Chapter VII (9)

"There are five letters in this blessed Name,
Which, chang'd, a five-fold Mysterie designe;
The M, the Myrtle, A, the Almonds clame,
R, Rose, I, Ivy, E, sweet Eglantine."

That such a book should not find favor in the eyes of the London _Athenaeum_, is not surprising. The author of _Spiritual Wives_ and the recognizer of the Pope Joan fable as veritable history could scarcely be expected to recognize merit in such a work as the _Femall Glory_.

------

_A Slavonian Version of the Bible_ is now in preparation at Rome. The original Slavonian text was the work of St. Cyril and St. Methodus, apostles to the Slavonians in the ninth century. In the lapse of years, the original text has been seriously tampered with by so-called emendators and incompetent copyists, so that it is now very difficult to determine several important questions concerning it. Was the translation made from the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew? What class of manuscripts were used by these apostles? Which of the Slavonian dialects was the vehicle of the translation? And, finally, was the original version written in glagolitic or cyrillic characters?

------

_The Staple of Biographical Notices_ of Pope Sixtus V., is usually made up of a series of stories, to the effect that he was the son of ignorant parents and himself a swineherd; that he rose by his talents to the dignity of cardinal, and that, feigning extreme illness to the point of appearing to be on the verge of the grave from debility and disease, was no sooner elected to the papacy than he threw away his crutches and declared himself perfectly restored to health.

These stories have found such favor with compilers of historical books that they have been carefully preserved in spite of their want of confirmation by contemporary historians. M. A. I. Dumesnil has lately written a life of Felix Peretti, Pope Sixtus V., in which he shows that his origin was not low, and that he was allied to the best families, short of nobility, of his province. The stories of his illness, simulated feebleness, and affected use of crutches, he pronounces to be all fabulous, and quotes Tempesti, one of the historians of the conclave which elected Sixtus, thus: "In electing Montalto pope, still vigorous of years, since he had reached only sixty-four and enjoyed a robust and vigorous constitution, it was felt certain that he would live long enough to bury Farnese and his partisans." M. Dumesnil does not appear to have added anything by research or discovery to the materials already known to be in existence, but has simply used the matter furnished by Tempesti, Guerra, Fontana, and other Italian historians, with skill and judgment. He bears testimony to the extraordinary talent, judgment, and energy of the great pontiff, whose reign of less than five years was, unfortunately, too short to complete the extensive reforms commenced by him in the temporal government of his territory. Sixtus V. was remarkable for his energy in the suppression of abuses, order and economy in the public finances, and unbending severity toward criminals, encouragement of industry, an enlightened fondness for the arts, as shown by numerous monuments and his patronage of the great architect, Fontana, and an inflexible determination to raise the holy see from any dependence upon foreign princes.

{432}

There is another _Life of Sixus_ in preparation by Baron Hübner, formerly Austrian Ambassador to France, in which he promises numerous documents, French, Spanish, and English, never yet published.

[Six paragraphs have been moved, three paragraphs toward the
end, from this location according to the notice on page 711-2.]

------

_Concilium Seleuciae et Ctesiphonti_, habitum anno 410. Textum Syriacum edidit latine vertit notisque instruxit, T. J. Lamy. Lovanii, 1868.

From ancient Syrian literature, so rich in works relative to the church, its history, its discipline, and its dogmas, the Abbé Lamy, Professor at the University of Louvain, has here selected one of its most precious monuments for translation and comment. Not less remarkable for the charm of their antique simplicity of language than their fulness of doctrine, these few pages alone would almost suffice to establish the complete symbolism of the church. "Confitemur etiam"--thus testify the fathers of the Council of Seleucia--"Spiritum vivum et sanctum, Paracletum vivum, QUI EX PATRE ET FILIO in una Trinitate, in una essentia, in una voluntate, amplectentes fidem trecentorum decem et octo Episcoporum, quae definita fuit in urbe Nicea. Haec est confessio nostra et fides nostra, quam accepimus a Sanctis Patribus Nostris.

[The following six paragraphs have been moved to this location
according to the notice on page 711-2.]

It will be remembered that in the fifth century the Priscillianists, in those countries infected with the Arian heresy, took unfair advantage of the special mention made by the Council of Constantinople of the first person of the Trinity and of the omitted mention of the Son, to maintain that the Son was not consubstantial with the Father.

