Columbus was Catalan, possibly Jewish, Georgetown professor says
Christopher Columbus, the man credited with discovering the New World, spoke Catalan and might have been Jewish, according to a new study published in the US.
The study by Estelle Irizarry, based on official documents and letters of the explorer, found that Columbus came from the Kingdom of Aragon and his native tongue was Catalan.
Irizarry also concluded that Christopher Columbus's origins were not obscure by chance, but rather the result of the famed explorer's having purposely hid the fact he was a converso, a Jewish convert to Christianity.
and this:
Fundamentally Freund: Just call him Chaim Columbus
and I asked my Catalan friend and neighbor for his opinion.
And here it is -
Yisrael,
Obviously, an apostate is an apostate. The converso problem has been thoroughly studied by Professor Benzion Netanyahu. Seven out of eight Jews converted to Christianity in the Crown of Aragon, and at least four out of five in the Kingdom of Castile, more populated at that time than the various kingdoms confederated in the Crown of Aragon put together. Most of those Jews didn't convert forcibly, not as anussim. Then, they were persecuted as Christians. Very few thought on themselves as Jews. The Inquisition persecuted the Marranos (Castilian Conversos) and the Conversos in Portugal and the Crown of Aragon for political and social reasons, stating that it was a religious problem. But the Jews who converted were cut from Israel, as several chalachic responsa state.
The converso problem lasted until 1700. The name Marrano was used only until 1600, more or less. In Castile, only until 1550. Modernly, people like Michael Freund is supporting this kind of anti-historical deceits.
Chalachically, they are not Jews. See The Marranos of Spain (Benzion Netanyahu).
The idea that a descendant of Jews is a Jew is a Christian idea. Spanish nationalism promoted it for several reasons (preventing a relationship between Catalonia and America and Israel is only one of them). Some scholars, like Itzchak Baer, got confused and accepted the Inquisition idea on the Jewishness of the Marranos. Nazi German and Stalinist idea that a Jew is a descendant of Jews stems on that Catholic idea, based on the Castilian idea of "blood purity."
Columbus (Joan-Cristòfor Colom) was a member of the Catalan aristocracy who fought against the king John Without Faith. The king murdered (1461) his son, the heir of the Crown of Aragon, a confederate, binational (Catalan and Aragonese) construction. The Government of Catalonia, according to the Catalan Constitutions, waged war (1462-1472). It finished in a stalemate, and the new king (Ferdinand the Second) married Isabella, heir of Castile. A paysan war ensued, finished with a bill signed by the king in Guadalupe (which is the reason for giving this name to a Caribbean island by Columbus; another name given to an island by Columbus is Montserrat, a name for the Jesus' mother -- Catholic virgins have many names).
Columbus probably was in the other hemisphere before 1492. After the Catalan government lost in fact the war, he was a banned person. Some say that the Inquisition murdered him.
Aside confusions, what that book says is very known.
Columbus' documents and books are stored in the Colombian Library in Seville. Some of them, very important, are unique, and preserved in that sole place. For instance, the Catalan novel (1420) Vida de Jacob Xalabí, or a codex with the entire Bible, rhymed, which follows the text of the second Catalan translation of the Bible, directly from the Hebrew Tanach (circa 1330). There one can find also, for instance, the Constitutions of Catalonia, and the agreement between the Catalan king (that mentioned Ferdinand) and France (1493) on the exchange of the Roussillon, occupied by France a generation before, for Naples (the French based the exchange of the Golan for a British oil-rich region in Iraq of 1923 on this agreement, I believe).
That Columbus spoke Catalan as his mother language was known by Spanish (anti-Catalan) scholars, like Ramón Menéndez-Pidal or Américo Castro, one century ago. A Peruvian scholar named Ulloa published a book, based mainly on Peruvian and Colombian documents, sustaining that Columbus was Catalan, in 1928. Besides the people's slumber, there are other political and more or less strange conveniences in this issue.
