Several coincidences between the narratives of this voyage and that of Ojeda have led many writers to conclude that both describe the same expedition, the dates having been accidentally or intentionally changed. Humboldt, after a careful examination, was convinced that the two voyages were identical. But when we consider that Humboldt, Navarrete, and Irving formed their conclusions without a suspicion of a voyage to North America, and before that question had ever once arisen; that Navarrete severely criticises Vespucci's narrative as applied to Ojeda's voyage; that two of the strongest coincidences—the mention of Paria as the coast visited, and the discovery of a town built over the water like Venice—have no weight in view of the new theory, since the province is called Lariab in the original edition, and that method of building was not uncommon in all the tropical regions of America, it must be admitted that this argument has by itself little force against the authenticity of Vespucci's voyage.
The right granted to private individuals by the Spanish government in April, 1495, to make voyages of discovery at their own expense, subject to certain regulations, was partially revoked in June, 1497, after Vespucci's claimed departure. All authorities agree that during this time such private voyages, or even clandestine expeditions, may have been and probably were made, of which no records have been preserved. It is argued that Vespucci's voyage may have been of this number, although claimed to have been made under royal patronage, and by no means clandestine. It is even suggested that the revocation of the right of private navigation, brought about by the influence of Columbus, was purposely delayed until after Vespucci's departure—all of which proves, if it proves anything, simply that there was nothing to prevent Vespucci from making the voyage.
We have seen how certain statements of the old chroniclers may be taken as indicative of a voyage along the Central American coast previous to that of Columbus. There are also similar indications in some of the early maps. Thus Juan de la Cosa's map representing Cuba as an island in 1500 (see page 115 this volume) might be accounted for by such a voyage as Vespucci claims to have made. It will be seen hereafter that early maps show some slight traces of a knowledge of Florida before its discovery in 1512 (pp. 128-9 this vol.) In the Ruysch map of 1508 (p. 126 this vol.) the eastern coast of what seems to be Cuba is identified by M. Varnhagen with the main-land; in his opinion the inscription at the north point of that coast refers directly to Vespucci's expedition, and 'Cape S. Marci' at the southern point may indicate Vespucci's arrival on Saint Mark's day, especially as his uncle was a priest of the order of St Mark. If this appears somewhat far-fetched, perhaps more weight should be attached to the name 'Cape Doffin de Abril' on the southern point of what may be Florida on the Ptolemy map of 1513 (p. 130 this vol.), for at the end of April Vespucci may, according to his narrative, have been at that point. On this matter of an early voyage it may be noted that Columbus, striking the coast at Guanaja Island in 1502 in search of a passage westward, instead of following westward, as he naturally would have done, at least to the head of the gulf of Honduras, turned directly east. A knowledge on his part that Vespucci had already explored westward and northward without finding a passage, would account for his actions. But they have already been satisfactorily accounted for by the fact that he simply proposed to sail along the sinuosities of the supposed southern coasts of Asia to India, rather than to penetrate any intervening continent, whose existence he did not suspect.