Talk:Columbus's letter on the first voyage

Untitled
Does anybody have a translation of this letter? 69.60.237.4 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

extraordinarily dull. article about a letter that neither prints the original text, nor a translation, nor summarises the contents. basically the history of a piece of paper, contents withheld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.31.214 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Better now? Walrasiad (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an extraordinary well-conceived page (accessed 27 June 2013), and easily one of the best I've seen on wikipedia. Has the big advantage over pretty much all published works on the subject in that it doesn't have a particular theory to push, and therefore includes all of the main historiographical currents. Despite the highly technical (even arcane) subject, it reads well, and is organized in a manner that makes it accessible to novices to as well as experts. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.204.214 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words. I am glad you liked it. :) Walrasiad (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Columbus's letter on the first voyage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512223603/http://www.saudades.org/ccolumbusvoyage.html to http://www.saudades.org/ccolumbusvoyage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512223603/http://www.saudades.org/ccolumbusvoyage.html to http://www.saudades.org/ccolumbusvoyage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons
file:c:File:Taínos.svg Reason:No source for the base map. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. subpage:link Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

forgery
There is a 60 minutes segment on letters stolen from libraries and replaced with forged copies. Should that be somewhere on WP? Gah4 (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thefts, forgeries and restoration
Added new section. Many of the copies were cloned via forgery from stolen copies from various libraries, including the Vatican Library. These were sold to collectors and other libraries, who were innocently duped by the fraud. The Vatican’s copy was returned in January 2020. The forgeries and thefts were the subject of intense international investigations and forensic reports. -->"Perez"> -->"Wertheim"> There are many other sources available, including the New York Times and Washington Post. But I am done here. Others can do it, if they will. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

legacy
This is a subject I have not studied - but has no Reliable Source discussed the aftermath of this letter - for its part in the subsequent exploitation of the new world and its indigenous peoples? 50.111.36.47 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A new theory on the letter's origin.
There is a new theory regarding the origins of the Letter to Santangel. I sincerely think it should be referred to in the article. I will provide here the journal where it was published (by the same authors who published Juan Cabrero's last will. Cabrero is credited by Columbus as the cause of the acceptance of the Indies Enterprise in 1492). Ancin and Towns modify and significantly expand the theory of prof. Demetrio Ramos,  who proposed that   the letter was not real, but made out of   another original letter (the letter to the Monarchs), and was edited and printed by King Ferdinand. A significant part of researches today think Ramos was kind of correct, approximately  half of the experts. Ancin and Towns do many things in their paper, and many are  important. Ramos' hipothesis holds that the letter claimed to be written at the Canary Islands (when in fact they were right near the Azores) so the lands  could be claimed for Spain. Ancin and Towns agree on this. But Ramos did not provide an explanation on why the letter claims to have been written on February 15. Ancin and Towns then give an explaination:  it is  proven that the letter by Pinzon arrived before Columbus' letter to the Monarchs. If a letter was build using the letter to the Monarchs, then Pinzon's letter was used as well for planning on how to edit the Letter to Santangel. The letter is dated on Feb 15 cause the information the Catholic Monarchs have on Columbus staying in Portuguese waters  comes from Pinzon, when he got separated from Columbus on Feb 13 near the Azores. Though the letter claims to have been written in Feb 15, he information on the days of going and coming back from the new lands in the same letter  fixes the arrival to the Canary islands  in Feb 12/13. Ergo the letter de facto explains a stay in the Canary Islands from Feb 13 to Feb 15. Ancin and Towns think that  that is why Feb 15 was chosen: because that information and the 2 previous days described as a stay in the Canary islands,  provide  coverage for Columbus, on the information the Catholic Mocharcs had on him ( he was in the Azores in Feb 13). The issue is much better explained in the paper. Ancin and Towns find also a very interesting detail. If Ramos is correct and the letter to Santangel was build using the Letter to the Monarchs, then that has implications. Ramos explain how the manuscript of Simancas was  the copy of the text sent to print, which would become the Letter to Santangel. Ancin and Towns agree but explain much more things. They detected an error committed in the Manuscript of Simancas, which is not in the Letter to the Monarchs and yet it is in the texts sent to Italy (Italian text Allegato F if I remember correctly). In doing so they have explained what the Manuscript of simancas is: as Ramos said, it is a copy of what it was order for printing, but as Ancin and Towns explain, it is precisely  the  text used for quickly starting the propaganda  of the  discovery by the crown,  before the text is  produced in the print, which would still take  some few more weeks. https://qinnova.uned.es/archivos_publicos/qweb_paginas/1111119017/articulo7unanuevateoriasobreelorigendelacartaasantangel.pdf Derevor (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It also argues there is another good reason for creating the letters: there was pressure to  present information showing that  Columbus had  addressed  first a letter to the king and queen of Spain, especially because timing and the documents show that  the first letter Columbus wrote to the monarchs was after having  his interview with the King of Portugal (because the first information that arrives to the Spanish court, describing a letter of Columbus,  also says he had already talked to the King of Portugal). That is why, there was much more pressure to present  a letter with Columbus not crossing to Portuguese waters, and there was a need for printing it for distributing it faster. Therefore, the authors believe that all this context of writing a letter is a context in which Columbus expected the letters to be spied on by the king of Portugal, because he was very interested in the discoveries, and because the letters were sent fro Lisbon after his interview with Columbus. The authors believe that it was the Portuguese king himself who offered his emissaries or horsemen to deliver the news to the king and queen of Spain. The authors also present an analysis that shows that only the Catholic monarchs could have written an information regarding Columbus staying in the Azores on Feb 15. The analysis is tedious. The author also present an analysis that concludes the days at the end  of the letter  are planned to show that Columbus had always the intention of briefing  the Spanish Monarchs first. The letter says that Columbus delayed his return 14 days cause of storms. There are 18 Days between and Feb 15 and  March 4, when the letter claims to have been written (many experts accept there is probably a typo, and the letter probably intended to say  March 4 and not March 14, cause it describes the arrival to the port of Lisbon, which is on March 4 on that day. This seems to show that  what the letter is trying to say is that  the original planed trip was a 4 day trip, which can be done from the Canaries to  Spain, with a  Caravel.   There are many other conclusions and  analysis in that paper, but  those seem some of the most important and clear ones. I think the theory provides substantial explanation, as other theories on the issue  do too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derevor (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) --Derevor (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)