New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-14
AMERICAS DISCOVERER.
ANTI-COLUMBUS.

TIE ENGLISH REDIsCOyERY AND COLONIZATION
OF AMERICA. BY John b. and Marie A. shipley.
12mc. PIP. ISL. London: Elliot Stock.
Miss Marie A. Browne, now Mrs. Shipley, is an
enthusiast for the recognition Of Left Erikson >
pref Columbian discovery Of America; and in tins
volume she and her husband have brought to-
gether several arguments, some OF which have
been addressed TO Congress or its Committees.
on behalf Of proper representation of Left Erik
son. in the shape OF a Viking exhibition at the
Worlds Fair IL seems quite indisputable that
this proposition is reasonable and opposite. III
we are bound by circumstances TO put Columbus
in the fore front, certainly are not bound 10
ignore an early discovery for the reality of which
there is so much authentic evidence. Mr.. Fiske
in his recent work, The Discovery of America,
has examined the case very carefully and has
reached the conclusion that doubt can be no
longer thrown upon Left Erikson's story, and
this is the position taken more generally every
day by scholars.
! The first sceptical CONNIE nts on the matter came
from critics who had no sufficient knowledge OF
Morse customs or of Morse literature, and were
consequently not in a position TO judge fairly
the amount of credence 10 be put in Scandinavian
tradition. Experience with oral tradition ex-
hibited among the Aryans Of India might have
suggested that the old Western mis-
trust Of that method Of transmitting
information was founded in ignorance
alone. For we now know that it is quite possible
to hand down the longest statements through
ages, without loss change But in the present
case, the written word has come in aid of oral
tradition and the Oldest records OF Left Erikson
discovery of Vinland the Good are so the
period of the event that the chain Of testimony
may be regarded as practically complete. AS the
/ Shipleys contend, moreover. it is all but certain
that Left Erickson landed on the main continent.
whereas it is not at all certain, but extremely
problematical, whether Columbus ever saw, much
less set foot on, the continent Of America. The
probability is that he did not get nearer than
the Bahamas.
| In this volume the Shipeys consider the posi-
ton taken by the champions Of Columbus and
take the bull fairly by the horns. Instead of
admitting the force of the staple argument to
the effect that Columbus is entitled TO the honor
Of the discovery because his achievement was
followed by settlement and led to the establish
ment Of the United States, they deny the accuracy
Of the facts alleged maintain that the navga-
ton Of Columbus cannot, save by the most forced
and understandable methods be connected with
what followed and assert boldly that he had
nothing to do with the discovery OF America in
.
strength OF the acknowledged deception practiccd
by Columbus upon his crew, charge him with de-
liberate fraud and imposture and with particpa-
ton in a conspiracy the object Of which was TO
secure America for the Church of Rome and
Spain 1t is scarcely necessary TO remark that
for those indictments the evidence is altogether
insufficient. Ii may very well be that Columbus
was much smaller man than the tendencies OF
modern hero-worshp have made him appear. IL
is quite certain that the merit Of what he did has
been greatly exaggerated through the nnphilo-
sophical and unhistOric practice Of giving him
credit for all the direct and indirect consequences
Tor sequences of his action. Bat though q recent
and skilfu effort has been made to pull him
from his pedestal altogether, like nearly all such
attempts, it misses its mark by going too far
But how stands the case for the contention
Of the Sbipeys and those who hold with them
1t seems TO be about as follows: The result Of
modern investigation has been to reduce the
glory Of Columbus considerably, and to raise
questions and doubts concerning him which, II
they cannot be answered satisfactorily, must carry
the deprecating movement farther The prior
discovery OF the Mortimer has been taken out OF
the realm Of fable and established as an historical
fact On the other hand, the visit Of the North
men did not lead to permanent settlement They
may have colonized a little. They may have
had relations with some Of the American Indians,
and even have taught the aborigines some OF the
Morse Sagas But they did not stay In the new
land After longer shorter period they
sailed away, and left it finally, and no emigra-
ton from Iceland to Vinland was melted by the
tales they told on their return home.
The incident was ended so far as they were
concerned and it was not reopened Now, in the
case Of Columbus, it may be said that the first
step was quickly followed up, and that there was
no solution Of continuity in the development Of
the new world. Certainty and perfectly clear
demonstration is not to be had in the matter,
but Columbus has the advantage Of tradition. Of