Note 115 — Chapter I

Watson’s Bibliography of pre-Columbian Discoveries of America, p. 161, enumerates the contestants; and Harrisse, Bibl. Amer. Vet., nos. 13, 14, epitomizes the authorities. The earliest reference, after Schedel, seems to be one in Guillaume Postel’s Cosmographicæ disciplinæ compendium, Basle, 1561, in which a strait below South America is named Behaim’s Strait; but J. Chr. Wagenseil, in his Sacra parentalia, 1682, earliest urged the claim, which he repeated in his Historia universalis, while it was reinforced in Stüven’s or Stuvenius’ De vero novi orbis inventore, Frankfort, 1714. (Copy in Harvard College Library; cf. Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 195.) The first important counter-argument appeared in E. Tozen’s Der wahre und erste Entdecker der Neuen Welt, Christoph Colon, gegen die ungegründeten Ausprüche, welche Americus Vespucci and Martin Behaim auf diese Ehre machen, vertheidiget, Göttingen, 1761. (Sabin, xii. 489.) Robertson rejected the claim; and so, in 1778, did C. G. von Murr, in his Diplomatische Geschichte des Ritters Behaim, published at Nuremberg (2d ed., Gotha, 1801; Jansen’s French translation, Paris, 1801 and Strasburg, 1802; also appended to Amoretti’s Pigafetta; English in Pinkerton’s Voyages, 1812). A letter from Otto to Benjamin Franklin, in the American Philosophical Society’s Transactions, 1786, ii. 263, urged the theory. Dr. Belknap, in 1792, in the Appendix to his Discourse on Columbus, dismissed it. Cladera, in his Investigaciones históricas sobre los principales descubrimientos de los Españoles, Madrid, 1794, was decidedly averse, replying to Otto, and adding a translation of Von Murr’s essay. (Leclerc, nos. 118, 2,505.) Amoretti, in his Preface to Pigafetta’s Voyage, Paris, 1801, argues that Columbus’ discoveries convinced Behaim of his own by comparison. Irving says the claim is founded on a misinterpretation of the Schedel passage. Humboldt, in his Examen critique, i. 256, enters into a long adverse argument. Major, in his Select Letters of Columbus, and in his Prince Henry, is likewise decided in opposition. Ghillany, in his Geschichte des Seefahrers Ritter Martin Behaim, is favorable. Gaffarel, Étude sur les rapports de l’Amérique et de l’ancien continent avant Colomb, Paris, 1869, is sceptical.