In 1571, a biography of Christopher Columbus, written in Italian, was published in Venice. The book was a translation of a Spanish manuscript written by Columbus's second son, Fernando Colón, between 1537 and 1539. The Spanish manuscript eventually was translated into Italian and published by Alfonso Ulloa, a Spaniard making his living in Venice as a professional translator.
Although the Spanish manuscript has not survived, it may have been in the hands of Las Casas as he wrote his Historia, since Las Casas cites Fernando as a source several times there. There are also large passages in the Historia that are closely similar to the biography, indicating that the two documents have a common source (although which is the original has been hotly debated). An analysis by Cioranescu supports the idea that the biography is actually the work of Las Casas, and was later published under Fernando's name. But regardless of who the author is, there are many details in the biography absent from the Diario, showing that Fernando (or whomever) had access to Columbus's log, and was not simply copying the Diario.
So, are there any new clues for the landfall in Fernando's biography? Not many. Fernando reports that Island I was fifteen leagues long, a statement repeated in the Historia. If true, this would rule out all landfalls except Cat Island. Fernando also reports that the coastlines of Island II are five leagues north-south, and ten leagues east-west (agreeing with the Diario.) If true, this would rule out all landfalls except Samana, Plana, Mayaguana, and Grand Turk.
| Previous clue |
Next clue |
Return to the landfall clues page.