Then followed the express insertion of the word FILIOQUE by decree of a general council.

The history of the Greek schism turns upon this point, and students of church history will find high interest and solid instruction in tracing the reasons and circumstances connected with the fact that, although this addition of _filioque_ really made no change in the doctrine of the church, although in the ninth century the western churches used it, and yet Pope Leo III. insisted on the use in Rome of the form adopted by the fathers of Constantinople, and although between the Greek and the Latin churches there was no divergence on this doctrinal point, nevertheless it was not until after the consummation of the schism of Photius and of Michael Cerularius that the Greeks began to pretend that they had never professed this dogma.

Then follows the treatment of this question by the councils of fourth Lateran, (1215,) third Lyons, (1274,) and that of Florence, (1439.)

Of course it will be seen that the importance of the action of the Council of Seleucia lies in the fact that it was composed of forty bishops, of whom one, at least, was a member of the first ecumenical council of Constantinople, and that it was called at the instigation and through the initiative of the Greek Church herself.

So that, as the lawyers say, it does not lie in the mouth of the Greek Church, at the present day, to say that it is simply opposing a Latin innovation.

In almost immediate connection with what we here remark on the Rev. Mr. Lamy's book, we may mention that the _Jacobi Episcopi Edessem Epistola ad Georgium Episcopum Sarugensem de Orthographia Syriaca_, so well known, at least by reputation, to oriental scholars, has at last been published at Leipsic. Assemanni and Michaelis frequently urged its printing, and Cardinal Wiseman, who took a strong and appreciative interest in the work, speaks of it at length in the first volume of his _Horae Syriacae_, (Rome, 1828.)

------

Monsignor Giuliani, of Verona, has published a work on public libraries, in which he shows that the libraries of Italy possess a greater number of volumes than the libraries of any other nation in the world. The Italian libraries number 6,000,000 of volumes; France, 4,389,000; Austria, 2,400,000; Prussia, 2,040,000, Great Britain, 1,774,493; Bavaria, 1,268,000; Russia, 882,090; Belgium, 509,100. Collections of books are much scattered in Italy. Paris has one third of all the library books in France, and most of the European capitals are rich in almost as great a proportion. This is not the case in Italy. Milan has only 250,000 volumes in the Brera library, and 155,000 in the Ambrosian.

-------

{433}

The Catholic World.

Vol. IX., No. 52.--July, 1869.

Columbus At Salamanca.

"----e di te solo
Basti ai posteri tuoi ch'alquanto accume:
Che quel poco darà lunga memoria
Di poema dignissima e d'istoria." [Footnote 121]
_Gierusalemme Liberata_, TASSO.

[Footnote 121: "Thy single name will pour diviner light O'er
history's pages; and thy fame inspire Bards, who are yet
unborn, with more celestial fire."
Tasso's _Jerusalem Delivered_. ]

Some three years since, a large historical painting was exhibited at the gallery of the Artists' Fund Association in the city of New York. Its subject, as announced, was "Columbus before the Council of Salamanca." The picture was said to be a work of merit, and attracted much attention. It represented the great discoverer standing in the large hall of a convent, surrounded by monks and ecclesiastics, foremost among whom are three Dominican friars, who, having apparently worked themselves into a paroxysm of anger, face Columbus with gestures of violent denunciation. Grave, dignified, and majestic stands the great Genoese discoverer among them, apparently the only reasonable being in that assemblage of ignorance and bigotry, whose victim he is evidently about to become. The pictorial lesson sought to be conveyed was, clearly, that here was another Galileo business, a second _e pur si muove_ sensation, a repetition of the favorite amusement of all churchmen, which every one knows to be the persecution of discoverers and the crushing out of knowledge. And the warrant for all this misrepresentation was said to be found in the pages of Washington Irving's _History of Columbus_.

Now, a perusal of those pages shows that, although Mr. Irving committed a grave historical blunder in describing a "council of Salamanca" that had no existence, he nevertheless expressly excepts from any charge of ignorance and intolerance that may be implied from his language these very Dominican monks who, in Mr. Kauffman's historical picture, are made the foremost and most violent in their denunciation of Columbus.

