The voyage of Verrazzano; a chapter in the early history of maritime discovery in America

Front matter

THE

VOYAGE OF VERRAZZANO

A CHAPTER I NT THE

Contents

I. The Discovery Attributed to Verrazzano,

II. The Verrazzano Letter not Genuine, .

III. The Letter untrue. I. No Yoyage or Discovery made for the King of France, as it states,

I

. The Discovery Attributed to Verrazzano.

The discovery of the greater portion of the Atlantic coast of North America, embracing all of the United States north of Cape Roman in South Carolina, and of the northern British provinces as far at least as Cape Breton, by Giovanni da Ye rrazzano, a Florentine, in the service of the king of France, has received until quite recently the assent of all the geographers and historians who have taken occasion to treat of the subject. This acknowledgment, for more than three hundred years, which would seem to preclude all question in regard to its authenticity at this late day, has, however, been due more to the peculiar circumstances of its publication than to any evidence of its truth. The only account of it which exists, is contained in a letter purporting to have been written by the discoverer himself, and is not corroborated by the testimony of any other person, or sustained by any documentary proof. It was not published to the world until it

*

■ appeared for the first time in Italjq the birth place of the navigator, more than thirty years after the transactions to which it relates are alleged to have taken place ; and it has not, up to the present time, received any confirmation in the history of France, whose sovereign, it is asserted, sent forth the expedition, and to whose crown the right of the discovery accordingly attached. Yet it is not difficult to comprehend how the story, appealing to the patriotic sympathies of Ramusio, was inconsiderately adopted by him, and inserted in his famous collection of voyages, and thus receiving his sanction, was not unwillingly accepted, upon his authority, by the French nation, whose glory it advanced, without possibly its having any real foundation. And as there never was any cplonization or attempt at possession of the country in consequence of the alleged discovery, or any assertion of title under it, except in a single instance of a comparatively modern date, and with no important bearing, it is no less easy to understand, how thus adopted and promulgated by the only countries interested in the question, the claim was admitted by other nations without challenge or dispute, and has thus become incorporated into modern history without investigation: Although the claim has never been regarded of any

# practical importance in the settlement of the country, it has nevertheless possessed an historigal and geographical interest in connection with the origin and progress of maritime discovery on this continent. Our own writers assuming its validity, without investigation, have been content to trace, if possible, the route of Verrazzano and point out the places he explored, seek-

THE VOYAGE.

ing merely to reconcile the account with the actual condition and situation of the country. Their explanations, though sometimes plausible, are often contradictory, and not unfrequently absurd. Led into an examination of its merits with impressions in its favor, we have nevertheless been compelled to adopt the conclusion of a late American writer, that it is utterly fictitious.1. The grounds upon which our conviction rests we propose now to state. Some documents will be introduced, for the first time here brought to light, which will serve further to elucidate the question, and show the career and ultimate fate of Verrazzano.

The letter, in which the pretension is advanced, professes to be addressed by Verrazzano to the king of France, at that time Francis I, from Dieppe, in Normandy, the 8th of July (0. S.), 1524, on his return to that port from a voyage, undertaken by order of the king, for the purpose of finding new countries ; and to give an account of the discoveries which he had accordingly made. He first reminds his majesty that, after starting with four ships, originally composing the expedition, he was compelled by storms, encountered on the northern coasts, to put into Brittany in distress, with the loss of two of them ; and that after repairing there the others, called the Normanda and Delfina ( Dau - phine ), he made a* cruize with this fleet of war, as they are styled, along the coast of Spain. He finally proceeded on the voyage of discovery with the Dauphine

1 An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Documents concerning a Discovery in North America claimed to have been made by Verrazzano. Read before the New York Historical Society , Tuesday , October 4 th, 1864. By Buckingham -Smith. New York, 1864. pp. 31, and a map.

