is the voyage of Pinzon and Solis, was mentioned in the testimony, the failure to summon the piloto mayor appears all the more remarkable. What more efficient witness could have been brought forward? Thus the silence of the testimony in this suit on the question under discussion, must be deemed something more than mere negative proof, as it is termed by M. Varnhagen. This gentleman also notes that only one witness mentions that Vespucci accompanied Ojeda in 1499; but he does not note that the presence of Vespucci on Ojeda's ships was of no importance to either party in the suit, while a previous discovery by him was of the very greatest importance to the crown. [Sidenote: VESPUCCI'S VOYAGE FURTHER CONSIDERED.] The date of sailing from Cádiz is given by different editions of Vespucci's letter as May 10, and May 20, 1497; and of his return as October 1, 15, and 18, 1499. From these dates two difficulties arise; first, the duration of the voyage is stated in the letter to have been eighteen months, while the period between the dates of sailing and return is twenty-nine months; and again, Vespucci is known to have sailed with Ojeda in May, 1499, that is, five months before he returned from the voyage in question. One way of reconciling the first difficulty is to suppose that the author reckoned time by the Florentine method, then common in familiar correspondence, according to which the year began the 25th of March. Then in case of a very natural misprint in the original of May for March, the voyage really began in 1498, its duration being thus reduced to nineteen months. A more simple method of removing both difficulties is to suppose a misprint of 1499 for 1498 as the date of the return; this would reduce the time to seventeen months. Several later editions have made this change. The edition claimed as original by M. Varnhagen has the date 1499 according to his translation, and strangely enough the editor makes no allusion to it in his notes, although in a former pamphlet he speaks of 1498 as the date of the return. I attach very little weight to discrepancies in dates in this relation except as evidence against any intentional deception on the part of Vespucci. Confusion in dates is common in all relations of the period; and Vespucci's letters were written hastily, not for publication, and merely to interest his correspondents by a description of the marvels he had seen in his New World adventures. It may here be stated that the long and bitterly argued question of the rival claims of Vespucci and Columbus in the matter of naming America has no bearing on the present discussion. There is no evidence that the voyage in question had any influence in fixing the name America; and to pronounce this expedition not authentic has no tendency to weaken Vespucci's reputation for honesty, which may now be considered fully established; nor do the arguments against intentional falsification on Vespucci's part tend to prove the voyage authentic.