"When Columbus," says Irving, "began to state the grounds of his belief, the friars of St. Stephen's (Dominicans) _alone paid attention to him_, that convent being more learned in the sciences than the rest of the university. The others appear to have intrenched themselves behind one dogged proposition."

{434}

In the entire range of English art and literature so firmly have some of the most offensive forms of anti-Catholic prejudice become rooted, that, whenever any prominent historical character or incident comes in contact with the Catholic Church the occasion is seized, right or wrong, with or without authority, and often in the very teeth of history, to exemplify some phase of what people are pleased to call popish ignorance and persecution. Under the dark pall of bigotry that has so long overshadowed the genius of English literature, events which, in honest truth, should and do redound to the honor of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy as protectors of knowledge and promoters of noble enterprises have been, by a species of literary legerdemain, wrested into so many evidences of their intolerance.

More than any country, England has furnished astounding and repulsive proofs of the truth of Count De Maistre's assertion that "History is a vast conspiracy against truth." With uplifted hands, dripping with the blood of the innocent, she accuses other nations of murder. With a statute-book black with intolerance and suppression of knowledge, she talks complacently of the rights of conscience and the blessings of education.

In a lecture on Daniel O'Connell, delivered in Brooklyn on the fifth of March last, the distinguished orator, Wendell Phillips, of Boston, with all his eloquence, appeared almost at a loss fittingly to qualify, by description and illustration, the frightful tyranny of Protestant England against Catholic Ireland, as exemplified in the diabolical ingenuity of the means by which she sought to "stamp out" Irish nationality and annihilate Catholicity. And, Mr. Phillips might have added, she was as consistently bigoted at home as in Ireland. Here, the poor hedge schoolmaster if a Catholic, who taught a child its a b c, was, for the first offence, subject to banishment, and for the second, _to be hanged as a felon_. There, when the University of Oxford was asked to confer the honorary degree of A.M. on Alban Francis, a learned Benedictine, he was rudely thrust back, solely for the reason that he was a Catholic. And yet the same university had shortly before conferred the same degree on--a Mohammedan! The old distich is very trite, but on that occasion it was very true:

"Turk, Jew, or atheist may enter here,
But not a papist."

It is a memorable fact that Sir Isaac Newton particularly distinguished himself by active participation in this piece of bigotry. He actually suspended the preparation for the press of his _Principia_, and lent all the influence of his position and his great name in order that an Englishman, distinguished for his virtues and his learning, might not, because he was a Catholic, receive the cheap recognition of the honorary degree of a Protestant university. And Newton's English biographer coolly states that "it was this circumstance, perhaps, as much as the personal merit of Newton, that induced the university to select him, the following year, to serve as their representative in parliament."

But space fails us to dwell on this subject, and we desire merely to note the fact that, so thoroughly has a spirit of intolerant anti-Catholicity permeated English literature, that its expression, in some shape, is constantly found at the points of the pens of many who are personally unconscious of any such inspiration. {435} The spirit we refer to so thoroughly pervades every department of literature--history, biography, travels, poetry, philosophy--that from youth to old age it is unconsciously infiltrated into the mental processes of every one who uses the English language as a means of acquiring or communicating knowledge. Even as we write, an instance of this presents itself. Here is a passage from the editorial columns of a leading daily, published in Brooklyn, the third city of the Union:

"----the church so long deemed the enemy of human freedom and
intellectual progress, which imprisoned Galileo, and _tried
to thwart Columbus_ in putting the girdle of her ancient
faith around the world!"

And yet the article from which this extract is made is evidently written in a spirit that its author honestly supposes to be one of entire freedom from religious prejudice. The church tried to thwart Columbus! That is the main idea of the passage quoted, as it was also the inspiration of the Kauffman painting. Such ideas and such inspiration are the result of general prejudice and a foregone conclusion.

Of course we are aware of the accommodating pliability of the term "the church," as used by writers who have anything disagreeable or false to say of Catholicity. "The church" is, by turns, a council, the pope, the cardinals, the inquisition, a bishop or two, a knot of priests, sometimes only one, a king, a viceroy, a barefooted friar, a dying nun, or even a simple layman. It is really difficult and discouraging to deal with people who either cannot or will not abide by some standard of meaning for words whose proper acceptance is well defined and recognized.