VERRAZZANO.

alone, setting sail from a desolate rock near the island of Madeira, on the 17th of January, 1524, with fifty men, and provisions for eight months, besides the necessary munitions of war. This voyage, therefore, is to be regarded, according to the representations here made, to have been begun with the sailing of the four ships, from Dieppe, in the preceding year.1 On leaving Madeira they pursued *a westerly course for eight hundred leagues and then, inclining a little to the north, ran four hundred leagues more, when on the 7th of March2 they fell upon a “ country never before seen by any one either in ancient or modern times.” It seemed very low and stretched to the south, in which direction they sailed along it for the purpose of finding a harbor wherein their ship might ride in

safety ; but discovering none in a distance of fifty

1 Some writers have regarded this introductory as referring to two voy-

ages or cruizes, one with the four ships before the disaster, and the other with the Dauphine afterwards. But it seems clear from their being described as assailed by tempests in the north, which compelled them to run into Brittany for safety, that they were not far distant from Dieppe when the storms overtook them ; and must have been either on their way out or on their return to that port. If they were on their return from a voyage to America, as Charlevofe infers {Fostes Chronologiques, 1523-4), or simply from a cruize, as Mr. Brevoort supposes, they would, after making their repairs, have proceeded "home to Dieppe, instead of making a second voyage. They must, therefore, be regarded as on their way from Dieppe. The idea of a voyage having been performed before the storms, seems to be due to an alteration which Ramusio made in this portion of the letter, by introducing the word “ success,” as of the four ships. Charlevoix expressly refers to Ramusio as his authority and* Mr. Brevoort makes a paraphrase from the Carli and Ramusio versions combined. (Notes on the Verrazano Map in Journal of the Am. Geog. Society of New York, vol. iv, pp. 172-3.) *

2 There is some ambiguity in the account, as to the time when they first saw land. The letter reads as follows : “ On the 17th of last January we set sail from a desolate rock hear the island of Madeira, and sailing westward, in twenty-five days we ran eight hundred leagues. On the 24th of February, we encountered as violent a hurricane as any ship ever weathered. Pursuing our voyage toward the west, a little northwardly, in twenty-four days more, having run four hundred leagues, we reached anew

THE VOYAGE.

leagues, they retraced their course, and ran to the north with no better success. They therefore drew in with the land and sent a boat ashore, and had their first communication with the inhabitants, who regarded them with wonder. These people are described as going naked, except around their loins, and as being Rack. The land, rising somewhat from the shore, was covered with thick forests, which sent forth the sweetest fragrance to a great distance. They supposed it adjoined the Orient, and for that reason was not devoid of medicinal and aromatic drugs and gold ; and being in latitude 34° N., was possessed of a pure, salubrious and healthy climate. They sailed thence westerly for a short distance and then northerly, when at the end of fifty leagues they arrived before a land of great forests, where they landed and found luxuriant vines entwining the trees and producing sweet and luscious grapes of which they ate , tasting not unlike their own ; and from whence they carried off a boy about eight years old, for the purpose of taking him to France. Coasting thence northeasterly for one hundred leagues, sailing only in the day time and not making any harbor in the whole of that distance, they came to a pleasant situation among steep hills, from whence a large river ran into the sea. Leaving, in consequence of a rising

country,” &c. If the twenty-four days be calculated from the 24th of * February, the landfall would have taken place on the 20th of March ; but if reckoned from the first twenty -five days run, it would have been on the 7th of that month. Ramusio changes the distance first sailed from 800' to 500 leagues ; the day when they encountered the storm from the 24th to the 20th of February ; and the twenty-four days last run to twenty -five ; making the landfall occur on the 17th or 10th of March according to the mode of calculating the days last run. As it isfstated, afterwards, that they encountered a gale while at anchor on the coast , early in March, the 7th of that month must be taken as the time of the landfall.

