The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (Vol. II)

W >> Washington Irving >> The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (Vol. II)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44

It is probable that this narrative, which appeared only a year after the
death of Columbus, was a piece of literary job-work, written, for the
collection of voyages published at Vicenza; and that the materials were
taken from oral communication, from the account given by Sabellicus, and
particularly from the manuscript copy of Martyr's first decade.

No. XXXIII.

Antonio de Herrera.

Antonio Herrera de Tordesillas, one of the authors most frequently cited
in this work, was born in 1565, of Roderick Tordesillas, and Agnes de
Herrera, his wife. He received an excellent education, and entered into
the employ of Vespasian Gonzago, brother to the duke of Mantua, who was
viceroy of Naples for Philip the Second of Spain. He was for some time
secretary to this statesman, and intrusted with all his secrets. He was
afterwards grand historiographer of the Indies to Philip II, who added to
that title a large pension. He wrote various books, but the most
celebrated is a General History of the Indies, or American Colonies, in
four volumes, containing eight decades. When he undertook this work, all
the public archives were thrown open to him, and he had access to
documents of all kinds. He has been charged with great precipitation in
the production of his two first volumes, and with negligence in not making
sufficient use of the indisputable sources of information thus placed
within his reach. The fact was, that he met with historical tracts lying
in manuscript, which embraced a great part of the first discoveries, and
he contented himself with stating events as he found them therein
recorded. It is certain that a great part of his work is little more than
a transcript of the manuscript history of the Indies by Las Casas,
sometimes reducing and improving the language when tumid; omitting the
impassioned sallies of the zealous father, when the wrongs of the Indians
were in question; and suppressing various circumstances degrading to the
character of the Spanish discoverers. The author of the present work has,
therefore, frequently put aside the history of Herrera, and consulted the
source of his information, the manuscript history of Las Casas.

Munoz observes, that "in general Herrera did little more than join
together morsels and extracts, taken from various parts, in the way that a
writer arranges chronologically the materials from which he intends to
compose a history;" he adds, that "had not Herrera been a learned and
judicious man, the precipitation with which he put together these
materials would have led to innumerable errors." The remark is just; yet
it is to be considered, that to select and arrange such materials
judiciously, and treat them learnedly, was no trifling merit in the
historian.

Herrera has been accused also of flattering his nation; exalting the deeds
of his countrymen, and softening and concealing their excesses. There is
nothing very serious in this accusation. To illustrate the glory of his
nation is one of the noblest offices of the historian; and it is difficult
to speak too highly of the extraordinary enterprises and splendid actions
of the Spaniards in those days. In softening their excesses he fell into
an amiable and pardonable error, if it were indeed an error for a Spanish
writer to endeavor to sink them in oblivion.

Vossius passes a high eulogium on Herrera. "No one," he says, "has
described with greater industry and fidelity the magnitude and boundaries
of provinces, the tracts of sea, positions of capes and islands, of ports
and harbors, the windings of rivers and dimensions of lakes; the situation
and peculiarities of regions, with the appearance of the heavens, and the
designation of places suitable for the establishment of cities." He has
been called among the Spaniards the prince of the historians of America,
and it is added that none have risen since his time capable of disputing
with him that title. Much of this praise will appear exaggerated by such
as examine the manuscript histories from which he transferred chapters
and entire books, with very little alteration, to his volumes; and a great
part of the eulogiums passed on him for his work on the Indies, will be
found really due to Las Casas, who has too long been eclipsed by his
copyist. Still Herrera has left voluminous proofs of industrious research,
extensive information, and great literary talent. His works bear the mark
of candor, integrity, and a sincere desire to record the truth.

He died in 1625, at sixty years of age, after having obtained from Philip
IV the promise of the first charge of secretary of state that should
become vacant.

No. XXXIV.

Bishop Fonseca.