In the case of Columbus these misrepresentations are the more remarkable for the reason that there is no history of the discovery of America, no biography of Columbus, how ever imperfect, however prejudiced it may be, from whose perusal the student can arise with any other conviction than that Columbus, so far from being thwarted, was, on the contrary, enabled to succeed in obtaining from Spain the means to fit out his expedition only, wholly, and solely by reason of the encouragement and aid he received from friars, priests, bishops, and cardinals!

From the moment he set foot on Spanish soil until he sailed from Palos the generous sympathy and brave advocacy of churchmen never forsook him. Never for a moment did they waver in their appreciation of his noble nature, his sincere piety, and the merit of his enterprise. From the Dominicans cloistered in St. Stephens to Luis de St. Angel, high treasurer at the royal court; from the saintly hermit of La Rabida to the grand Cardinal Mendoza, ("a man of sound judgment, quick intellect, eloquent and able," says Washington Irving,) in all are found the same generous enthusiasm and unwavering boldness in their support of the strange sailor's enterprise.

And now, should Mr. Kauffman, or any other artist, desirous of painting a great picture without pandering to a taste as false in art as in history, desire to select a striking incident from the history of Columbus, we beg leave to suggest that, without flying in the face of truth, he may find it among the following historical incidents:

First. Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza, in appearance lofty and venerable, of generous and gentle deportment, pleading the cause of Columbus before the queen.

Second. The friar Diego de Deza aiding Columbus in sore necessity from his own scant purse.

{436}

Third. Juan Perez, prior of the convent of La Rabida, remonstrating with Columbus against abandoning his great enterprise and quitting Spain.

Fourth. The same prior saddling a mule at midnight to confront the dangers of mountain passes, and an enemy's country, in order to intercede for Columbus with the queen at Santa Fé.

Fifth. The same noble monk pleading the cause of Columbus before the queen with such chivalrous enthusiasm that "Isabella never heard the proposition urged with such honest zeal and impassioned eloquence."

Sixth. Another noble ecclesiastic, Luis de St. Angel, who, rivalling Isabella's magnanimity, met the queen's noble offer to pledge her crown jewels to raise the necessary funds for Columbus's expedition with the assurance that she need not, for he would advance the money.

But to return to the "council of Salamanca." The word council presents the idea of a solemn ecclesiastical assemblage: not a committee, not a board, not a junto; but something grand, elevated in dignity and large in numbers. When you say "council," every one, instinctively, imagines a crowd of mitres and episcopal croziers.

With that "fatal facility" which is the bane of historical composition Irving has given us an entire chapter of nine pages describing this famous "council," its debates, and its proceedings, and from this chapter has gradually, although--we must in justice to Mr. Irving say--unwarrantably, grown up a story that, by dint of thirty years' repetition, has almost acquired the dignity of an historical fact. That Prescott should have followed Irving is not surprising. That Lamartine should have disdained reference to historical sources and spoken of Spain of the fifteenth century with that wonderful _sans gêne_ that improvises both form and substance, that writes an apotheosis of Robespierre and calls it a history of the Girondins, in which there is, of course, a florid description of "the last banquet," (which never took place,) is still less surprising. But that a Spaniard and a serious historian, Don Modesto Lafuente, should have written an important page in the history of his country on the word of an entire stranger is astounding.

The whole of chapter third and part of chapter fourth of Irving's _Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus_ are devoted to "the council." Irving represents Ferdinand "determined to take the opinion of the most learned men in the kingdom, and be guided by their decision." Ferdinand de Talavera, "one of the most erudite men of Spain and high in the royal confidence," was commanded to consult the most learned astronomers, etc. After they had informed themselves fully on the subject, they were to consult together and make a report to the sovereign of their collective opinion. After a long disquisition on the condition of learning and science at that time, Irving goes on to say: "Such was the period when a council of clerical sages was convened in the collegiate convent of St. Stephen to investigate the new theory of Columbus. It was composed of professors of astronomy, geography, mathematics and other branches of science, together with various dignitaries of the church and learned friars. ... Among the number who were convinced by the reasoning and warmed by the eloquence of Columbus was Diego de Deza, a worthy and learned friar of the order of St. Dominick. He obtained for Columbus a dispassionate if not an unprejudiced hearing." {437} Irving speaks of the assembled body as "this learned junto," and says that occasional conferences took place, but without producing any decision.