VERRAZZANO.

storm, this river, into which they had entered for a short distance with their boat, and where they saw many of the natives in their canoes , they sailed directly east for eighty leagues, when they discovered an island of triangular shape, about ten leagues from the main land, equal \n size to the island of Rhodes. This island they named aftet* the mother of the king of France. Without landing upon it, they proceeded to a harbor fifteen leagues beyond, at the entrance of a large bay, twelve leagues broad, where they came to anchor and remained for fifteen days. They encountered here a people with whom they formed a great friendship, different in appearance from the natives whom they first saw, — these having a white complexion. The men were tall and well formed, and the women graceful and possessed of pleasing manners. There were two kings among them, who were attended in state by their gentlemen, and a queen who had her waiting maids. Thi£ country was situated in latitude 41° 40' N, in the parallel of Rome ; and was very fertile and abounded with game. They left it on the 6th of May, and sailed one hundred and fifty leagues, constantly in sight of the land which stretched to the east. In this long distance they made no landing, but proceeded fifty leagues further along the land, which inclined more to the north, when they went ashore and found a people exceedingly barbarous and hostile, Leaving them and continuing their course northeasterly for fifty leagues further, they discovered within that distance thirty-two islands. And finally, after having sailed between east and north one hundred and fifty leagues more, they reached the fiftieth degree of north latitude, where the Portuguese had commenced their

THE VOYAGE.

discoveries towards the Arctic circle; when finding their provisions nearly exhausted, they took in wood and water and returned to France, having coasted, it is stated, along an unknown country for seven hundred leagues . In conclusion, it is added, they had found it inhabited by a people without religion, but easily to be persuaded, and imitating with fervor*the acts of Christian worship performed by the discoverers.

The description of the voyage is followed by what the wTriter calls a cosmography, in which is shown the distance they had sailed from the time they left the desert rocks at Madeira, and the probable size of the new world as compared with the old, with the relative area of land and water on the whole globe. There is nothing striking or important in this supplement, except that it emphasizes and enforces the statements of the former part of the letter in regard to the landfall, fixes the exact point of their departure from the coast for home again at 50° N. latitude, and gives seven hundred leagues as the extent of the discovery. The length of a longitudinal degree along the parallel of thirty-four, in which it is reiterated they first made land, and between which and the parallel of thirty-two they had sailed from the Desertas, is calculated and found to be fifty-two miles, and the whole number of degrees which they had traversed across the ocean between those parallels, being twelve hundred leagues, or forty-eight hundred miles, is by simple division made ninety-two. The object of this calculation is not apparent, and strikes the reader as if it were a feeble imitation of the manner in which Amerigo Yespucci illustrates his letters. A statement is made,

VERRAZZANO.

that they took the sun s altitude from day to day, and noted the observations, together with the rise and fall of the tide, in a little book, which was “ communicated to his majesty, in the hope of promoting science.” It is also mentioned that they had no lunar eclipses, by means of which they could have ascertained the longitude during^he voyage. This fact is shown by the tables of Regiomontanus, which had been published long before the alleged voyage, and were open to the world. The statement of it here, therefore, does not, as has been supposed, furnish any evidence in support of the narrative, by reason of its originality.

Such is the account, in brief, whicji the letter gives of the origin, nature and extent of the alleged discovery ; and as it assumes to be the production of the navigator himself, and is the only source of information on the subject, it suggests all the questions which arise in this inquiry. These relate both to the genuineness of the letter, and the truth of its statements ; and accordingly bring under consideration the circumstances under which that instrument was made known and has received credit ; the alleged promotion of tjie voyage by the king of France ; and the results claimed to have been accomplished thereby. It will be made to appear upon this examination, that the letter, according to the evidence upon which its existence is predicated, could not have been written by Verrazzano ; that the instrumentality of the king of France, in any such expedition of discovery as therein described, is unsupported by the history of that country, and is inconsistent with the acknowledged acts of Francis and his successors, and therefore incredible ;

THE VOYAGE.

and that its description of the coast and some of the physical characteristics of the people and of the country are essentially false, and prove that the writer could not have made them from his own personal knowledge and experience, as pretended. And, in conclusion, it will be shown that its apparent knowledge of the direction and extent of the coast was * derived from the exploration of Estevan Gomez, a Portuguese pilot in the service of the king of Spain, and that Verrazzano, at the time of his pretended discovery, was actually engaged in a corsairial expedition, sailing under the French flag, in a different part of the ocean.

The Caravel.

VERRAZZANO.