The Spanish name Colón needs necessarily a Catalan precedent: Colom. In Spanish the final em is always pronounced as an en. In French, where this phenomenon also occurs, Columbus is called Coulomb. No Italian name (Colombo) as the origin of Columbus' name is linguistically possible.
No matter on what Michael Freund says, Columbus was a Roman Catholic Christian. There are two or three hundred million of easily demonstrable descendants of Jews in the world, at least.
Indeed, all of these facts are terribly misunderstood. It's a problem on Catalan and general European history, and a source of troubles for Israel and America. It's impossible to deal with the European discourse in this situation.
I don't know that person...You have my permission to forward this to him.
Laila tov.
Posts
23 comments:
An interesting, although less than convincing book on the subject, is "Sails of Hope" by Simon Wiesenthal
I saw your blog post about my article on Columbus and was quite surprised by it.
Your neighbor bases himself entirely on Ben-Zion Netanyahu's view - but ignores the fact that historian Haim Beinart took issue with many of Netanyahu's conclusions.
Moreover, numerous other scholars, such as the late Cecil Roth, wrote extensively of the historicity of the "Marrano" phenomenon and how it has persisted until the present day.
Finally - from a theological point of view - your neighbor is woefully ignorant. There is a concept of "Zera Yisrael" - the "Seed of Israel" or "descendants of Israel" in modern parlance - and various Achronim argue that we have a collective responsibility to reach out to them and draw them closer to Am Yisrael.
And as for the "Marranos" (I prefer the Hebrew term Bnei Anousim because "Marrano" is pejorative) - the Abarbanel writes explicitly in his commentary on the Books of Deuteronomy and Isaiah that they will return to Judaism and the Jewish people towards the End of Days. I humbly suggest that the Abarbanel (who witnessed the Expulsion from Spain first-hand) was far better informed about the subject - both historically and theologically - than your neighbor.
Shabbat Shalom,
Michael Freund
Obviously Abarbanel writings have been studied by Professor Benzion Netanyahu, in a memorable book. For the discussion with Beinart, see, for instance, 'Conversos, Inquisition, and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain,' by Norman Roth, on the paragraphs here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9u6m3d
For your neighbor's alleged ignorance, it can be said that he/she knows Halacha and Jewish theology, far of being a "woefully ignorant" person. At least, it can be demonstrated that that person came to Am Yisrael thorough a path longer than Mr. Freund's. Conversely, he or she agrees on the concept of "Zera Yisrael" and its significance. But who can say that a person is a member of that extended Yisrael? The Beit Din. If one passes it, the rest of Am Yisrael knows by sure that another member has been added to the nation and that, retroactively, he (probably, and not necessarily) had the "Zera Yisrael" in his or her soul.
Spanish Inquisition ideology on Conversos was not based on the concept of "Zera Yisrael," but on the concept of "Blood (im)purity" (a Castilian invention, as Professor Benzion Netanyahu thoroughly demonstrated, against various Spanish scholars). These are the grounds of modern racism.
Yale University uses Hebrew, the Holy Tongue, in its coat of arms, but not because that important American institution shares "Zera Yisrael." Yale University has cultural motivations. In Catalonia, many people used Hebrew as Christians, during four centuries, from 1250 C.E. to 1650 C.E.