The singular malevolence displayed by bishop Juan Rodriguez de Fonseca
towards Columbus and his family, and which was one of the secret and
principal causes of their misfortunes, has been frequently noticed in the
course of this work. It originated, as has been shown, in some dispute
between the admiral and Fonseca at Seville in 1493, on account of the
delay in fitting out the armament for the second voyage, and in regard to
the number of domestics to form the household of the admiral. Fonseca
received a letter from the sovereigns, tacitly reproving him, and ordering
him to show all possible attention to the wishes of Columbus, and to see
that he was treated with honor and deference. Fonseca never forgot this
affront, and, what with him was the same thing, never forgave it. His
spirit appears to have been of that unhealthy kind which has none of the
balm of forgiveness; and in which a wound, once made, for ever rankles.
The hostility thus produced continued with increasing virulence throughout
the life of Columbus, and at his death was transferred to his son and
successor. This persevering animosity has been illustrated in the course
of this work by facts and observations, cited from authors, some of them
contemporary with Fonseca, but who were apparently restrained by motives
of prudence from giving full vent to the indignation which they evidently
felt. Even at the present day, a Spanish historian would be cautious of
expressing his feelings freely on the subject, lest they should prejudice
his work in the eyes of the ecclesiastical censors of the press. In this
way, bishop Fonseca has in a great measure escaped the general odium his
conduct merited.

This prelate had the chief superintendence of Spanish colonial affairs,
both under Ferdinand and Isabella and the emperor Charles V. He was an
active and intrepid, but selfish, overbearing, and perfidious man. His
administration bears no marks of enlarged and liberal policy; but is full
of traits of arrogance and meanness. He opposed the benevolent attempts of
Las Casas to ameliorate the condition of the Indians, and to obtain the
abolition of repartimientos; treating him with personal haughtiness and
asperity. [388] The reason assigned is that Fonseca was enriching himself
by those very abuses, retaining large numbers of the miserable Indians in
slavery, to work on his possessions in the colonies.

To show that his character has not been judged with undue severity, it is
expedient to point out his invidious and persecuting conduct towards
Hernando Cortez. The bishop, while ready to foster rambling adventurers
who came forward under his patronage, had never the head or the heart to
appreciate the merits of illustrious commanders like Columbus and Cortez.

At a time when disputes arose between Cortez and Diego Velazquez, governor
of Cuba, and the latter sought to arrest the conqueror of Mexico in the
midst of his brilliant career, Fonseca, with entire disregard of the
merits of the case, took a decided part in favor of Velazquez. Personal
interest was at the bottom of this favor; for a marriage was negotiating
between Velazquez and a sister of the bishop. [389] Complaints and
misrepresentations had been sent to Spain by Velazquez of the conduct of
Cortez, who was represented as a lawless and unprincipled adventurer,
attempting to usurp absolute authority in New Spain. The true services of
Cortez had already excited admiration at court, but such was the influence
of Fonseca, that, as in the case of Columbus, he succeeded in prejudicing
the mind of the sovereign against one of the most meritorious of his
subjects. One Christoval de Tapia, a man destitute of talent or character,
but whose greatest recommendation was his having been in the employ of
the bishop, [390] was invested with powers similar to those once given to
Bobadilla to the prejudice of Columbus. He was to inquire into the conduct
of Cortez, and in case he thought fit, to seize him, sequestrate his
property, and supersede him in command. Not content with the regular
official letters furnished to Tapia, the bishop, shortly after his
departure, sent out Juan Bono de Quexo with blank letters signed by his
own hand, and with others directed to various persons, charging them to
admit Tapia for governor, and assuring them that the king considered the
conduct of Cortez as disloyal. Nothing but the sagacity and firmness of
Cortez prevented this measure from completely interrupting, if not
defeating, his enterprises; and he afterwards declared, that he had
experienced more trouble and difficulty from the menaces and affronts of
the ministers of the king than it cost him to conquer Mexico. [391]

When the dispute between Cortez and Velazquez came to be decided upon in
Spain, in 1522, the father of Cortez, and those who had come from New
Spain as his procurators, obtained permission from cardinal Adrian, at
that time governor of the realm, to prosecute a public accusation of the
bishop. A regular investigation took place before the council of the
Indies of their allegations against its president. They charged him with
having publicly declared Cortez a traitor and a rebel: with having
intercepted and suppressed his letters addressed to the king, keeping his
majesty in ignorance of their contents and of the important services he
had performed, while he diligently forwarded all letters calculated to
promote the interest of Velazquez: with having prevented the
representations of Cortez from being heard in the council of the Indies,
declaring that they should never be heard there while he lived: with
having interdicted the forwarding of arms, merchandise, and reinforcements
to New Spain: and with having issued orders to the office of the India
House at Seville to arrest the procurators of Cortez and all persons
arriving from him, and to seize and detain all gold that they should
bring. These and various other charges of similar nature were
dispassionately investigated. Enough were substantiated to convict Fonseca
of the most partial, oppressive, and perfidious conduct, and the cardinal
consequently forbade him to interfere in the cause between Cortez and
Velazquez, and revoked all the orders which the bishop had issued, in the
matter, to the India House of Seville. Indeed, Salazar, a Spanish
historian, says that Fonseca was totally divested of his authority as
president of the council, and of all control of the affiairs of New Spain,
and adds that he was so mortified at the blow, that it brought on a fit of
illness, which well nigh cost him his life. [392]