II. The Verrazzano Letter not Genuine

No proof that the letter ascribed to Verrazzano, was ^ written by him, has ever been produced. The letter itgelf has never been exhibited, or referred to in any authentic document, or mentioned by any contemporary or later historian as being in existence, and although it falls within the era of modern history, not a single fact which it professes to describe relating to the fitting out of the expedition, the voyage, or the discovery, is corroborated by other testimony, whereby its genuineness might even be inferred. The only evidence in regard to it, relates to two copies, as they purport to be, both in the Italian language, one of them coming to us printed*and the other in manuscript, but neither of them traceable to the alleged original. They are both of them of uncertain date. The printed copy appears in the work of Ramusio, first published in 1556, when Verrazzano and Francis I, the parties to it, were both dead, and a generation of men had almost passed away since the events whith it announced had, according to its authority, taken place, and probably no one connected with the government of France at that time could have survived to gainsay the story, were it untrue.1 Ramusio does not* state when or how he

1 Verrazzano died in 1527 ; Louise, the mother of Francis I in September, 1532; and Francis himself in March, 1547.

obtained what he published. In the preface to the volume in which it is printed, dated three years before, he merely speaks of the narrative incidentally, but in a discourse preceding it, he obscurely alludes to the place where he found it, remarking that it was the only letter of Yerrazzano that he had “been able to have, because the others had got astray in the troubles of the unfortunate city of Florence.” The origin of the manuscript version is equally involved in mystery. It forms part of a codex which contains also * a copy of a letter purporting to have been written by Fernando Carli, from Lyons to his father in Florence, on the 4th of August, 1524, giving an account of the arrival of Yerrazzano at Dieppe, and inclosing a copy of his letter to the King. The epistles of Carli and Yerrazzano are thus connected together in the manuscript in fact, and by reference in that of Carli, making the copy of the Yerrazzano letter a part of Carli’s, and so to relate to the same date. But as the Carli letter in the manuscript is itself only a copy, there is nothing to show when that was really written ; nor is it stated when the manuscript itself was made. All that is positively known in regard to the latter is, that it was mentioned in 1768, as being then in existence in the Strozzi library in Florence. When it came into that collection does not appear, but as that library was not founded until 1627, its history cannot be traced before that year.1 Its chirography, however, in the opinion of some competent persons who have examined it, indicates that it was written in the middle of the sixteenth century.

verrazzaSo.

There is, therefore, nothing in the* history or character of the publication in Ramusio or the manuscript, to show that the letter emanated from Verrazzano. Neither of them is traceable to him ; neither of them was printed at a time when its publication, without contradiction, might be regarded as an admission or acknowledgment by the world of a genuine original ; and neither of them is found to have existed early enough to • authorize an inference in favor of such an original by reason of their giving the earliest account of the coasts and country claimed to have been discovered. On the contrary, these two documents of themselves, when their nature and origin are rightly understood, serve to prove that the Yerrazzano letter is not a genuine production. For this purpose it will be necessary to state more fully their history and character.

The existence of the copy which, in consequence of its connection in the same manuscript with that of the Carli letter, may be designated as the Carli version, is first mentioned in an eulogy or life of Yerrazzano in the series of portraits of illustrious Tuscans, printed in Florence in 1767-8, as existing in the Strozzi library.1 The author calls attention to the fact, that it contains a part of the letter which is omitted by Ramusio. In another eulogy of the navigator, by a different hand, G. P. (Pelli), put forth by the same printer in the following year, the writer, referring to the publication of the letter of Ramusio, states that an addition to it, describing the distances to the places

THE LETTER NOT GENUINE.