"Talavera, to whom the matter was specially entrusted, had too little esteem for it, and was too much occupied to press it to a conclusion, and thus the inquiry experienced continual procrastination and neglect."

So far the third chapter of Irving. It is a remarkable fact that, for all the important statements concerning the "council," Irving cites but one authority, Remesal, referring to book ii. chapter 27, and book xi. chapter 7. In an endeavor to verify these citations we find that book ii. has but twenty-two chapters, and the passage referred to in book xi. chapter 7 is not there, but in book ii. chapter 7. But it is more than singular that Irving should refer to Remesal at all on that subject. Remesal was a learned Dominican monk and his work is a _History of the Provinces of Chiapa and Guatemala_, (America.) His book was completed in 1609, and first published in 1619. Personally, he was separated from the events at Salamanca by a space of one hundred and twenty years. He was not writing the history of Spain in 1487, and what he says concerning Salamanca is merely incidental, unquestionably correct though it be. Thus, he states that, with the aid of the Dominicans, Columbus brought over the most learned men of the university, and among the numerous claims to greatness of the convent of St. Stephen was that of having been the principal cause of the discovery of the Indies. [Footnote 122]

[Footnote 122: "Y con el favor des los Religiosos reduxo a su
opinion los mayores Letrados de la escuela. ... Entre las
muchas grundezas ... una es aver sido la principal ocasion
del descubrimiento de las Indias."]

To return to Irving. He relates in chapter 4 that the "consultations of the board (first it was the council, then "this learned junto") at Salamanca were interrupted by the Spanish campaign against Malaga, before that learned body could come to a decision, and for a long time Columbus was kept in suspense, vainly awaiting the report that was to decide the fate of his application." It thus appears that the opinion of the council was not sufficiently adverse to Columbus to report at once and unfavorably of his project. Then followed the spring campaign of 1487, the siege of Malaga, August, 1487. "In the spring of 1489," says Irving, "Columbus was summoned to attend a conference of learned men to be held at the city of Seville."

But if a fresh conference is to decide, what then was the value of the Salamanca council by whose decision, as Mr. Irving informed us a few pages back, King Ferdinand had resolved to be guided?

"In 1490, Ferdinand and Isabella entered Seville in triumph. Spring and summer wore away. At court was Fernando de Talavera, _the procrastinating arbiter of the pretensions of Columbus_." So then the arbiter was Talavera, not the council, which, so far from condemning, have not yet, at the end of four years, given any decision concerning the affair of Columbus.

The higher we remount with the authorities toward the epoch of "the council" the less do we find concerning it and concerning Salamanca. The chroniclers of their Catholic majesties, Hernando del Pulgar, Galindez, Carvajal, and others, make no mention of it, and Peter Martyr, Lucio Siculo, Gonzalez de Oviedo, Lopez de Gomara, and Sohs are equally silent on the subject.

{438}

It must be borne in mind, with regard to Columbus, that historical certainty begins really with the siege of Granada, in 1492. Everything preceding that epoch is traditional, often vague and uncertain, and seldom supported by documentary evidence. A council at Salamranca held by royal order would have been authorized by special edict or decree. There was none. Neither was there any regular delegation to the university, no commission officially installed, no interrogatories, nor registers, nor records, followed by a definitive decree. The college and convent of St. Stephen (Dominican) was only one college of the many at Salamanca constituting the university. If such a council as Irving describes had ever been held there, reference to recorded proceedings, and a final decision in its archives, or in those of St. Stephen, could long since have been made.

The truth is that the only authority for any statements concerning a committee of cosmographers is a passage in the life of the grand admiral, written by his son Fernando Columbus. As already remarked, the nearer we approach the period of the pretended "council" the less we hear about it. Herrera, whose sagacity, impartiality, and fidelity are universally recognized, thus relates the matter of the cosmographers, but not once does he mention "council" or "Salamanca." He says (1st Dec. book i, chap. vii.) "that Columbus's suit was so home pressed (y tanto se porfiò en ello) that their Catholic majesties, giving some attention to the affair, referred it to father Ferdinand de Talavera. He (Talavera) held a meeting of cosmographers who debated about it, (qui confirieron en ello,) but there being few then of that profession in Castile, and those none of the best in the world, and besides Columbus would not altogether explain himself, lest he should be served as he had been in Portugal, [Footnote 123] they came to a resolution nothing answerable to what he had expected."

