Note 213 — GOMES EANNES DE AZURARA; (continued 2)

The inscription apparently runs "Isola Otinticha xe longa a ponente 1500 mia;" which has been translated—(1) "Genuine island distant 1,500 miles to the west." (2) "Genuine island, 1,500 miles long to the west." (3) "Genuine island extends 1,500 miles to the west." Also, reading ... a [= e] la sola otinticha. (4) "Is the only genuine ..." (The first line being altogether separate in sense from what follows—"xe longa," etc.) Once more, supplying "questa carta," (5) "This map is the only genuine one," leaving the second line unintelligible. (6) "Genuine island, stretching 1,500 miles westwards, ten miles broad." And lastly, reading Antillia for Otinticha, (7) "Island of Antillia," etc. (This would explain the difficulty of the Antillia Isle being otherwise absent from the 1448 Bianco.) See Desimoni, in Atti della Società ligure di Storia patria, 1864, vol. iii, p. cxiv; Canale, in Storia del Commercio degl'Italiani, 1866, p. 455; Fischer, Sammlung ... Welt- und See-Karten italienischen Ursprungs, Venice, 1886, p. 209; Proceedings R. G. S., London, March 1895, pp. 221-240. Whatever the explanation, it must be remembered that this Map and Inscription were never produced by Portugal as evidence of a Pre-Columbian discovery, either in 1492-3, or later, in formal negotiations with Spain—as at Badajoz in 1524. It is possible that the delineation and legend in question were added by a later hand; and it is probable that, if really inserted by Bianco himself, the reference is to one of the legendary Atlantic Islands under a new form. It cannot well be identified with that stated by Galvano to have been discovered about 1447, for the latter was reached by a course of 1,500 miles due west from the Straits of Gibraltar, which would bring us to the Azores. The coast line of the "Genuine Island" is, moreover, quite inconsistent with the north-east shore-land of South America.