In many ways, Vespucci’s portrayal of the new world sounds like Columbus’s, even though they are writing about regions nowhere near each other. What sorts of conventions for representing the new world can we see repeated in these two letters? Why is it important that they are so similar? Are they different in any important ways?
4 thoughts on “Columbus, Vespucci, and the New World”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
At first glance, I have to agree that the letters of Columbus and Vespucci appeared to be similar descriptions of “Utopian” landscapes with nude inhabitants, almost Adam and Eve like, without faith, law, or possessions. However, they have several distinct differences that likely reflect the author’s true intent. First, Columbus spends a significant portion of his letter politicking the Sovereigns’ to be honored for his service. In particular, he requests “a cardinalate for my son” and compares this request to an honor bestowed to the son of Medicis of Florence (Zamora 7). In contrast, Vespucci makes no such request. Columbus’ request in the letter format lends a certain “tone” that may or may not have been intended—a tone of entitlement and self-appreciation. Thus, Columbus’ letter appears to be more of an appeal for rewards and honors buried in a formal business report to his superiors. In addition, his letter takes a somewhat unexpected segue, almost a “flight of ideas,” when he shifts to describe the first Island of the Indies, Matenino, with a “population entirely of women” and the second, Caribo, with great bowman that “eat human flesh” (Zamora 8). Columbus suddenly changes topics and nonchalantly describes these two groups almost as an afterthought, but then the letter suddenly ends. These sudden transitions made me wonder about Columbus’ thought process and mental faculties and whether this may be foreshadowing his mental instability years later. While Vespucci’s letter is disturbingly similar to Columbus’ in the initial description of the land, flora, fauna, and lawless, faithless cannibals, he sticks to his theme. Vespucci describes the custom of the male inhabitants to “bore holes in their lips and cheeks” to appear “ferocious” (Morison 185). He describes their tradition of a relative being the first “to corrupt” the young women and how in this culture, childbirth was almost a non-event. He reports how they “bury their own dead, but the enemy dead they cut up and eat” (Morison 186). More than anything, Vespucci’s account reveals some true introspection as he asks why these people go to war as “we could find no reason for them, since they have no property or lords or kings or desire for plunder, or lust to rule, which seems to me to be the causes of wars and of disorder” (Morison 186). Thus, another interpretation is that Vespucci’s account in his letter, which of course it’s validity has been questioned, is more significant in expressing the cultural and societal differences he thought about and questioned; whereas, Columbus’ letter is a “self-centered” request for remuneration that he has tried to disguise in an official report of his travels.
There is no denying that both Columbus’ and Vespucci’s letters seem eerily similar in the lands they are describing, even though they are two completely different places. In my eyes, it is important to first understand who these two men are writing to, which indeed plays a significant role in what the actual context of the letters is. Columbus is writing to the Sovereigns, who I believe was responsible for the funding of Columbus’ expedition to the new world. Vespucci, on the other hand, is writing to Lorenzo De Medici, his former employer. This alone tells us a great deal because both men who are receiving the letters are of noteworthy prominence. The first thing that stood out to me is the pure exaggeration that both men provide in their letters, undoubtedly amplifying things out of proportion. Columbus has nothing but good things to say, explaining that the land is extremely fertile with fresh fruits everywhere and very easily accessible harbors for boats to go into. He goes on to say that there is no government, no religion, and that the native people thought himself and his crew were “sent from heaven”. He goes on, describing these lands as exotic and huge and beautiful, where plants and livestock would thrive, and where gold and mines and spices were plentiful. In essence, Columbus is describing a Utopia, even though there is little factual data actual prove it. He claims that his boat was too big for the harbor and it was too cold and too windy for him to actually go see many of the places, which allowed for him to simply imagine and create this image of a wonderland. Vespucci does the same thing, as he describes a utopian like place with infinite animals and beautiful landscapes and the list goes on and on. Their letters are simply the letters that they know their recipients want to read. Columbus and Vespucci knew they had to make their respectable places seem incredible, because that was the only way to not have their voyage be deemed a failure.
Columbus and Vespucci both write with a certain sense of unquestionable authority. Even though these two explorers found themselves in lands fundamentally different from their homelands, their words reflect an assurance in the correctness of their statements which reads as that of a well-trained scholar lecturing on his or her dissertation. Columbus throws around statements such as, “All these islands are densely populated” (Zamora 4), and “I learned that they [the natives] know that all powers reside in heaven” (Zamora 5). Vespucci follows suit with overarching statements such as, “[The natives] have no law or faith” (Morison 285). These statements are provable only after comprehensive cultural study, yet neither explorer has anything to say about their methodology by which such grandiose conclusions were drawn. This sense of cultural entitlement, the demonstrated mentality that Columbus and Vespucci’s mere intuition serves as a valid replacement for proper study and interaction, serves as a common thread connecting the two Europeans. Even though the two accounts of the “New World” display differing levels of believability and pay attention to different things with variable emphasis, this common connection of entitlement and default correctness shows that the two explorers went into their travels with a shared definition of the “explorer’s” role, a role which seems to be more about exciting storytelling and empire-building than truthful observation and peaceful inspection.