APPENDIX.
344
Spain ; and that he did it to conciliate the bishop Fonseca, who was desirous of any thing that might injure the interests of Columbus.
In
corroboration of this opinion, the patronage is cited which was ever shown by Fonseca to Vespucci and his family.
This is not, however, a satisfac足
tory reason, since it does not appear that the bishop ever made any use of the fabrication.
Perhaps some other means might be found of accounting
for this spurious narration, without implicating the veracity of Vespucci. It may have been the blunder of some editor, or the interpolation of some book-maker, eager, as in the case of Trivigiani with the manuscripts of Peter Martyr, to gather together disjointed materials, and fabricate a work to gratify the prevalent passion of the day. In the various editions of the letters of Vespucci, the grossest variations and inconsistencies in dates will be found, evidently the errors of hasty and careless publishers.
Several of these have been corrected by the modern
authors who have inserted these letters in their works.*
T h e same dis足
regard to exactness which led to these blunders, may have produced the interpolation of this voyage, garbled out of the letters of Vespucci and the accounts of other vovagers.
This is merely suggested as a possible mode
of accounting for what appears so decidedly to be a fabrication, yet which w e are loth to attribute to a man of the good sense, the character, and the reputed merit of Vespucci. After all, this is a question more of curiosity than of real moment, although it is one of those perplexing points about which grave men will continue to write weary volumes, until the subject acquires a fictitious importance from the mountain of controversy heaped upon it.
It has
become a question of local pride with the literati of Florence ; and they emulate each other with patriotic zeal, to vindicate the fame of their
* An instance of these errors may be cited in the edition of the letter of Amerigo Vespucci to king Ren辿, inserted by Grinaeus in his Novus Orbis, in 1533.
In this Vespucci is made to state that he sailed from Cadiz May 2 0 ,
M C C C C X C V I I . (1497,) that he was eighteen months absent, and returned to Cadiz October 15, M C C C C X C I X . (1499,) which would constitute an absence of 29 months.
He states his departure from Cadiz, on his second voyage, Sun足
day, May 11th, M C C C C L X X X I X . (1489,) which would have made his second voyage precede his first by eight years.
If we substitute 1499 for 1489, the
departure on his second voyage would still precede his return from his first by five months.
Canovai, in his edition, has altered the date of the first return to
1498, to limit the voyage to eighteen months.