[Footnote 123: During his negotiation at Lisbon with the king
of Portugal, Columbus was requested to furnish for the
consideration of the royal council a detailed plan of his
proposed voyage, with charts and documents according to which
he intended to shape his course. As soon as these were
obtained, a well-manned vessel, under command of an able
captain, was despatched with orders to sail west on the
Atlantic according to the instructions of Columbus. Some few
days out from the Cape Verd Islands, the crew became
discouraged, and the vessel returned. The secret of its
mission soon transpired, and Columbus, outraged at the
treachery, left Portugal in disgust.]

Herrera follows Ferdinand Columbus very closely; adopting, in many passages, his very words. Fernando makes no mention of Salamanca, says expressly that the cosmographers were called altogether by Talavera, and that Columbus held back his most important proofs lest what had happened him in Portugal might also happen him in Spain, (nè lo ammiraglio si volea lasciar tanto intendere che gli avenisse quel, che in Portogallo gli avvenne et gli urbassero la beniditione.)

Fernando Columbus was a man of learning and ability, and his history is of great value. Unfortunately, the work, as he wrote it, is lost. It was, of course, in the Spanish language. It is said that a son of his brother Diego took the MS. to Genoa, where it was translated into Italian. The version now used in Spain is retranslated from the Italian, and abounds in errors. There is a very good copy of the Italian edition (Venice, 1685) in the Astor library.

Munoz, the Spanish national historian who followed Herrera and precedes Navarette, was a scholar of great merits, talents, and liberal acquisitions. He was indefatigable in research, and being royal historiographer had free access to all the records of Spain. He says that Talavera was commissioned to examine the enterprise with cosmographers, and give their opinion. {439} As the court happened that winter to be at Salamanca, they met there. It is to be regretted that no record exists of the conferences that took place in the Dominican convent of St. Stephen, from which to form an opinion of the condition of mathematics and astronomy in the university so famous in the fifteenth century. _It is clear, nevertheless, that Columbus established his propositions, produced his proofs, and met every objection_. [Footnote 124]

[Footnote 124: Talavera á quien los reyes encargaron la
comision de juntar à los sujetis habiles in cosmografia, para
examinar la empresa, y dar su pareceo. Formose la junta en
Salamanca, quizá per el invierno estando alli la corte. Es
lastima quo no hayan quidado documentis de las disputas que
se tuvieron en el convento de los dominicanos de San Esteban
para formar juicio del estado de las matematicas y astronomia
en aquella universidad famosa en el siglo XV. Coustu que
Colon sentaban sus proposisciones, exponfa sus fundamentos, y
satisfaciá a' las dificultades.]

Munoz (_Historia del Nuevo Mundo_, pp. 57, 58, 59) continues: "Los dominicanos poner entre sus glorias el haber hospedado en San Esteban al descubridor de las Indias, dadole de comer y otros auxilios para seguir sus pretensiones; y sobra todo el haber estado por su opinion en equellas disputas, y atraido á su partido los primeros hombres de la escuela. En lo qual attribuyen la principal parte á Fray Diego Deza. ... cuyo autoridad. ... contribuyó mucho para los creditos y acceptacion de la empresa." [Footnote 125]

[Footnote 125: The Dominicans are justly proud of the
hospitality extended by them in their convents to the
discoverer of America, entertaining him, and providing him
with all things necessary to pursue his projects; and still
more of having declared for him in the argument, drawing over
to his side the first men of the university. In all which the
great merit is due to Diego de Deza, whose influence
contributed greatly to the appreciation and adoption of the
enterprise.]

Only a few years since, in 1858, Don Domingo Doncel y Ordar, of Salamanca, published a memoir in which he refutes the statements of Irving.

A conference of cosmographers doubtless was held, but it was not of the nature described by Irving and those who copy him, nor was it a "council" with which the university of Salamanca had any official connection whatever.

