162

establish a marriage; nor was it worth their while to attempt a refutation of a so universally-accepted statement, even had they been more fortunate in their mode of treating the subject. Columbus stands unanswerably convicted of many atrocious deeds beside which his illicit amours sink into insignificance. Why labor, then, to acquit him of an offense, while all the world is supposed to know that he was guilty of crimes? Nor is it less absurd to allege that his being guilty of such an offense would have called down upon him the indignation and censure of the Church, and the displeasure of Isabella. Was it for the Church, at whose head was the licentious and intriguing Borgia (Alexander VI.), to reprove one of its minor devotees for such pecadillos? Was it for Ferdinand, with his various mistresses and illegitimate children, or for his wife? Such an episode may rather have been supposed to his credit, and it is worse than futile to attempt to square his actions by any high moral standard.

One of the arguments brought forward by M. Cadoret to prove that Beatrix was the wife, not the mistress, of Columbus, and which he appears to consider convincing, is, that neither Bobadilla, Ovando, nor Fonseca, ever accused him of illicit connections, and that they, as his enemies, would surely have done so had there been foundation for such an accusation.

Not to repeat what we said above about the morals of the times, Bobadilla, Ovando, and Fonseca are reported, even by their enemies and detractors, to have been gentlemen by birth and breeding. The first two were sent to Hispaniola to examine into Columbus's conduct as governor, not into his private character. The third had the direction of financial matters concerning the islands, and his relations with Columbus did not extend beyond the functions of his office. The duties of all three only extended to his official career, and we may presume they neither troubled themselves about, nor would have had the indelicacy to force upon the public and crown, the details of his private life.

The fact that Columbus on his death-bed recommended Beatrix to the care of his son Diego, and his seeming remorse at hav

162 A Life of Columbus, by the Abbé Cadoret appeared in 1869, and is, we believe, the latest effort that has been made to prove a marriage between Beatrix and Columbus.

COLUMBUS AND BEATRIX.

357

ing neglected her, is also dwelt upon by M. Cadoret as proof of his marriage to her.

99163

"Neglect," he says, "when capable of stirring the conscience, must necessarily have been practised toward a legitimate wife." Thus we are taught that the man who leads an unfortunate woman to shame and ruin, begets children by her, and then abandons her to poverty and disgrace, need feel neither remorse nor qualms of conscience. The brutality of such a sentiment need scarcely be dwelt upon, particularly as emanating from an avowed disciple of Him who said: "Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more."

The denial of Columbus's illicit connection with Beatrix is of recent date, and has been set on foot by that school of theologians who desire his canonization. Heretofore his most ardent admirers, even ministers of the Church, have admitted it. Spotorno, considering it futile to deny, seeks to make it redound to the advantage of his hero. "In yielding to his passions," he writes, "our navigator showed that he was but a man. In avowing his fault he exhibited the sincerity of his religious faith." Father Spotorno did not foresee, when he wrote the above, that a school should arise among his brethren, whose object should be to prove that "our navigator" was more than a

man

Irving, that warmest and most eloquent advocate of Columbus, writes:

"Though Columbus had now relinquished all expectations of patronage from the Castilian sovereigns, he was unwilling to break off all connection with Spain. A tie of a tender nature still bound him to that country. During his first visit to Cordova, he had conceived a passion for a lady of that city, named Beatrix Enriquez. This attachment has been given as an additional cause of his lingering so long in Spain, and bearing with the delays he experienced. Like most of the particulars of this part of his life, his connection with this lady is wrapped in obscurity. It does not appear to have been sanctioned by marriage.

