February 12, 1934. Editor, Jewish Daily Bulletin
Mr. Trommer’s review of “Who Was Columbus” in your issue of Januray 28, 1934, was so flattering that is may seem ungracious to object to anything he said. However, it is necessary to restore things to their places, and I shall proceed to do so as briefly as possibly.
Maurice David, the author of the book, claims that he has found certain documents in Spain which tend to prove very definitely the Spanish and Semitic origin of Columbus. He believes that he has solved the solution of these investigations which have given rise to headted and provoked controversies from which nothing definite has as yet been deduced. In short, he thinks that he has discovered “the handwriting on the wall.”
Many things have been written on Columbus. Carlos Pereyra has justly said in his book “The Conquest of the Oceanic Routes” that there is an entire ridiculous literature on the coutry of Columbus, his family, his childhood, his studies and his navigations. Mr. David’s book, it seems to me, is another of those legends of the “Discoverer” which, in the opinion of another historian, Marius Andre, is a gigantic mixture created by Columbus himself, by his son and by his distorian, Las Casas.
Mr. David’s book does not throw any new light on the origin of Columbus. It is divided into three parts, two of which are made up of extracts, in English, taken from books by Celso Garcia de la Riega and Vecente Blasco Ibanez, respectively. Concerning the first part, mention should be made that the Royal Spanish Academy of History resolved, in 1926, that “there does not now exist in Spain any public legal document certifying the Spanish origin of Columbus.” Furthermore, it was found by the commission appionted to investigate La Riega’s theory that the documents presented had been forged. That Blasco Ibanez, a novelist, should be taken as an authority on comprehension.
The Hebrew origin of Columbus is proved by means of certain monograms found in the letters of the admiral to his son, and also by the enigmatic letters which precede the signature of Columbus. The monograms are illogical deductions and queer conjectures. There is really nothing extraordinary about these letters. Columbus need not have been afraid of the Catholic Kings because he was, or pretended to he, an ardent Catholic. As for the mystic signature, one can only point out that Prof. Amzalak, of Portugal, has given us a different interpretation of Columbus’s signature a long time before Mr. David ever thought of writing his book.
It is not uncommon to notice that many investigators in this field of history wished, at any risk, to attribute to Columbus the nationality that best suited their sympathies. Nevertheless, whether Italian or Spanish (and now a Spanish Jew), the personality of the great navigator is just as glorious as ever. It is regretful to see people like Mr. David and others compromise their fair literary reputation by such an excursion which they could have had no interest to undertake, for it is realy difficult to attempt to destoy something which has been proved historical and traditional.
It is not uncommon to notice that many investigators in this field of history wished, at any risk, to attribute to Columbus the nationality that best suited their sympathies. Nevertheless, whether Italian or Spanish (and now a Spanish Jew), the personality of the grat navigator is just as glorious as ever. It is regretful to see people like Mr. David and others compromise their fair literary reputation by such an excursion which they could have had no interest to attempt to destroy something which has been proved historical and traditional
HENRY V. BESSO
New York City.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
