perform ; but others will carry it through.

FIRST PART

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I.— THE LETTER ITSELF.

It is a letter dated Florence 25 June 1474. It purports to have been written by Paolo Toscanelli, a learned physician and astronomer of Florence, and addressed to a certain Portuguese canon, named Fernam Martins, in answer to a request for information which King Alfonso V had instructed him to obtain. There exist a Latin text, which is believed to be a copy of the original, and two ancient versions, one in Spanish and the other in Italian.

I. — The Original Latin Text.

This text was only discovered and published in 1871. During a voyage rn^ade that year in Spain, Mr Harrisse visited the renowned Seville Library where is preserved the valuable collection of books made by Ferdinand Columbus, and known as the Colombina. The obliging custodian, Don Jose Fernandez y Velasco, placed in his hands one of the gems of the collection, namely, a copy of the 1477 edition of the Historia Rerwn Ubiqiie Gestarum of ^neas Sylvius (Pope Pius II), which had belonged to Columbus, who had written on its margins a great many notes

and extracts. These annotations were already known. But, 9 lo CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS

while examining the precious volume, Mr Harrisse discovered that one of its blank pages contained the transcription of a Latin letter in which he recognised the text, mentioned by Las Casas and Ferdinand Columbus, of the letter to Martins of 1474, which Toscanelli is supposed to have sent to Columbus, and which was then known only by the Italian version in the Historie and the Spanish version of Las Casas. Mr Harrisse immediately published the document, with a facsimile, and-it appeared in one of the volumes of the collection of the Bibliophiles of Seville.

This discovery and publication rendered a distinguished service to historical research and deserved to have been welcomed with gratitude by the Republic of Letters. But Mr Harrisse experienced the lot of many other discoverers. It was alleged that what he had found was already known, and, furthermore, that the document had been pointed out to him by the librarian of the Colombina. These remarks appear to have escaped for some time the attention of Mr Harrisse. But, in 1873, the President of the Geographical Society of Paris, M. D'Avezac, having mentioned in his work, Canevas chronologique de la vie. de Colomh (Paris, 1873, p. 50, note 4), that the fortunate discovery of this document was due to the learned American critic, some one, claiming to be well informed, made certain observations to him on the subject, with the result that he withdrew this statement, and, at the same time, declared it had been demonstrated to him that the discovery was due to the librarian of the Colombina, the too modest Don Jose Fernandez y Velasco {Le Livre de Ferdinand Colombo Paris, 1873, pp. 45 and 46). Thereupon, Mr Harrisse called on the latter to explain himself, and received from him the following remarkable reply : that for years he had known the Latin text of Toscanelli's letter, but had attached no importance to it, as he had thought the original was in Italian ! Coming from a librarian of the Colombina such a reply was pitiful. How, indeed, can it be admitted that the

THE LETTER ir

guardian of this famous collection ignored that the letter of Toscanelli was written in Latin when Ferdinand Columbus says so, when Las Casas says so, when Barcia says so, and that all the Columbists were searching everywhere for that text ! It must be one of two things : either this scholar really did not know that Paul, the physician {Paulus physicus), of the letter in question was Toscanelli, or he was a nervous man who dared not maintain against a critic of Mr Harrisse's calibre, whose bite on occasion is severe, that he knew the true character of the letter.

Whichever it may be, Mr Harrisse considered himself satisfied ; he published an extract from the note of the Colombina's librarian in his reply to M. D'Avezac {^Dhistoire de Christophe Colomb attribiice a son fils Fernanda Paris, 1875, pp. 57-58), and considered the affair was ended. But it was not so.

In 1880, the President of the Norman Geographical Society, M. Gravier, had occasion to mention Toscanelli in his Memoir, Les Normands siir la route des Indes (Rouen, 1880, p. 27) ; in a note he added that, before Mr Harrisse, the Comte de Paris had had Toscanelli's letter copied at the Colombina, and quoted as his authority a letter communicated by M. D'Avezac, who clearly persisted in believing that priority for the discovery of the true character of the document belonged to the librarian of the Colombina. He had, in fact, written to M. Uzielli, in March 1874, that he knew from " undoubted and direct evidence " a copy of Toscanelli's letter had been "made in December 1858 from Columbus' autography," and this had " settled his convictions as to the discovery of this document " {Toscanelli^ No. i, January 1893, p. 7). Evidently he refers to the copy made for the Comte de Paris, the same in fact to which M. Gravier alludes.

Desiring to clear up fully this small matter, I wrote to M. Gravier begging he would make me acquainted with the letter to which he had referred. He very kindly immediately replied, and informed me that M. D'Avezac had read the letter in question to him, and had not left him a copy ; but that it would probably be found among that scholar's papers, which were now in the hands of his grandson, M. de Fremery, who doubtless would be pleased to communicate it to me. M. de Fremery, to whom I then wrote, was in fact most obliging. Not being able to lay his hand upon the letter, he took the trouble to ask M. Gravier for such indications as would facilitate his search, and made a thorough hunt for the document. He did not succeed in finding it. The net result of all this correspondence was that the missing letter was dated 1873, and had been written by a secretary of the Comte de Paris.

I proposed pursuing this inquiry by addressing myself to the Duke of Orleans, who might have found among his papers some notes enabling him to say whether it was before Mr Harrisse's publication that the Comte de Paris had visited the Colombina, and whether, at that period, the Comte knew that the letter of Paulus physicus^ in the volume of Pius II, was the original text in Latin of Toscanelli's letter ; but other occupations prevented me from carrying out my intention. The chief point after all was ascertained. Whether the librarian of the Colombina knew or did not know the real character of the letter copied upon the volume he had placed in Mr Harrisse's hands, it is certain he did not mention the fact to him.

It is therefore to the author of the Biblioteca Americana Vetustissima that we are indebted for revealing and publishing this precious document. Still there would be some interest in clearly establishing the point, for, in 1893, the President of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Sir Clements Markham, repeated the opinion of M. D'Avezac and M. Gravier {The Journal of Columbus^ etc., London, 1893, Hakluyt Society) ; this compelled Mr Harrisse to publish the correspondence mentioned above, thereby re-establishing the true facts of the case {Christophe

Colomb et Toscanelli. Rcviic Critique^ 9th October 1893). I ought to add that, notwithstanding all that has been said and printed on this subject, M. Simon de La Rosa, the compiler of the Catalogue of the Colombina Library [Catdlogo, vol. L, p. 52), M. Cesareo Fernandez Duro, the Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of History of Madrid (in a private letter), and M. Cesare de Lollis, the Secretary of the Royal Commission which published the Raccolta Colombia7ia [Autografi di Christoforo Colombo^ preface, p. xiii.), continue to consider Senor Velasco as the first discoverer of the Latin text in question.

Mr Harrisse is of opinion that this text was written in the volume in the Colombina, where it now is, by Columbus himself {^Fernand Colomb, etc., p. 89, and The Discovery, etc., p. 380). The author of the present work has some doubts on this point. See note 157.

The Latin text of the Colombina, containing many abbreviations often difficult to decipher, is not preceded by the covering note from Toscanelli to Columbus as given by Las Casas and the Historie. After the date comes a paragraph of a dozen lines generally known as the Post-Scriphun. Toscanelli's name is not mentioned.