The issue relies not on Jewish or another history. The whole issue is political and anti-Semitic, and consists in saying that a convert converts because he or she was at least partially Jewish before conversion (if not, he or she has no reason to convert, and a further, hidden, and dark reason for it may be expected by the witnesses of that conversion; this fits the Catholic Church's ideology). That is the Inquisition's concept of Jewishness (and also the Nazi and the Stalinist ones are based on this Catholic and Spanish idea). It eliminates the authority of our rabbis, the need for the State of Israel, the idea that Jews, Am Yisrael (and not HaShem, of course!) are who can say who is a Jew. It suppresses the idea of Jewish unity, and doesn't accept my Jewishness, which, by the way, is (sometimes) very harmful. Then, the bigger of our problems (assimilation) cannot be solved easily, because no Jew, out of this confusion, dares to defend conversion for prospective in-laws who are Gentiles. And then, "Zionist" Gentiles are needed to save Israel from unworthy, "secular," alienate and not-so-friendly Jews. It doesn't consist in replacement theology, but in replacement biology! (Obviously, Christian theology, since Paul of Tarsus, doesn't allows itself to be "Zionist"!) Or, if I am permitted to use a French biased word, it is [anti-Jewish] racism(e).
Since one century ago is known, by Spanish scholars, that Columbus spoke Catalan as his mother language. Nothing new under the sun. He was born in a Catalan-speaking place, presumably in Barcelona. The Marranos were a Castilian development (that is, not Catalan, or Aragonese). Columbus was a Christian -- according to himself, according to his contemporaries, according to the Church, and according to Halacha, and the last suffices for our account. Spain didn't existed at that time: there were Portugal, the Kingdom of Castile, and the confederated Crown of Aragon, comprising the Kingdoms of Valencia, Aragon, Naples, and the Principality of Catalonia, the central and primary state in that Crown of Aragon. Most Conversos were not Anussim, according to serious Catalan or Israeli historians, Professor Netanyahu always included. Michael Freund's article only sheds confusion to this important problem of ours. In any case, I appreciate the comparison of this poor ger and oleh chadash with the great Abarbanel, our Master.
And, Yisrael: There is no need to "surprise" Mr. Freund. Next time, keep my comments in your inbox, please. I didn't give you permission to use them, and I don't want to damage your friendship.
The "person" above mentioned by me is not referred in this thread, but in a crossed correspondence that doesn't appears here.
Obviously Winkie abuses from private developments.
The "person" above mentioned by me is not referred in this thread, but in a crossed correspondence that doesn't appear here.
Obviously Winkie abuses from private developments.
I "abuse" nothing. I copied word-for-word what was sent to me. I am sorry that I do not understand what this means: "The "person" above mentioned by me is not referred in this thread, but in a crossed correspondence that doesn't appears here."
Had you told me that my personal letter answering a question that you asked me in a private and personal manner could appear in this thread, simply I would not have answered you. The same is valid for the personal letter that your friend Michael Freund sent to you. I don't want to be a party in this discussion.
In my personal and private letter, the one I sent to you and that you copied here ("word by word"), and that therefore appears above, inside your post, I say: "I don't know that person... You have my permission to forward this to him."
That person is not Michael Freund. Is another, different, person, who asked a question that you cross-posted to me. He or she is a person I don't know, unrelated with this thread. Hence, my clarification:
"The "person" above mentioned by me is not referred in this thread, but in a crossed correspondence that doesn't appears here."
So, when you wrote this "You have my permission to forward this to him", it was an error? If so, if you wish, I will erase this post altogther if you wish.
I asked you a straightforward question: do you want me to erase this post entirely or to edit it? If you gave me permission to forward to Freund without restrictions, obviously he too could have posted it so I do not understand your problem. But whatever you want me to do, I will honor your request.
Yisrael,
You already forwarded my answer to you to that person! (B.T.! --I thought she was a man, because her first name didn't appear in the letter you cross-posted!)
You know that I know Freund! You copied a letter of mine on your blog and then you got confused over the people involved.
And there was no need to post the Freund's harsh answer to you--don't "surprise" him anymore posting your neighbor's opinions!
I prefer this post to be erased entirely.
Thanks.
Samuel Eliot Morison, who had absolutely no reason to be anything but completely objective, wrote the following in Chapter II of his book "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," pp.7-8.
"There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. ... There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American.
"Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot. Every early map on which his nationality is recorded describes him as Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace.