where Yerrazzano had been, was inserted in writing in a copy of the work of Ramusio, in the possession at that time of the Yerrazzano family in Florence. These references were intended to show the existence of the cosmography, which Tiraboschi afterwards mentions, giving, however, the first named eulogy as his authority. No portion of the Carli copy appeared in print until 1841, when through the instrumentality of Mr. Greene, the American consul at Rome, it was printed in the collections of the New York Historical Society, accompanied by a translation into English by the late Dr. Cogswell. It was subsequently printed in the Archivio Storico Italiano at Florence, in 1853, with some immaterial corrections, and a preliminary discourse on Yerrazzano, by M. Arcangeli. • From an inspection of the codex in the library, where it then existed in Florence, M* Arcangeli * supposes the manuscript was written in the middle of the sixteenth century. This identical copy was, therefore, probably in existence when Ramusio published his work. Upon comparing the letter as given by Ramusio with the manuscript, the former, besides wanting the cosmography, is found to differ from the latter almost entirely in language, and very materially in substance, though agreeing with it in its elementary character and purpose. The two, therefore, cannot be copies of the same original. Either they are different versions from some other language, or one of them must be a recomposition of the other in the language in which they now are found. In regard to their being both translated from the French, the only other language in which the letter can be supposed to have been written

VERRAZZANO.

besides the native tongue of Verrazzano, although it is indeed most reasonable to suppose that such a letter, addressed to the king of France, on the results of an expedition of the crown, by an officer in his service, would have been written in that language, it is, nevertheless, highly improbable that any letter could, in this instance, have been so addressed to the King, and two different translations made from it into Italian, one by Carli in Lyons in 1524, and the other by Ramusio in Venice twenty-nine years afterwards, and yet no copy of it in French, or any memorial of its existence in that language be known. This explanation must therefore be abandoned. If on th*e other hand, one of these copies was so rendered from the French, or from an original in either form in which it appears in Italian, whether by Verrazzano or not, the other must have been rewritten from it. It is evident, however, that the Carli version could not have been derived from that contained in Ramusio, because it contains an entire part consisting of several pages, embracing the cosmographical explanations of the voyage, not found in the latter. As we are restricted to these two copies as the sole authority for the letter, and are, therefore, governed in any conclusion on this subject by what they teach, it must be determined that the letter in Ramusio is a version of that contained in the Carli manuscript. This suggestion is not new. It was made by Mr. Greene in his monograph on Verrazzano, without his following it to the conclusion to which it inevitably leads. If the version in Ramusio be a recomposition of the Carli copy, an important step is gained towards determining the origin of the Verraz-

THE LETTER NOT GENUINE.

zano letter, as in that case the inquiry is brought down to the consideration of the authenticity of the Carli letter, of which it forms a part. But before proceeding to that question, the reasons assigned by Mr. Greene, and some incidental facts stated by him in connection with them, should be given. * He says :

“ The Strozzi Library is no longer in existence ) but the manuscripts of that collection passed into the hands of the Tuscan government, and were divided between the Magliabechian and Laurentian libraries of Florence. The historical documents were deposited in the former. Among them was the cosmographical narration of Yerrazzano mentioned by Tiraboschi, and which Mr. Bancroft expresses a desire to see copied for the Historical Society of New York. It is contained in a volume of Miscellanies, marked “ Class XIII. Cod. 89. Verraz and forms the concluding portion of the letter to Francis the First, which is copied at length in the same volume. It is written in the common running hand of the sixteenth century ( carrattere corsivo ), tolerably distinct, but badly pointed. The whole volume, which is composed of miscellaneous pieces, chiefly relating to contemporary history, is evidently the work of the same hand.

“ Upon collating this manuscript with that part of the letter which was published by Hamusio, we were struck with the differences in language which run through every paragraph of the two texts. In substance there is no important difference,1 except in one instance, where, by an evident blunder of the transcriber, bianchissimo is put for branzino. There is something so peculiar in the style of this letter, as it reads in the manuscript of the Magliabechian, that it is impossible to account for its variations from Bamusio, except by supposing that this editor worked the whole piece over anew, correcting the errors of language upon his own authority.2 These

1 In tliis statement Mr. Greene was mistaken, as will be manifested in a comparison of the two texts hereafter given, in which the difference of language will also appear.

