Cristopher Columbus, “Joan
Colom” and Jon Skolp
One of the historians I most
admire, Luis Ulloa [El predescubrimiento hispano-catalán de América en
1477 – Xristo-Ferens Colom, Fernando el Católico y la Cataluña española,
París, 1928, pp. 126-134] attempts to
prove that the first name of the man who discovered America was not Cristóbal
(Christopher) but Juan Bautista (John the Baptist). First of all, the Peruvian
historian points out that on occasions Columbus signs himself using the
name Xristo-Ferens. In Greek means “the anointed” and the Latin word
ferens means “he who carries”, “the bearer”. Ulloa goes on to say: <<When
mentioning this fact, most authors have merely said that Columbus probably
signed his name in this way to draw attention to his role as bearer or spreader
of the Christian faith in the New World>>.
Ulloa also recalls that the
Catalan astronomer and mapmaker Jaume Ferrer de Blanes, in a letter to Columbus
from Burgos dated August 5th 1495 says: <<I am sure I am
not mistaken when I say that the position you hold, Sir, confers on you
the character of God’s apostle and ambassador, ordered by His divine will
to make you know His holy name in place truly unknown”. So, encouraged by
the words of Jaume Ferrer de Blanes, Luis Ulloa makes so bold to write:
<<Indeed, if Columbus named himself and possibly considered himself
to be God’s emissary and ambassador, as Ferrer de Blanes believed,
it is because his name gave
rise to this presumption. It was not a case of the name Xristo-Ferens
originating from a messianic concept, but indeed quite the contrary:
the notion derived from the explorer’s very name>>. And he adds: <<The
fact is that Columbus was not called Christopher (from the Italian Cristoforo),
as has been believed until now, and as is claimed by those supporting Columbus’s
Genovese origin, but John. Xristo-Ferens is no more than a simple
equivalent to that name, an accepted form, a way of writing John (the Baptist).
This is easy to see>>. But as far as I am concerned it is not quite
straightforward.
To err is human, and Luis Ulloa,
who could also have been mistaken, has been seized on eagerly by those recent
investigators who would support Christopher
Columbus’s Catalan origin, to held back up their claim of an imaginary explorer by the name Joan Colom,
a name which is quite easy to trace, as it is extremely common in the lands
which formed the ancient Kingdom of Aragon, including the Principality of
Catalonia. But the matter is not as simple as they would have us believe.
On the contrary, the truth is
that Columbus was was a devotee of John the Baptist, a fact reflected in
the Libro de las Profecías, written by Columbus with the collaboration of Fray Gaspar Gorricio. It is also true that
Columbus gave Boriquen, present-day Puerto Rico, the name of Juan Bautista.
However, bearing in mind that Columbus sailed as a corsair with René d’Anjou,
who was closely connected to the Order of Saint John the Baptist’s Hospital
of Jerusalem, whose headquarters at that time were on the
island of Rodos [Lecoy de la Marche,
Le roi René, sa vie, son administration, ses travaux artistiques et literaries
, d’après les documents inédits des archives de France et d’Italie,
Paris, 1875, vol. I, p. 529] I firmly believe that Columbus was a devotee
of Saint John the Baptist because he had been closely linked to the Knights
of the Order of the Hospital during
the time he was sailing in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean.
Going further into the subject,
Luis Ulloa studies the famous initials which make up Columbus’s rather enigmatic
signature and, referring to the Y says: <It is quite possible
that it stands for Ysabel, which would indicate Columbus’s real Christian name: John, son of
Ysabel and Zechariah. In this way the symbolism based in part on religious
premises and in part derived from his name would be complete>>.
Closing the subject of Luis
Ulloa, the historian who came to Spain in search of a “Galician Columbus”
but instead found one who was Catalan, to the despair of Benito Mussolini
and the Italian historians, it is only fair to say that the Columbian researchers
of Catalonia and the Balearic Isles owe him a great debt of gratitude. However,
the theory that the explorer’s Christian name was John and not Christopher,
with which I do not at all agree, led Ulloa to confuse a famous Norwegian
seaman with the discoverer of America, as we shall see below. An unfortunate
mistake.
The problem of Columbus’s religious
devotion and the mystery of the initials he used in his signature has also
been studied by Alain Milhou [Colón y su mentalidad mesiánica en el ambiente
franciscano español, Valladolid 1983, pp. 53-90] who points out that
one saint is much in evidence: Saint John the Baptist. Not only does he
name the island of Boriquen, now Puerto Rico, island of San Juan Bautista,
that he also dedicates a poem to the Prophet, called the “Joys of Saint
John the Baptist” in the Libro de las Profecías. As for the meaning
of the initials, Alain Milhou suggests that the X stands
for Xristoforus, the M
for Maria and the Y for Yoannes, a clear reference to St. John the
Baptist of whom, in Milhou’s opinion, Columbus was a devotee.
There are other interpretations
of Columbus’s signature. Simon Wiesenthal [Operación Nuevo Mundo – La
misión secreta de Cristóbal Colón, Barcelona, 1976, pp. 120-121] suggests
that the supporters of Columbu’s Jewish ancestry take the Y as standing
for Yehovah. In would include myself among such a group, but this
does not mean that I agree totally with his conclusions in the case of question.
Wiesenthal also says that the Xpo (Xristo) Ferens is only used in
letters with the bet-hai sign, written to his son Diego. In his other
letters, Wiesenthal tells us, Columbus signs under his initials as The
Admiral, presumably so that his son could show the letters to other
people.
The fact is that my esteemed researcher, Simon Wiesenthal, is mistaken.