The archives, documents, and registers of the university have been searched with the most thorough diligence, and not a trace of the council is on record. The registers in particular, admirably kept and carefully preserved, were commenced in 1464 and record incidents almost insignificant in interest, but make no mention of such a meeting or council as Irving speaks of. In this connection it is matter of surprise that such writers as Rosselly De Lorgues and Cadoret should still be chasing the phantom of this Salamanca council. The latter says that its decree was rendered five years after its first meeting, and De Lorgues supposes it probable that its records may yet be found in the archives of Simancas. If there had been any decision against Columbus by a body at all approaching the dignity and importance of the university of Salamanca, he would have immediately quitted Spain, never to return. But we find him leaving Salamanca strong in the support of its first scholars, of the entire body of Dominicans, and of the papal nuncio.

That King Ferdinand should have directed Talavera to take the opinion of cosmographers is perfectly natural. This temporizing and shuffling treatment of Columbus would lead him to do anything that would gain time and put Columbus off. Even Isabella was evidently desirous of procrastinating until a successful termination of the siege of Granada should enable them to act in the matter.

Reference to a committee or a board for the sake of delay indefinite is not an invention of the nineteenth century. It is as old as, if not older than, the period of Columbus. {440} That Columbus should, as his son Fernando relates, have hesitated to explain himself fully, was natural, and indeed inevitable. And with that hesitation there must have been a shade of disdain in his manner. It looks very much as though he had reserved his best, most cogent reasons for the private ear of his special friends the Dominicans, who were enthusiastically the advocates of his enterprise.

We see Columbus leaving Salamanca not cast down and defeated, but serene and with all the courage of confirmed conviction. The noble Diego de Deza conducts him to the presence of Ferdinand and Isabella, and we soon afterward hear the hum of preparation at Palos.

The latest historian of Columbus, Mr. Arthur Helps, separated from Washington Irving by a period of some forty years, is credited with ability, and great industry and research. He certainly has the advantage of extensive and successful discoveries of documents concerning Columbus made in Spain within that period. It would be but reasonable, therefore, to look for the throwing of much additional light and interesting details on so capital an incident as "the council of Salamanca." Here is the account given of it by Mr. Helps in his _Life of Columbus_, published since the commencement of the present year:

"Amid the clang of arms and the bustle of warlike preparation,
Columbus was not likely to obtain more than a slight and
superficial attention to a matter which must have seemed remote
and uncertain.

"Indeed, when it is considered that the most pressing internal
affairs of kingdoms are neglected by the wisest rulers in times
of war, it is wonderful that he succeeded in obtaining any
audience at all. However, he was fortunate enough to find at
once a friend in the treasurer of the household, Alonzo de
Quintilla, a man who, like himself, took delight in great
things, and who obtained a hearing for him from the Spanish
monarchs. Ferdinand and Isabella did not dismiss him abruptly.
On the contrary, it is said they listened kindly; and the
conference ended _by their referring the business to the
queen's confessor, Fra Hernando de Talavera_, who was
afterwards archbishop of Granada. This important functionary
summoned a junta of cosmographers (not a promising assemblage!)
to consult about the affair, and this junta was convened at
Salamanca in the summer of the year 1487.

"Here was a step gained; the cosmographers were to consider his
scheme, and not merely to consider whether it was worth taking
into consideration. But it was impossible for the jury to be
unprejudiced. All inventors, to a certain extent, insult their
contemporaries by accusing them of stupidity and ignorance. And
the cosmographical pedants, accustomed to beaten tracks,
resented the heresy by which this adventurer was attempting to
overthrow the belief of centuries. They thought that so many
persons, wise in nautical matters, as had preceded the Genoese
mariner, never could have overlooked such an idea as this which
had presented itself to his mind. Moreover, as the learning of
the middle ages resided for the most part in the cloister, the
members of the junta were principally clerical, and combined to
crush Columbus with theological objections. ... Las Casas
displays his usual acuteness when he says that the great
difficulty of Columbus was not that of teaching, but that of
unteaching; not of promulgating his own theory, but of
eradicating the erroneous convictions of the judges before whom
he had to plead his cause. In fine, the junta decided that the
project was 'vain and impossible, and that it did not belong to
the majesty of such great princes to determine anything upon
such weak grounds of information.'"