2 Mr. Greene adds in a note to this passage : “ He did so also with the translation of Marco Polo. See Apostolo Zeno, Annot. alia Bib. Ital. del Fontanini, tom. II, p. 300;- ed. di Parma. 1804.” There is another instance mentioned by Amoretti, in the preface to his translation of Pigafetta’s journal of Magellan’s voyage, and that was with Fabre’s translation of the copy of the journal given by Pigafetta to the mother of Francis I. Premier voyage autour du monde. xxxii. (Jansen, Paris l’an ix.)

VERRAZZANO.

errors indeed are numerous, and the whole exhibits a strange mixture of Latinisms 1 and absolute barbarisms with pure Tuscan words and phrases. The general cast of it, however, is simple and not unpleasing. The obscurity of many of the sentences is, in a great measure, owing to false pointing.

“ The cosmographical description forms the last three pages of the letter. It was doubtless intentionally omitted by Ramusio, though it would be difficult to say why. Some of the readings are apparently corrupt ; nor, ignorant as we are of nautical science, was it in our* power to correct them. There are also some slight mistakes, which must be attributed to the transcriber.

“ A letter which follows that of Verrazzano, gives, as it seems to us, a sufficient explanation of the origin of this manuscript. It was written by a young Florentine, named Fernando Carli, and is addressed from Lyons to his father in Florence. It mentions the arrival of Verrazzano at Dieppe, and contains several circumstances about him, which throw a new though still a feeble light upon parts of his history, hitherto wholly unknown. It is by the discovery of this letter, that we have been enabled to form a sketch of him, somewhat more complete than any which has ever yet been given.

“ The history of both manuscripts is probably as follows : Carli wrote toxins father, thinking, as he himself tells it, that the news of Verrazzano's return would give great satisfaction to many of their friends in Florence. He added at the same time, and this also we learn from his own words, a copy of Verrazzano’s letter to the king. Both his letter and his copy of Verrazzano’s were intended to be shown to his Florentine acquaintances. Copies, as is usual in such cases, were taken of them ; and to us it seems evident that from some one of these the copy in the Magliabechian manuscript was derived. The appearance of this last, which was prepared for some individual fond of collecting miscellaneous documents, if not by him, is a sufficient corroboration of our statement.” 2

Adopting the Carli copy as the primitive form of the Verrazzano letter, and the Carli letter as the original means by which it has been communicated to

1 An instance of these Latinisms is the signature “ Janus Verrazzanus,” affixed to the letter.

2 Historical Studies: by George Washington Greene, New York, 1850; p. 323. Life and Voyages of Verrazzano (by the same), in the North American Review for October, 1837. (Vol. 45, p. 306).

THE LETTER NOT GENUINE.

IT the world, the inquiry is resolved into the authenticity of the Carli letter. There are sufficient reasons to' denounce this letter as a pure invention ; and in order to present those reasons more clearly, we here give a translation of it in full :

• Letter of Fernando. Carli to his Father. 1

In the name of God.

Honorable Father : •

Considering that when I was in the armada in Barbary at Garbich the news were advised you daily from the illustrious Sig. Don Hugo de Moncada, Captain General of the Caesarean Majesty in those barbarous parts, [of what] happened in contending with the Moors of that island ; by which it appears you caused pleasure to many of our patrons and friends and congratulated yourselves on the victory achieved : so there being here news recently of the arrival of Captain Giovanni da Yerrazzano, our Florentine, at the port of Dieppe, in Normandy, with his ship, the Dauphiny, with which he sailed from the Canary islands the end of last January, to go in search of new lands for this most serene crown of France, in which he displayed very noble and great courage in undertaking such an unknown voyage with only one ship, which was a caravel of hardly — tons, with only fifty men, with the intention, if possible, of discovering Cathay, taking a course through other climates than those the Portuguese use in reaching it by the way of Calicut, but going towards the northwest and north, entirely believing that, although Ptolemy, Aristotle and ojher cosmographers affirm that no land is to be found towards such climates, he would find it there nevertheless. And so God has vouchsafed him as he distinctly describes in a letter of his to this S. M. ; of which , in this , there is a copy. And for waiit of provisions, after many months spent in navigating, he asserts he wal* forced to return from that hemisphere into this, and having been