99 164

Major, of the British Museum, asserts that, "but for an attachment which he (Columbus) had formed at Cordova, which 163 Cadoret, "Vie de Christophe Colombe," appendice, p. 402. 164 Irving, “ Columbus," book ii., chapter vi.

made him reluctant to leave Spain, he would, in all probability, have repaired to France.1

A thorough knowledge of the character of Columbus, as portrayed in his acts, and an observance of the motives which actuated him after the commencement of his voyages, render some such explanation as that given by Irving and Major necessary to account for his remaining in Spain. It goes far to throw light on dark places. We have already seen how the difficulties said to have been raised in opposition to his schemes have been grossly exaggerated, if not invented. The pecuniary outlay

necessary for the execution of his project was eventually supplied by private individuals and by the little town of Palos, without difficulty. The delay, then, was not caused by any of the reasons generally given. How much more probable that Columbus, the unprincipled pirate, should have preferred for a time a life of easy dalliance at Cordova with Beatrix, supported by his friends Juan Perez and Pinzon! When wearied of it he closed his negotiations and proceeded on his voyage.

There is much reason to believe that Columbus's private morals were impure. His sickness and distemper, so often mentioned, but so lightly dwelt upon by his biographers, were attended by such symptoms as to have led some to suppose that he was afflicted, not by the gout, but by that dreadful scourge which licentiousness has entailed upon man.'

166

165. Major, "Select Letters of Columbus," introduction, p. 52.

166 Voltaire may have spoken, and probably did speak, figuratively, when he said: "So man is not born wicked. How comes it, then, that so many are infected with the pestilence of wickedness? It is because they who bear rule over them, having caught the distemper, communicate it to others; as a woman, having the distemper which Christopher Columbus brought from America, bas spread the venom all over Europe." But, however pertinent or impertinent to Columbus the above obscure allusion to him may have been, the great French philosopher was certainly mistaken in his assertion that the disease in question was of modern origin, or that it was brought to Europe from America. Mr. Prescott, in a foot-note, refers the curious on this subject to a work entitled "Lettere sulla Storia de' Mali Venerei, di Domenico Thiene, Venezia, 1823." "In this work," he says, "the author has assembled all the early notices of the disease of any authority, and discussed their import with great integrity and judgment. The following positions may be considered as established by his researches: 1. That neither Columbus nor his son, in their copious narratives and correspondence, allude, in any way, to the existence of such a disease in the New World. I must add," continues Mr. Prescott, "that an examination of the original document published by Navarrete since the date of Dr. Thiene's work, fully confirms this statement. 2. That among the frequent notices of the disease, during the

!

SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT HIS OBJECT.

359

It is strange that historians should persist in representing Columbus to have been inspired by lofty and religious enthusiasm when undertaking his voyage of so-called discovery. In view of the facts, can it really be supposed that it was devotion twenty-five years immediately following the discovery of America, there is not a single intimation of its having been brought from that country; but, on the contrary, a uniform derivation of it from some other source, generally France. 3. That the disorder was known and circumstantially described previous to the expedition of Charles VIII., and, of course, could not have been introduced by the Spaniards in that way, as vulgarly supposed. 4. That various contemporary authors trace its existence, in a variety of countries, as far back as 1493 and the beginning of 1494, showing a rapidity and extent of diffusion perfectly irreconcilable with its importation by Columbus in 1493. 5. Lastly, that it was not till after the close of Ferdinand and Isabella's reigns that the first work appeared, affecting to trace the origin of the disease to America."

If the conclusions at which Mr. Prescott and Dr. Thiene have arrived, be correct, it is not certain that the authorities cited by them sustain their verdict. Fernando Columbus, who is represented as silent upon this subject, says ("Historia del Amirante," chapter lxxiv.): "The admiral being come to San Domingo. . . . found that abundance of those he had left were dead, and, of those that remained, above one hundred and sixty were sick of the French pox."

to send

In chapter Ixi. he also states that “it had pleased His Divine Majesty . . such scarcity of provisions and such violent diseases among them" (the natives)" that they were reduced to one-third of what they had been at first, to make it appear more plain that such miraculous victories, and the subduing of nations, are his right, and not the effect of our power or conduct."

This loathsome visitation, in which Fernando professes to see the divine hand, appears to have formed a portion of the blessings borne by Columbus, certainly from Spain to Hispaniola, or from Hispaniola to Spain, probably both; and one of the results of his voyage was the conversion of Europe into a charnel-house, or vale of Hinnom, and the reduction of the population of the island to one-third of its former numbers.