Slender material, all this, for another Kauffman painting! Here is our council sunk to a junta--a junta of cosmographers--not an assemblage of theologians to decide what the church thought about the project, but a junta of men supposed to know something of geography and the conformation of the globe! The "theological objections" referred to by Mr. Helps were precisely the opportunity of Columbus's greatest triumph in giving him occasion to reveal himself to friends and enemies in a capacity never suspected to exist in him. {441} Among the many traditions in Spain concerning "l'almirante" [Footnote 126] --traditions supported by his own writings and the testimony of such men as Las Casas--none are so well established as those that recount the eloquent inspiration of Columbus in citing or commenting the Scriptures. His perfect familiarity with them was not more admirable than his majesty of manner in declaiming their grandest passages.

[Footnote 126: Humboldt says that whenever a Spaniard
mentions _L'Almirante_, he refers to but one, namely,
Columbus. Just as the Mexicans, when they speak of El
Marchese, mean Cortes, and the Florentines, when they name
_Il Segretario_, mean Macchiavelli.]

Luther, as we learn from that remarkable book, _D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation, discovered_, unexpectedly discovered, to his great joy and surprise, a Bible chained to a window in the conventual library! Could not some modern D'Aubigné inform us how it was that an obscure Italian sailor could have happened upon a Bible in such countries as Italy, Portugal, and Spain, could have been permitted to read it--more than all that, could have had the temerity to quote it to the very face of monks, and priests, and, worse still, show them that he knew as much about it as they did? We commend the subject to the D'Aubigné editors.

In saying that, in our belief, the life of Columbus has yet to be written, we express no new opinion.

In this connection it is well remarked by the Marquis De Belloy, that the best history of Christopher Columbus would be the collection of his own writings accompanied by commentaries. Literary and bibliographical research and labor in Spain have succeeded in collecting nearly everything that Columbus wrote from the year 1492 up to the period of his death, and their publication is needed to show this truly grand character in his true light. Were Columbus simply a man of genius, an ordinary history would suffice to recount his life. But his soul was as great as his genius, and such a soul is its own best revelation. Next to the accomplishments of his great project, the discovery of a new world beyond the ocean, a world he distinctly saw, his dominant thought was--with the wealth that must necessarily be obtained from it--to reconquer and deliver from pagan hands the sepulchre of our Saviour!

Profane history and modern impiety instinctively smile at such simplicity. Mr. Rosselly De Lorgues is one of the very few who have rendered justice to the religious phase of the character of the great mariner, and he shows that in Columbus constancy, perseverance, bravery, and honor were not more marked than elevated Catholic piety.

To conclude with Salamanca, there is no more searching, truthful, and eloquent commentary on its results than the language of Columbus himself, for he has recorded it. We quote from Navarette (Madrid edition) vol. 1. p. xcii.:

"Diego de Deza"--the Dominican monk--"was his (Columbus's)
special protector with Ferdinand and Isabella, and mainly
contributed to the success of his enterprise; referring to
this, Columbus himself said that from his coming into Castile
that prelate (Deza) had protected him, had striven for his
honor, and to him was it due that their majesties possessed the
Indies." [Footnote 127]

[Footnote 127: "Por lo cual decia el mismo Colon que
_desde_ que vino á Castilla le habia favorecido aquel
prelado y deseado su honora, y que el fue causa que SS. AA.
tuviesen las Indias."]

For this passage Navarette quotes Remesal, _Historia di Chiapa e Guatemala_. A very characteristic performance in Navarette! It was impossible for him to avoid referring to what Columbus had said, and he weakens the force of it by not crediting it at once and directly to the proper authority, Las Casas--citing Las Casas's own words.

{442}

For Remesal expressly says that he takes it from Las Casas, (lib. i. al medio del cap. 29:) "Y assi (dize) en carta escrita de su mano de Christobal Colon vide que dezia al Rey: Que el suso dicho Maestro del Principe, Arcobispo de Sevilla D.F. _Diego Deza avia fido causa que los Reyes abrassen las Indias_."

It is one thing to be told that Remesal uses the language cited by Navarette, and quite another thing to learn from Las Casas that he had seen _a letter written by Columbus himself, in which he told the king of Spain that their majesties owed their possession of the Indies to the Dominican monk Diego de Deza_.

Nothing, however, need surprise us from a historian who undertook the desperate task of extenuating the notorious injustice of Ferdinand toward Columbus. In its execution Navarette has needlessly and shamefully outraged the truth of history and the memory of the Great Discoverer.

----------

Daybreak.