As I understand it, the 1501 and 1502 (and presumably the 1499)
voyages aren't in dispute, but Waldseemuller's nomenclature
was based on Vespucci's account of an utterly fictitious 1497 voyage
in which he claimed to have beaten Columbus to the mainland.
Samuel Morison wrote: " So, here's to you, Amerigo.  Liar though you
were, you made three long transatlantic voyages, wrote entertainingly
about them, and played your cards so cleverly as to be elected to the
exclusive club of the immortals."
I seem to remember that Waldseemuller's map was also the first to
definitively show the Americas as separate continents rather than as
extensions of Asia, and is thus doubly important - but my memory is
admittedly not entirely clear on this point.
 
Incidentally, entertaining (but utterly false) alternative theories on the
naming of America include: 1) "Amt Eric"  - supposedly "Land of Eric" in
in Old Norse and in this theory thus named by Leif Ericsson (whose father
Eric the Red never went any closer to Vinland than Brattahlid, Greenland).
2) Richard Ameryke, sheriff of Bristol, and the man from whom John Cabot
collected his pension.
 
To any partisans of the latter two theories who may take umbrage at my
"utterly false" designation:  I happen to be the proud owner of Buckingham
Palace, and I've been looking for a buyer - the title will cost you the bargain
price of one million pounds only, payable in cash.  Pounds, Swiss Francs
and Euros only, please - US Dollars absolutely not accepted.  (offer ends Saturd
ay).
 
Alasdair Brooks
University of York
 
 
On Thu, 14 May 1998 14:01:14 Z Richard H Kimmel wrote:
 
> Boorstin only mentions two journeys:  the 1499 voyage which began in
> the company of Alonso de Ojeda and which ended with damage to his
> vessels, and Vespucci's more successful trip to South America which
> began in May 1501 and ended in  September 1502.  If there were others,
> Boorstin does not mention them.  Boorstin notes that Vespucci was made
> the pilot major of Spain sometime after 1502 and that he planned to
> sail again but never did.  Boorstin also mentions the fact that
> Vespucci's voyages were widely published; this may be the reason
> Waldseemuller was aware of Vespucci, but not of Columbus, at least not
> initially.  "Sixty editions of Vespucci appeared all over Europe in
> Latin and in the rising vernacular languages, including even the
> Czech.  But during all these years no edition appeared in either Spain
> or Portugal."  The lack of Spanish and Portuguese editions is
> explained by the practice of  keeping explorations secret, especially
> information of value for navigation.  Partially as a result of secret
> or missing records the rivalry of claims of discovery arose between
> Portugal and Spain.
>
> I admit I am taking Boorstin at face value and I know precious little
> about Vespucci beyond Boorstin, but there is a good web synopsis of
> how the controversy surrounding the number and years of the voyages
> may have started at
>
> http://marauder.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/his/COHEN-01.HIS
>
> Richard Kimmel