Upon this subject it may be well to consult the history of the period. Peter Martyr, alluding to the case noticed by Fernando at San Domingo, says: "Such as desired to be cured of the troublesome disease of the pox," used a decoction of guaiacan-wood, which' remedy, he informs us, was soon employed in the treatment of patients in Europe, "to draw the unhappy disease out of the bones and marrow." So efficacious did the wood and bark of this tree prove, that the pious Spaniards, after having tested its virtues, named it "the holy tree." Herrera would have us regard this disease as of American origin. Alluding to the case mentioned by Fernando and Peter Martyr, he says: "Provisions now growing very scarce, many of the Spaniards fell sick; but, what was worse, by having to do with the Indian women, they contracted a distemper common enough among the natives, but altogether unknown to them (the Spaniards), which occasioned them to break out in blotches all over their bodies, of which many died, and others, thinking to be cured by change of air, returned to Spain, and spread the distemper there. However, it pleased God that the same place afforded the remedy as gave the evil, for, some time after, an Indian woman, wife to a Spaniard, showed the use of the wood called guaiacan, which relieved them. This is the disease now commonly known by the name of the French pox." (Herrera, Decade I., book v., chapter v.)

to the Church, to Christianity, which made him haunt and importune the court of Spain for years? Was he, in truth, actuated by a noble desire to benefit a benighted portion of humanty, or does he not rather appear to have been stimulated by In Ramusio's great work we find the following: "Your majesty may be assured that this sickness comes from the Indies, and is very common among the Indians; but it is not as virulent in those parts as among us, so that the Indians cure themselves easily in those islands with the wood (guaiacan), and in terra firma with herbs, or things they know of, for they are great herbalists. The first time that this sickness was seen in Spain was after Don Christopher Columbus had discovered the Indies and returned to these parts; and some Christians that came with him, who had accompanied him on his discovery, and those also who had gone with him on his second voyage, of whom there were many, brought over this sickness, and by them it was communicated to other persons. And in the year 1495, when the great captain, Don Gonsalvo Ferrando, of Cordoba, passed into Italy with troops to support the King of Naples, Don Ferdinand the Younger, against the King of France, by command of the Catholic sovereigns, Don Ferdinand and Doña Isabella of immortal memory, ancestors of your majesty, the sickness was brought over by some Spaniards, and that was the first time it was seen in Italy; and, as this was the time when the French, with the aforesaid King Charles, came into Italy, the Italians called the sickness French sickness, and the French called it Naples sickness, because they had never known it till this war, after which it was disseminated throughout Christendom, and passed into Africa."-(RAMUSIO, tome iii., p. 65.)

Army surgeons, and those familiar with the rapid spread of this disease, especially when aided by camp-followers, will not, we think, regard the time intervening between the return of Columbus and the developments above noted as too brief for compassing the wide-spread ruin generally recorded of this period.

Captain Jonathan Carver, in his account of travel in the Northwest, notices the successful manner in which the Indians residing in regions remote from civilization, treat this disease, displaying a skill evidently not acquired from contact with the white race.

The disease in question is undoubtedly of far earlier origin than the advent of Columbus in the Western islands. Its presence may be traced to the most ancient times, in writings both sacred and profane.

"His bones are full of the sin of his youth, which shall lie down with him in the dust," saith Job.

The Hindoo sacred writings, probably older than Job, contain evident allusions to this malady, among others the following: "Every man who has contracted disease from the use or abuse of women, shall be impure while it continues, and for ten days and ten nights after his restoration. . . The mat of his bed is defiled, and must be burned. . . . The horse, the camel, the elephant, on which he may ride on pilgrimages, shall be impure, and shall be washed in water wherein is dissolved a sprig of cousa."

We read in Herodotus that, after the Scythians had overrun Asia, and were advancing upon Egypt, Psammetichus met them in Palestine, and, by presents and entreaties, prevailed upon them to return to their homes; that the Scythians, on their homeward march, came to Ascalon; that the greater part of their body passed through without molesting it, but that some remained behind and plundered the temple of the Celestial Venus; that "upon the Scythians who plundered this temple,