hat point, and
in the next breath he goes on to say, "la letra yo conozco ser
de Bartolome Colon, porque tuve muchas suyas," i. e. "I know it
is Bartholomew's writing, for I have had many letters of his;"
and again "estas palabras ... de la misma letra y mano de
Bartolome Colon, la cual muy bien conoci y agora tengo hartas
cartas y letras suyas, tratando deste viaje," i. e. "these
words ... from the very writing and hand of Bartholomew
Columbus, which I knew very well, and I have to-day many charts
and letters of his, treating of this voyage." (_Hist. de las
Indias_, tom. i. pp. 213, 214.) This last sentence makes Las
Casas an independent witness to Bartholomew's presence in the
expedition, a matter about which he was not likely to be
mistaken. What puzzled him was the question, not whether
Bartholomew went, but whether Christopher could have gone also,
"pudo ser tambien que se hallase Cristobal Colon." Now
Christopher certainly did not go on that voyage. The expedition
started in August, 1486, and returned to Lisbon in December,
1487, after an absence of sixteen months and seventeen days,
"anendo dezaseis meses et dezasete dias que erao partidos
delle." (Barros, _Decada primeira da Asia_, Lisbon, 1752, tom.
i. fol. 42, 44.) The account-book of the treasury of Castile
shows that sums of money were paid to Christopher at Seville,
May 5, July 3, August 27, and October 15, 1487; so that he
could not have gone with Dias (see Harrisse, tom. ii. p. 191).
Neither could Christopher have been in Lisbon in December,
1487, when the little fleet returned, for his safe-conduct from
King John is dated March 20, 1488. It was not until the autumn
of 1488 that Columbus made this visit to Portugal, and M.
d'Avezac has got the return of the fleet a year too late.
Bartholomew's note followed a custom which made 1488 begin at
Christmas, 1487.

In reading a later chapter of Las Casas for another purpose
(tom. i. p. 227), I come again upon this point. He rightly
concludes that Christopher could not have gone with Dias, and
again declares most positively that the handwriting of the note
was Bartholomew's and not Christopher's