To my knowledge, Christopher Columbus used the signature Xpo Ferens in at
least two other occasions: in a “Libramiento a favor de Diego Rodriguez”
(order of payment) dated September 7th 1504 and in a “Libramiento
a favor de Rodrigo Viscaino and Francisco Niño”, dated September
8th 1504 [see Documentos Colombinos de la Casa de Alba,
Madrid-Sevilla, 1987, pp. 74 and 75].
In short, since there are numerous
researchers who have strived to decipher and explain the meaning of the
initials in Columbus’s signature apart from Ulloa, Milhou and Wiesenthal,
I see no reason why I too should not give my opinion in the subject. Until
such a time as someone offers proof to the contrary,
X M Y might very well
stand for Xristopher Mariner Yviça. That is to say: Christopher
seaman of Ibiza.
The Norwegian Jon Skolp (Johannes Scolvus) and Christopher
Columbus
It is unnecessary to give many
details about the voyage which Columbus made to Iceland in 1477, the ”Columbus’s Norwegian Connection”, but
it should be remembered and I shall take this opportunity to present some
new facts which I have only recently came across. The Norwegian historian
J. Kr. Tornöe [Columbus in the Artic? And the Vineland literature,
Oslo, 1965, pp. 57-68] tells us that King Erik of Denmark was married to
a cousin of prince Henry the Navigator
of Portugal and that thanks to his marriage, the two countries cooperated
in the search for a route to the Far East via the North Atlantic. The Portuguese
king died in 1460 without having been able to carry out his policies of
maritime expansion, but his work was continued by Alfonso V of Portugal
and King Christian I of Scandinavia. Together they planned the Pining-Porhost
expedition in about 1470-1473, though nothing was known of this voyage until
1909 when Dr. Louis Bobé found a letter written to Carsten Grip, mayor of
Kiel, to King Christian II, in which he states that the Pining-Porhost expedition
was mounted at the request of the king of Portugal. It appears that the
voyage towards Greenland and the Artic began
in about 1470/1471 and one the members of the expedition was the
Portuguese seaman Joao Vaz-Corte Real, the father of three sons who in their
day also became explorers. The proof of this is that Sofus Larsen has come
across his name in old maps of the land of Labrador. And since Joao Vaz-Corte
Real Was in Portugal during the autumn of 1473, we can
only deduce that the voyage of exploration to which I refer took
place between 1470 and 1473.
The voyage which Jon Skolp made
to Iceland and Greenland, which began towards the end of 1476, and in which
Christopher Columbus took part, as I have previously mentioned, was a different
voyage altogether. In a letter addressed to the king of Portugal by Martin
Behaim, dated July 14th 1493, we can read that the Duke of Moscow
had discovered the island of Greenland some years previously. This can only
refer to Jon Skolp (latinised to Johannes Scolvus) and his 1476 expedition,
since documents written in Latin he is referred to as Johannes Scolvus “polonus”
instead ”pilotus” (pilot). Skolp would therefore be the Pole and Greenland
would belong to Russia, all because of the mistake of writing Polish instead
of pilot, a fact that was not noticed
by Behaim at that time. But it is highly significant that in 1493 there
was a large Norwegian colony in Greenland and it was there that Skolp was
based.
The fact is that J. Kr. Tornöe
has documented two Skolp brothers: Simon and Jon, married to the daughters
of king Harald Gille, a family living near Halkjelsvisk Volda, a few miles
to the north of the Stad peninsula, from where ships bound for Faeroe islands,
Iceland and Greenland used to sail. It is, therefore, Jon Skolp who led
the 1476 expedition and it is quite clear that he was Scandinavian and not
Russian.
I would also like to point out
that in a document written in English and published by Nansen in 1575 [In Northern mists, vol. II,
p. 130] we read: <<In the north side of this passage, Jon Scolus (Scolvus)
a pilot of Denmark, was in the year 1476>>. This would come to serve a confirmation of
what I have already said: there was a Danish or a Norwegian pilot and it
does not really matter which; they had the same king and we need give the
matter no further consideration.
Furthermore, on Gemma Frisius
and Gerhard Mercator’s 1537 globe of the world, we can also see the “Fretum
trium fratrum” strait, which Johannes Scolvus crossed in 1476. There are
other sources which mention Johannes Skolp’s voyage and they all agree on
the fact that it took place in 1476 and there is no doubt that Christopher
Columbus took part in the expedition. So therefore, Luis Ulloa must have
been mistaken: Jon Skolp or Johannes Scolvus was a Scandinavian seaman,
who was extremely well documented and can in no way be confused with Christopher
Columbus. And there the matter rests.
Finally, lets us see what Hernando
Columbus wrote about his father in his Historia del Almirante [in
Historia 16, Luis Arranz’s edition, Madrid, 1984, p. 49]: <<… his
Christian name being Christopher,
he was to be seen as genuine, that is of Christ, and the one who had to
be sent for the good of this people>>. And no more need be said.
As Edward H. Carr says in his
book What is History? the so-called basic facts which are the same
for all historians, would seem to belong to the category of raw materials
to be elaborated on by the historians rather than to history itself. And
the same eminent historian goes on to say: <<It used to be said that
facts speak for themselves. This is quite patently untrue. Facts only speaks
when the historian calls on them to do so: it is he who decides which facts
should be used, and in which order and context this should be done. Unless
I am very much mistaken –he says- it was one of the Pirandellos’s characters who said that a fact is like a sack: it
only stands up when we put something in it>>. This is what happens
to many Columbian researchers: they put nothing original, carefully weighed
or scientifically examined into the sack.