The suit between Cortez and Velazquez was referred to a special tribunal,
composed of the grand chancellor and other persons of note, and was
decided in 1522. The influence and intrigues of Fonseca being no longer of
avail, a triumphant verdict was given in favor of Cortez, which was
afterwards confirmed by the emperor Charles V, and additional honors
awarded him. This was another blow to the malignant Fonseca, who retained
his enmity against Cortez until his last moment, rendered still more
rancorous by mortification and disappointment.

A charge against Fonseca, of a still darker nature than any of the
preceding, may be found lurking in the pages of Herrera, though so obscure
as to have escaped the notice of succeeding historians. He points to the
bishop as the instigator of a desperate and perfidious man, who conspired
against the life of Hernando Cortez. This was one Antonio de Villafana,
who fomented a conspiracy to assassinate Cortez, and elect Francisco
Verdujo, brother-in-law of Velazquez, in his place. While the conspirators
were waiting for an opportunity to poniard Cortez, one of them relenting,
apprised him of his danger. Villafana was arrested. He attempted to
swallow a paper containing a list of the conspirators, but being seized by
the throat, a part of it was forced from his mouth containing fourteen
names of persons of importance, Villafafia confessed his guilt, but
tortures could not make him inculpate the persons whose names were on the
list, who he declared were ignorant of the plot. He was hanged by order of
Cortez. [393]

In the investigation of the disputes between Cortez and Velazquez, this
execution of Villafana was magnified into a cruel and wanton act of power;
and in their eagerness to criminate Cortez the witnesses on the part of
Alvarez declared that Villafana had been instigated to what he had done by
letters from bishop Fonseca! (Que se movio a lo que hizo con cartas del
obispo de Burgos. [394]) It is not probable that Fonseca had recommended
assassination, but it shows the character of his agents, and what must
have been the malignant nature of his instructions, when these men thought
that such an act would accomplish his wishes.

Fonseca died at Burgos, on the 4th of November, 1524, and was interred at
Coca.

No. XXXV.

Of the Situation of the Terrestrial Paradise.

The speculations of Columbus on the situation of the terrestrial
paradise, extravagant as they may appear, were such as have occupied many
grave and learned men. A slight notice of their opinions on this curious
subject may be acceptable to the general reader, and may take from the
apparent wildness of the ideas expressed by Columbus.

The abode of our first parents was anciently the subject of anxious
inquiry; and indeed mankind have always been prone to picture some place
of perfect felicity, where the imagination, disappointed in the coarse
realities of life, might revel in an Elysium of its own creation. It is an
idea not confined to our religion, but is found in the rude creeds of the
most savage nations, and it prevailed generally among the ancients. The
speculations concerning the situation of the garden of Eden resemble those
of the Greeks concerning the garden of the Hesperides; that region of
delight, which they for ever placed at the most remote verge of the known
world; which their poets embellished with all the charms of fiction; after
which they were continually longing, and which they could never find. At
one time it was in the Grand Oasis of Arabia. The exhausted travelers,
after traversing the parched and sultry desert, hailed this verdant spot
with rapture; they refreshed themselves under its shady bowers, and beside
its cooling streams, as the crew of a tempest-tost vessel repose on the
shores of some green island in the deep; and from its being thus isolated
in the midst of an ocean of sand, they gave it the name of the Island of
the Blessed. As geographical knowledge increased, the situation of the
Hesperian gardens was continually removed to a greater distance. It was
transferred to the borders of the great Syrtis, in the neighborhood of
Mount Atlas. Here, after traversing the frightful deserts of Barca, the
traveler found himself in a fair and fertile country, watered by rivulets
and gushing fountains. The oranges and citrons transported hence to
Greece, where they were as yet unknown, delighted the Athenians by their
golden beauty and delicious flavor, and they thought that none but the
garden of the Hesperides could produce such glorious fruits. In this way
the happy region of the ancients was transported from place to place,
still in the remote and obscure extremity of the world, until it was
fabled to exist in the Canaries, thence called the Fortunate or the
Hesperian islands. Here it remained, because discovery advanced no
farther, and because these islands were so distant, and so little known,
as to allow full latitude to the fictions of the poet. [395]