"If, however, you suppose that these facts would settle the matter, you fortunately know little of the so-called 'literature' on the 'Columbus Question.' By presenting farfetched hypotheses and sly innuendos as facts, by attacking documents of proven authenticity as false, by fabricating others (such as the famous Pontevedra documents), and drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did, he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian."
Morison noted that many existing legal documents demonstrate the Genoese origin of Columbus, his father Domenico, and his brothers Bartolomeo and Giacomo (Diego). These documents, written in Latin by notaries, were legally valid in Genoese courts. When notaries died, their documents were turned over to the archives of the Republic of Genoa. The documents, uncovered in the 19th century when Italian historians examined the Genoese archives, form part of the "Raccolta Colombiana". On page 14, Morison wrote:
"Besides these documents from which we may glean facts about Christopher's early life, there are others which identify the Discoverer as the son of Domenico the wool weaver, beyond the possibility of doubt. For instance, Domenico had a brother Antonio, like him a respectable member of the lower middle class in Genoa. Antonio had three sons: Matteo, Amigeto and Giovanni, who was generally known as Giannetto (the Genoese equivalent of 'Johnny'). Giannetto, like Christopher, gave up a humdrum occupation to follow the sea. In 1496 the three brothers met in a notary's office at Genoa and agreed that Johnny should go to Spain and seek out his first cousin 'Don Cristoforo de Colombo, Admiral of the King of Spain,' each contributing one third of the traveling expenses. This quest for a job was highly successful. The Admiral gave Johnny command of a caravel on the Third Voyage to America, and entrusted him with confidential matters as well."
I would like to add that the medieval scholar Diana Gilliland Wright "casts doubt on Irizarry’s belief."
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/scholar-casts-doubt-on-claims-that.html
The assertion "Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese" is, simply, false. Castilians called him "an stranger" who was "a subject of King Ferdinand" (of Aragon, a separate entity at that time, with borders and different governments and laws until the XVIII century). The data we can read here, in the post n. 14, are invented (by fascists in Italy, by the way). The three Genoese chroniclers referred are not contemporary. No Genoese or "Spaniard" spoke on a "King of 'Spain'" in 1500. Spain is a modern concept, used in plural, officially, until the XVIII century. Columbus was unable to speak Italian, or Genoese, for this matter.
We witness a process of invention of history. Wow!
"Majorcan" and "Catalan" were five centuries ago, and are today, the same thing. Only a distorted and fanatical view allows to separate them. Confusion is easy to create.
The documents and books owned by Columbus are known. Linguistics and History do exist. The incense used in certain circles doesn't comply the public health criteria, recommendations -- or laws.
Colom of Catalonia: Origins of Christopher Columbus Revealed
~ Charles J. Merrill
(Written in Latin alphabet.)
The Spanish official stance on this subject is the Genoese myth. They invented it, and it's official in the Spanish school curriculum. Mussolini, who was not Spaniard, aside his name ("Benito," for the Mexican bandit Benito Juárez), promoted October 12 in New York.
Dictator Francisco Franco, who loved the Morison's Pulitzer mentioned above (a book published in 1942, when Spain sent the División Azul to help Hitler), also "had absolutely no reason to be anything but completely objective," in his own words.
Once Eisenhower was his close friend.
The fanciful claims promoted by Charles Merrill should be treated as such.
In "Christopher Columbus," Univ. of Okla. Press (1987), pp. 10-11, Gianni Granzotto lists the following information from documents written by contemporaries of Columbus:
1. Pietro Martire d'Angera (Peter Martyr) was the earliest of Columbus's chroniclers and was in Barcelona when Columbus returned from his first voyage. In his letter of May 14, 1493, addressed to Giovanni Borromeo, he referred to Columbus as Ligurian ["vir Ligur"], Liguria being the Region where Genoa is located.
