[Sidenote: THE DISPUTED VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI.]
Besides Vespucci's own statement, in a letter written in 1504, no contemporary document has been found which mentions such an expedition, though most diligent search for such documents has been made in the Spanish archives by partisans and opponents of the Florentine's claim. This absence of confirmatory documents is the more noticeable as the expedition was made under royal patronage. In another and previously written letter describing his second voyage in 1499, Vespucci not only makes no mention of this voyage, but even excuses his long silence by saying that nothing had occurred worth relating. True, a short letter of one Vianello, dated 1506, published by Humboldt, mentions a voyage to which no date is given, made by Vespucci in company with Juan de la Cosa. M. Varnhagen supposes this to have been the voyage in question, and a large river discovered at the time to have been the Mississippi; but, beside the fact that there is no reason for attributing the date of 1497 rather than any other to this voyage, Vianello's letter, with two others, published by Harrisse, indicates a much later date for the expedition with Juan de la Cosa.
Moreover, not only is there a want of original records, but contemporary historians are silent respecting this expedition; the first mention by later writers being a denial of its authenticity when it was thought to conflict with the admiral's claims as discoverer of the continent. Yet, on the supposition of a voyage to the North American coast, there are some passages in the historians Peter Martyr, Oviedo, Gomara, and Herrera, which point more or less definitely to an exploration of the gulf of Honduras before 1502. Peter Martyr, dec. i. cap. vi., writing before 1508, says that many claim to have sailed round Cuba; and later, dec. i. cap. x., he mentions a report that Pinzon and Solis had explored the coast of Honduras, giving, however, no dates. Oviedo, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii. p. 140, says positively that the gulf of Honduras was discovered not by Columbus, but by Pinzon and Solis, and that before the former discovered the Amazon, or the latter the Rio de la Plata, that is to say before 1499. Gomara, _Hist. de las Indias_, fol. 63, states that Pinzon and Solis are said by some to have explored the coast of Honduras three years before Columbus, which would make it in 1499. Herrera, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iv. lib. viii. cap. iii., says that the gulf of Honduras was named Hibueras from the gourds found floating in its waters by the first Spaniards who sailed along the coast. To M. Varnhagen, this it may be random remark of Herrera is proof positive that as Columbus did not enter or name the gulf, he was not the first Spaniard who sailed along the coast. Whatever weight may be attached to these passages from the historians, in proving a voyage to North America previous to that of the admiral, such evidence is manifestly increased by the fact that the date of the voyage attributed to Pinzon and Solis seems to rest entirely on the statement of Herrera, _Hist. Gen._, dec. i. lib. vi. cap. xvi., who describes the expedition with other events under the date of 1506. Yet in the testimony in the lawsuit hereinafter to be mentioned, it is implied, though not expressly stated, that the voyage was after that of Columbus, since special pains was taken by the king to prove the coast explored by Pinzon to be distinct from that discovered by the admiral. Another point is that in this same testimony the name 'Caria' is given to a place visited during Pinzon's voyage, and for this name Vespucci's 'Lariab' may possibly be a misprint.