In like manner the situation of the terrestrial paradise, or garden of
Eden, was long a subject of earnest inquiry and curious disputation, and
occupied the laborious attention of the most learned theologians. Some
placed it in Palestine or the Holy Land; others in Mesopotamia, in that
rich and beautiful tract of country embraced by the wanderings of the
Tigris and the Euphrates; others in Armenia, in a valley surrounded by
precipitous and inaccessible mountains, and imagined that Enoch and Elijah
were transported thither, out of the sight of mortals, to live in a state
of terrestrial bliss until the second coming of our Saviour. There were
others who gave it situations widely remote, such as in the Trapoban of
the ancients, at present known as the island of Ceylon; or in the island
of Sumatra; or in the Fortunate or Canary islands; or in one of the
islands of Sunda; or in some favored spot under the equinoctial line.

Great difficulty was encountered by these speculators to reconcile the
allotted place with the description given in Genesis of the garden of
Eden; particularly of the great fountain which watered it, and which
afterwards divided itself into four rivers, the Pison or Phison, the
Gihon, the Euphrates, and the Hiddekel. Those who were in favor of the
Holy Land supposed that the Jordan was the great river which afterwards
divided itself into the Phison, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates, but that the
sands have choked up the ancient beds by which these streams were
supplied; that originally the Phison traversed Arabia Deserta and Arabia
Felix, whence it pursued its course to the gulf of Persia; that the Gihon
bathed northern or stony Arabia and fell into the Arabian Gulf or the Red
Sea; that the Euphrates and the Tigris passed by Eden to Assyria and
Chaldea, whence they discharged themselves into the Persian Gulf.

By most of the early commentators the river Gihon is supposed to be the
Nile. The source of this river was unknown, but was evidently far distant
from the spots whence the Tigris and the Euphrates arose. This difficulty,
however, was ingeniously overcome by giving it a subterranean course of
some hundreds of leagues from the common fountain, until it issued forth
to daylight in Abyssinia. [396] In like manner, subterranean courses were
given to the Tigris and the Euphrates, passing under the Bed Sea, until
they sprang forth in Armenia, as if just issuing from one common source.
So also those who placed the terrestrial paradise in islands, supposed
that the rivers which issued from it, and formed those heretofore named,
either traversed the surface of the sea, as fresh water, by its greater
lightness, may float above the salt; or that they flowed through deep
veins and channels of the earth, as the fountain of Arethusa was said to
sink into the ground in Greece, and rise in the island of Sicily, while
the river Alpheus pursuing it, but with less perseverance, rose somewhat
short of it in the sea.

Some contended that the deluge had destroyed the garden of Eden, and
altered the whole face of the earth; so that the rivers had changed their
beds, and had taken different directions from those mentioned in Genesis;
others, however, amongst whom was St. Augustine, in his commentary upon
the book of Genesis, maintained that the terrestrial paradise still
existed, with its original beauty and delights, but that it was
inaccessible to mortals, being on the summit of a mountain of stupendous
height, reaching into the third region of the air, and approaching the
moon; being thus protected by its elevation from the ravages of the
deluge.

