180 «J. W. Redway—The First Landfall of Columbus. 
having the most weight are those of trained seamen. In the fol- 
lowing pages I have endeavored to discuss the merits of the two 
prevailing opinions from a geograpMic standpoint, making use 
not so much of a modern chart as of the evidence contained 
in certain maps of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. 
There is but one source from which information concerning 
the first landing-place can be obtained, and that is the log book. 
Ever since navigation of the sea began it has been the custom 
to keep this official record of the voyage with the utmost fidelity, 
for a falsely kept log is an abomination that nowadays will 
subject the master of the vessel to the severest penalties. In his 
private log book, the only one whose contents are now known, 
Columbus admits that he understated the daily run of the caracca 
Santa Maria, but he says that he thus falsified his quasi-official 
log in order to keep a mutinous crew in subjection. The decep- 
tion practiced on his crew, however, was a subterfuge that could 
have misled no one but an ignorant sailor; it could not have 
deceived the brothers Pinzon, the masters of the two caravels, 
for they were quite as skillful navigators as Columbus. The 
private log must have been reasonably correct, therefore, or it 
would have been exposed by the enemies of the Admiral. 
Unfortunately, this document has disappeared and it cannot 
now be found. All we know of its contents 1s contained in an 
abridged and interpolated copy made by that grand old soldier- 
priest, Las Casas. From the date of October 10, however, the log 
seems to have been copied in full, and mainly in the ipsissima 
verba of the Admiral.* The interpolations, however, are gen- 
erally apparent; but, good, bad or indifferent, about the only 
knowledge we possess is contained in this abridged log, and 
whatever conclusions one may reach concerning the locus of the 
landfall and the courses between Guanahani and Cuba, it must 
stand or fall accordingly as it agrees or disagrees with Las Casas’ 
abridgment. The map of Juan de la Cosa affords no tangible 
evidence; Columbus’ letter to Luis Santangel contains no allu- 
sion to the matter. 
One might think that with the log and a good chart the estab- 
*Apparently Sefor Castelar, in his serial article published in the 
Century Magazine, 1892, has not appreciated the fact that only a part of 
the log is in the words of Columbus. He quotes freely from Columbus, 
seemingly oblivious to the fact that much of the material quoted is not 
the language of Columbus, but that of Las Casas. 