2. A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as "Cristóbal Colón, genovés."
3. In "History of the Catholic Kings," Andrés Bernaldez wrote: "Columbus was a man who came from the land of Genoa."
4. In "General and Natural History of the Indies," Bartolomé de Las Casas asserted his "Genoese nationality."
5. In a book of the same title, Gonzalo de Fernández de Oviedo wrote that Columbus was "originating from the province of Liguria."
6. Antonio Gallo, Agostino Giustiniani and Bartolomeo Serraga wrote that Columbus was Genoese.
Michele da Cuneo, Columbus’s childhood friend from Savona, sailed with Columbus during the second voyage and wrote: "In my opinion, since Genoa was Genoa, there was never born a man so well equipped and expert in the art of navigation as the said lord Admiral. [Felipe Fernández-Armesto, "Columbus," Oxford Univ. Press, (1991) pp. 103-104] Columbus named the small island of "Saona [...] to honor Michele da Cuneo, his friend from Savona." [Paolo Emilio Taviani, "Columbus the Great Adventure," Orion Books, New York (1991) p. 185]
The "ample evidence" supporting the Genoese origin of Columbus is also discussed by Miles H. Davidson, a Columbus scholar from the Dominican Republic. ["Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined," University of Oklahoma Press (1997) pp. 3-15]. On page 7 Davidson dismisses all other "futile speculation ... mostly attributed to parochialism."
Pere Màrtir d'Anguera is also supposed to be a Catalan, persecuted by the Castilian newly-established in Aragon Inquisition, and completely inreliable. Bernáldez worked for the Castilian chancellery, where the Genoese myth on Columbus was invented.
Everything here is out of context, and based on partial and unreliable sources studied in a biased manner more that a half century ago. Genoa was an ennemy of Catalonia and the whole Crown of Aragon. The Valencian Converso Lluis de Santàngel, very related with King Ferdinand and the Catalan aristocracy trying to be in good terms with him, after the Catalan war against his father, financed the espedition, yet the Genoese theorists sustain the romantic and Spanish-nationalist idea that Queen Isabella of Castile, king's Ferdinand wife, sold her jewells. They also say the atrabiliarity that these different kingdoms merged, which is completely false. Spain and France destroyed the Catalan Aragonese confederation three centuries ago. Genoa was in Columbus' time an ally of Castile (and, as said, an enemy of Aragon). A Genoese working for the Barcelona's king doesn't make sense.
The real Columbus was unable to speak Genoese.
Morison used the set of Spanish-Italian-fascist ideas on this subject to write his book. Italian fascist (and some Spanish) scholars visited Harvard, his alma mater, several times, to speak on it.
This was a discussion on Columbus Jewishness, not Genoeseness. Columbus was not Jew: he was a Christian. And, for a simple understanding on Catalan and American history, ... perhaps after the coming of the (Jewish) Messiah we will enjoy something of it.
Too much "parochialism" can be easily seen in these ones who speak on others' "parochialism." They take the Inquisitors' place. Their precedent ones did the same during the thirties.
Catalonia is not. Who can be interested on saying a thing that benefits no one?
By the way, more than twenty places called Saona/Seona/Segona can be found on the Catalan coast. Columbus used Saona, a Catalan name, not Savona, an Italian one.
And, why Columbus named an island after Montserrat (the Virgin of Montserrat is the patron-saint of Catalonia)? According to the Genoese mythology, perhaps the reason is that Himmler visited the Montserrat monastery while Mussolini was a friend of his boss! (And Columbus had prophetic abilities!)
Obviously no Genoese person had a mistress in Barcelona called Jamaica, which is a Catalan name, and another island named by Columbus. In Guadalupe a peace agreement between King Ferdinand and the peasant Catalan party was signed. Guadalupe is a third island named by Columbus.
And so and so.
This other Anonymous writing above needs to set his or her spell-checker. Enemy, expedition, etc. are the correct forms.
Goodness, there is a lot of effective info in this post!
Post a Comment