By some this mountain was placed under the equinoctial line; or under that
band of the heavens metaphorically called by the ancients "the table of
the sun," [397] comprising the space between the tropics of Cancer and
Capricorn, beyond which the sun never passed in his annual course. Here
would reign a uniformity of nights and days and seasons, and the elevation
of the mountain would raise it above the heats and storms of the lower
regions. Others transported the garden beyond the equinoctial line and
placed it in the southern hemisphere; supposing that the torrid zone might
be the flaming sword appointed to defend its entrance against mortals.
They had a fanciful train of argument to support their theory. They
observed that the terrestrial paradise must be in the noblest and happiest
part of the globe; that part must be under the noblest part of the
heavens; as the merits of a place do not so much depend upon the virtues
of the earth, as upon the happy influences of the stars and the favorable
and benign aspect of the heavens. Now, according to philosophers, the
world was divided into two hemispheres. The southern they considered the
head, and the northern the feet, or under part; the right hand the east,
whence commenced the movement of the primum mobile, and the left the west,
towards which it moved. This supposed, they observed that as it was
manifest that the head of all things, natural and artificial, is always
the best and noblest part, governing the other parts of the body, so the
south, being the head of the earth, ought to be superior and nobler than
either east, or west, or north; and in accordance with this, they cited
the opinion of various philosophers among the ancients, and more
especially that of Ptolemy, that the stars of the southern hemisphere were
larger, more resplendent, more perfect, and of course of greater virtue
and efficacy, than those of the northern: an error universally prevalent
until disproved by modern discovery. Hence they concluded that in this
southern hemisphere, in this head of the earth, under this purer and
brighter sky, and these more potent and benignant stars, was placed the
terrestrial paradise.

Various ideas were entertained as to the magnitude of this blissful
region. As Adam and all his progeny were to have lived there, had he not
sinned, and as there would have been no such thing as death to thin the
number of mankind, it was inferred that the terrestrial paradise must be
of great extent to contain them. Some gave it a size equal to Europe or
Africa; others gave it the whole southern hemisphere. St. Augustine
supposed that as mankind multiplied, numbers would be translated without
death to heaven; the parents, perhaps, when their children had arrived at
mature age; or portions of the human race at the end of certain periods,
and when the population of the terrestrial paradise had attained a certain
amount. [398] Others supposed that mankind, remaining in a state of
primitive innocence, would not have required so much space as at present.
Having no need of rearing animals for subsistence, no land would have
been required for pasturage; and the earth not being cursed with
sterility, there would have been no need of extensive tracts of country
to permit of fallow land and the alternation of crops required in
husbandry. The spontaneous and never-failing fruits of the garden would
have been abundant for the simple wants of man. Still, that the human
race might not be crowded, but might have ample space for recreation and
enjoyment, and the charms of variety and change, some allowed at least a
hundred leagues of circumference to the garden.

St. Basilius, in his eloquent discourse on paradise, [399] expatiates with
rapture on the joys of this sacred abode, elevated to the third region of
the air, and under the happiest skies. There a pure and never-failing
pleasure is furnished to every sense. The eye delights in the admirable
clearness of the atmosphere, in the verdure and beauty of the trees, and
the never-withering bloom of the flowers. The ear is regaled with the
singing of the birds, the smell with the aromatic odors of the land. In
like manner the other senses have each their peculiar enjoyments. There
the vicissitudes of the seasons are unknown and the climate unites the
fruitfulness of summer, the joyful abundance of autumn, and the sweet
freshness and quietude of spring. There the earth is always green, the
flowers are ever blooming, the waters limpid and delicate, not rushing in
rude and turbid torrents, but swelling up in crystal fountains, and
winding in peaceful and silver streams. There no harsh and boisterous
winds are permitted to shake and disturb the air, and ravage the beauty of
the groves; there prevails no melancholy, nor darksome weather, no
drowning rain, nor pelting hail; no forked lightning, nor rending and
resounding thunder; no wintry pinching cold, nor withering and panting
summer heat; nor any thing else that can give pain or sorrow or annoyance;
but all is bland and gentle and serene; a perpetual youth and joy reigns
throughout all nature, and nothing decays and dies.

The same idea is given by St. Ambrosius, in his book on Paradise, [400] an
author likewise consulted and cited by Columbus. He wrote in the fourth
century, and his touching eloquence, and graceful yet vigorous style,
insured great popularity to his writings. Many of these opinions are cited
by Glanville. usually called Bartholomeus Anglicus, in his work De
Proprietatibus Rerum; a work with which Columbus was evidently acquainted.
It was a species of encyclopedia of the general knowledge current at the
time, and was likely to recommend itself to a curious and inquiring
voyager. This author cites an assertion as made by St. Basilius and St.
Ambrosius, that the water of the fountain which proceeds from the garden
of Eden falls into a great lake with such a tremendous noise that the
inhabitants of the neighborhood are born deaf; and that from this lake
proceed the four chief rivers mentioned in Genesis. [401]